Space firm founded by billionaire Paul Allen closing operations

What does this mean? Wouldn't the distribution of asteroid hits be essentially memoryless? That is, the fact that we have not had one in recent history has almost zero bearing on the probability of one happening in the future.

I thought that as the solar system ages these sorts of event become much less frequent, as orbits of these bodies decay and huge gravity wells (like Jupiter) suck them up?

Space exploration excites hopes and dreams, promising expanded horizons and to avail ourselves of new resources with which to improve our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, and their loved children, and their loved children, and so on and so forth. Do not let universal truths override your personal intuition as to the value and meaning of striving towards these goals, even if someday the eventual heat death of the universe will almost certainly put an end to it all.

Life seems to be pretty rare[1]. At least on the order of once per solar system. Nervous systems capable of thought also seem rare, based on terran history. Analytical thought a fortiori. We are very possibly the only species capable of understanding the universe within at least a rather large radius. Inter-planetary life is really freaking difficult, but it is a complete cakewalk in comparison to interstellar living, let alone intergalactic life. How many shots does this universe get at understanding itself before the whole thing heat-dies? And, who knows, maybe even doing something about that heat death.

I think that matters. Life matters. Consciousness matters. Beyond it just being ours[2].

Earth is a paradise, but a fragile one. If earthly life (not just humans, any life) is going to end up spreading across the solar system, we are by far their best shot.

Perhaps if all life were destroyed nothing would be lost, because things end. Perhaps the entropy of a dead child is no more significant than the entropy of a cooling car engine. Perhaps the existence of the universe is itself irrelevant. After all, what (and to whom) would it matter if it ended? Starting with different assumptions gives different conclusions. I don't think there is any way to prove either axioms correct. But whether you agree or not, the assumption is somewhat different to the one you identified. And there is – at least – a 'why'.

---

[1] The question of the prevalence of different complexities of life is – in my experience – a perfectly tuned discussion for 'well actually's. All of my second paragraph can be quibbled. But I don't think any step would invalidate what I'm doing with it.

[2] In fact, I think is likely that the intelligent life we end up sending interstellar will be descended at least as much from human technology as human biology, perhaps overwhelmingly more so. But again that is not directly relevant to my point here.

I don't think so. He was going to launch rockets anyway. And also the way was there for long time - yet SpaceX was the first company which successfully reached orbit among new space companies.

Although that would have been solidboosters + spaceguns- and automated in orbit-assembly.

Power inevitably becomes centered in a small group. This seems to be an immutable trait of either power itself or people-groups in general. Regardless, it is unavoidable everywhere except on paper, which is to say conjecturally.

Also, billionaires dying don't kill industries. They might kill devastatingly expensive pet hobbies,but not industries.

It always feels good to predict that humans would be getting along swimmingly if it weren't for a handful of bad actors, but there really isn't a case for this expectation based on history. What there is a case for, as has been demonstrated countless times in literally every human endeavor, is an ordered hierarchy pursuing a declared set of goals and reaping unintended/unexpected benefit and detriment along the way. It is like pushing a boulder from point A to B; sometimes it needs to be pushed up hill and other times it must be guided downhill. The idea that "it would be so great if we stopped pushing boulders up hill and only guided them downhill" (a metaphorical interpretation of the happy, co-equal group of like minded workers) ignores the topographical reality of effort, endeavor, intention, and challenge.

Now, you are assuming the government won’t step in even when the individuals no longer want to do it. Either they’ll revamp nasa or start handing out subsidies. Either way it’s the government stepping in. Unless there’s another way that I’m missing?

And a 747 on the roof.