An essay i had to write for my english lesson

[Elthy]

We have the task to write an essay in my class "technical english" at university. For that we could select one fo 5 topics, after i read the topic "Space exploration requires vast sums of money. Is this money pent on space research justifiable?" i didnt bother to check the other ones. While we were supposed to write only about 300 words i simply didnt manage to keep to that limit, since its not graded it shouldnt matter to much. While i think its good read worth sharing i would also ask for suggestions on what to improve:

 

A lot of people argue that space exploration costs too much money, which could be spend better. In the following I want to point out why I disagree.

First, the amount of money spend on space exploration isn’t as high as most people think. The combined budget of the worlds space agencies totals up to about 30 billion euros per year, while for example the total military budget is about 1.5 trillion €. Germanys funding for the ESA is about 800 million per year, about 0.25% of the federal budget.

Secondly, let’s have a look at the benefits of space-exploration for humans. Space agencies fund a lot of earth observing satellites, providing us with accurate weather information and data for environmental research. Often those data are made public for everyone to use, for example in the EU’s Copernicus Program. We also use a lot of space based services everyday like satellite-TV or GPS. While not directly funded by space agencies those only became possible after pioneering work paid for by governments.

Thirdly, the extreme conditions of space require top notch engineering and new, better materials. Thus space travel is a motor for innovations that will later find their way into everyday products. This includes solar cells or the thermal blankets included in first aid kits.

One could also point out the huge influence the space race had on students in the USA. While hard to nail down in numbers its widely believed that the Apollo program inspired a lot of young people to become engineers, later becoming the generation that made the digital revolution possible.

But there are other, subtler reasons to conduct space exploration. Humans always strived to explore the unknown, to widen their knowledge and borders. This trait is so common in human history; it’s for sure a part of what makes us human.

Also spaceflight is something which united humanity in the past and could do so in the future. The manned moon landing was probably the biggest media event of all time, watched by everyone with access to the live pictures. After that the Apollo-Soyuz project showed a rare cooperation between the cold war enemies. Due to the vast amount of resources required for a manned mars landing it could provide another opportunity to strengthen the bounds of human nations.

At last I want to ask: What would happen if humanity would stop its ambitions of leaving this planet? One day this small planet would become our grave, at the very latest when the sun becomes a red giant. With us everything humans every achieved would be gone. Every invention, every piece of art, everything people ever worked or fought for would become meaningless. If we stop space exploration, we can also stop to live at all.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Elthy

[Scotius]

Very good essay Concise and to the point. You could add more pros - like medical and biology research onboard ISS and significant amount of workplaces space-related industries create across the world.

[PB666]

Strictly speaking that's not technical English. 

Spent should be used instead of spend. Superlatives like "too many", "too much" or prejoratives are to be avoided. "Isn't", "as high as most people think". If i see more than one of these in a manuscript it gets sent back for a technical English rewrite. I'm counting about two of these per paragraph. 

 

 

[Elthy]

Great, thats exactly the feedback i want.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Elthy
Remembered this thing can be found by google...

[Shpaget]

"...at the very latest when the Sun becomes a red giant. Without us everything humans ever achieved would be gone..."

All in all, if this was a Wikipedia article, it would receive a whole lot of [who| and [citation needed] tags.

On top of it all, maybe you should try and find out some actual numbers regarding the amount of money that was saved by having, for example GPS available in a certain event, or by having access to an early warning about an incoming hurricane thanks to the weather sats.

For example, NOAA  estimates that the hurricane Katrina caused more than $100 billion in damages. It would be interesting to know what would be the number if there were no satellites to provide advance warning.

[Elthy]

Im allready over the limit of words, so i cant add details. You cant expect someone to answer such a big question in 300 words with citations, i could have written ten times as much. But thanks for the corrections. Im not sure if the With -> Without is better, i meant to write that not only we would be gone, but everything else, too. Is the "with" realy incorrect in english?

