In this article, the author talks about NASA's test of a launch-abort system which is intended to remove astronauts from harm if there is a problem during orbit. The article does not challenge my expectations about science, since this is a new technology which has been developed to improve the safety of astronauts. New technological improvements are constantly being made, and this appears to be a successful execution of the launch-abort system. The author made the article engaging by describing the process of how the system worked and using descriptive terms. The author specifically described what the system is for and what it was like to witness its test launch. An ethical issue which may have arisen would be the author's standpoint about political issues which are connected to this launch-abort system. In the article the author mentions that Obama "killed" NASA's plans to return to the moon by redirected the funds for other use. The author may have wanted to use a different term or presented that issue from a more objective point of view. The author places blame on Obama for redirecting the funds, but does not explain the benefits of Obama's reasoning or offer further comment. The author explains the science concept of how the launch-abort system functions. The author says that it involves 3 rocket motors which are designed to create more than 500,000 pounds of thrust to remove the astronauts from harm. The author could have further described what 500,000 pounds of thrust means in other terms so the audience could better understand. The author talked to 3 experts for the article who all seem to be well-rehearsed on the issue. The fact that the author spoked to the right people positively influences the credibility of the article.
In this article, the author talks about NASA's test of a launch-abort system which is intended to remove astronauts from harm if there is a problem during orbit. The article does not challenge my expectations about science, since this is a new technology which has been developed to improve the safety of astronauts. New technological improvements are constantly being made, and this appears to be a successful execution of the launch-abort system. The author made the article engaging by describing the process of how the system worked and using descriptive terms. The author specifically described what the system is for and what it was like to witness its test launch. An ethical issue which may have arisen would be the author's standpoint about political issues which are connected to this launch-abort system. In the article the author mentions that Obama "killed" NASA's plans to return to the moon by redirected the funds for other use. The author may have wanted to use a different term or presented that issue from a more objective point of view. The author places blame on Obama for redirecting the funds, but does not explain the benefits of Obama's reasoning or offer further comment. The author explains the science concept of how the launch-abort system functions. The author says that it involves 3 rocket motors which are designed to create more than 500,000 pounds of thrust to remove the astronauts from harm. The author could have further described what 500,000 pounds of thrust means in other terms so the audience could better understand. The author talked to 3 experts for the article who all seem to be well-rehearsed on the issue. The fact that the author spoked to the right people positively influences the credibility of the article.