6 ms·

This NY Times article has a lot more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/science/space/in-pursuit-of-riches-and-travelers-supplies-in-the-asteroid-be

by necubi 15y ago

This NY Times article has a lot more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/science/space/in-pursuit-of-riches-and-travelers-supplies-in-the-asteroid-belt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/science/space/in-pursuit-o.... It's wonderful to see people spending huge amounts of money to expand the reach of humanity instead of our capacity for narcissism. Startups like these give me hope for the future.

richcollins 15y ago
What makes you think this isn't about narcissism?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- njharman 15y ago
  By most definitions narcissism is self-love, inwards pointing. Going to space for the betterment of humankind's future doesn't seem to fit.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Don't they go to space to enrich themselves by mining asteroids?
    - vibrunazo 15y ago
      I'm pretty sure that if these people, with their background, were only looking to get even richer. They would use their time to invest on something here on earth.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    Well... Someone will get to say "Full impulse power" or play Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" ;-) When it finally happens, I'll say it was about time.
- mryan 15y ago
  What if it is? (I don't think it is, but let's assume for a moment). Does it matter? We will still advance as a species, regardless of the motivation of the original backers. One of my favourite aspects of capitalism is that it can provide individuals with an incentive to achieve goals that benefit the species as a whole. Sure, the backers will get richer, and they will get loads of personal press out of it. But we will finally be expanding our resource gathering to the near solar system. That is worth feeding someone's ego IMO!
  - richcollins 15y ago
    It doesn't. Just pointing out that much of what we do is driven by narcissism and it's better to accept this fact than to pretend that it is otherwise.
sage_joch 15y ago
"One possibility the company is considering is to nudge a small asteroid, perhaps one as long as a football field, into an orbit around Earth closer than the moon." I hope they're careful. :-)
- tomerico 15y ago
  This leads to scary thoughts on using this for military purposes
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    Military applications may divert a couple billions into developing the technologies needed for peaceful applications. Even with traditional government inefficiencies, that's the equivalent of a couple hundred millions in private enterprise. Not entirely bad and consider we here at HN are not the first people to think about it. Don't forget the Redstone and Atlas rockets that carried the Mercury capsules were (not very) modified ICBMs.
  - bajsejohannes 15y ago
    Someone has already thought about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
    - knome 15y ago
      Just don't forget that rocks are not free, citizen. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Rocks_Are_Not_Free!#.T5aK4KfTKHc http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Rocks_Are_Not_Free!#.T5aK4Kf...
  - mryan 15y ago
    This scary thought makes up much of the backdrop for one of my favourite scifi stories, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Definitely worth a (re)read given this latest news!
  - philwelch 15y ago
    If you're going to bombard something for military purposes, the most effective technique involves using a very large number of nuclear weapons, which is well within the capabilities of anyone who would try to bombard the earth from space. Back during the Space Race, the idea that the Russians could put something into orbit wasn't just a wound to the national pride, it was a technical demonstration of the fact that they could build ICBM's. If you have the rocket power necessary to lift something into orbit, you have the rocket power necessary to put a warhead on a ballistic trajectory to any point on the earth's surface. So if you can go into space and redirect asteroids, you can obviously launch an ICBM. And at this juncture, it's probably easier to develop the technology for nuclear weapons than the technology to capture asteroids and bombard the earth with them. The only way you could do more damage more cost-effectively with asteroids is if you had an extinction-level asteroid, but there's obviously no strategic value to that. Bear in mind, I'm only talking about how scary it is, which isn't quite the same as discussing how militarily effective it is. By which I mean--obviously orbital bombardment can be worthwhile, but it would cause no more damage than nuclear weapons, and any magnitude of orbital bombardment that wouldn't trigger a MAD reaction would have to cause strictly less damage.
cloudwalking 15y ago
"'The company is cash flow positive, already,' Mr. Anderson said." How is this possible?
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Advance orders, I'm guessing. Lots of people would be more than happy to get their hands on a few tons of platinum, even if it takes 15 years.
- maaku 15y ago
  Technology development contracts.
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    The article specifically mentions laser communications development contracts.
- krschultz 15y ago
  Because they haven't hired the engineers yet. A couple founders raising money and taking pre-orders can be cash flow positive. Then they will build out the team, it likely will be cashflow negative for a while (or else they wouldn't have raised money), and then hopefully it will be cashflow positive again.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    No, according to the NY Times article, "the company employs about 25 engineers and has development contracts for technologies like laser communications that it believes it will need for prospecting and mining missions."
- molsongolden 15y ago
  It's a slightly deceiving statement. A company can be "cash flow positive" as long as they are bringing in more cash (by any means) than they are paying out (for any reason). A company that gets a $1m loan then spends $100k would be "cash flow positive".
padobson 15y ago
From the Times article: this one has the distinct advantage in that it has technical savvy and adequate capitalization to get started. Gotta feel bad for the guys who provided the "inadequate capital" to the earlier companies that never had the "technical savvy" to make it happen. I see the imaginations of the hackers here burning, and it excites me. I only wonder if the human species as a whole isn't too cynical to try risky space ventures again.
- estel 15y ago
  The public might not endorse risk that's Government sponsored, but I doubt we'll ever have a shortage of people willing to take extreme risks in the name of exploration.

