http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/.

If you choose to believe such a list then it sure does.

Do you have any reason to question its accuracy? Any evidence that something is missing?

The Rothschilds are more historically wealthy than they are today. It's more of a big name than anything else, just like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. Also, don't confuse the personal wealth of an individual with corporate wealth. Lots of companies have a lot more money than those men and women, but we aren't talking about companies here, we are talking about people.

Hmmmm, would families count? And no, these families are still very wealthy. What's more I am quite certain that there are very wealthy fellows out there who would rather not have themselves in the public view, at all. It makes sense if you think about it, even more when you start thinking about how they may have acquired wealth like that. One more thing, many huge corporations, especially banks are owned by single families.

Sort of. If you added up all the wealth of the entire Rothschild family tree, you would probably exceed the wealthiest man on that list. But they aren't working together towards any one goal, so all their money isn't put into accomplishing any one thing. There's no point in adding them all together, since they don't act together.

Notice the Walton family on the list I linked to? They are three or four of the spots on page 2. They are all the mixed heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune. They are counted separately, and still made the list.

Oh I'm sorry, never realized I was speaking with their personal financial adviser.

You aren't making a very coherent argument as to why we should add the families together. When you want to measure the wealth that is being put into an effort by a contributor, you measure the wealth of that person, not that person and their distant relatives.

That's all I'm saying. You could measure the whole family, but there's no reason to. They are spread all over the world amongst hundreds of people. What's the point in measuring that?

Well it would make sense that there is essentially a "pater familias" who has some degree of control over all their wealth. Then again, I may just be reading too much stuff about Rome.

No, reading too much about conspiracy theories.. the Rothschilds couldn't even survive opening an investment bank in the United States.. you embellish both their fortune and influence which is mainly specific parts of Europe, namely England.

What does this discussion of the Rothschilds have at all to do with the space flight and a project of using asteroid resources for.. whatever? Should be rhetorical.

This is a specific project about asteroids and getting resources from them, not something even remotely massive as colonization. Way too much hyperbole.

This is not going to end well.

What if, by mining on asteroids, they get disturbed and pushed out of their trajectory? Even a millimeter could lead to... something.

Here's my question to steer the topic back on track:

How do these guys plan to get their kit into space? I've long wondered why some huge conglomerate doesn't build a space fountain, powered by an orbiting solar power station.
No? It would only cost a few billions, and then getting into space would be as cheap as the operating cost of the facility. Much better than rockets.

Do you guys think they will attempt to use some alternate means of getting to space? Or stick with conventional VTOL methods?


This is always a possibility, in fact it's probably a certainty. We will be, and will probably need to, change the orbits of various asteroids.

However, those changes are either going to be chaotic, or known. If they are chaotic and unpredictable, then we have not increased the risk to Earth because that's already the system that orbiting bodies largely obey right now. There's very little in chaotic adjustments in orbits that would lead anyone to think that we have made the situation for Earth worse, and not better. So chaotic and unpredictable changes are zero sum, or neutral. (In other words, there's no way of knowing if changing the orbit of a huge asteroid just saved the earth from a massive impact in 500 years. There's as much chance of that as there is that we've doomed ourselves to a collision)

Known adjustments are more likely. I can imagine these efforts looking to "park" an asteroid at one of the lagrangian points where orbits are exceptionally stable. Earth's own gravity could be used to "lock" the asteroid in place.

In that event, we would be doing ourselves much more of a favor than anything else, by effectively sweeping the solar system of risky NEOs into something of a dustbin.

Well hopefully there wont be deaths near states, or through re-entry, with lame excuses on why it happened and how it could have been prevented before hand with excuses why these preventions could not have taken place. Yes that deserved to be a really long sentence.

I'm still waiting for the day when we turn all the nuclear missiles towards space, to shoot big asteroids into small pieces long before they are near earth. (especially if they are about to come straight at earth). You've got to be prepared, you know!

Back into cryo sleep until we've unlocked space travel like that in Mass Effect - Wake me up when you find 'good' looking aliens or an Asari like race...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzKjxglNyE

I like the idea of VASIMR, but I still needs conventional rocket technology to get into space and that is unbelievably expensive. Once in space it is a fantastic concept but for mining a spaceplane like Skylon is still a better option, mainly because Skylon can reach a Near-Earth Asteroid faster. As for Mars and beyond, VASIMR would be quicker. This is because of VASIMR's continuous 6N thrust and long burn duration gives an eventual ultra-high speed, eventually it would catch up and over take conventional rockets which could only work in short bursts for a low duration of time. As this level of thrust is not enough to even get of the ground, America is still 100% reliant on rocket technology which is just too expensive. The only way ionised plasma engines like VASIMR will be used will ironically be under transportation of a Skylon like spaceplane to deliver the engine into orbit ready for assembly to the body, which also has to get up there somehow. Rockets can do it, but the cost does not add up in a money driven industry. This is what I am alluding to, America needs to ditch the rocket technology because no mining company would take the extra cost when it doesn't need to. It would rather use the spaceplanes to deliver VASIMR into orbit and if the US government doesn't allow non-rocket technology (or non American technology to be more specific) to get it into orbit then nobody is going to the ion plasma engine. That is just how business works.

