Humans have dreamt about living out of the earth from ancient centuries. They consider the moon and Mars as appropriate candidates. The reading states asteroids are better options for colonization and supports its suggestion using an array of reasons. On the contrary, the lecturer cites three reasons to reject the points in the reading.
First, the writer explains asteroids enjoy low gravity. The low gravity is beneficial for spacecraft landing and taking off, due to the fact, they need less power. In addition, they would be able to transfer more equipment which they need to build the colonies on the asteroid. Conversely, the lecturer argues low gravity results in health problems for people who will live on the asteroids. Low gravity leads to decreases in bone density and losses muscle mass.
Second, the writer believes asteroids are thriving of raw materials and cherished metals, for example, gold and platinum. The sponsors can bring these materials to the earth and raise money for the expanses. In contrast, the lecturer declares costs for transporting the raw material to the earth are high. In addition, if the supply of material, such as gold, increases, as a result, its price will reduce in the market. Consequently, the mining and transporting of these materials will not be economical.
Finally, the writer claims since asteroids occasionally get close to the earth they are more reachable than planets, for instance, Mars, which it takes two years to travel to there. However, the professor argues returning from an asteroid to the earth is complicated. In fact, asteroids' orbital paths sometimes are far away from the earth, and this long distance is a challenge.
To conclude, the writer believes asteroids are a better option rather than Mars and the moon and provides a number of reasons to support it. However, the speaker opposes the idea about colonization on asteroids using several reasons and examples.
Humans have dreamt about living out of the
earth
from ancient centuries. They consider the moon and Mars as appropriate candidates. The reading states
asteroids
are better options for colonization and supports its suggestion using an array of
reasons
.
On the contrary
, the lecturer cites three
reasons
to reject the points in the reading.
First
, the
writer
explains
asteroids
enjoy
low
gravity
. The
low
gravity
is beneficial for spacecraft landing and taking off, due to the fact, they need less power.
In addition
, they would be able to transfer more equipment which they need to build the colonies on the
asteroid
.
Conversely
, the lecturer argues
low
gravity
results in health problems for
people
who will
live
on the
asteroids
.
Low
gravity
leads to decreases in bone density and losses muscle mass.
Second, the
writer
believes
asteroids
are thriving of raw
materials
and cherished metals,
for example
, gold and platinum. The sponsors can bring these
materials
to the
earth
and raise money for the expanses.
In contrast
, the lecturer declares costs for transporting the raw
material
to the
earth
are high.
In addition
, if the supply of
material
, such as gold, increases,
as a result
, its price will
reduce
in the market.
Consequently
, the mining and transporting of these
materials
will not be economical.
Finally
, the
writer
claims since
asteroids
occasionally
get
close to the
earth
they are more reachable than planets,
for instance
, Mars, which it takes two years to travel to there.
However
, the professor argues returning from an
asteroid
to the
earth
is complicated
. In fact, asteroids' orbital paths
sometimes are
far away from the
earth
, and this long distance is a challenge.
To conclude
, the
writer
believes
asteroids
are a better option
rather
than Mars and the moon and provides a number of
reasons
to support it.
However
, the speaker opposes the
idea
about colonization on
asteroids
using several
reasons
and examples.