Edit: @PB666, where do i use prejoratives? First time ive heard that word, not sure if i understood that correctly. About the "isnt that high as most people think", im not sure how to rewrite that. It refers to the question that mentions "vast sums" and the poll from the nasa-budget-wikipage, which i couldnt mention directly due to word limitations.

Edit2: Im also not realy satisfied with the "But there are other, subtler reasons to conduct space exploration.". I want to point out that there are other reasons for spaceflight which cant be represented as a number on a invest/return calculation, but i dont even know a good word for that in german...

Edited June 26, 2016 by Elthy

[Camacha]

If you want to convince someone, you need to address the obvious and common counter arguments. Just the fact that spendings are not as high as people expect is covered, but that is quite meagre. The use of first, secondly and thirdly make it list-like and dry. Try replacing that with something more natural. Finally, there are many texts out there. You need to entice the reader by opening with something that creates interest. It does not have to be some clickbait-type title, but something with a little more draw than 'You think it is expensive, I think it is not' would probably help a lot.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Im allready over the limit of words, so i cant add details. You cant expect someone to answer such a big question in 300 words with citations, i could have written ten times as much. But thanks for the corrections. Im not sure if the With -> Without is better, i meant to write that not only we would be gone, but everything else, too. Is the "with" realy incorrect in english?

Edit: @PB666, where do i use prejoratives? First time ive heard that word, not sure if i understood that correctly. About the "isnt that high as most people think", im not sure how to rewrite that. It refers to the question that mentions "vast sums" and the poll from the nasa-budget-wikipage, which i couldnt mention directly due to word limitations.

Edit2: Im also not realy satisfied with the "But there are other, subtler reasons to conduct space exploration.". I want to point out that there are other reasons for spaceflight which cant be represented as a number on a invest/return calculation, but i dont even know a good word for that in german...

Think of it this way you write an essay of 5000 words, now take that 5000 words and summarize each major section into a sentence or two in the abstract. i wrote a review that was 125 pages with references,  its abstract was less than 300 words. 

Perjorative words, you see how politicians  talk, that is perjorative or hyperbolic (this 'thing is the best thing in the world' or ,',such and such is the most corrupt candidate') Its taking basic facts and placing excessive superlative or derogatory slants on them. Its fine for conversational English, but not so good for technical English. When you start using perjoratives and hyperbole to scientist they turn off real quick. 

So you have to state the problem. 

For example .......

Currently growth in many countries falls below expected levels by world bank and IMF. Weak spending in economy's contemporary growth sectors such as science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM) are one of the causes. One of the problem these states face is a growth of national debt as a consequence of past spending on legacy programs that have not promoted globally competitive growth. STEM represents the types of growth that can derive income and tax revenue capable of fiscal remediation. Such increased incomes are driven by professional careers driven by international trade of high value goods or services and increased consumer descretionary spending, particularly in the high technology and premium household goods. 

While governments cannot often dictate competitve investment in private sector STEM industries, they can provide public grants for science and technology programs such as space industries. Increasing investment on these justifies the growth of public and higher educational programs that can motivate students from careers that give  low average return on public educational investment to educational plans that give consistently higher career incomes. Trained space-industry professionals can be fed into other industries carrying their expertise with them and helping those industries develope. Industries developed for space such as solar panels, light weight structural materials, and peripheral hardware automation can provide benefits to society making other industries more efficient and competitive. 

In particular, space science offers advantages to public sector investment because it requires training of engineers, technicians  and scientist capable of promoting a demanding high technology industry. The benefit from these programs are international cooperation with well developed nations, descriptive science regarding water cycling, weather forcasting, climate science, and earthquake science. The more advanced science programs can promote leading edge theoretical science concerning particle behavior, many which benefit from studies in space. Space technologies also advance defense industies a give them more reliable monitoring of potential threats. 

----------

Note how i avoided the biasing words,

[Elthy]

Thanks, this will help a lot!

[CSE]

10 hours ago, Elthy said:

With us everything humans every achieved would be gone.

[...]

Im not sure if the With -> Without is better, i meant to write that not only we would be gone, but everything else, too. Is the "with" realy incorrect in english?