Skylon isn't far away from the manufacturing process. The engine testing has already begun and it is going very well with extremely postive results. It is also using RAMJet technology, not SCRAMJet, which lends much more use to sub-sonic performance. However even the much faster SCRAMJet technology is not enough to get a vehicle of any size into orbit, they efficiency drop off is rediculously enormous when the engine reaches a certain altitude as there is no fuel in the tanks left to achieve break through, like all such engines they can deplete quickly and the lack of oxygen and hydrogen in the atmosphere, especially hydrogen which is rare at all altitudes and oxygen specifically being thin at higher altitudes the RAMJet/SCRAMJet would stall. Where Europe is lightyears ahead is the combination of RAMJet and Rocket technology in one nacelle. That is basically the only way to get it done using both technologies due to weight issues. Additionally, America has been working on RAMJet and SCRAMJet technology longer than any other nation but it still hasn't found a solution that effectively renders the engine unusable after one flight due to immense heat and pressure forces. Europe (Reaction Engines) is currently in the process of proving they have finally done this, and that would save insane amounts of money for companies because these engines won't come cheap. You can't very keep replacing them every one, two or twenty five flight missions. They have to last for two hundred or more missions. This is why America is still very, very far behind. Not only counting that with the heat issues, they haven't even got a clue how to fit that and a rocket into one single working engine.

So with the Skylon testing looking really good, and funding all but guaranteed for the next two stages of research and development by the combination of pledges from the Aerospace giant Airbus, the UK Government, the UK Space Agency (which some believe was created because of Skylon), the EU, the EU's Framework 6 project, NASA (yup, they are there as well), and general investors... it is well on course for a 2020 assembly timeline.

VASIMR could work, but it won't be profitable if America insists that American rockets transport it up to orbit and that is something that America has been notorious for doing in the past. Just look at the reaction for sending astronaughts up using Russian rockets, imagine America touting their new super space engine only for the public to learn that it can barely blow away a piece of paper when sitting on the lauch pad, and that no mining company wants to pay about ￡150M just get the engine bay alone into orbit. And going back to the thrust of VASIMR, companies will be far more interested in the Near-Earth Asteroids because it delivers are quicker roundtrip meaning a faster return on investment. VASIMR is the best option for deep space missions like Mars and beyond, not N.E.A. Mining. There is alot money in mining, not so much in scientific exploration. This is why I am saying Europe is lightyears ahead on the commercial aspect of space... not on the scientific aspect of space.

I also don't think Russia and ESA are necessarily ahead of NASA neither, I still believe NASA is the front runner by a large margin at this point in time. Just because they rely on other nations to take men to space does not mean that at this moment right now that NASA is a wonded bull, they are still by far the class leader for rocket launches. The US alone has about 40% of global launch trade, that is pretty dominant but that will end ofcourse unless an American company changes it's gameplan.

If you start at Rothschild then you can't really go any higher up lol... that family is the richest on the planet bar none, just because they figure low on Forbes' list doesn't mean that they aren't the richest. Forbes can only disclose the known semi-accurate wealth of people, and it's knowledge of wealth of people outside of America is virtually nil. This is because non-US citizens do not need to disclose their wealth like their American counterparts. The Rothschilds family are expected to be richer than all the Americans on the Forbes Fortune list combined, but Forbes can only legally list their wealth at about $1.3 billion. Strange that one of the younger and less influencial members of the family re-acquired one of the companies for about 5 times that amount and paid with direct money transfer from his own personal account because he didn't want to pay interest on a loan.

There wealth is hidden away in high privacy banking accounts, and only the German and British governments would likely know their true wealth. Because they reside in those two nations and have close relationships with the Conservatives as their groups attend the same schools (Eton for instance) and strangely always end up in the same social group in those schools. The Rothschild's are pictured with the Conservative leaders when at Eton as buddies, this has been the case for generations. Estimated wealth is over ￡100 billion, which means over $140 billion, and that is the low estimate.

There's no question of it being true. Soyuz is the only vessel capable of putting men in orbit for the time being. Anyone who wants to go to the ISS has to hitch a ride with the Russians.

Exactly, but this should have been replied to one of the comments doubting their wealth and influence. As for working your way up, that was just me trying to make a point. However, I'm still sure there are people even richer than them who do not wish to disclose their wealth at all, or reveal themselves.

I'll defer to you, then, I'm too lazy to find out.

Well somehow we got space travel down (Pffffft who needs NASA ) so where's my Hoverboard and flying cars----we only have three more years till 2015.

It's already 2012, we're too late for those, get to your Beth-Tec secure vault!!

Nah I'm just going to stand outside when the end comes. I rather it be quick then slow and lingering .

There is going to be something on both the BBC 6 o'clock News and BBC 10 o'clock News TONIGHT.

British viewers, tune in. Foreigners... maybe you can find a live stream of the news show online, the BBC feed doesn't usually work for those outside of the UK.

It is regarding Skylon so you might have a very good interest in seeing what BBC News is going to announce.

To those brave souls venturing on an asteroid.. Watch out for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUbrJ9uicA.