Rincon, Paul. "Paul Rincon: Where next for Philae Mission?" BBC News. N.p., 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
The article describes a mission to a comet to study the makeup of the comet which in turn may help us further understand the origin of the universe. Although tlander named “Philae” lost a power because it landed in the shadows and could not employ its solar panels, it was successful in carrying out a number of experiments which have returned much data. One thing that was learned was that the comet is made up of a very hard interior. It had always been thought that the comet was made mostly of ice. This comet is made up of more hard rocky material. has already dispelled some ideas. The article does say that as the comet nears the sun “Philae” may be able to recharge and hopefully carry out more experiments.
The mission is significant for all of us because it helps us to understand the origin of our universe and how we fit into this universe. In addition, and more importantly, the people of earth have always sought to explore the unknown. This is a continuation of this exploration. No doubt that it will bring us more questions than answers.
The article gives us an overview of the mission, it’s objectives, and some general results. But the article is not very specific in terms of what data was gathered and how the information will be used. The article seems hopeful that the mission will continue but there is no guarantee that the Philae will be able to get more information.
The article review I read was written by Naoko Mitsui, about the Philae lander mission to a comet, which is a revolutionary accomplishment in space exploration. Naoko did multiple things well in her review. The first thing was her summary. This was the most detailed part of her review, and it shows only the most important information and gave me a good background knowledge before I read the actual article. The second thing she does well in her review is her organization of her paragraphs. She organizes all her paragraphs in the order specified by the rubric.The third thing Naoko did was make connections to society from the article For example, she says, “The mission is significant for all of us because it helps us to understand the origin of our universe and how we fit into this universe. In addition, and more importantly, the people of earth have always sought to explore the unknown. This is a continuation of this exploration.”(Mitsui, 2) This connection to society is very deep and well thought out.
ReplyDeleteNaoko could improve in 2 major ways.The first would be to use more quotes from the article in her review as evidence. Naoko did not directly quote anything from the article, and although she makes many good points she has no evidence to back up her points. If she used quotes, the reader would have a better understanding of what she is trying to prove. For example, she could quote the article on how the experiments returned data and what kind of data were received as backup for her point that this mission was worth the cost. The second thing Naoko could do to improve her paragraph is to be more specific and detailed in general. Her paragraphs are very short, and somewhat weak because she lacks detail in her review. Her paragraphs end up being very boring because the reader does not learn much from them without all the proper details. For example, Naoko could replace basic terms such as comet with the actual name, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko to help the reader feel like they are reading a more interesting review.
This article and review helped me realize that as a society we are able to achieve and advance farther than we ever thought before because our drive to learn and understand is so powerful that we will reach milestones just as great as this one. I came to realize this in Naoko's review when she started talking about very complex ideas about why humans seek to explore the unknown in her second paragraph. This changes my perception of science because not only will this event inspire great ideas and motivation, but also great action to further explore our universe and one day achieve what we thought was originally impossible.
This review by Naoko Mitsui on the Philae Lander mission was impressive, and it was a well-chosen article, as this is a breakthrough in space exploration. One aspect I liked was that she gave a good description of what was learned from the Philae lander. She wrote, "One thing that was learned was that the comet is made up of a very hard interior." Another elements I liked was that she did a great job explaining how this relates to humans, as this helps us to find out what is from the origins of our universe. This topic interests me greatly, as we might one day know what was happening 13.8 billion years ago. A third component I liked was that she gave good critique of the author, saying that the data and details were not specific enough. One way this article could be improved is to give more background information on the Philae lander, such as when it was launched and how far away it is. A second aspect that could be improved is that she could have gave evidence supporting her claims about the author's writing, as this would have given the reader of the review a better understanding of what the author could improve. One aspect that impressed me was that we achieved something revolutionary in space science, and that we are continuing to find intriguing evidence about what our early universe was like.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Bogatyrenko
ReplyDeleteMitsui, Naoko. "Bronxville HS Core Chemistry." : Comet Landing: Where next for Philae Mission? N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
3 things Naoko did well in her article review were summarize the article, explain the practicality of the mission, and organize her paragraphs. Her summary was by far the most detailed part of her review. She explained what the Philae Lander did, what it was, and the problems that had occurred with it very concisely. For example, she said that the Philae “lost a power because it landed in the shadows and could not employ its solar panels.” Naoko’s review gave me a basic idea of what I was reading while I was reading the article, and it made the article much easier to understand. The second thing Naoko did well in her article review was explain the practicality of the mission and the Philae Lander. She explained what the mission will do for humanity, and she connected this mission to a larger idea, which was “the origin of our universe and how we fit into this universe” (Mitsui 2). The last thing Naoko did well in her article review was organize it. Her review was very easy to read because all of the paragraphs were separated, and she made it clear what each paragraph was describing in the first sentence of each paragraph. For example, she said “the mission is significant for all of us” for the paragraph about the significance of the mission to humanity, and she said “the article describes” for her summary paragraph.