by necubi 15y ago

richcollins 15y ago

What makes you think this isn't about narcissism?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
njharman 15y ago
By most definitions narcissism is self-love, inwards pointing. Going to space for the betterment of humankind's future doesn't seem to fit.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Don't they go to space to enrich themselves by mining asteroids?
  - vibrunazo 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure that if these people, with their background, were only looking to get even richer. They would use their time to invest on something here on earth.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Well... Someone will get to say "Full impulse power" or play Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" ;-) When it finally happens, I'll say it was about time.
mryan 15y ago
What if it is? (I don't think it is, but let's assume for a moment). Does it matter? We will still advance as a species, regardless of the motivation of the original backers. One of my favourite aspects of capitalism is that it can provide individuals with an incentive to achieve goals that benefit the species as a whole. Sure, the backers will get richer, and they will get loads of personal press out of it. But we will finally be expanding our resource gathering to the near solar system. That is worth feeding someone's ego IMO!
- richcollins 15y ago
  It doesn't. Just pointing out that much of what we do is driven by narcissism and it's better to accept this fact than to pretend that it is otherwise.

sage_joch 15y ago

"One possibility the company is considering is to nudge a small asteroid, perhaps one as long as a football field, into an orbit around Earth closer than the moon." I hope they're careful. :-)

tomerico 15y ago
This leads to scary thoughts on using this for military purposes
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Military applications may divert a couple billions into developing the technologies needed for peaceful applications. Even with traditional government inefficiencies, that's the equivalent of a couple hundred millions in private enterprise. Not entirely bad and consider we here at HN are not the first people to think about it. Don't forget the Redstone and Atlas rockets that carried the Mercury capsules were (not very) modified ICBMs.
- bajsejohannes 15y ago
  Someone has already thought about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
  - knome 15y ago
    Just don't forget that rocks are not free, citizen. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Rocks_Are_Not_Free!#.T5aK4KfTKHc http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Rocks_Are_Not_Free!#.T5aK4Kf...
- mryan 15y ago
  This scary thought makes up much of the backdrop for one of my favourite scifi stories, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Definitely worth a (re)read given this latest news!
- philwelch 15y ago
  If you're going to bombard something for military purposes, the most effective technique involves using a very large number of nuclear weapons, which is well within the capabilities of anyone who would try to bombard the earth from space. Back during the Space Race, the idea that the Russians could put something into orbit wasn't just a wound to the national pride, it was a technical demonstration of the fact that they could build ICBM's. If you have the rocket power necessary to lift something into orbit, you have the rocket power necessary to put a warhead on a ballistic trajectory to any point on the earth's surface. So if you can go into space and redirect asteroids, you can obviously launch an ICBM. And at this juncture, it's probably easier to develop the technology for nuclear weapons than the technology to capture asteroids and bombard the earth with them. The only way you could do more damage more cost-effectively with asteroids is if you had an extinction-level asteroid, but there's obviously no strategic value to that. Bear in mind, I'm only talking about how scary it is, which isn't quite the same as discussing how militarily effective it is. By which I mean--obviously orbital bombardment can be worthwhile, but it would cause no more damage than nuclear weapons, and any magnitude of orbital bombardment that wouldn't trigger a MAD reaction would have to cause strictly less damage.

cloudwalking 15y ago

"'The company is cash flow positive, already,' Mr. Anderson said." How is this possible?

redthrowaway 15y ago
Advance orders, I'm guessing. Lots of people would be more than happy to get their hands on a few tons of platinum, even if it takes 15 years.
maaku 15y ago
Technology development contracts.
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  The article specifically mentions laser communications development contracts.
krschultz 15y ago
Because they haven't hired the engineers yet. A couple founders raising money and taking pre-orders can be cash flow positive. Then they will build out the team, it likely will be cashflow negative for a while (or else they wouldn't have raised money), and then hopefully it will be cashflow positive again.
- pjscott 15y ago
  No, according to the NY Times article, "the company employs about 25 engineers and has development contracts for technologies like laser communications that it believes it will need for prospecting and mining missions."
molsongolden 15y ago
It's a slightly deceiving statement. A company can be "cash flow positive" as long as they are bringing in more cash (by any means) than they are paying out (for any reason). A company that gets a $1m loan then spends $100k would be "cash flow positive".

padobson 15y ago

From the Times article: this one has the distinct advantage in that it has technical savvy and adequate capitalization to get started. Gotta feel bad for the guys who provided the "inadequate capital" to the earlier companies that never had the "technical savvy" to make it happen. I see the imaginations of the hackers here burning, and it excites me. I only wonder if the human species as a whole isn't too cynical to try risky space ventures again.

estel 15y ago
The public might not endorse risk that's Government sponsored, but I doubt we'll ever have a shortage of people willing to take extreme risks in the name of exploration.