Maggie Miller
In
the article published by CNN, “NASA’s Orion launch scrubbed, rescheduled for
Friday” Amanda Barnett and Jason Hanna are informing readers with an update of
recent delays on the launch of Orion. This spacecraft was designed in order to
explore deeper into space and was originally scheduled to launch on Thursday
morning, however due to malfunctions the launch was rescheduled for 7:05 a.m.
on Friday. On that Thursday morning, all most 2 ½ hours were spend fixing a
window on the craft and once this problem was solved, wind gusts caused a final
delay.
Workers
were disappointed; the craft was expected to be NASA’s biggest project since
2011 when the shuttle era ended. It is hoped that Orion will bring a new era of
human exploration of deep space. “We haven’t had this feeling in awhile, since
the end of the shuttle program,” Mike Sarafin, the flight director was quoted
by CNN. Other members of the team are optimistic in the potential of the craft’s
mission to take four people into deep space for 21 days. However, Orion is not
expected to launch with a human crew until 2021, the article estimates.
This
article spreads news of a spacecraft that could potentially open a door to an
entire new world of information about deep space, which has not yet been done.
Millions of possibilities and questions still remain unsolved, and this
spacecraft could lead to answers. A new view on space developed from this
article, it contained direct quotes of professional’s opinions, facts about the
spacecraft and the current uncertainty about deep space. The only problem faced
when reading this article is that readers do not get a full understanding of
the test launch and how it is planned to take place and develop into an actual
launch into space with human passengers. Nonetheless, this did an impressive
job informing the audience of this craft and raising awareness for the
opportunities it can offer.
In Maggie Miller’s response on an article about NASA, she included many well-written points but also could improve in some aspects. Maggie provided background information on the spacecraft Orion. This allowed me to understand the objective NASA was trying to accomplish. Maggie says, “This spacecraft was designed in order to explore deeper into space.” Through Maggie’s introduction paragraph, I was able to understand the importance of the article. A second exceptional aspect was that Maggie concluded about the affect this topic would have on humanity. Maggie wrote about the advancements in space technology and its importance. Maggie says, “This article spreads news of a spacecraft that could potentially open a door to an entire new world of information about deep space.” A third valuable aspect was that Maggie included a citation of her article, which allowed me to visit the article and read more about the topic.
ReplyDeleteMaggie’s response could have also improved in many ways. One way it could have improved on is the details on Orion. The article had many facts about Orion and spacecrafts and Maggie did not include them in her response. Also, Maggie could have improved on her transitions. She moved from one point to the next, which made it a non-fluent read.
From Maggie’s response I learned that NASA is attempting to send a spacecraft, Orion, into deep space in attempt to better understand space.
Maggie's current event was well written and easy to understand. One part of her review that I thought was very good was how she included a quote in her review. This quote really help give a deeper understanding on how people felt at the end of the shuttle mission. Another aspect of her review that I liked was the background information in her summary. It was very informative and very helpful to give a better understanding for the reader. I was able to know a lot more about the mission. The last aspect of her review that I liked would be how she said some workers were upset and others were happy. This allowed the reader to get a clear vision of how people felt when the mission was over.
ReplyDeleteAlthough her review was good overall, there are things that she should work on for next time. She had a few punctuation mistakes like misplacing of commas. This made some of her sentences slightly confusing. This was only for a few sentences so it didn't make her entire review confusing. Something else that would have been interesting to include would be to explain why some people were happy with the result of the spacecraft and others were disappointed. This is something that I would like to know. Was it because the mission was over? Was it because they accomplished what they wanted?
