The reading and the lecture are about the possibility of starting colonies on asteroids.
The author feels that this is a good idea, due to scientific benefits, economic benefits and the long-term survival of humans.
The lecturer does not believe that the author's claims are correct.
The author feels that this is a good idea, due to scientific benefits, economic benefits and the long-term survival of humans.
The lecturer does not believe that the author's claims are correct.
First of all, the author argues that asteroids are a great environment for scientific research because they are small, with low gravity and no atmosphere.
Moreover, the article notes that they could be a way to start missions to more distant locations in the solar system.
On the other hand, the lecturer says that we just don't know enough about asteroids to be sure of their scientific value.
We don't know how many exist, or about conditions on their surfaces so it is difficult to really predict the scientific benefits of colonizing them.
Second, according to the article, there could be great economic benefits of colonizing asteroids because they contain natural resources. Mining the resources could be very profitable, and reduce the need to mine them on Earth.
The lecturer challenges this idea as well.
He notes that we don't know exactly how many resources asteroids contain, nor how much they would be worth back on Earth.
As a result, it isn't clear if mining in space is more cost-effective than doing so on Earth.
Finally, the author claims that colonies on asteroids could ensure the long-term survival of humanity. To be more specific, we could survive on them if a war or disaster affects the Earth.
In contrast, the lecturer notes that human settlements would have to be designed to deal with the unique challenges of the gravity found on asteroids. These challenges could make living on them extremely uncomfortable and dangerous in the long run.
