What The Apollo 11 Crew Did For Life Insurance

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What The Apollo 11 Crew Did For Life Insurance

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:16PM from the sign-your-life-away dept.

Back in 1969 insurance companies weren't very optimistic about the odds of an astronaut making it back to earth after being launched in a rocket to the moon. The cost of life insurance for the Apollo 11 crew was astronomically high so they came up with a clever solution. A month before launch, the astronauts signed hundreds of autographs that were to be sold if they didn't make it back. From the article: "About a month before Apollo 11 was set to launch, the three astronauts entered quarantine. And, during free moments in the following weeks, each of the astronauts signed hundreds of covers. They gave them to a friend. And on important days — the day of the launch, the day the astronauts landed on the moon — their friend got them to the post office and got them postmarked, and then distributed them to the astronauts' families. It was life insurance in the form of autographs."

168 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:29 · Score: 5, Funny

bet against yourself?
1. Re:If the odds are against you by hvm2hvm · 2012-08-30 21:20 · Score: 2
  
  Not a good idea... you still want to make it and not feel like lost something while doing so. The autograph idea is pretty good actually. A dead astronaut's autograph probably sells well.
  
  --
  ics
2. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 21:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What is the big need for insurance? I guess they could have tripped in the studio, or had a light fall on them.
3. Re:If the odds are against you by djsmiley · 2012-08-30 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  The only good odds you'd get would be for you surviving, not dying.
  Yeah, I originally thought the same thing then realized the issue. It only works if they _expect_ you to survive.
  
  --
  - http://www.milkme.co.uk
4. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 22:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  bet against yourself?
  This is the entire crux of life insurance anyway.
  You buy life insurance because your wager is that you're going to die at any moment
  Insurance companies wager that you're not going to die for a very long time...or at least long enough to rake in a decent profit.
5. Re:If the odds are against you by ibwolf · 2012-08-30 22:53 · Score: 2
  
  bet against yourself?
  This is the entire crux of life insurance anyway.
  You buy life insurance because your wager is that you're going to die at any moment
  Insurance companies wager that you're not going to die for a very long time...or at least long enough to rake in a decent profit.
  No, it's not a wager, it's a hedge. You know that you will probably continue on living, but you hedge your bets against the alternative. It is both prudent and sensible (assuming you have a family who depends you) to take out life insurance on those terms.
6. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  What is the big need for insurance? I guess they could have tripped in the studio, or had a light fall on them.
  ....
  seriously?
7. Re:If the odds are against you by beelsebob · 2012-08-30 23:38 · Score: 2
  
  hedge your bets
  
  You mean... it's a bet? A wager? Being a hedged bet does not mean it's not a bet.
8. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  What is the big need for insurance? I guess they could have tripped in the studio, or had a lightbbbbb star fall on them. /. barely supports html tags, very stupid. Which is why the bbbbb. They should upgrage to at least Html 1.0.
9. Re:If the odds are against you by Joce640k · 2012-08-31 00:36 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  seriously?
  Why should an insurance company have to make you rich?
  Believe it or not, you *don't* have a right to free money in this world.
  
  --
  No sig today...
10. Re:If the odds are against you by flappinbooger · 2012-08-31 00:49 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What is the big need for insurance? I guess they could have tripped in the studio, or had a light fall on them.
  Well, I only got a policy once I had a wife, kids, house. That's the only reason to have "real" life insurance. Keep your family afloat if you kick the bucket.
  A stack of post-marked autographs would probably have been able to support their astronaut family lifestyle for a good while. Pay off debt, put little johnny through college.
  If you're a single geek living in your mom's basement a simple cheap cracker-jack-box $20k policy is enough to stick you in the ground with. You might even be able to get that from where you work for nothing.
  WAIT A MINUTE - I just got your thinly veiled joke re: faked moon landing. My bad. I'm a little under the weather today, the ol' melon isn't firing on all 16 cylinders. I'll go ahead and post my comment anyway because.... I spent the time typing it out.
  
