Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Imagine being convinced that completing a certain task is worth any strugles along the way, and you end up severely hurt because of it. That is exaclty what the author of this article is trying to do. In the article, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus", the author does a poor job of supporting the idea that studying a planet as dangerous as Venus is worth it. Studying Venus is a terrible idea because technology isn't advanced enough, it would take years to discover anything beneficial, and the costs' of this, both in money and lives, are outrageous.

Technology throughout the world has improved since the 1900's,however, it has improved on Earth and in regards to Earthly tasks. When talking about something as dangerous as exploring another planet, it is easy to see that our Earth bound technology simply cannot do the job. in paragraph 5 of the article, the author describes an idea that was thought up by "The National Aeronautics and Space Administartion". This idea is to have humans 30 or so miles above Venus for exploration. The author claims how this would be beneficial in keeping humans safe from the Venusian landscape. However, The author does not support this idea well, as he goes on to say how not much exploration can be done from there, and the conditions would still be extremely dangerous but "survivable". Also in paragraph 7, the author explains how NASA is working on other approaches to study Venus. He explains how they are working on some simplified electronics, made of silicon carbide, that have been testedd in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface. This may sound like a good thing, but it is far from one. This is because the author finsihes by saying that the electronics lasted only three weeks. If a computer can't withstand Venus's conditions longer than three weeks, I am very doubtful that a human can. This proves my point that our technology is far too inadvanced for such a task like exploring another planet. Therefore supporting my claim that the author did a poor job in supporting this idea.

Exploring unmarked territory isn't something that can be done over night. Unmarked territory is exactly what Venus is. Even if technology did evolve enough so that humans could visit this planet, it would takes years, decades, even centuries, to accomplish. In the article, the author continously offers alternatives for exploration. He does this is paragraphs' 5,6, and 7 where he gives examples of organizations that are working towards this exploration. However in all of the paragraphs, the author seems to only be giving "what if" scenarios or in some cases just simple ideas that have been thought about and are possibly being examined. He fails to provide any real data or statistics for these things, except when he mentions the simplified electronics in paragraph 7. Even then, those devices are only able to survive for 3 weeks, so it would still take many years to just improve those devices. Also, in paragraph 6 the author states, "Many researchers are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus". This statement is very broad, and it does not key in on any form of information that should lead us to believe that to be true. These details from the passage prove my point on the amount of years it would take, as well as the fact that nobody has any idea how long. The question to be asked here is, "Is it worth the wait?". For these reaons I stand behind my claim that the author supported the idea of exploring venus very poorly.

Assuming that the exploration of Venus does eventually happen one day, how much money would go into it, how many lives? These are all questions that need to be considered when brainstoming the idea of visitng another planet. The author of this article is avoiding all of these mainstream problems by simply saying it's worth the risks, when it actaully is not. In paragraph 3, the author explains all of the dangers of Venus and how they can affect humans. He explains, " On the planet's surface, the temperature averages over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." Considering that this is true, we can definitrly assume that condition on Venus are severly dangerous, and a lot of people may get hurt trying to explore it. The aurthor also states, " These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oeans and would liquefy many metals. What the author is stating here is that not even our strongest materials and creations can withstand the conditions on Venus. This means that in order to explore Venus we have to design all new machinery, which would cost a lot of money, not to mention the human costs as we would need humans to test things out. He also makes it notable that venus has the hottest surface of any planet, despite not being the closest to the sun. All of these facts are serious concerns when regarding human safety as well as propr functioning of machines. Even if exploring Venus was a possibilty, would it be even be worth it after all of he human costs and money costs or paid. What we are discussing here is putting human lives at risk, and spending a ton of money on a project that is no where near being ready ready to present. These reasons as well as the provided facts assure me on my claim that the author did a terrible job of supporting this idea of exploration.

In conclusion, since our technology isn't advanced enough, it would take far too many years to do, and the human and money costs wuold be outrageously high, we should not explore Venus. Exploring Venus proves to be very dangerous, and we have proved that we are no where near being ready for such a task. We would first need to advance our technology for the task. This would take years to due, it would also use up a ton of money, and put people in serious danger. The author did a terrible job of supporting the idea that exploring Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dnagers it presents. For one, there were not enough facts presented in the article that were beneficiary to the idea. Also, of the pros that were present, the cons outweighed then tremendously. Exploring Venus proves to be a terrible idea, atleast until we are actually ready to do it.

Score: 6