One thing that really surprised me in her review was when she said that there will be a new space mission to go deeper in space in 2021. This mission will be called Orion. I was surprised to know that they had already started organizing it and are already planning a new mission. Overall, I enjoyed reading Maggie's response and i learned lot from it.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/tech/innovation/nasa-orion-launch/index.html?hpt=wo_c2
ReplyDeleteI read Maggie Miller’s response to Nasa’s article on how the launch for Orion was delayed. Her response was very well written and easy to follow, however there were some problems with it as well. Maggie started off by going into background information on why the launch was delayed and when it would be rescheduled. She then went in to how NASA was upset that it had been delayed because it was biggest thing since 2011, when the shuttle era ended. Maggie concluded about how this spacecraft could fix NASA and how it will answer the millions of questions that surround the corporation. One exceptional aspect Maggie had was her clear knowledge for why it had been delayed. In the introduction, i was able to follow her writing very easily and see why it had been delayed. Another thing that she did very well was include the quote from Mike Sarafin. This helped show me how important this launch is for NASA. The third thing that Maggie did very well was she included how this spacecraft can answer the questions about NASA as a whole as well as how it will help us find more information about Space.
Although Maggie’s response as a whole was very solid, there were a few parts that could’ve been fixed. One of them was how in her last paragraph she stated that the article had many facts about Orion, however she didn’t include any of them in her own response. Including some facts would help the reader understand that article a lot more. I also think that possibly describing why this means so much for NASA, considering there are many questions surrounding them since 2011.
One thing from Maggie’s response that surprised me was that Orion is not expected to launch with a human crew until 2021. This really showed to me that there is still a lot of work to be done for this mission. Overall, Maggie’s response was very well done and i learned a lot of new information from it.
I read Maggie’s summary of her current event, and thought that it was very informative and interesting. There were three aspects that I found particularly interesting, and helped make the review very good. The first aspect that I thought made the article review better was all of the background information that the article included. I thought that it was very interesting to learn about what exactly went wrong on the shuttle, and the exact times that these events occurred. I also liked how her review was very concise, and was straight to the point. This made her review quick to read, but you could gain a lot of information from reading it. I liked how Maggie also included a quote from the flight director of the mission, so you could gain firsthand information on what happened. Although there were many good aspects, there were two things in particular that could be worked on. At some points in the review, the punctuation could have been corrected, and some commas were missing. This made some of Maggie’s sentences difficult to understand. It also would have been interesting if Maggie had included why some people were disappointed with the flight. I thought that Maggie’s review was overall very informative, and I was very impressed with how Maggie ended her review, letting the reader know why the launch was important. I found it interesting how the mission could potentially answer some questions that scientists have about space, and I am anxious to see what they will gain from this space mission.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/tech/innovation/nasa-orion-launch/index.html?hpt=wo_c2
Overall, Maggie’s review was very well written. She included a very good summary of the article, which was intriguing. Her summary was not too long, but still got the point across. In addition, she included a quote that provided the reader with a first hand opinion on the delay of the spacecraft launching. Finally, I thought that her critique of the article was very professional. She gave both positive and negative reviews with details to back up her opinions. Although Maggie did a great job writing her review, she still could have improved. It would have been helpful if she included more information on the Orion spacecraft. The reader was not provided with much detail on where the spacecraft was going in space, or what type of data it was collecting. Also, there were a few punctuation errors, which caused some of the writing to be tough to understand. Overall, Maggie’s review was extremely well written and I was fascinated about her topic. I have never heard about this spacecraft and the new space information it could provide. It will be interesting when we hear about the data it has collected on TV.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/tech/innovation/nasa-orion-launch/index.html?hpt=wo_c2
I read Maggie’s review on “NASA’s Orion launch scrubbed, rescheduled for Friday” Amanda Barnett and Jason Hanna. One thing that I liked about was how she included the quotes. I thought that makes reader easy to understand. Second thing that I liked was her background. It was very concise and the informations help us a lots, for example, she talks about why it’s delay. Also I liked how she says about both sides in her response. Although her response was very good there were few things that she could have done better. There were few information about spacecraft in background but she needs more like she didn't talk about why was it expected as a biggest project. Another thing that she could have done better is that she did say if the spacecraft go to space we can know more deeply about space but she didn't say about specific thing like how will it help us if we know more deep about it. From her review I learned that Orion is not expected to launch with a human crew until 2021.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/tech/innovation/nasa-orion-launch/index.html?hpt=wo_c2