Annotated Bibliography
Arguments for & Against Space
Bizony, P., & Hanbury, R. (2011, October). For And Against: Space Exploraion. Engineering & Technology. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/10/debate.cf...
This source of mine was the first source I stumbled upon and immediately knew it would be heavily relevant to my topic issue. I recommend my readers skim through this article at the very least to get a full exposure to what the common citizen argues for and against concerning space exploration and why. The article is organized as a debate so the reader can rest assured whether or not they are reading an article in favor or against funding the space agency by looking to the top of the table. Piers Bizony argues that space exploration should be funded for its promise of foreign relations and, among other reasons, its knack of inspiring future developers to take an interest in cutting edge technologies. Robin Hanbury, on the other hand, argues that we should be aligning our interests towards other issues like sustaining the environment which, in his words, is a much more pertinent issue.
Both of the authors introduced in this article are biased in some way that leans towards their justifiable position on their side of this topic. The first author, Robin Hanbury, is a notoriously outspoken conservationist who is disenchanted with the government’s spending on sectors and resources that are not necessarily beneficial for progress towards a sustainable future. The second author, Piers Bizony, is a journalist that is well-known for his work in the field of space and technology journalism who argues the other hand of the argument that is addressed by Hanbury in the preceeding article.
I’ll be able to incorporate this source into my future blog posts by using it to appeal to common criticisms for and against the funding of space exploration. Besides the facts and figures surrounding this issue, it’s important that my readers understand the entire scope of the issue of space exploration and all of the arguments surrounding it.
The Value of Space Exploration
Cane, F., & Wang, B. (2008, April 11). The Value of Space Exploration — Universe Today. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from http://www.universetoday.com/13600/the-value-of-space-exploration/
I value this source, itself, because it is primarily written with contribution from many authors who are strong proponents of space exploration. In essence, this source is written to appeal to a reader’s pathos, logos, and ethos, depending on whichever author you are reading the opinion on. I used the testimony of Brian Wang, Executive Journalist at Next Big Future (A Futurist Publication), to exemplify the logical flaw that would exist if one were to shut down the space program entirely. This Op-Ed style article delves into past occurrences when countries grew complacent of expansion and became largely underwhelming in years to come, implementing examples like China as far back as the Fifteenth Century. The article also shines light upon why many are dissatisfied with the amount of research and technology reciprocated by the space agency and calls upon certain facts and figures that go on to show that these vocal opponents are well within their evidentiary rights to be skeptical of many of the dividends associated with the space program. Brian Wang proceeds to go into detail on how NASA and other space agencies are, even now, at work and very close to narrowing the gap between high expenditures and yielding an array of results both in research and technology.
Brian Wang is an author and journalist who has made a living investigating and reporting on future technological and scientific insights and advancements. His author’s corner on Next Big Future cites him as a leading contemporary of the Cambridge Astronomical Society. As a strong proponent of cosmic inquiry, he has established himself as a highly opinionated yet well-informed critic of the national government’s discretionary spending measures.
I think this source is amazing for my work because it not only allows me to cite the opinion of a credible expert on the subject of space but also provides me with key figures and facts that I can use to illuminate the extent of the issue to my readers. This is advantageous for me because I have many sources that do more than dabble on the pathos side of my issue without concern for proper empirical insight. With this source, I can bring in elements of all three (Pathos, Logos, and Ethos) in order to appeal to my readers.
Case for Space
McBrien, M. (2010, August 12). GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR NASA SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED YET. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from http://www.northeastern.edu/nuwriting/a-case-for-nasa/
In this article, author Michael McBrien, investigates the ramifications of increased spending cuts to the National Space Agency, NASA, and similar sectors us all, both here and abroad. By using budget cuts as a possible solution to the growing national debt and financial fiasco, it was only a matter of time before legislators turned their sights towards STEM sectors such as conservation efforts and NASA. McBrien goes into detail about what would result from such a diminished stipend available to NASA would do for the national economy and the outcome looks grim. Job loss and research fallout are just a few of the issues McBrien adamantly warns his readers. These two threats, in conjunction, would lead us onto the path of scientific disparity, for now and financial suicide, imminently. Raising a caution to those economists who have not fully realized the potential and long term gain of such a merited field as space could have adverse effects on the country as a whole which is what McBrien aims to elaborate upon on this article.
Michael McBrien is a lead contributor to the Northwestern University Writing and News Department and has written several accounts of the state of the space agency and inquired into its’ funding for years now. He is a highly valuable author in the promotion of agency ethics and can grant huge credibility to my work whenever I need to implement him into my essays.
Get parker_J’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This source is crucial to administer into my posts because it tackles an aspect of my issue that I’ve left largely untouched since the beginning of the semester and that is the future and scope of my issue. For many posts now I have been appealing to many of my readers using pathos and largely opinionated writing styles backed with current credible evidence but have failed to take a decisive stance on how the future of my issue should be treated and that’s exactly what this article can do for me and my readers.