I think you had it right, but ambiguous. A "with" beginning can be used to introduce one of a number of joined or related things, which is what I think you intended. But a "with" beginning can also be used to give background or context, setting the scene - which is how I think Shpaget read it. You could try moving it to the end:

Everything humans ever achieved would be gone with us.

Or, if you can afford the extra words, to make it clear that the "us" is doing the going:

Along with us, everything humans ever achieved would be gone.

Best of luck.

[Ten Key]

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

Im also not realy satisfied with the "But there are other, subtler reasons to conduct space exploration.". I want to point out that there are other reasons for spaceflight which cant be represented as a number on a invest/return calculation, but i dont even know a good word for that in german...

"But there are other, more subtle reasons to conduct space exploration."

or

"But there are other, less tangible reasons to conduct space exploration."

10 hours ago, Elthy said:

While hard to nail down in numbers its widely believed that. . .

It's tough to formulate an argument in 300 words, but then that's usually the point of the exercise. The limit forces you to use your words efficiently. Not only is the above vague and weak (you're backing away from your point before you've even made it), you're burning eleven words here without any real effect. It would probably be beneficial for you to go back through this and see if you can bring the word count down by making your sentences shorter. 

[Camacha]

32 minutes ago, Ten Key said:

It's tough to formulate an argument in 300 words, but then that's usually the point of the exercise.

As a rule of thumb, you can eliminate over half to two thirds of a text without changing the meaning a lot. Kill your darlings is typically important for that - you need to be critical about what you wrote and cut those things you love, but are not essential.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Camacha

[MircoMars]

11 hours ago, Elthy said:

...those data are made public...

https://xkcd.com/1429/

[magnemoe]

10 hours ago, Shpaget said:

For example, NOAA  estimates that the hurricane Katrina caused more than $100 billion in damages. It would be interesting to know what would be the number if there were no satellites to provide advance warning.

This, note that Karina was the one they screwed up, most others have low damage because of the early warnings, without them Katrina would be an forgotten average rather than the tragedy. 
The Beaufort scale only goes up to hurricane back in 19th century he saw no reason to go higher as you die at sea. 
And yes its typical 100 years from the theory until practical use unless the practical use came first as in transistors. 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

This, note that Karina was the one they screwed up, most others have low damage because of the early warnings, without them Katrina would be an forgotten average rather than the tragedy. 
The Beaufort scale only goes up to hurricane back in 19th century he saw no reason to go higher as you die at sea. 
And yes its typical 100 years from the theory until practical use unless the practical use came first as in transistors. 

Katrina, was a realatively large storm with a high integrated kinetic energy scale, this is not only a measure of maximum wind speed but also the energetic breath of the storm and energy in the water column. Satellites did not really protect the city, but satellites told the story of loss of barrier islands that protected the city, msking the lack of upgrades an even more serious problem. The levees were only rated for a low cat three storm with moderated IKE score. We have known since 1900 that high IKe storms can hit anywhere along the gulf coast, one hit houston area in 2008. Maximum wind speed predicts wind damage, IKe is a better predictor of stormsurge. 

Again climate scoence studies have perdicted since around 1995 that cities between the rainfall levels of New orleans tonthose of about amarillo texas are in for periods of historic drought interrupted by historic fllods, decadal fllod plains will have to be shifted. This is one spect of the climate change models that has withstood the test of time and risk apoears to be increasing. Places that subject to constant rainfall, rainforests and very dry areas and very cold places are not likely to be as affected. 

[Cirocco]

I can't help you much beyond what has already been pointed out, what with english not being my native language, but I just wanted to point out this:

On 6/26/2016 at 1:25 PM, Elthy said:

after i read the topic "Space exploration requires vast sums of money. Is this money pent on space research justifiable?" i didnt bother to check the other ones.