One thing Naoko could improve upon are her grammar, spelling, and punctuation. This sometimes made her article review hard to read and understand. It took me many tries to understand a certain sentence, phrase, paragraph, or the actual meaning of a word. For example, instead of saying “the lander named Philae lost its battery” she said “tlander named ‘Philae’ lost a power” (Mitsui 1). I had to read this phrase at least 5 times before I understood it. Also, she is missing some commas. She could improve this problem by proofreading her work after she writes it. One other thing Naoko could improve upon is the amount of evidence from the article she uses to back up her points, if she uses any at all. She doesn’t directly quote anything from the article, and she doesn’t give much evidence to back up her points either. This makes her points and paragraphs somewhat weak and short, even though she makes strong points. This review has great potential because of the points it makes, but Naoko does not give any evidence to support her points. This could be improved by taking evidence from the article to support the points she makes, or directly quoting the author or explaining her points by using outside sources.
I was very surprised when I learned that we had landed a spacecraft on a comet, because it shows how far our technology has brought us. Comets travel at very high speeds, and I am pretty sure it is hard to land on one at the speed at which it is traveling. I am also surprised and intrigued at how the spacecraft was not blown off of the comet. This will change my perception of how I view modern technology. It is much more advanced than I originally thought it was, and I have come to realize how far we have gotten in terms of technology.
Mitsui, Naoko. "Bronxville HS Core Chemistry." : Comet Landing: Where next for Philae Mission? N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30082878
Naoko's was very impressive. I liked many things about it. First, i liked how she had the correct format. It made the article very organized and easy to read. Secondly, I liked how she gave an example of data collected from the experiments, instead of just saying that data was collected. Lastly, I really liked how she clearly connected the topic/idea of this article to our lives. She explains that we have always wanted to explore the unknown and find new information. NOw we have new info.
There was some room for improvement. First, It would have been nice if she gave names of people involved in this mission and the experiments. Secondly, she could improve her review by adding quotes from people involved because it would give us a separate opinion.
ONe thing that really interested me was that a comet actually has a hard interior, and is not mostly made of ice. In fact, the interior is mostly made up of of rocky material.
For my comment on a current events response, I decided to comment on Naoko’s response to the article “Comet Landing: Where Next for Philae Missions?” One thing that I really liked about Naoko’s response was that she told us a lot about what the Philae probe had discovered, and the contributions that it is making to space science. This helped me to understand the entire topic better. I also liked how Naoko told us about what Philae might do in the future. This really got me interested in the topic, and now that I know that more may happen in the future, I am likely to follow this event on news pages. One last thing I liked about Naoko’s response was the fact that she used very good vocab that enriched her writing. This made the read much more enjoyable. Despite liking these things, I feel Naoko could have improved her writing in some ways. One thing Naoko could have done was proofread her work more carefully, because one of the sentences in her response did not make much sense. This tiny mistake threw my understanding of the topic at hand off a little bit, and fixing the problem would help the writing immensely. In addition, I feel that Naoko could have elaborated on the part of her writing where she talked about the relation of Philae to humans. Naoko stated that Philae could give us a lot of information on certain topics, but to be clearer, she could have explained what this information might be. Finally, one element of Naoko’s writing that really surprised me had to do with the actual story. I am amazed that we, as humans, have achieved such an astounding space related feat. I did not know beforehand that we had the technology required for such an amazing task.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Paul Rincon: Where next for Philae Mission?, the author explains a mission to a comment to study the coment. Naoko Mitsui did a very well job reviewing this article. However at parts she didn't include information that would have been necessary. Naoko provided information on the tlander, Philae. She could have included data that would have been useful. A second thing Naoko did well was give the readers a well written over view of the artical, which includes an overview of the mission. A third thing I thought Naoko did well was she wrote an article that has a huge impact on us today. Two things Naoko could have touched upon was more detail. The actual it self was packed with information and she left it with no information. She could have also included sources from a person or the article. One aspect I found interesting was how they are tracking it and how they are studining the makeup of the comet which helps us understand the universe.
ReplyDeleteNaoko Mistui's did a review on the article, "Where next for Philae Mission?" by Paul Rincon. This blog was very well written and pretty enjoyable to read. Though she was missing depth facts about what this topic and she could have added evidence to back up the article. Naoko mentioned what this article was about and gave a well-done summary about what the topic was about so the reader would know what it was reading before actually getting to the article. I also liked how she wrote about a new, yet important topic. Ways she could improve is going through this again and adding more facts and details. Other then that, this article was very interesting and impacting. I was impressed on how far humans have gone with technology and exploring/discovering new things with the technology.
ReplyDelete