  --
  Flappinbooger isn't my real name
11. Re:If the odds are against you by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-08-31 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why should an insurance company have to make you rich?
  Believe it or not, you *don't* have a right to free money in this world.
  1% disagrees.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
12. Re:If the odds are against you by bickerdyke · 2012-08-31 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  well... That's what Hedgefunds do....
  bet huge sums on something, and slightly less against to minimize losses....
  
  --
  bickerdyke
13. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  This is in the worst taste I have seen on this site. The astronauts in question were on basic service wages. If they didn't make it back their widows would have only been eligible to the then quite poor service pension. Look at what happened to the families of the astronaut candidates who died in accidents before they could fly into space. They lost every thing.
14. Re:If the odds are against you by Roujo · 2012-08-31 01:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's the opposite, really. A hedge is something you do in case your bet fails, so since insurance is a hedge, the wager cannot be that you're going to die. You bet/wager that you're going to keep living, and you hedge that bet by getting insurance just in case.
15. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why should an insurance company have to make you rich?
  Believe it or not, you *don't* have a right to free money in this world.
  1% disagrees.
  You mean the 1% in the Occupy "Movement" ?
16. Re:If the odds are against you by RazzleFrog · 2012-08-31 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not sure if you are being sarcastic or what but you realize that when you take a million dollar life insurance policy out it isn't so that your family is rich if you die. It's to replace the years of missed earning opportunities with your passing.
17. Re:If the odds are against you by dark12222000 · 2012-08-31 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's not free money. You do understand how insurance works, right? You pay into a system based on estimated risk and if bad things happen, they pay a large lump sum to your survivors to help with expenses. It's not unreasonable to force an insurance agency to cover all types of work so long as they get to set the premiums and deductibles.
18. Re:If the odds are against you by rullywowr · 2012-08-31 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Worked for "Mickey" (Brad Pitt) in the Richie film "Snatch"...
19. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  99% disagrees.
  FTFY - You don't see the 1% complaining that the poor don't pay their fair share, despite the fact that they pay 38% of federal income taxes, when they only earn 22% of total US income. Interesting that the bottom 50% of the population only pays 2.7% of federal income taxes. THOSE are the people asking for free money.
20. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:17 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  It's the opposite, really. A hedge is something you do in case your bet fails, so since insurance is a hedge, the wager cannot be that you're going to die. You bet/wager that you're going to keep living, and you hedge that bet by getting insurance just in case.
  Keep digging. It's funny.
21. Re:If the odds are against you by dirty_ghost · 2012-08-31 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  That is what insurance is. You are betting you are going to have a failure and need the money. They are betting you won't. Whether it is your own life, or a car accident, or a fire, etc., it is very likely that you are going to do everything possible to avoid the failure and protect the insurance company's bet.
22. Re:If the odds are against you by GrumpySteen · 2012-08-31 02:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That bottom 50% includes unemployed, homeless, people who make far less than poverty level income, children, retired people with no income, etc.
  You're actually complaining that people with no income aren't paying their fair share of income taxes.
  Could you be more of a douche?
23. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  Douche? No. Insensitive, yes.
24. Re:If the odds are against you by morgauxo · 2012-08-31 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  First, they probably don't make you rich. Life insurance payouts sound like a lot of money but actually for most of us the majority will get spent on the funeral. Body disposal (at least legal body disposal) is expensive. Arguably this wouldn't be much of an issue for astronauts who die in space but it is important to the rest of us and doesn't invalidate the next couple of points.
  
  Second.. it was 1969. How many wives had jobs? Before we had insurance widows lived a hard life. There is a reason that in India they had Sati. This isn't as much an issue today, today they just work. Still, if there are kids it is hard to raise a family on a single income. With most couples both working people have 'more' money thus goods are more expensive. Good luck raising a family on a single income.
  
