I am aware this draft is woefully incomplete, but there isn't much I can do about it now. Sometimes life happens. Part of the assignment was to submit it for review here, but the intention was obviously to have it completed. If you're willing to, give whatever feedback you can, I suppose. Sources included but not properly cited.
options in space exploration
Why Mars? Within our immediate vicinity, there are only three viable celestial bodies for humans to visit: Mars, Venus, and our moon (Luna). Gas giants There are other rocky planets in the solar system, such as the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, however they are simply too distant (among other unique complications) for a manned expedition. Luna is by far the closest of the three, is around on quarter the size of Earth, and just under one-fifth the gravitational force. It has no atmosphere to speak of and an extremely limited amount of accessible essential resources for sustainability purposes. Due to the lack of an atmosphere, radiation on the moon is too high for long-term unprotected exposure, and temperature ranges wildly from 100 C to -173 C depending on level of sun exposure. A lunar day takes approximately one month. Venus is slightly closer than Mars in relation to the Earth, but the reduction in distance comes with more difficult obstacles to overcome. It is roughly the same size as our home planet, which is the reason Venus is often called our "twin" or "sister" planet. The Venusian atmosphere is exceptionally thick and predominantly composed of carbon dioxide; the average surface temperature is a scorching 467 Fahrenheit and pressure at the surface exceeds pressures found at 900 feet beneath the ocean on Earth. Mars is somewhere in between these two different extremes. It has an existing albeit abysmal atmospheric density of less than one-percent of Earth's and it is almost entirely comprised of unbreathable carbon dioxide. However, even this thin veil of atmospheric gas is enough to reduce radiation levels at the surface to those comparable to levels encountered on the International Space Station in lower earth orbit. Over seventy-percent of the Earth's surface is covered in liquid water, a fact we take for granted. Of the three candidates none have any liquid water available at the surface. The moon is, for the purposes of extracting water, considered bone dry. Venus has a fairly considerable amount of water available, however, it has all boiled off into the atmosphere. Mars has water available either frozen at the poles or contained in briny subsurface lakes. (ESA). The average temperature on on Mars is a frigid -81 Fahrenheit. Certainly not ideal for human survival, however compared to Venus and Luna it's the least extreme of the three and easiest to create countermeasures for. A Martian day is very similar to our own: 24 hours, 39 minutes and 35 seconds. (MarsOne)
Space is hard. Out of the three options we have, Mars is by a wide margin the most likely candidate for human expedition and eventual colonization. Still, the task will be anything but easy. Mars lies 142 million miles from the Sun (Sol), an additional 50 million miles from Earth. It takes six months to get there through interplanetary space. The first spacecraft to successfully reach Mars was Mariner 4 in 1965. In September of 1999 NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter burned up in the Martian atmosphere because engineers had failed to convert from standard units to metric. Plenty of scheduled launches don't even make it off the ground, much less complete their state missions. Plenty more fail during the mission, sometimes due to simple oversights like not converting units; many times due to unforeseen, unexpected, and ultimately unprepared for phenomena encountered during the mission. In prequel to the Apollo program to put a man on the moon, Kennedy said "We do it not because it's easy, but because it is hard" Space operations today are still difficult. Following one of SpaceX's dragon launch failures, astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted his response: "Space is hard." This theme still rings true today. Nothing about a manned mission to Mars will be easy. The challenges are difficult to overcome, and when a solution is discovered it is typically complex. One of the main considerations for a manned mission to Mars is the vast distance and time on a human scale. Windows for launches to Mars only occur ever when the planets are at their closest approaches. The traveltime itself is between 5-6 six months; this isn't much of a problem for unmanned missions as machines can lay dormant for long periods of time, they just need minimal electrical power, Humans, on the other hand will require much more. Air, water, heat, food, waste disposal, and radiation shielding are all obstacles that must be overcome. Anything that goes wrong enroute is potentially disastrous. There is no rescue mission practical if assistance is needed. The crew is on their own. Six months is a long time to be stuck in a small spacecraft; astronauts can be trained, but sending ordinary people in masse will be a problem. Once arrived at Mars similar problems come up; no immediate support avaialbe, any resupply likely will take over a year to finally arrive. On top of this human beings, actually our entire ancestral heritage going back countless generations (all of them, in fact) to when life first began has adapted to the conditions on Earth. Mars is a very foreign environment and not one humans can easily adapt to. Beyond the things that will kill you immediately; cold, lack of breathable air, etc, the gravity is fairly low. It's still unknown what effects long-term low gravity will have, but the prognoisis is that Mars' has gravity that humans should be able to adapt. We can only bring so much supplies with us to Mars on a spaceship, so we will have to utilize the resources there. This requires adapting and creating technology to do it.
