Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sorry 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.



dude 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.


I got it.

So the investors chose that asteroid diameter so as to minimize potential damage due to an impact on Earth.


They probably choose that asteroid diameter to say exactly the above: i.e. "relax, it can't hurt you."


A liability limit of $100 billion dollars might as well be an unlimited one in all but a few cases.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: