Annotated Bibliography in IEEE Style

This post will contain an annotated bibliography for the sources I used in previous posts; [1] and [2] are general internet, [3] and [4] scholarly, and [5] and [6] are social media (as close as I could find). Additionally, here is the reference I used to figure out how to site these sources, and here is an example text with citations and the end.

Munroe, Randall. "Wikipedian Protester" Jul, 2007 via xkcd.

Creative Commons attribution-NonCommercial License.

1. P. Bizony and R. Hanbury-Tenison. "For and Against: Space Exploration." Internet: http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/10/debate.cfm, March 15, 2011 [Sept. 5, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           In this source, Hanbury starts by giving his explanation for why space exploration irresponsible, with reasons like allocation of money to immediate benefits. Bizony then gives his argument for why it is a good thing to fund space exploration, with reasons like international partnerships, and high-return scientific research. `i can quote from this source to get well-articulated arguments and rebuttals concerning space exploration.                                                                                                               
2. J. Wiles. "Why We Explore." Internet: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/why_we_explore_main.html#.Ve_0gRFVhBd, Sept. 30, 2013 [Sept. 5,2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                                     In this source, Wiles explains to a general audience about NASA's goals in an almost quick reference guide style. For the most part, she includes all the scientific knowledge gained from exploring space so far, and what NASA aims to achieve in the future. I can quote this source as an almost first hand rationalization for space exploration.                                                                                       
3. M. Rees. (2003, Jul.-Aug.). "Mars Needs Millionaires." Foreign Policy. [Online]. 137, pp. 90-91. Available: http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/03/mars-needs-millionaires/ [Sept. 9, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         In this article, Rees explains that, while he hopes for space exploration to continue, it is inefficient to continually send people to the ISS for tasks which could be completed by robots. He goes on to explain that he sees the future of space exploration as privately-funded expeditions by wealthy thrill seekers. I could use this sourceto introduce arguments abot shifting th burden of space exploration to the private sector.                                                                                                                                   
4. W. Weaver. (1971, Feb.). "Manned Space Exploration." Science. [Online]. 171 (3973), pp. 752. Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/171/3973/752.2.citation [Sept. 9, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           This article attacks the the claims made by supporters of the space program, primarily focusing on the apparent lack of actual scientific progress made for all the funding NASA has received. Additionally, he suggests that instead, that money be allocated directly to research and development.                                                                                                                                                                                             
5. E. Perry. (2009, Nov.). "The Money We Waste on NASA's Space Program Would Be Better Spent on Space Programs for the Poor." The Onion. [Online]. 45 (48). Available: http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/the-money-we-waste-on-nasas-space-program-would-be-11510 [Sept. 5, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                                       As an Onion news article, this source naturally uses a lot of sarcasm. However Perry still makes some of the common points people bring up against funding space exploration, mostly that it is expensive and that the original reason NASA exists no longer does (competition with Russia). Despite being a Onion article, i could use this to introduce some popular points.                                                                                                                                                
6. "Space Exploration is a Waste of Money." Internet: http://debatewise.org/debates/137-space-exploration-is-a-waste-of-money/ [Sept. 5, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                 This webpage allows many users to debate and argue over just about any aspect of, in this case, space exploration. With so many posts, just about every point is made (in favor and against), so to summarize would take a while. This is a good resource to find a bunch of the most common arguments, before finding specific authors.                                                                                                              
7. W. Pomerantz."Why We Go -- Leaving Our Beautiful Home and Exploring Outer Space: Will Pomerantz at TEDxPCC." Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ueGFLVFi80 Jan. 24, 2014 [Sept. 9, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           This is a 20 minute video of a speech, which Pomerantz gave at a TED Talks to explain his view on space exploration. He includes such reasons for it as fun, human curiosity, and investment (which he emphasized was particularly important). He also, importantly, noted that the questions asked by people who don't support space exploration are often important ones to ask, and vital to be able to answer. The speaker is reallypassionate, and I could possible bring some of his enthusiasm by quoting.                                                                                                                                         
8. B4inspace. "Is Space Exploration a Huge Waste of Time?" Internet: http://b4inspace.tumblr.com/post/127975410283/is-space-exploration-a-huge-waste-of-time Aug. 30, 2015 [Sept. 9, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                               This post on tumblr serves primarily as a hook to draw a reader to the full article at the poster's website. However, it does make a claim that a lot of people might think: that sending people somewhere doesn't actually accomplish anything: either they go and come back or they fail and die. This is something I would really like to explain as inaccurate.                                                                   
9. P. Plait. "What Value Space Exploration?" Internet: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2008/04/14/what_value_space_exploration.html  April 14, 2008 [Sept. 10, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                                          This post, from Slate's "Bad Astronomy" section, explains to readers some popular reasons for why we explore space. Above all, Plait argues that human curiosity is the biggest drive for why we do it, suggesting that we would be incredibly boring if we would not explore. I could use this to introduce a new point.                                                                                                                                                            
10. M Gleiser. "Should Humans Explore the Stars?" Internet: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/05/30/153928879/should-people-explore-the-stars May 30, 2012 [Sept.10, 2015].                                                                                                                                                                                                       This post, from NPR's "cosmos and culture" channel, gives additional reasons for why we explore. However, Gleiser explains why even in terms of money, which most people use against the program, space exploration is beneficial. I could use this to argue against the point that space explorationwastes money.

