Tommy Maldonado AP Biology
Current Event: “Here’s why NASA’s Mars rovers are banned from investigating that liquid water”
Recently, scientists discovered chemical evidence liquid water on the surface of Mars. This groundbreaking discovery presents the possibility of life on our neighboring planet. However, the article, “Here’s why NASA’s Mars rovers are banned from investigating that liquid water,” explains why we will not be able to investigate this water for years to come. As of now, NASA’s Curiosity rover is more or less 50 kilometers from the site of Martian water. However, the rover is not allowed to go anywhere near the site, due to an international treaty signed in 1967. The reasoning for such a disappointing conclusion is that the rover is not sterile. This is because it had to travel about 225,000,000 kilometers from Earth to Mars, possibly picking up dirt, dust, and other microbes that have contaminated the rover. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, out of fear of contaminating the Martian water, forbids “anyone from sending a mission, robot or human, close to a water source in the fear of contaminating it with life from Earth.” Many people may ask why NASA doesn’t just sterilize the robots; there is a simple answer. NASA’s process for sterilization involves using “heat and radiation that would wipe out anything and everything that managed to survive the journey from Earth.” This process would damage the electronics of the robot and cause it to become unusable. While there are hopes of solutions to this problem, such as the possibility of astronauts or more developed robots that can use 3D printing, for now, nothing can be done.
This article provides the reader with a glimpse at what the future will be like, in both a positive and negative way. It shows that there might be a possibility of life on another planet, a question wondered by countless people today. It also provides readers who are aspiring rocket scientists with a new job: learning how to sterilize the rovers. It calls upon innovative thinkers in our society to come up with ways to examine the water without contaminating it. Additionally, it gives the reader a sense of appreciation for the perfect environment our planet provides us with. On a more negative note, this contamination conundrum has shown us that we still have simple problems, like how dirty an object is. Also, by showing that we have a lot of improvement to do on our technology, the question of life on Mars is known only to be answered many years from now. Overall, there are a few direct effects on the people, but there are major changes in our outlook of the universe. Many questions about life outside of Earth that once seemed preposterous now seem more and more realistic.
On the whole, I loved this article. I found that it was to the point and easy to follow. The author used very simple language that appealed to a wide audience of people, and he did not lose the reader’s attention by rattling off incoherent scientific jargon that has no meaning to the reader. Additionally, he quoted various rather well-off scientists in the field conversed her. In my opinion, this made the article more credible. One thing I didn’t like about the article was that there was a good amount of spelling errors in it. I found this to be quite unprofessional and distracting from the main point of the article. I was also rather disappointed with the lack of information on how the presence of water was discovered on Mars. Also, while the language was simple enough to understand, it also seemed too simple to me. The author said things like “stay the hell away from the water”, “sterilise the crap out of its rovers”, and “Gross, Curiosity. Just go stand over there, will you?” Such unprofessional phrases, like the spelling errors, distracted me from the main point of the article. Finally, I felt that the article did not include enough on the origin of the 1967 treaty. Being that these were the major drawbacks of the article, I believe they are the greatest sources for improvement. The article could be made better by being proofread for spelling errors and unprofessional phrases, elaborating more on how the presence of water was discovered on Mars, and explaining the origin of the 1967 treaty. On the whole, I loved reading this article and found it to be very interesting!
Citation:
"Here's Why NASA's Mars Rovers Are Banned from Investigating That Liquid Water."
ScienceAlert. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
Hi Tommy! I really like how clearly you summarized your article and made the key points stand out. I think you picked a good article because it focused on something other than just how the water was discovered. You also added your own opinion which interesting to read and I'm sorry you didn't like the article very much. I thought adding all the details that you did about why we can't send rovers to Mars was very well done. I had no idea that we signed a 1967 treaty to not send rovers to Mars and that is why we cannot further research the flowing water.
ReplyDeleteI do think though, that you could have talked more about treaty because I want to know who it was a treaty with? You maybe could have chosen a more scholarly article because after reading your opinion on the article with its misspellings I'm worried all the information but not be true
Overall, I didn't know we are not allowed to send rovers so I am sad to hear that we will not be investigating the flowing water anytime soon. I am also confused because I thought rovers had been to Mars before, and if they haven't how do they know for sure that there is flowing water? I really learned a lot from reading your review.
