Bolliger, 1 Matt Bolliger S. Lipnicky English 106 25 November 2013 Neoteny On a fundamental level, curiosity is immature in nature.

We see this in wildlife and in our pets. Newborn animals have an urge to explore and investigate, to run from their parents protection in search of new thrills. However, as they begin to grow older and mature, that spark begins to fade. This is the point at which humans diverge from other animals, as humans never truly lose that spark. One might be fully grown into adulthood, but the instinctual urge to explore persists. This neoteny is what fans the spark into a flame. That flame, the one that first illuminated the damp walls of a dark cave for our most ancient ancestors, is the same flame that we see in the engines of todays most advanced spacecraft. These spacecraft facilitate our exploration of the universe, and there is still so much left to discover. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to expand the space program and further our means of satiating that explorative hunger. One proposed solution comes from Michael Raftery and Jeffrey Hoffman. In their article International Space Station as a Base Camp for Exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit they propose repurposing elements of previous space missions to fit the needs of new missions. Like all writers (even scientific), they rely on literary formulas and rhetoric, at least subconsciously. However, when comparing the authors writing to Swales model, it only correlates in some small respects. Swales model consists of 3 separate moves, each broken into 3 or 4 steps. Since

Bolliger, 2 the introduction of Raftery and Hoffmans work is so brief, it is hard to apply each of Swales steps to it, but it is possible. Move 1 of Swales model is represented in only a couple of sentences in Raftery and Hoffmans journal. The first sentence represents the claim of centrality: it establishes the importance of the International Space Station (ISS). Steps 2 and 3 introduce generalizations of the topic and previous research respectively. These steps are combined into one sentence, when the authors bring up concepts they have discussed in the past and how those ideas have been recognized by the scientific community (Raftery and Hoffman 25). While move 1 may appear to be underrepresented in the essay, move 2s presence is even sparser. Move 2 typically involves opposing viewpoints of previous research, indicating a gap in previous research, raising questions about previous research, and then a transitory segment. The only of these phases present in Raftery and Hoffmans piece is an indication of a gap in research when they bring up the increased pressure on budgets of space programs and how this will intensify the need to fully utilize existing assets (Raftery and Hoffman 25). Move 3s representation is similar to that of move 1 and 2s. There are 4 steps. The first 2 are combined into one sentence, and the remaining make no appearance. The first 2 steps involve outlining a purpose and announcing current research. The purpose of the paper is stated when the authors discuss the progress in exploration that can be made with the ISS, and this also serves to reveal the research the authors have conducted. The purposes of these two steps are very similar, so it is acceptable that one sentence is enough to adequately cover both. Overall, Swales model of introductions is present in the bones of Raftery and Hoffmans work, but not explicitly. There are sections of text that support the model, but the connections appear fragile and tangential at best- almost forced. This is, in part, due to the fact that the

Bolliger, 3 introduction of the work is so short-winded, though this is not necessarily bad. The authors are very brief and concise in their writing, which is ideal when writing on scientific fields of study, as lengthy and drawn-out discussions of this kind of material can quickly become too dry to keep a reader interested. Granted, since the authors know that their work is to be published in a specialized magazine, they know their audience is made up of science-oriented individuals who are looking for scientific material. But they also know that they will be competing with other articles for their readers time, thought, and attention. This forces affects the authors use of language, both in terms of tone and economy. They must appear intelligent and authoritative in their field, so they cannot afford unprofessional or frivolous language. However, this has the potential to give the work a boring tone. Therefore, the authors must choose their words very deliberately in order to maintain a balance of a sense of authority from their peers, and interest from their readers. They must write to attract and keep invested as many readers as possible (the authors are not looking for a onenight stand- they are looking for a committed relationship). Another deliberate choice made to win over the readers is the structure of the essay. The authors divided their work into distinct sections with titles that describe exactly what is being discussed in that section. This makes it very easy for a reader to quickly and easily refer back to an area of interest or importance and to keep track of what he or she has been reading. Additionally, some sections use diagrams and illustrations to better convey information that may be confusing or overwhelming. For example, in section 2, the article discusses four points in space within our solar system. The points are not likely to be known by the average reader, so the authors include a visual that clearly displays each point. This way, the points can

Bolliger, 4 easily be referenced by the authors and understood by the readers. Similarly, when they are exploring the possibility of repurposing old equipment, like docking nodes and logistics modules, Raftery and Hoffman provide pictures of that equipment and visuals to show how that equipment can be changed to suit the needs of their solution. Raftery and Hoffmans use of citations also affect the ease with which the readers comprehend the material. The authors denote outside research with simple number tags at the ends of sentences. This allows for the conveyance of information without distraction. If a reader wishes to explore a citation, he or she only needs to look for the corresponding number at the end of the work. In fact, if one were to look at Raftery and Hoffmans citations, one would see that this piece is part of a larger, ongoing conversation in the scientific field. One of the authors sources is an astronaut speaking of the feasibility of using existing ISS hardware for further explorationexactly the same subject. From this alone, one can see that the authors claims are credible. They are not two mad scientists, but two people with an idea worth expanding. Throughout the article, that idea is the focus of the writers thesis. They do not state their thesis explicitly, but it is implicitly evident. They obviously believe that their idea is a worthwhile one, and the purpose of the entire piece is to persuade the readers of that as well. Overall, rafter and Hoffman wish to show off their idea. They want others to believe what they believe, that their idea can facilitate the advancement of our understanding of our universe. To convey this, they employ rhetorical devices and writing formulas suitable to their field. They write scientifically, but attractively. The authors have crafted a work that appeals to every humans primordial urge to explore.