The reading and the lecture are both about colonizing

asteroids . Whereas the author of the reading states that

colonisinzing asteroids has great potential benefits , the
lecture refutes them by providing three reasons .
First of all , according to the reading , colonizing asteroids
has scientific potentials . For example , it is a great
enviroment for researchs due to low gravity , lack of
atmosphere and small size . Asteroids also provides the
base for future missions to other distinations in the solar
system like Mars .However, the lecture disputes this point
. The professor says that asteroids potentials are reduces
due to our limited knowledge of them . So , until we
build a clear understanding of asteroids , we can not
predict the benefits it may provide .
Secondly , the reading states that colonizing asteroids
plays a role in economics growth . He clarifys that
asteroids contain natural mines that will provide new job
opportunities and great revenue for both goverments
and private companies . Nevertheless the lecture refutes
this argument . The professor argues that we don't have
predictions of how many minerals are included in
asteriods . He points out also that we lack a clear image
of how those mines will be transported back to Earth .

Finally,the reading claims that colonizing asteriods will be

the rescue survival rope for humans .He points out that it
will provide a refuge when natural catasrophies accour .
One the other hand , the lecture believes that it will not
provide a long term human shelter because of the small
size and low mass . also he states that our bones and
muscles will not adapt with the low gravity making it
dangerous for humans .

In conclusion , although the reading and the lecture are

both about colonizing asteroids , the three points
provided in the reading are effectively challanged by the
lecture .