Scientists are considering the possibility of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades. Although there have been successful manned missions to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s, Mars is 150 times further away from Earth than the Moon is. Thus the project of sending humans to Mars would require solving an array of problems the Moon missions did not have to face.
One problem is that a round-trip to Mars and back is likely to take at least two years. The trip to the Moon lasted only a few days, and it was easy to bring enough supplies of food, water, and oxygen; but the cargo capacity of space vehicles is too limited to put on board the food, water, and oxygen required by a crew for a period of two years. Without those essentials, though, a Mars mission is impossible.
A second problem is that astronauts on the Mars mission would be in the zero-gravity environment of space for many months at a time. Spending a long time in the zero-gravity environment has negative effects on the human body, such as decreased muscle mass and lower bone density. Over the course of a two-year mission, the effects would be so severe, they would make it impossible for humans to make the trip without experiencing grave medical problems.
Finally, astronauts on a mission to Mars would be exposed to dangerous levels of space radiation, much of which comes in the form of charged particles emitted by the Sun. Earth's magnetic field, which normally protects us from dangerous solar radiation, would not be able to protect a spaceship traveling in interplanetary space. Constructing a shield that would protect the whole spaceship from space radiation is at present impossible because it would add too much weight to the ship.
The article and the lecture are both about the possibility of a mission to mars since human expects more difficulties to land on Mars than the missions traveling to the Moon. The article concerns that a mission to mars is still restrained by today's technology level, whereas the author, more optimistically, proposes several solutions to each of the raised problems.
To begin with, the article mentions that the long distance, which is an at least two-year-traveling makes supplying essentials to mars impossible. The lecturer, however, indicates that a new matter called hydepolics is discovered to solve the problem. By using such material, astronomers can cultivate food crops in the space and recycle the used water to reproduce fresh air as well. In other words, astronomers can supply essentials themselves.
Second, the reading claims that living in a zero gravity space too long is harmful to astronomers. The lecturer refutes the point by explaining that regular excercise can help astronomers overcome the challenge. In addition, astronomers can take vitamins to supplement the nutrition they need in the space.
Finally, the author of the reading says that space radiation will make astronomers exposed to a high risk environment. The author, on the contrary, brings up that space radiation rarely occurs in the space. it is usually under the dangerous level where human can live safely and we are now able to monitor the radiation. He push forward that building a small shield is another possible option just in case that irregular high radiation happens.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 243, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'todays'' or 'today's'?
Suggestion: todays'; today's
... mission to mars is still restrained by todays technology level, whereas the author, m...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 207, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...e radiation rarely occurs in the space. it is usually under the dangerous level wh...
^^
Line 4, column 324, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'He' must be used with a third-person verb: 'pushes'.
Suggestion: pushes
...e now able to monitor the radiation. He push forward that building a small shield is...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, second, so, still, well, whereas, at least, in addition, in other words, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1324.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25396825397 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91848825527 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.615079365079 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 413.1 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.8381109325 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.846153846 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61538461538 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103243993067 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0325083808971 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705588387302 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0638062913335 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0848166512446 0.0443174109184 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.