  Maybe most importantly... insurance companies SHOULD make your family rich or at least pay them well because during life you make THEM rich. Life insurance premiums cost money, even if you aren't paying them directly if you are ensured then somebody is. Probably your employer is paying them on your behalf. That money is for one thing and one thing only... saving for the future when it is needed. If they don't pay out then what were they being payed for in the first place? Why should insurance companies get free money any more than the rest of us?
25. Re:If the odds are against you by CubicleZombie · 2012-08-31 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Even a single person should have at least some life insurance with whoever would pay to bury you as the beneficiary.
  
  --
  :wq
26. Re:If the odds are against you by CohibaVancouver · 2012-08-31 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  seriously?
  Whoosh!
27. Re:If the odds are against you by atrain728 · 2012-08-31 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's the opposite, really. A hedge is something you do in case your bet fails, so since insurance is a hedge, the wager cannot be that you're going to die. You bet/wager that you're going to keep living, and you hedge that bet by getting insurance just in case.
  Keep digging. It's funny.
  Uh no, it's accurate.
28. Re:If the odds are against you by gewalker · 2012-08-31 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  Legal body disposal is not terribly expensive, about 10 years ago my father was cremated and "disposed of" -- total cost 1000 USD. Per his request, there was no funeral service but we had a pizza party at Noble Romans open to friends and family. We spent about as much on pizza as we did disposing of the body.
  Funerals and fancy caskets, vaults, etc. -- now you are talking real money.
29. Re:If the odds are against you by JamesRing · 2012-08-31 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  *Woosh* :)
30. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Believe it or not, contracts are these mechanisms we have that allow two parties to voluntarily enter into an agreement that is mutually binding. It gives both parties rights and responsibilities. The rights that are offered to beneficiaries by life insurance companies include million dollar benefits. The beneficiaries absolutely do have that right if the decedent complies with the rest of the contract. It's really quite logical. You can secure this right for your beneficiaries too -- it is offered on a free market basis! Incredible, I know... Thanks legal system!
31. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  How about insensitive douche? That seems most appropriate.
32. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Good luck raising a family on a single income
  I am raising a family with 6 kids on my income alone and we are doing just fine. This is a lifestyle choice that my wife and I have made and there are some sacrifices we make. I am not a doctor or lawyer and only make just over $50k yearly with no government support. Both our vehicles are 10 years old, my house is a modest 4 bedroom. We don't eat out and both my wife and I share in the cooking of meals. We live within our means and if we don't have the cash we don't use the credit card to buy it.
33. Re:If the odds are against you by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-08-31 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  The technical term is insensitive clod.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
34. Re:If the odds are against you by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-08-31 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  No, I mean the 1% who get money out of the work the 99% do.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
35. Re:If the odds are against you by udachny · 2012-08-31 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well you have a problem, don't you? 50% includes the so called unemployed, disabled, poor, retired. The children also don't pay taxes, I'll exclude them from this, their parents are supposed to be taken care of them.
  But you have a problem then, if half of the country cannot pay taxes and are the ward of the government, then you are putting the obligation on the other 50% to care for them for some unimaginable reason. And your plan is to steal from some people to subsidize others and you think this represents a VIABLE strategy for an economy.
  Here is the truth, by forcing people who still work to be slaves for the people who don't work you are only doing one thing: creating a bigger and bigger government in order to fulfill this function, because this function requires a lot of processes that include threat of violence. I mean why would anybody pay income, corporate, payroll taxes at all if not paying them did not result IRS and other governmental agents with guns coming after them?
  Do you know what slavery is? Using threat of violence (guns) to coerce some people to work for the benefit of some other people, and the factors such as who exactly is who do not matter at all. You want to use government to force a guy who makes 10 million a year to work for a guy who makes 20,000 a year?
  Then call a spade a spade, you are turning the 10 million guy into a slave of the 20,000 guy.