This right here (as well as the entire 300 word essay that follows) is why I love the KSP forum-dwellers

Edited June 27, 2016 by Cirocco

[PB666]

https://blogofthecosmos.com/2016/06/27/why-do-we-spend-very-little-on-science/

 

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Quote

After that the Apollo-Soyuz project showed a rare cooperation between the cold war enemies.

You didn't mention who the Cold War enemies were, and Cold War should be capitalized.

Later during the Cold War the USA and Soviet Union collaborated on the Apollo-Soyuz project demonstrating the possibility of peace between the political enemies.

[Elthy]

Capitalization in english is weird. I didnt think "Cold War" was a name, but more that the "Cold" described it as "not hot". But i think its common knowledge who was confronting each other in the Cold War, so i rather save a few words. I started cutting down the word count, but i dont think i can save that much. Should i delete the examples of the Copernicus Program or the first aid blanket?

[Plusck]

Nice subject.

I personally don't like using "for example" too much, and I suspect this is a German (zB?) habit showing through. If you're connecting two phrases it's generally better to use "such as" (imho).

On the other hand, though, I did like that "subtler", and it is definitely correct to do that (and not "more subtle" which actually is a mistaken application of the "two syllable" rule, since the comparative with "-er" ends up staying with two syllables).

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Capitalization in english is weird. I didnt think "Cold War" was a name, but more that the "Cold" described it as "not hot". But i think its common knowledge who was confronting each other in the Cold War, so i rather save a few words. I started cutting down the word count, but i dont think i can save that much. Should i delete the examples of the Copernicus Program or the first aid blanket?

I liked the first aid blanket. Thought it was an interesting touch. In fact I liked that whole paragraph.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Plusck

[Elthy]

Thanks again! Ill soon upload the final version, managed to cut it down to 424 words without loosing any meaning.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

24 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Capitalization in english is weird. I didnt think "Cold War" was a name, but more that the "Cold" described it as "not hot". But i think its common knowledge who was confronting each other in the Cold War, so i rather save a few words. I started cutting down the word count, but i dont think i can save that much. Should i delete the examples of the Copernicus Program or the first aid blanket?

I think examples of real world benefits are good to have- regarding Copernicus, really don't all space agencies share data, or at least NASA and the ESA? I think I would make that more wide reaching to give it even more impact.

 Also, everything in English is weird I think you are doing well though, and since this is a simple short essay I wouldn't dwell on it too much.

Also, "losing," if you get lose and loose straight you will be doing better than half the internet

[Elthy]

One last question: Can i write "Expenditures on space exploration is lower than perceived by the public. "? Or do i need "The expenditures"?

 

Edit: Ok, i have to print now, final version:

A lot of people argue that space exploration costs too much money, which could be better spent. In the following I want to point out why I disagree.

Expenditures on space exploration is lower than perceived by the public. The combined budget of the world’s space agencies totals up to about €30 billion annually, while the total military budget is about €1.5 trillion.

Let’s have a look at the benefits of space exploration for humans. Space agencies fund a lot of earth observing satellites, providing us with weather information and data for environmental research. Often those data are made public for everyone to use, for example in the EU’s Copernicus Program. We also use a lot of space based services everyday like satellite-TV or GPS. While not directly funded by space agencies those only became possible after their pioneering work.

Additionally, the extreme conditions of space require top notch engineering and new, better materials. Thus space travel is a motor for innovations that will later find their way into everyday products. This includes solar cells or the thermal blankets included in first aid kits.

One could also point out the huge influence the space race had on students in the USA. The Apollo program inspired a lot of young people to become engineers, later becoming the generation that enabled the digital revolution.

But there are other, subtler reasons to conduct space exploration. Humans always strived to explore the unknown, to widen their knowledge and borders. This trait is so common in human history; it’s for sure a part of what makes us human.

Also spaceflight is something which united humanity in the past and could do so in the future. The manned moon landing was probably the biggest media event of all time, watched by everyone with access to the live pictures. After that the Apollo-Soyuz project showed a rare cooperation between the Cold War enemies. Due to the vast amount of resources required for a manned mars landing it could provide another opportunity to strengthen the bounds of human nations.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Elthy

[Plusck]

too late - nvm!