Reflection:

After looking through Katherine's and Breanna's annotated bibliographies, I got a feel for how many sources one might need to sift through on a researched topic. This made me realize how important it is to be able to find whatever important information on other sources one may need quickly. It also seems that the information is the easy thing to just copy over in the correct place, but the formatting causes problems (in terms of just how it's displayed), and of course mine is no exception.

Also, it makes sense that different disciplines have different citation styles. After all, each one has a slightly different goal in citing documents. for example, scientific/engineering research is mostly about getting information around, and pointing toward further info, so the basic, simple feel of IEEE is fitting. 

Ideology in My Controversy

This post will cover the space exploration controversy as a whole.

Groups involved:
Mostly, those within a field that deals with space exploration (pro-), and Random people who just don't think that space exploration is worth it (anti-).

Major speakers/advocates:
NASA is probably the largest public supporter of space exploration, as it is the largest group that takes space exploration into its own metaphorical hands.
On the other side of the debate, there isn't really a large, unified group of people who oppose it, certainly not on the same scale as a government program.

Social, cultural, economic, and political power:
NASA, as a government program has a lot of leverage in the outcome of the argument, as it directly can decide to explore space. however, it is important to note that if enough of the people call up a vote, they could ultimately be more powerful and shut NASA down (as the government is really for the people).

Group values:
Both groups seem to value helping humanity, but the main difference I see is that pro-space exploration values that help more in the long term (investing in research etc.), whereas anti- space exploration values immediate humanitarian aid (arguing to allocate funding from NASA to feeding the hungry).

Power differential:
Major one, as stated before, but that isn't much of an issue here.

Common ground:
Yes, both want to help people, they only differ in how they say is best to go about doing so.

Are they responsive to each other?
Yes, usually one can find when one side makes a claim, the other immediately tries to invalidate it or suggest an alternative. (a lot of sites offer both sides at once).

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Unfortunately, not many people on social media really feel strongly one way or the other about space exploration. Either that or they assume no one else is, so they don't bother to share. whatever the case, I was able to find an onion article (mostly related) and a debatewise page on it, both of which I'll talk about.

The onion (Source):

Unfortunately, this source being the onion (plus not even really a social media site), I'll always have to be careful with it, keeping in mind that it satirizes everything.

Credibility:
Very credible in the sense that It's a well-known and reliably satirical source - every author for them is.

Location:
Not really. I mean, we are all in space. But still, not really from where the debate is taking place.

Network:
the Onion has a whole bunch of readers, most of whom are just looking for a quick laugh now and again, not people specifically interested in the topic.

Content:
What the author says about the money being spent is true; it can be found in the national budget. However, it's not all that important because it's all satire, and using those points to argue for something completely outrageous and not one of the side of the debate.

Context:
This was a random topic for the Onion. Not typical.

Age:
Pretty old: the Onion is certainly not going to simply dump the name after making the comments they did.

Reliability:
Not really reliable as it's, again, the Onion. However, because they take everything as a joke, and they say that we shouldn't be spending so much on NASA, one could infer that they actually think it's fine how it is, though I can't really say for sure.

Debatewise (source):

Credibility:

Very difficult to say, as the authors Are unidentified throughout the entire webpage. however, the rhetoric seems to be pretty high-quality throughout, so all that would need to be done is make sure what they say is true. however, as a co-host for a world online debate championship, it's probably checked to make sure the debates are rational.

Location:

Again, they are not in outer-space. Probably.

Network

Debatewise is a pretty well-known site for people to debate, though it's not necessarily full of renown people.

Content:

This is what this site does well. It seems like everyone knows what they are talking about on the site, and the points people make are pretty solid.

Context:

This is the one of the largest topics on the site (according to google search auto-fill), so it gets a lot of traffic. Because of that, that content on the site is probably kept well in-check.

Age:

It's hosting debates, and isn't going to just stop and delete everything.

Reliability:

Overall, I'd say it's a fairly reliable and unbiased source that gives plenty of arguments to support both sides.

Evaluation of General Sources

In this post, I'll explain a bit a bout an argument concerning aerospace engineering. Interestingly enough, there's not much to argue about within the field, as most of it's just math and science; there aren't many instances where opinions matter for large decisions. However, there is an argument on whether or not we should even explore space in the first place.

