I really enjoyed this article. I think that it is amazing that we can send rovers up into space. I think it is even more amazing that the Opportunity Rover and its twin, Spirit have been on Mars for ten years! I wouldn't, however, be surprised if there was life on mars, I mean Earth couldn't have been the first planet with life, or the only. Even though I would not be surprised I would be happy, and think that it would be a great discovery if NASA's rovers find that there was life on Mars. Something that is not in the article but I have always wondered is that yes, all of the life that we know of now needs water to survive, but that does not mean that all life in the galaxy (if there is any) needs water to survive.
I didn't love this article. I think that the presentation of it wasn't that intriguing. Also, there was only one section in the entire article talking about the "liveable mud". The rest was pretty much talking about how Opportunity had been on Mars for ten years. I would love to read an article about that if it was made more interesting andd if the title was more related to it, but I think this was really off-topic. Let me analyze the parts of the article that were there. It was interesting how they were saying that the water that once was there was "as acidic as vinegar". I also was interested in how they had found a clean water source on Mars. I was kind of confused on how they did this when all of the water on Mars is frozen. This article was very poorly written in my eyes, so I would give it a 3/10. The title of the article was very misleading, and they didn't explain anything they were writing about. The author of this article definitely needs to work on his/her writing skills.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Emmie in the slightest, for I believe that the Opportunity sections in the article were to develop background and give examples on the (finding) "livable mud", rather than jumping right to the topic toward the beginning of the article. Yet again, while describing it after, like Emmie, I do feel they definitely lacked in explanation, and it felt like (probably not but who knows) NASA promo, especially with "Oppy's tenth birthday" and the "brave little rover." Although, when they did focus and dwell on the subject of this specimen, it did catch my attention. It's interesting and yet so very confusing with water and now mud being discovered on Mars, yet still no source of life. The mud nor water is evidently not manmade, so the topic itself is amazing, when finding the source. Not even any lively microscopic organisms existing in the mud in the past, present, and evidently not in the future unless the temperature were to drastically change, which would be impossible, and Mars' atmosphere and structure would change completely.
3 comments:
I really enjoyed this article. I think that it is amazing that we can send rovers up into space. I think it is even more amazing that the Opportunity Rover and its twin, Spirit have been on Mars for ten years! I wouldn't, however, be surprised if there was life on mars, I mean Earth couldn't have been the first planet with life, or the only. Even though I would not be surprised I would be happy, and think that it would be a great discovery if NASA's rovers find that there was life on Mars. Something that is not in the article but I have always wondered is that yes, all of the life that we know of now needs water to survive, but that does not mean that all life in the galaxy (if there is any) needs water to survive.
I didn't love this article. I think that the presentation of it wasn't that intriguing. Also, there was only one section in the entire article talking about the "liveable mud". The rest was pretty much talking about how Opportunity had been on Mars for ten years. I would love to read an article about that if it was made more interesting andd if the title was more related to it, but I think this was really off-topic. Let me analyze the parts of the article that were there. It was interesting how they were saying that the water that once was there was "as acidic as vinegar". I also was interested in how they had found a clean water source on Mars. I was kind of confused on how they did this when all of the water on Mars is frozen. This article was very poorly written in my eyes, so I would give it a 3/10. The title of the article was very misleading, and they didn't explain anything they were writing about. The author of this article definitely needs to work on his/her writing skills.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Emmie in the slightest, for I believe that the Opportunity sections in the article were to develop background and give examples on the (finding) "livable mud", rather than jumping right to the topic toward the beginning of the article. Yet again, while describing it after, like Emmie, I do feel they definitely lacked in explanation, and it felt like (probably not but who knows) NASA promo, especially with "Oppy's tenth birthday" and the "brave little rover." Although, when they did focus and dwell on the subject of this specimen, it did catch my attention. It's interesting and yet so very confusing with water and now mud being discovered on Mars, yet still no source of life. The mud nor water is evidently not manmade, so the topic itself is amazing, when finding the source. Not even any lively microscopic organisms existing in the mud in the past, present, and evidently not in the future unless the temperature were to drastically change, which would be impossible, and Mars' atmosphere and structure would change completely.
Post a Comment