Advocating for US Human Space Flight

[DanM]

Recently for English class I had to do an advocacy project. I chose to advocate for increasing funding to NASA's human space flight program. I decided to put my essay on here for any critique that can be offered.

To anyone who's wondering I'm a junior in High School.

Thanks!

 

[Donamy]

You'll probably get all kinds of respones here. I for one agree with you.

 

[Mantis]

Not bad at all. You make some excellent arguments and you present them logically. For the most part, your paragraphs and sentences are hard hitting. I really only saw three places where it was a bit weak.

1) Your first sentence - I'd swap it around. Instead of starting on the negative, start of the positive - "Are humans capable of spreading themselves amongst the cosmos or is the human race forever attached to earth?" I think that has a better impact.

2) The third paragraph - starting with "Not only" seems a bit clunk - a bit of a re-write there to give it more impact would be good.

3) Your thesis "In spite of the costs and risks, the United States must remain a leading country on and off of planet Earth. In order to lead and benefit the human race, it is critical for the United States government to continue providing funding to sending humans into outer space." is very good and I would suggest restating it (paraphrased - not word for word) in your closing paragraph. That way you are structuring your paper like a sandwich - your first paragraph sets the tone and makes your argument (thesis), the middle paragraphs present facts to support that argument and your closing paragraph summarizes the facts and restates the thesis.

Good job. I am not sure what grade you are in but it's very good work. My comments are intended as suggestions only, not criticisms. They are based on what I learned in senior level high school and university English classes. I also agree completely with your points.

 

[T.Neo]

Impossible Implausible Impossible Heresy Impossible Hyperdesert Impossible Unlivable Implausuble Heresy Unpossible Unplausible heretical .

Ok, just kidding. :rofl:

Seriously though: space colonisation should not (necessarily) be the end-all and be-all of human spaceflight. There's far more to it, technological development, biological research, planetary science done on the surface of other astronomical bodies, international prestige, fostering international relations through cooperation...

Space colonisation itself is quite a far-fetched subject, (one that most of you have figured out I have a knack of... criticising :dry: ) so it could dispel people... on the other hand, it is definitely worth addressing, and it's a good deal more complex than warrenting a simple mention of "some people believe that gold located in lunar craters is an exploitable resource for the near future" or "Stephen Hawking advocates Space and Survival" alone.

The reason US human spaceflight shouldn't be equated with space colonisation is because space colonisation isn't an official goal of NASA (the official mission statement as of late has been 'pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research'). That doesn't mean it isn't an implied goal (at least in the hopeful minds of NASA workers and enthusiasts), or that it isn't a relevant subject... just that it isn't actually part of what the US human spaceflight program is about (right now).

I would not advocate the US blundering forth on spending large sums of money on space exploration for the underlying urge of "I want my jetpack", but rather a focus on NASA leading technology development and exploration that can not only make space access easier, but explore further possibilities for exploiting the space environment.

Space colonisation or not, that would be a very good way to spend money. The advances in materials science, engineering, medicine, scientific understandings, endearing international cooperative agreements, and more advanced toasters that would inevitably grow from it would be a good thing- and a key selling point- regardless.

 

[FADEC]

That's a nice essay.

I think that colonisation of space is the next logical step. We built big sailing ships to explore the oceans and continents. We built airplanes to explore the sky and learn flying. We built rockets to explore the universe. 100 years ago it seemed rather unlikely that big ships would transport thousands of containers all around the world. Or that airplanes made of metal, weighing hundreds of tons, would fly near supersonic speed and transport hundreds of passengers all around the world 24 hours a day. Not to mention men on the moon. You just have to look at our current world with the eyes of somebody who lived 100 years ago. Our achievements are literally breathtaking.

As soon as technology becomes affordable a large part of our population uses it and profits. Space flight already has influences to our daily life (GPS and TV via satellite) just as aviation and seafaring. Men did colonise the entire planet. And it's only a question of time until we do the next step and reach out for the universe. We already started to do so just like the first seamen did.

I didn't always think that way but colonization of space should be a top priority if we take a closer look to certain things. The earth won't last forever and human activities obviously are going to shorten the lifetime of the biosphere significantly. To stop in space is to surrender.

 

[jedidia]

We built rockets to explore the universe.

Actually we initially built rockets to lob things at each others heads over greater distances

 

[FADEC]

Actually we initially built rockets to lob things at each others heads over greater distances

Yes. That's what the political intention was (and still is here and there). But scientists/engineers were in hope to get the chance for exploration. And they got it. Especially people like Wernher von Braun or Robert Goddard. Von Braun was a great visionary but also a war criminal. NASA got help for sending men to the moon from a famous person which was a former Nazi. History often turns out to be ironic.

But most technologies did see the light only because of military intentions. So war wasn't only "useful" for imperialistic motives but also for science and progress. Destruction and creation. Maybe it's our nature because it's the nature of the universe. But that's just my hypothesis.

 

[DanM]

Thanks for all the input! I just submitted the final copy of my essay. I'll attach it for anyone who still might want to read it.