Citation:
ReplyDelete"Here's Why NASA's Mars Rovers Are Banned from Investigating That Liquid Water."
ScienceAlert. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
http://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nasa-s-mars-rovers-are-banned-from-investigating-that-liquid-water
Tommy,
I was drawn to your review because it discussed a potential barrier to further scientific understanding of Mars. One aspect of your article that I think you accomplished well in your review was your straightforward and succinct summary which made it very easy to understand the gist of your article. Also your incorporation of data was also a great addition because you create a nice balance of information that not only allows us to get a gist of your article, but understand it a bit further. In addition, I think your reaction to the article was insightful because like you said, we often don’t ponder on the insignificant details of life which actually can have significant impacts. Also although your article was seemingly compact with grammatical flaws and inappropriate language for a scientific article, you did a good job of taking out the base facts of the article and articulate them well.
Although your review of the article was well written, one major flaw is the article you had chosen. Just reading your comment about the severe amount of grammatical error and profound language used made me wonder if the article was legitimate. So I would have used a more well known publisher company or website that wrote on this topic as well. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound that harsh, but usually those are warning signs for illegitimate sources. Also it may have better to incorporate a few quotes from experts on the topic from the article to strengthen your summary. I know you included one quote describing the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but I wouldn’t say that was exactly an expert quote that enhanced your piece, simply just an explanation of the treaty.
Overall, I enjoyed learning that contamination of the rover from its journey to Mars could prevent from fulfilling its mission, helping us understand more about Mars. It is interesting that although the rover is already on Mars it can’t conduct any further procedures for fear of contamination caused by any organisms that survived the journey from Earth and are harboring on the rover. It’s amazing because this proves how difficult the research field is. These scientists must make decisions so that every data they collect can be as accurate as possible.
Nice work, Tommy! I thought that your review was very nicely done and well written. I really enjoyed how you included a small introduction about the background of the discovery of evidence that points to the existence of water on Mars. I think that it really added to the review because it gave a good, simple explanation to anyone who may not have been aware of this discovery yet. A second part of your review that I thought was well done was your explanation of not only was the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 said, but how you also explained why it was established and expanded on the reasons it was needed. Lastly, I think that your closing sentence, regarding a possible solution to this problem, was a nice touch. With a discovery this mind blowing and potentially as important as this one, it would have been very disappointing to a reader to hear that nothing could be done about possible water on Mars.
ReplyDeleteAlthough your review was very well done and nicely written, a suggestion that I would give you would be to, if possible, use more direct quotes from the article. I think that whenever you quote the words directly from a scientist, there is always a strong connection that the reader can make to the importance or potential importance of a discovery. Another suggestion I would give to you would be that in your section about this article’s significance, picking a side, either negative or positive, about this article's impact would make your arguments stronger. I liked how you noted both the good and bad parts of this discovery, but hearing your personal opinion about whether you thought this was an overall good or bad discovery would have been interesting.
I think that this article was fascinating to read and could really make anyone think about how big our solar system is. If there is potential life on Mars, could there be life anywhere else? Does water on Mars necessarily mean that life could exist there? This article is filled with important information that everyone should know. If it was discovered that Mars could sustain life, it would affect everyone on the planet.
Tommy,
ReplyDeleteI found your article quite interesting as it encompassed an issue that most people would never have heard of. I for one had no idea that there was evidence of water on Mars. Clearly this is a resource that is not be utilized, and you did a good job of conveying that point as you illustrated the mundane reason that the rover cannot submerge itself in a water source: the risk of contaminating that source with bacteria and other microbes. In addition, I thought it was good that you referenced several international treaties that ultimately led to the aforementioned international law being pervaded. Lastly, I liked how simply you stated the main point of the article: the challenge for aspiring scientists to created a sterilized rover that will not be weakened in any way due to the sterilization process. In terms of what you could have done better, I feel that you could have included the big players in this field right in the beginning to give the reader a better background of the current situation in the observation and ultimately potential colonization on Mars. Also, the overt enthusiasm in the last paragraph seemed excessive was not necessary to convey the point that the article was interesting and educational. One thing I learned from this article is that 3D printing is now being utilized in the hopes that the technology will reach the point where it can endure sterilization and function properly when sent to observe Mars.