Edited June 27, 2016 by Plusck

[PB666]

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

A lot [Colloquial phrasing ] of people [Weasel wording] argue that space exploration {costs too much money - replace with is expensive} that could be better spent. In the following ["Below", -fewer words] I want to point out why I disagree [missing?].

Expenditures on space exploration is lower than [ missing? "that"] perceived by the public. The annual combined budget of the world’s space agencies totals up [Colloquiallism] to about  [Familiar] billion {totals approximately €30 billion - fewer words}, while the [annual] military budget [totals] is annually about {replace between totals with} approximately trillion.

Note I could rewrite this last sentence as. "Comparing the approximate annual military and space agency budget reveals a ~50 fold difference (€1.5 trillion versus €30 billion, respectively) in allocation of resources. ." - More information and less wording. BTW, this is not a logical proof of the first statement, the spending could be higher or lower than public expectation, that requires a different kind of proof.

Let’s have a look  [Use of contractions, Familiar] at the benefits of space exploration for humans. Space agencies fund a lot of earth observing satellites, providing us  [familiar] with weather information and data for environmental research. Often  [Weasel wording] those [unneccesary] data are made public ["publicized" -fewer words ] for everyone to use,[period or semicolon] for example in the EU’s [Undefined abbreviation] Copernicus Program. We [familiar] also use a lot  [Colloquial phrasing] of space based services everyday like [Familiar - use "such as"] satellite-TV[Undefined abbreviation] or GPS [Undefined abbreviation]. While [missing?] not directly funded by space agencies those [not clearly defined in context] only [unneccesary] became possible after their pioneering work.

Additionally, the extreme conditions of space require top notch engineering and new, better materials. Thus space travel is a motor [bad word choice less colloquial choices available] for innovations that will [logic - Space travel has no 'will'] later find their way into everyday products. This includes solar cells or the thermal blankets included in first aid kits [trivial].

One could also point out the huge influence the space race had on students in the USA {better "US students"} [Missing object]. The Apollo program inspired a lot of [] young people to become engineers, later becoming the generation that enabled the digital revolution {digital revolution is a proper noun}. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Digital Revolution

But there are other, subtler reasons {"Additionally, there are subtler reasons"} to conduct space exploration {could be rewritten "Additionally, space exploration has subtler benefits."} . Humans always strived [Wrong tense] to explore the unknown, to widen their knowledge and borders. This trait is so common in human history; { it’s [bad choice] for sure [Colloquial phrase] not required between brackets} a part of what makes us human.

Retaining the content I rewrite the last as "A self-appreciated behavior of humans when confronted with barriers to the unknown is to explore, gain knowledge  and expand influence.". 

Also spaceflight { is something [word choice- inexact] which [Between "{" "}" not required]} united humanity in the past and could do so in the future.{Could be rewritten as "Also great space achievements (egs. first Apollo moon landing, Apollo-Soyuz project) previously united humanity and ISS and other joint ESA-NASA-RSA programs shows an ongoing international cooperation for peaceful space endeavors.}The manned moon landing was a great media event of all time,[Interpretive] watched by everyone with access to the live pictures. After that the showed a rare cooperation between the Cold War enemies.[Yes, but this did not eventually bring better cooperation, Chernobyl and Korean Air flight  007, 9-1-1983-best not to include] Due to the vast amount of resources required for a manned mars landing it could provide another opportunity to strengthen the bounds of human nations.

Other issues, you start the article in first person singular, the switch to use 1st person plural, then 3rd person plural and then switch to 3rd person singular, then back to 1st person singular. Tone is decidedly not Technical English, sorry. Note how you switch person (see underlined words) in the same paragraph. I, I, Let's (Let us), us, We, their, their, us. The only person you did not use was second person singular.

You need to reach much (replaced a lot) deeper and move away from an editorial tone toward a descriptive tone.

A word about abbreviations, do not use them unless you are only going to use them three or more times, and they should be defined in context.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by PB666