The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine:
“Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight."
Space travel has always intrigued our species since time immemorial. Be it the wild yet rational beliefs of Galileo or the unfathomable Apollo mission of NASA or the very recently launched Mars mission of ISRO which turned out to be more economical than the movie Gravity.
The space is unbounded and has always caught our attention with more and more countries now wanting to enjoy a piece of space exploration themselves. The argument stated here extremely undermines the recent progress in the space safety of astronauts. Cases of astronaut casualties have been growing feeble by the day. In the recent past, there has been no major space casualty, thanks to the brilliant technology in place now.
So to say that manned space flights are extremely dangerous is not entirely correct in the first place and if we are to ever set up colonies on other planets, we cannot be intimated by the enormity of the space. We need to make friends with it, we need to discover ways to make it less inimical and more friendly for us.
Another assumption that the argument makes is that manned space flights are costly. While this holds true, the additional amount that would be incurred to have a man on the space flight would not be extravagant and it would certainly be worth it. This is because having a human stationed for a particular mission will be able to assess more information than a programmed robot who will only assess things that it has been asked to from the scientists sitting on planet Earth. This is a classic case of site analysis. If you want a proper background check of a particular site, you need to be physically present there and examine it yourself than by having a bunch of photos sent to you that will help you assess it.
In case of a programming mistake or a technical failure, an unmanned space flight might just stop working at all, making the whole mission redundant whereas if there is an experienced astronaut in the space flight, there is a high amount of chance that he would solve the issue by either coordinating with the scientists on Earth or by the knowledge he has acquired throughout his years of studying the space. This will reduce the costs exponentially by not having to build another space flight and will also save us a lot of time.
The argument also states that a 'great deal' of information can be gathered which might sound like a good thing but as the saying goes, "Half knowledge is more dangerous than none at all." A great deal of information might be misleading if that information does not depict the whole picture and tells you only half the story. This might prove detrimental for missions whose basis depends on the findings of the information extracted by this space flight.
Hence, I strongly believe that if there is a way forward in space exploration it should be done with a team of astronauts on board as these astronauts along with the group of scientists on ground together will be the perfect judge of how to go about with the space flight and how to optimize the findings obtained by it.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-14 | Devendra Prasad Chalise | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-03 | Raunaq | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-12 | Adebayo | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-01 | shreyas | 55 | view |
| 2019-09-19 | christine_cui | 55 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 10, column 31, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... time. The argument also states that a 'great deal' of information c...
^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'so', 'whereas', 'while', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.225473321859 0.25644967241 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.163511187608 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.07917383821 0.0836205057962 95% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0533562822719 0.0520304965353 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0499139414802 0.0272364105082 183% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.141135972461 0.125424944231 113% => OK
Participles: 0.0481927710843 0.0416121511921 116% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.60868078878 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0275387263339 0.026700313972 103% => OK
Particles: 0.00344234079174 0.001811407834 190% => OK
Determiners: 0.115318416523 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0292598967298 0.0255425247493 115% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.013769363167 0.0127820249294 108% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3083.0 2731.13054187 113% => OK
No of words: 539.0 446.07635468 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.71985157699 6.12365571057 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81833721656 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.30612244898 0.378187486979 81% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.222634508349 0.287650121315 77% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.165120593692 0.208842608468 79% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.111317254174 0.135150697306 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60868078878 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 207.018472906 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.500927643785 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 60.3170123003 52.1807786196 116% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 29.9444444444 23.2022227129 129% => OK
Sentence length SD: 100.196550666 57.7814097925 173% => OK
Chars per sentence: 171.277777778 141.986410481 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.9444444444 23.2022227129 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.14285714286 136% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 52.2078952793 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.55483870968 1.8405768891 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.491550062798 0.441005458295 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0966332391055 0.135418324435 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0511941267292 0.0829849096947 62% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.60907114652 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.210269441979 0.147661913831 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.207199990747 0.193483328276 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0892671860103 0.0970749176394 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.315202183716 0.42659136922 74% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0258412064334 0.0774707102158 33% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.313543744669 0.312017818177 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0650861529307 0.0698173142475 93% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 9.0 14.657635468 61% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.