Martín Speer
11/06/2005
W2 Emmerling
M W 3-450PM
Lets go back, we’re not done yet.
(Insert Star Trek theme here) Space, the final frontier, yada yada yada. To tell you the truth don’t mind the show, but I’ve seen better current day sci-fi shows and old school ones with better special effects. I digress though. The now approximately 2 year aftermath of Space Shuttle Columbia has spurred many arguments for proponents for continued space exploration and those against it.
I will say one simple thing to this entire whiny, Landlubbers out there: Shite happens. The reason there is no real commercial agency out there for space is that there is no one out there dedicated enough except for those X-Prize people. Plus it is an über undertaking in technology and resources to actually put that much equipment to equal or surpass to that the shuttle has in to orbit.
I say we keep the shuttle going until the ISS is built, or at least bring back its work schedule back to being the trash ferry. The Shuttle is an aging machine, with parts on it from the seventies and nothing that is current on it, except for what equipment is on the Discovery Shuttle and other shuttles that have received upgrades form time to time. Its guaranteed that at least 2 to three little parts will fail or work anomalously every launch, and to have at least one catastrophic anomaly every 96-97 launches.
We need to finish what we have up there, or its going to be merely a sophisticated ISS with the façade of the MIR Space Station in its appearance, (and the MIR did look pretty sad before they brought it down to burn). The shuttle is one the best vehicles in payload capacity per launch, and it has the best method of transferring crews in good size numbers. I personally don’t mind the Russians help out in sending parts and supplies and crew up while NASA is still chasing its own tail in what to do with the shuttle, but the aeronautic engineers in Russia make less that a cabbie in red square in a year, and that is sad.
Debris that caused the anomaly of Space Shuttle Columbia is what is floating in space in many smaller pieces. The shuttle is guaranteed to hit any of these billions of small pieces every time it goes in to space. Does that mean we should stop going in to space? No. We should finish our job in completing that space mission, and begin on making that aloof proposal by our Red-Neck In Chief President a reality, (Just not during under his administration). We should give NASA more funding, and we should invest our patience and money and time in to making a new vehicle that is safer, as reliable and better than the shuttle, and is cheaper per launch. Sure the overall payload vehicle may be smaller in some designs but we need something to act as a multipurpose launch vehicle for maintenance and re-supply of the ISS.
To the ones that oppose returning to space, your plastic bags with vacuum seal will have probably not have come out until some time later. Satellites and Dish network customers would still be on cable-based providers, or their service would be a bit more expensive than it is now. Users of the personal computer will probably not have the same kind of portability as they do now. If we abandoned that drive to space that started nearly 50 years ago, and has been a dream for at least a few centuries, we will be turning our back on every astronaut, cosmonaut, teacher that has ever died for us to be able to understand that black ocean.
Houston we want a green, and we are ready for it.
This editorial is meant for really in support with keeping the current shuttle program and also in support of finishing the ISS and continuing the exploration of space, accepting the fact that there’ll be death in the program and that it is necessary.
11/06/2005
W2 Emmerling
M W 3-450PM
Lets go back, we’re not done yet.
(Insert Star Trek theme here) Space, the final frontier, yada yada yada. To tell you the truth don’t mind the show, but I’ve seen better current day sci-fi shows and old school ones with better special effects. I digress though. The now approximately 2 year aftermath of Space Shuttle Columbia has spurred many arguments for proponents for continued space exploration and those against it.
I will say one simple thing to this entire whiny, Landlubbers out there: Shite happens. The reason there is no real commercial agency out there for space is that there is no one out there dedicated enough except for those X-Prize people. Plus it is an über undertaking in technology and resources to actually put that much equipment to equal or surpass to that the shuttle has in to orbit.
I say we keep the shuttle going until the ISS is built, or at least bring back its work schedule back to being the trash ferry. The Shuttle is an aging machine, with parts on it from the seventies and nothing that is current on it, except for what equipment is on the Discovery Shuttle and other shuttles that have received upgrades form time to time. Its guaranteed that at least 2 to three little parts will fail or work anomalously every launch, and to have at least one catastrophic anomaly every 96-97 launches.
We need to finish what we have up there, or its going to be merely a sophisticated ISS with the façade of the MIR Space Station in its appearance, (and the MIR did look pretty sad before they brought it down to burn). The shuttle is one the best vehicles in payload capacity per launch, and it has the best method of transferring crews in good size numbers. I personally don’t mind the Russians help out in sending parts and supplies and crew up while NASA is still chasing its own tail in what to do with the shuttle, but the aeronautic engineers in Russia make less that a cabbie in red square in a year, and that is sad.