  But it's not only immoral, as I have shown, it is also stupid economically speaking, it does not work. Eventually with the growth of government you end up in a situation where government is a system that 50% (or more) of people believe must extract wealth from those who actually produce it by any means necessary. Obviously the most well connected to 0.01% escape the threat of violence, they are so well connected, they are NOT subject to any of the laws of the land, just ask Corzine. The guy stole billions and now what? Now he just may become the next Federal reserve chairman.
  No, this hits the people under the 0.01% mark and over the 50 something % mark, somewhere in the middle there are a few layers of people who still produce and still have something, so they can be extracted from.
  But they eventually will also give up or go bankrupt or they will do the most sensible thing and MOVE their production somewhere else as they absolutely should and have a moral imperative as free individuals to do - save themselves.
  With the ever growing dependent class and with the ever growing elite class - politicians, the very top bankers, who are de-facto politicians, you are ending up with a completely unsustainable situation, you can't recover from it without a huge crash, and at this point this huge crash is imminent. It is unavoidable, the system must crash because it can never pay its debts and it must restructure the debts and allow people who lent money to the system to go bankrupt. The system must allow the government to shrink by crazy number, maybe 99% of government force must lose jobs.
  The retired can no longer stay retired, they have to rely on themselves.
  The unemployed can no longer stay unemployed, they cannot live off the welfare checks, and all the regulations and laws that allow this and create incentives for this must be gone.
  The disabled can no longer stay unemployed, and for years now the people who no longer qualified for normal welfare benefits, EI, all that stuff, they just moved into the 'disabled' category. They are not disabled. The truly disabled will have to find private charity.
  The students can no longer borrow from the government, they cannot repay their loans anyway, and their education is worthless, all the civil arts education is worthless, sociology majors do not have any skills, all education outside of very narrow few fields is worthless at these prices, which are artificially created by abundance of government loans.
  Yes, if people want the services, they must pay for them there cannot be any taxes to provide those services.b
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
36. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  A minor correction. That bottom "50%" is the bottom 50% of people that FILE Federal income tax returns. If an individual didn't file a return they weren't included in the stats.
37. Re:If the odds are against you by Rastl · 2012-08-31 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Why should an insurance company have to make you rich? Believe it or not, you *don't* have a right to free money in this world.
  The insurance companies evaluated the risks involved and set what was quoted as "astronomically high" premiums (nice contextual reference, btw) for coverage. Insurance is gambling. The insurance company is betting on nothing going wrong, you're betting something will.
  The insurance companies made the call here and the astronauts didn't want to pay the premiums involved. They decided not to gamble with formal insurance. Instead they gambled on their autographs being valuable and marketable enough to provide for their families in case they didn't come back.
  I fail to see where there's free money here.
38. Re:If the odds are against you by danbert8 · 2012-08-31 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's a shame that a well written post like yours gets modded into oblivion. And it's also a shame that I don't have mod points.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
39. Re:If the odds are against you by houghi · 2012-08-31 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  I do not want life insurance.
  I want all people to be genuinely grieving when I die.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
40. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  I do not want life insurance.
  I want all people to be genuinely grieving when I die.
  I feel differently. I have life insurance, because it means there is someone out there with a significant interest in keeping me alive (the insurance company). I can only assume they have dispatched agents to save my life on multiple occasions without my knowledge.
41. Re:If the odds are against you by udachny · 2012-08-31 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's nothing. Check this out. This is my first account, I am limited to 2 or 3 comments a day, and there is a number of 'followers' who are religiously moderating every comment I make down, whatever it is.
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
42. Re:If the odds are against you by fm6 · 2012-08-31 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Why should an insurance company have to make you rich?
  Uh, what exactly did TPP say that implied that they do?
  
