5 ms·
Moving asteroids amounts to a potential weapon of mass destruction. I expect some sort of space treaty to regulate the safe operation of such a venture, and in
by SlipperySlope 15y ago
Moving asteroids amounts to a potential weapon of mass destruction.
I expect some sort of space treaty to regulate the safe operation of such a venture, and in return provide some liability limits on the required insurance. Otherwise the investors have a tiny chance of being wiped out financially if some city gets hit.
- andrewflnr 15y agoHonestly, should they not get financially wiped out if they hit a city? Or do we just let them keep their money to fund criminal defense lawyers. I want the reaction to killing people to be more than "oops, that will be expensive".
- SlipperySlope 15y agoSorry for my poor word order. I agree with you. I expect that should a city get hit, then international outcry would lead to the confiscation of all of the investor's assets, despite being shielded by a limited liability corporation. For that reason the investors need insurance - and a very large amount of it considering the damage that a direct hit on a major city might cause. The investors would seek some sort of limit on the liability - say 100 billion dollars, and in return they should eagerly submit to regulatory oversight of their plans, procedures and operations. In order to insure such an asteroid moving scheme and establish a premium, insurance companies must determine a risk probability distribution, and they must know what the maximum liability would possibly be. Over many decades, there may be observations of close calls or actual damage causing situations that can inform the actuarial calculation, but at the initial point its simply educated estimates.
- ceejayoz 15y agoA liability limit of $100 billion dollars might as well be an unlimited one in all but a few cases.
- terramars 15y agodude a 7m asteroid would be literally impossible to hit a city with. it's far too small - would burn up in the atmosphere at around 30km. there would be some small meteorites that would survive in all likelihood, especially as the speed would be a little slower than usual, but those are very trivial in danger. asteroids this size enter the atmosphere every couple of years naturally - occasionally over populated areas - and have never caused meaningful amounts of damage.
- SlipperySlope 15y agoI got it. So the investors chose that asteroid diameter so as to minimize potential damage due to an impact on Earth.
- korussian 15y agoThey probably choose that asteroid diameter to say exactly the above: i.e. "relax, it can't hurt you."
- ceejayoz 15y ago> Otherwise the investors have a tiny chance of being wiped out financially if some city gets hit. ... shouldn't they be?!
- hej 15y agoMaybe not, at least not if they made only negligent errors. Hitting a city is hard (with the size of asteroid we are talking about here). If they didn’t do it on purpose but because of a combination of some negligent errors and extremely bad luck I’m not sure whether they deserve to be financially wiped out.
- bdunbar 15y agoMoving asteroids amounts to a potential weapon of mass destruction. This is true for everything moving in space: vehicles, rocks - all potential weapons .. just from (ahem) potential. We need to be real careful that we don't regulate this activity right out of existence.
- cpeterso 15y ago> Moving asteroids amounts to a potential weapon of mass destruction. Carl Sagan spoke out against research into destroying "rogue" comets or asteroids that might hit Earth. He believed that the potential for military misuse of the technology far outweighed any real collision threat.