Debris that caused the anomaly of Space Shuttle Columbia is what is floating in space in many smaller pieces. The shuttle is guaranteed to hit any of these billions of small pieces every time it goes in to space. Does that mean we should stop going in to space? No. We should finish our job in completing that space mission, and begin on making that aloof proposal by our Red-Neck In Chief President a reality, (Just not during under his administration). We should give NASA more funding, and we should invest our patience and money and time in to making a new vehicle that is safer, as reliable and better than the shuttle, and is cheaper per launch. Sure the overall payload vehicle may be smaller in some designs but we need something to act as a multipurpose launch vehicle for maintenance and re-supply of the ISS.
To the ones that oppose returning to space, your plastic bags with vacuum seal will have probably not have come out until some time later. Satellites and Dish network customers would still be on cable-based providers, or their service would be a bit more expensive than it is now. Users of the personal computer will probably not have the same kind of portability as they do now. If we abandoned that drive to space that started nearly 50 years ago, and has been a dream for at least a few centuries, we will be turning our back on every astronaut, cosmonaut, teacher that has ever died for us to be able to understand that black ocean.
Houston we want a green, and we are ready for it.
This editorial is meant for really in support with keeping the current shuttle program and also in support of finishing the ISS and continuing the exploration of space, accepting the fact that there’ll be death in the program and that it is necessary.
posted by DrEmmerling at 11:11 AM
24 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
To: Martin
From: Steven Maltz
Martin, the topic of your letter is interesting, but it is quite confusing. You need to work on your sentence structure and you also have a lot of grammatical errors. I think the reader will have a hard time understanding your point of view. You also make some random remarks like when you say “X-Prize people” and I had no idea what that was suppose to mean or what point you were trying to make. You also refer to creating a commercial space agency, which does not seem to go with your overall views about what the US should do about its space program. Moreover, you should cut out the sci-fi part of your first paragraph because it does not relate well enough to the topic of your editorial. I do think you have a good work in progress, but you need to clarify some of your viewpoints and organize your paragraphs. Overall, I like the topic of your editorial and the final product should be successful.
Well I think the idea of your editorial is pretty cool and something with which many people are interested today, however, i thought it was very difficult to follow the ideas presented in your paper. It seems as though you are somewhat familiar with the dealings as far as space exploration however the general public is not so perhaps you could look over your paper and make some changes that would make it easier for the average reader to understand. Also I agree that your first paragraph doesn't really fit in with the rest of your paper so maybe you should rethink having that in the final draft. I liked your topic but before you turn it in I think you should work on your organization and clarity. Good luck!
Martin:
I think your topic is very interesting but I did not get some parts of your writing. I don't get how current sci-fi shows led to the support of NASA. There are also some grammar errors, but overall it is good for a rough draft.
sincerely,
Erica Liu
Martin~
Your piece is very confusing and has many grammatical errors. You need to clarify some of the vocab you use throughout your paper such as the x-prize people and the ISS. I know you are focused towards a certain audience but a little clarification wouldn't hurt. You need more organization, which will allow for better understanding. Other than that, your paper is good.
~::~Sabrina~::~
Martin-
I agree with everyone in that your paper is a little confusing, but I think it is still very intersting. I like that your editorial is very oppinionated and that you seem very interested in the subject. I have some specific suggestions to make your paper stronger: First of all take out "though", in the sentence "I digress though". Second, who are X-Prize people?-explain it or make it more clear. The sentence after that is also confusing-make it more clear. Whats the ISS?-tell us.
Everything else looks good.
Overall, I like your writing style. Good Luck!
Martin,
First off you have picked a pretty original topic, one that most people would not have picked to write about, and you do write about it passionately. I think that you need to reread what you have written and do some editing on some grammatical stuff, like the use of 2 when it should be two. Another thing was the whole second sentence does not make much sense about special effects, but your intro sentence is a nice little hook. Also clarify some things for the reader, you want to educate as well as persuade. Good job overall though.
Kevin
Hey,
Umm your paper is a little confusing and needs some work but I like your topic. I like how you mentioned the X-Prize teams but I think you ought to talk more about them. Is Landlubbers capitalized? Mabye it is, I have never used it in a paper before. Other than that I have to say I really enjoyed your ending.
Tyler Watkins
Martin,
I too think that the topic you had picked for this editorial is very interesting; however I did get confused. This might be because the tone of your paper is directed toward other readers, so I find it very useful. You might want to clarify some specific things up just in case. I too found a few grammatical errors, but its understandable since its a rough draft(just go through it once more with a pen). Overall, good start.
-Clarissa E.