Nils-Petter, Norlin. "Space Viking" 3/11/2010 via deviantart.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Engineering and Technology Magazine

URL:
This website is run by Institution of Engineering and Technology, which distributes articles to around 150,000 people, so it's a fairly responsible company, not just some guy typing up whatever he thinks on a blog. Additionally, it is a .org domain, so it has the benefit of being a bit more trustworthy at face value, as compared to a .com.

Author:

This article actually has two authors (with opposing viewpoints). They are:Robin Hanbury-Tenison, an "author, explorer and campaigner"
and Piers Bizony, an "author, journalist and filmmaker"

Both authors are fairly credible, though neither really works in a specifically space-related field. Even though this is the case, it's OK because the question of whether or not we should explore space doesn't require any advanced knowledge space itself, though it would help.

Update recency:
I could not find it anywhere on the page. However, the debate isn't very time-sensitive. It's just an ongoing question that people may add their opinions to, but ultimately, there isn't much in the way of new, breaking stories that would affect it.

Purpose:
Each author attempts to convince readers of his claim, of whether to support or stop space exploration.

Graphics:
None. This text was primarily focused on giving readers arguments.

Position:
The website could have been biased, as it is the engineering and technology magazine, but the fact that it offered both sides of the argument, makes it seem pretty fair.

Links:
None. It seems a bit sketchy, but, again, the topic isn't something that a much of that would help. The whole debate boils down to a basic opinion of what the government should do with its money currently granted to NASA.

NASA - Why We Explore

URL:
It's NASA's website. They're pretty trustworthy/renown. (.gov - government website:very official.)

Author:
It's pretty hard to find this because the page is just a general statement from the organization as a whole about why they do what they do, though, again, because it's a government website, one could assume that the author is speaking for everyone at NASA, and if it were not the case, the problem would be fixed quickly, as the government has to be particularly careful about its public interactions.

Update recency:
September 30, 2013. Pretty recent, relatively. Again, space exploration is slow, so not much needs to be updated.

Purpose:
Primarily, this text attempts to inform the public about what the government is doing with the taxes allocated to NASA. I also think it tries to convince the public that it's a good thing, and that they should keep getting funding.

Graphics:
Again, no pictures, as it's mostly about the information.

Position:
absolutely the source is biased, because they are the ones who are currently exploring space (and it does cost money.)

Links:
There are links to other articles that offer more information about what NASA does, and what it has accomplished, which adds to the feeling that they want to inform the reader more about what space exploration does for people.

My Discipline

The following is a short explanation of what aerospace engineering is, and what people in the field do.

Mark, David. "NASA, Earth, Outer Space, Aerospace, Technology" 2013 via Pixabay.

Public Domain Dedication License.

1. What do students learn learn in this field?

For the most part, aerospace engineering is focused toward designing air- and space-craft. The two portions overlap quite a bit. At a basic level, aeronautical deals with designs for planes, and how they interact with the air, but I am far more interested in the whole 'not on earth' aspect of astronautical engineering. In either case, students have to learn the physics of whatever kind of model or design they may come across, whether it's for a wing on a plane, or a rocket engine, etc.

2. What do graduates do for work?

Many graduates go to work for large companies like Boeing, which need aeronautical engineers for airplane design and testing. Others can usually find work with NASA or a private space organization, which is what I hope to do.

3. what drew you to this field?

I'm not really sure why I like space so much. It could be that it's just so unknown and alien to every human ever, and full of potential (considering that even if we knew everything about this solar system, which we don't - not even close - we would have explored 1/100000000000 of the star systems in this galaxy, and this galaxy is only 1/100000000000 of the galaxies in the observable universe (not to mention all of the not-as-completely-empty-as-one-might-assume space in between everything).

It might also just be that I played and watched a lot of space-based sci-fi games and shows, where most things are idealized.

4. Exciting people in the field

For me, Harold White and his work are the most exciting thing in the realm of space science. He and his team are working to create warp drives. This is the early stage of the kind of progress necessary if humanity is ever going to travel far beyond the solar system.

Also, there are other exciting things in the field, like Space-x, which is a private, space-faring organization, Mars One, which plans to put humans on Mars (one-way) to form a lasting colony (though actually it's really sketchy at best), as well as some other private organizations.

5. Leading journals

Journal of Aerospace Engineering at the ASCE library (ascelibrary.org)
Aerospace Science and Technology at sciencedirect.com
Progress in Aerospace Sciences at sciencedirect.com

Reflection:

After reading posts from my peers, Iv'e realized that I share a lot of their interests. It worries me because now I am less certain about my personal decision. Or maybe I'll wish later in life that I had gone a different route.

What if 30 years from now, aerospace is at a standstill, and another interesting field like the one Chloe talked about in her blog, or what if it's true that robots will replace us all (like this video says) except for ECE's like Clayton and other people who do the kind of thing he talked about on his blog.
Regardless, I think I have to just stay my course.