The significant events in the data are, to begin, the approving opposition the article suggests that robots are slower at analyzing and processing information. To support this statement in the article it suggests “What can take a rover days and weeks to analyze, a person can study in just hours.’’ From this piece of information it can be inferred that the writer is trying to emphasize that humans are much quicker at using critical intuition than robots which is why humans would be a much more efficient way to collect information. Moreover, as the article states “ The Curiosity rover, which is currently exploring Mars, can only travel about the length of a football field in one day.” The article suggests that humans can travel much faster than robots therefore can obtain additional data. Secondly, the opposing opposition states that humans can obtain virulent diseases. These infectious illnesses can be caused by space radiation as well as GCRs. Moreover, The article states it is a substantial challenge to get astronauts into space and therefore, people should wait until we have more knowledge of our surroundings and advanced equipment. Without these tools as the article suggests, “Sending humans for long-duration missions to Mars would be unwise.” Sending untrained humans to explore Mars is inhumane. This is because it takes an abundant amount of resources to send people to mars as well as there are several virulent diseases the travelers can obtain which makes it unsafe to travel there. Furthermore, as the article suggests that by allowing people to travel to mars we are putting innocent people at risk of acquiring an illness. As it states “We should take this giant scientific leap only when we are ready” This statement suggests people do not have enough knowledge or resources to send humans to space

I’d love feedback!
© All Rights Reserved