Martin,
You could add more information on what NASA has helped achieved technologically. The examples you gave are alright, but they seem more like leisurely things that some people could do without. And yes...some bits of your paper is a bit confusing.
Liz
Martin,
Although I thought your topic was very interesting I found your editorial very confusing and hard to follow. There are a few grammatical errors, but I feel that for the most part it is the structure of your paper that is holding you back. Judging from the comments of others I think that many people are having a hard time following your paper. I would recommend rewording many of your sentences and maybe giving a brief background on the topic.
Jeff Y
Martin,
You chosed a very interesting topic for you editorial. You presented some good arguments but I found it hard to follow. Some of your points were quite confusing. For example, you talk about "X-Prize People," I have no idea what that means. I also didnt get how sci-fi shows had anything to do with NASA, but im sure you have your reasons. YOU show great support towards what you believe in, you are very opiniated and thats very good. You have great work in progress, good luck.
Martin-
The topic is relevant but you your thoughts aren't clearly presented. It was confusing and hard for me to follow your sentences because they weren't very fluid. I am not sure if it was just they were to wordy or if organizing your ideas was the challenge. You do present a lot of personal emotion but I think the lingo is a little too converstaional and should perhaps be changed to sounding a bit more professional.
I agree with a lot of people when i say that this editorial confuses me. I think you try to hard to make this humorous and therefore do not get your point across well enough. There are many gramatical things that can be fixed, so read your paper over again. I can tell that you are in support of the Space Program resuming, but you need to make sure your supports are strong. Good luck
To: Martin
As much as your topic is interesting, it is quite confusing. Most of my comments are much like the people above me. You have several gramatical errors, and your sentences arent organized properly. I suggest sitting down and reading your piece so that you will be to correct it. You might want to edit this piece so that the average reader will understand what you are saying. I can tell you have a lot of emotion behind this piece but i think you need to find a better way to express it. You intro is quite eye catching, but i think the problem is that it sounds more like a letter to the editor at the beginning rather than a professional opinion editorial. Overall you have an amazing topic, and i think you will be able to captivate all of your creative energy and create an amazing op ed.
Yeah i really just dont understand the topic of your paper. It sounds kind of like a rant, which is what this is, its a very good one indeed. Again you can also do a better job with the grammatical issues. and i think that you should consider at least making your introductory paragraph more full of information on what the audience for your paper is, so peopl arent so confused. And maybe work on transitions from topic to topic.
Martin,
Once I read through your paper a few times I finally was able to understand it completely. Over all it is an interesting topic, but you could make it more interesting but shortening it a bit. You have a lot of unnecessary ranting that goes on, especially in the begining. Also you might want to work on your grammatical structure. I like that your paper is very opinionated though. Overall good a good paper. By the way, who is this directed to?
Liz
From Matt M
Dear Martin,
i would reword the last sentnce of the first paragraph. like other people said it would be good to explain what some of the vocab means. there are alot of sentences that should be reworded throughout the paper. it would also be good to work on organization because it seems to ramble on and go off into tangents.
from,
matt mirau
Dear Martin,
the subject is pretty interesting but i had a hard time following it. umm if anything definetly work on grammer. it definetly needs a lot more organization, and just clarifying, because the whole time i was lost. i like the theme and subject, however, i had a really hard time following the editorial.
good luck
eric
Martin-
I really enjoy your tone throughout the paper and thought you choose a very interesting, diverse topic but I agree with others on your sentence structure. I often found myself lost while reading your paper and you had some grammar issues. I think once you re-read and edit your paper you will be very successful. Good luck!
Carolyn Tallman
I thought your paper was good but very confusing. You need to go back and explain what some things mean. I was especially confused by "X-Prize people" and how sci-fi fit into your arguement. There were also some gramatical errors that I'm sure you will fix in your final draft. I think you have a good start and if you make your editorial more clear and concise it will be very "publish worthy".
You chose an interesting topic to write about. It is subject that has gotten lost in the news lately. However, there are some serious grammar errors. Especially in your sentence structure, some of them need to be reworked. You really jump around a lot with your ideas.
Martin,
Your paper seems to be on a subject you know a lot about but not everyone else does you should clarify some things. Like everyone else I think you should organize it a little more and correct some grammar. Other than that good job.
Carlos
I agree with the majority. Yes the topic of your paper could be very interesting, but you've made it very confusing. For example, the beginning of you paper talks about star wars and then I believe the rest of your paper has nothing to do with star wars. Because of your paper being so confusing, the reader loses interest and doesn't get the gist of your paper. I think you should think about the audience you are trying to reach and focus on reaching them.
Post a Comment
<< Home