Case for & Against Space Debate
Meaney, S., & Robinson, T. (2014, November 8). Debate: Is Space Exploration A Waste Of Resources. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.cherwell.org/comment/world/2014/11/07/...
This is another debate article I found measuring up both sides of the argument necessitated by my issue. My readers might find this article far more crucial than the one authored by Hanbury and Bizony because this article employs the numerical data attributed to some of the same relevant information exhibited in the latter article. When deciphering through this information, the reader can effectively get a full scope of the dollar amounts associated with this issue and why, financially, I find myself on the side that i am on this issue. Giving the reader an appropriate mock-up of the scene revolving the issue of Space Exploration is essential but no article should be objectively convincing without the use of key data and research evaluating both sides.
On one side of this article there is Journalist for Oxford College Tom Robinson who prefaces his argument in favor space exploration by qualifying himself as both a space advocate and a humanitarian who is for the sustainability of the Earth we have now. He impresses upon the the reader that properly funding the Space Machine isn’t taking nearly as much as any other government entity in terms of federally allotted funds and should be the last organization to be scapegoated for the consolidation of funds away from conservation. The second author, Sian Meaney, is another journalist commissioned after his time spent at Oxford who argues that space shouldn’t have to defend itself because it’s mere existence is taking away priority from conservationism. He backs this statement up by explaining that the majority of research that is done through NASA is ground-based research anyway. Why not internally reorganize funding distribution? Both very interesting sides to the issue and both very relevant to the reader. I will be able to use this source to impress upon my readers the numerical values involved with funding the national space program as well as other sectors that may consume much more astronomical amounts.
Argument Against Space
Westfahl, G. (1997, July). Science Fiction Studies. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/essays/westfahl case.html
The article begins with a nostalgic setting wherein the author visualizes himself, as a kid, waking up early and becoming ecstatic after yet another successful rocket launch during the 1960’s era space program. He explains that, unlike most of his constituents, his enthusiasm for has deteriorated over the course of his career inside STEM research and he has become reluctant to help push the agenda of the space program and its dubious motives. A coming of age sort of intro, if you will, that definitely appeals to author Gary Westfahl’s audience with the not so subtle use of pathos. He goes onto to recount that many of the space program’s leading innovators, including Astronomer Carl Sagan, have used man’s “inherent human drive to explore and inhabit unknown realms” to a point of irrelevancy in the space argument and that the argument itself is flawed. The counter-example Westfahl brings up is that, even as far back as the furthest reach of our known ancestors, there is no competing evidence to prove that our ancestors were “nomadic by nature” and that when people move, they tend to remain in the same general area. He then delves into his disenfranchisement with the subject of space and how he turned to lose patience with the redundancy and over-romanticism of the space agency.
Gary Westfahl is a credited Professor of both the UC and CSU systems and now teaches at the University of La Verne while still moonlighting as a science fiction author and reviewer. His accolades make him a perfect candidate as one of my sources and he raises interesting issues in regards to supporting the space program financially. He even prefaces the majority of this article with his disparagement over the issue of whether or not to fund NASA and its’ affiliates and his reasoning as to how he eventually made a complete 180 in terms of choosing to rather not support the space program as whole heartedly as he had as a youth.
This source is crucial to my issue and inquiry question because it provides a much needed counter-argument to my many credible sources in favor of unscrupulously supporting the space agency and it’s endeavors. From an logos and pathos standpoint, this article is a home-run as it dives into both sides of the issue while complimenting every exchanging fact provided with imagery on how the author came to each of his conclusions solely on his own intuition and without external faculties propelling him.
Reasoning and Background for Space
Whittington, M. (2014, October 31). Why is returning to the moon so hard? Retrieved May 16, 2016, from http://www.examiner.com/article/why-is-returning-to-the-moon-so-hard
I find this source, written by author Mark Whittington, to be crucial, in concept, to understand exactly where I’m arguing from and why Space exploration may not always be on the public psyche. The article goes into detail over how and why the space endeavors proposed by both President George H.W. Bush and, his son, President George W. Bush were doomed by the public before takeoff. The website journal article featured in the October Series of The Examiner revisits why Space Exploration was such a well-supported endeavor back when JFK first promised to go to the Moon in the early 1960’s. Citing Cold War tensions with Russia and a national willingness to memorialize the fallen young president among the reasons for such a well-funded government space program in said decade.
The author, Mark Whittington, has written several non-fiction and fictional works on the subject of space and our role to continue to push for the stars including: The Man From Mars: The Asteroid Mining Caper and The Last Moonwalker & Other Stories. I’ve actually read his work before and he is extremely well-versed on the practicality of space research and what allotment the national budget owes such a promising sector with such a storied past.
I will be able to use this source, largely, to appeal to my readers’ logos element when discussing a topic such as space research and exploration. In this way, I will be able to fill in my readers as to why many people are not making a bigger deal over the cuts in the national budget’s allocation to the space agency, NASA. In addition, I can be confident that this source will also reinforce a background of what my topic is all about, all be it brief.