On top of being hard space is also expensive. It costs Since 1964 we have sent many different spacecraft with many different missions to Mars, both orbital and to the surface. None of them were cheap. NASA's Mercury and Apollo programs cost $25 billion (that's $110 billion today after accounting for inflation. The further you want to go and the more you want to bring and do, the more it will cost. Pioneering on the bleeding edge of both technology and understanding is difficult, expensive, and typically slow to show results. During the Cold War the Apollo and Mercury programs were funded by the U.S. government, debatably as a means to show up the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Today, no such interest exists to support government funding of such magnitude. However, what does exist is a growing space industry. SpaceX, Boeing, Orbital ATK, and many others are eager to establish themselves in the industry.
But why do private industries have an interest in space exploration, and more specifically Mars landings? The monetary benefits, while there, are distant. History has shown the he pioneers of industries reap the rewards of their struggles. There is a certain level of prestige that goes with being among the first to accomplish something. There is also the advantage of possessing firsthand knowledge and experience to achieve the task. Any customer base that would develop would almost certainly have preference toward an industry with its roots deeply engrained in the pioneering efforts of the first manned mission to Mars. While the economic benefits are still a distant goal, they are likely to be vast and a sound investment/opportunity for those willing to risk it. Another potential motivator for pursing space exploration in general is that often the technologies and discoveries uncovered during space operations generates useful innovations that can be used in different applications of industry to generate additional profits.
Works Cited
Griggs, Mary Beth. "All the Countries (and Companies) Trying to Get to Mars." Popular Science, Popular Science
Musk, Elon. "Making Life Interplanetary." 68th International Astronautical Congress; 28 Sep. 2017; Adelaide, Australia, Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
Jenkins, Aric. "Boeing CEO: We're Going to Beat Elon Musk to Mars." Fortune
Finger, B. W., & Hahn, N. (2016). Mars One Surface Exploration Suit (SES) Conceptual Design Assessment. Tucson, AZ: Paragon Space Development Corporation.
"Overview - Mars 2020 Rover." NASA
Karcz, John, et al. "Red Dragon: Low-cost Access to the Surface of Mars using Commercial Capabilities" Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration; 12-14 Jun. 2012; Houston, TX; United States, NASA
ESA. (2018, July 25). Mars Express detects liquid water hidden under planets south pole.Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 Hi Martin. Don't be so hard on yourself. You worked hard on this paper, no matter how it turned out. In fact, I am honored that you chose EF to have your paper reviewed in. May I ask why you said that it was part of the assignment to submit the paper here in particular? That mention certainly tweaked my interest. Anyway, about your paper.
I feel that it is trying to go into 3 directions all at once. Are we looking at space exploration for a new home? Space exploration for scientific reasons? Or space exploration for commercial purposes? These are the 3 representations that you have in this essay but none of these topics are actually at the forefront of the discussion. I think you just needed more time to figure out which topic really interested you or had readily available information to complete this research paper.
After completely reading the information you offered in this paper, I came to the conclusion that all you had were "thesis statements" and "abstracts" regarding each topic. None of which were completed in a manner that informed the reader to the point where one could say that "this paper is all about such and such topic." The lack of focus in the discussion is basically what prevented this paper from becoming truly informative and coherent. The lack of cohesiveness in the presentation all stems from the complex topics that you presented, which did not effectively tie in with one another. There were also punctuation and grammar issues in the paper that, although did not affect the overall presentation, left the essay reading as less authoritative, academic, and professional as it could have been.
Overall, you developed a good draft. I am sad that you did not have the time to properly edit the paper. It had the potential to become a very good piece had you only sought a single direction in the topic and writing presentation. The main problem is that you had an unclear opening and an even more confusing ending for the research that you did.
