Billionaire Boys and Their Toys

This article is from the archive of our partner .

What would you do if you had a few hundred million dollars to burn? Would you pump it into the back of a rocket and fire it towards space? Or would you go the other direction and build a submarine and dive to the center of the Earth taking snapshots of alien-like species of eels? Would you buy an island? Sail a ship? Invent a supercomputer? Whatever you did, you'd certainly never stash it all in a savings account, right?

That's what a small group of very rich men who already own enough houses and islands must be thinking to judge from the innovative ways they're burning through their fortunes. It marks a new trend of the super wealthy choosing not to merely fund science and technology projects but work directly to produce them. And in many cases, these producers become participants in the experiment. We'll call them the Billionaire Boys Club for Exploratory Spending. And, boy, are their adventures cool.

James Cameron

Thanks to his latest adventures in deep sea diving, James Cameron is now a member of Billionaire Boys Club for Exploratory Spending. While he's not technically a billionaire -- his net worth is about halfway there, though he's worth well over nine digits if you count the earnings of his various movie empires -- the director/visionary is preparing to dive miles deep into the Pacific Ocean. The New York Times says that Cameron characterizes his goals as being "purely scientific rather than competitive." The Titanic and Avatar director has recruited the help of the National Geographic Society and NASA for the project. "Cameron plans to plunge nearly seven miles to the planet’s most inaccessible spot: the Challenger Deep in the western Pacific, an alien world thought to swarm with bizarre eels and worms, fish and crustaceans," explains The Times' William J. Broad. "He wants to spend six hours among them, filming the creatures and sucking up samples with a slurp gun." Cameron's 43-inch-wide capsule is outfitted with four HD cameras and a seven-foot-long panel of LEDs to illuminate the deep sea critters.

Richard Branson

The enterprising mind behind the Virgin empire is not shy about his apparent addiction to adventure. Beginning with his (failed) 1985 attempt to steer a boat across the Atlantic faster than any human in history, Branson has kept himself busy by breaking world records. He broke that Atlantic record in 1985 then successfully crossed the Pacific in an ultra high-tech hot air balloon in 1991. By 2004, he'd moved on to amphibious vehicles and crossed the English channel in record time. He also likes Jet Skis. Branson's latest conquest, of course, is space. And of course, the billionaire has found a way to make money on his rocket ship projects. You've probably heard of Virgin Galactic, the world's first space tourism company, and in the next couple of years, Branson's latest venture will start blasting rich people into space. (Tickets start at $200,000.) But you can go and check out his space port -- again, the world's first -- in New Mexico for free. It looks like a space ship.

Jeff Bezos

Amazon's founder is a little bit eccentric. In a way, this is how Jeff Bezos has become so successful: He approaches problems from a different angle and arrives at a different, often lucrative solution. And like the Apple visionary and co-founder Steve Jobs -- to whom he's often compared -- Bezos is a pretty private guy. As such, we don't know too much about the progress of his space project Blue Origin. Set up in 2000, the rocket ship company maintains the goal of building an "enduring human presence in space." (Some people like to call this "space colonization.") Along those lines, Bezos told Wired's Steven Levy last year that he wants Blue Origin "to lower the cost of access to space" so that "anybody to go to space." Unfortunately, the rocket ship building hasn't been going so well. Not long before that Wired interview, Blue Origin's test ship failed to launch after the ground crew lost control of the rocket. Luckily, Bezos can afford to build another.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

About the Author

Adam Clark Estes is a former writer for The Wire. He has also written for The Huffington Post and Vice.

Twitter

A Washington Post report on 2016 election interference raises the question: What could Obama have done differently?

If there is one thing The Washington Post’s story on the Obama administration’s anemic response to Russian meddling in the 2016 election makes clear, it’s that it took two to make the meddling effective.

There is a reason the tactics Russia used on the American elections—which are similar to things they’ve done in former Soviet republics and in Europe—are referred to as “asymmetric warfare”: They embody the art of leverage, of doing a lot with a little. As former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress in May, the Russians “succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and at minimal cost.” The whole operation, according to Clapper, cost a mere $200 million—a pittance in military spending terms. But the Russians used that money not the way a conventional army would, but the way a band of guerrillas would, feeling around for pressure points, and pressing—or not. Though, as Bloomberg reported this month, the Russians were clearly exploring ways to attack voting infrastructure in parts of the country, it still appears they ultimately decided not to pull the trigger, sticking instead with the hack-and-dump and the manufacturing of fake news. “It was ad hoc,” an Obama administration official told me shortly after the inauguration. “They were kind of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what would stick.”