The lecture state that, sending people to asteroids is the best choice for colonization on space.

The lecture state that, sending people to asteroids is the best choice for colonization on space. Conversely, the professor believes that this is not practical and offers three counter-arguments to demonstrate weaknesses of each presumption. The first paragraph of the reading explains that low gravity makes the landing process easier. In contrast, the profess thinks that this might make landing easier, but it can cause serious health risks. People lose their muscle mass when they are exposed to low gravity circumastances, as astronaunts did. Prolonged exposure to this condition made very bad effects on astronaunt. This directly contradicts the first assumption mentioned in the text. There are lots of lucrative metals in the astroids and mining them can provide required fundings for the space travel, asserts the next paragraph. The speaker on the other hand mentions that mining astroids might provide some precious metals, but there is no guarantee that this metals stay expensive when they are available frequently on the earth. if its price decrease, there is not money for to support the projects. Again he disproves another conjecture. The final portion of the reading passage talks about accessibility of astroids and says that it is not needed to go far ways like the Moon or Mars. The lecturer rejects this theory and emphasizes that maybe astroids are near to earth in a span of time, but they are moving and after a wile they will move away and there is no way to bring back people on there.