  Believe it or not, you *don't* have a right to free money in this world.
  Unless, of course, you work for Bain Capital.
43. Re:If the odds are against you by operagost · 2012-08-31 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like metamod is failing.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
44. Re:If the odds are against you by fm6 · 2012-08-31 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Hey! It's only fair!
45. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  I see no need for this if you have enough assets to pass to your heirs to cover the costs.
46. Re:If the odds are against you by fm6 · 2012-08-31 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well, your arguments are pretty stupid. (Oracle is not a "server company," dude.) I do agree that being an idiot doesn't make you a troll, so your downmods are unfair. But the stupidity == trolling meme is widespread on Slashdot, so you shouldn't take it personally.
47. Re:If the odds are against you by fm6 · 2012-08-31 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  OED: "To secure oneself against loss on (a bet or other speculation) by making transactions on the other side so as to compensate more or less for possible loss on the first. "
48. Re:If the odds are against you by udachny · 2012-08-31 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  The moderation system here never worked. The most ridiculous thing about it is that the down moderation of specific accounts prevents posting comments from those accounts. So who does that help? Seriously? How is this supposed to stop a troll from trolling or whatever the purpose is? On a technical forum?
  But it does allow a bunch of like minded individuals to minimize, to silence opinions from specific accounts, opinions that they do not agree with. Does it really work? I mean I made this second account to post more than 2 times a day, because I want to make a comment sometimes.
  Having a 'like' or 'hate' moderation makes sense, whatever, as long as it doesn't prevent the usage of an account that makes sense. Otherwise it only artificially creates more accounts on this site.
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
49. Re:If the odds are against you by Burning1 · 2012-08-31 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Out of curiosity, what part of the country do you live in?
50. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  If elitist crap like the Ayn Rand channeling above was not met with derision and downmods, nobody with a functioning brain would read this site.
51. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  GP must be similar to typical Americans who live hand to mouth and believe it's their patriotic duty to have a negative net worth.
52. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's not unreasonable to force an insurance agency to cover all types of work so long as they get to set the premiums and deductibles.
  True—so, the actuary would probably calculate the premium for a million dollar life insurance policy for an Apollo 11 astronaut at perhaps $600,000. Naturally, that's *well* within reach of practically everyone!
53. Re:If the odds are against you by Lord+Lemur · 2012-08-31 11:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I know feeding a troll is always a bad idea, but please tell me, are you high or 16? Seems like your a huge fan of the neo-con revisionism. Note how those poor little rich folks have had tax cut after tax cut for 50 years. The top rate has fallen from over 90% to... what did Mitt pay, 12%? There is no such thing as a rich man who got there with out our wonderfully fubar federal government. The environment for that wealth creation came from all of us, schools, roads, labor, et al. If you think a progressive tax is a pox upon long term viability, look at Somalia. Does our system blow, hell yes. Is a progressive federal system the best we have seen on this planet, by far.
54. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  so if you think that I am a 'troll', why do you bother writing? You are not genuinely interested in my point of view from the perspective of looking for solutions, are you looking for a long thread with plenty of words? You can read my previous comments and journal entries, there is nothing new in your uninformed questions, I have addressed it many times.
55. Re:If the odds are against you by darkonc · 2012-08-31 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  A hedge is a subset of the group 'bets'. It's a bet for the unwanted occasion. The (insurance) group taking the bet knows that you won't try to make the occasion happen (e.g. commit suicide), and that may be (often is) a condition of the wager (insurance) contract.
  Insurance companies (like bookies) play the numbers such that enough people don't collect on their bets (policies) to cover the people who do, and provide for a good overall profit to boot.
  Being in a distinguishable subset of group A doesn't mean that you're not a member of group A.
  
  --
  Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
56. Re:If the odds are against you by sahonen · 2012-08-31 19:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  why would anybody pay income, corporate, payroll taxes at all if not paying them did not result IRS and other governmental agents with guns coming after them?
  
  Maybe because I actually like a lot of the services that the government provides in exchange for my tax money, and recognize that receiving the benefits of living in a society requires me to pay my share of the social contract?
  
  It does not work
  
  I have but a single word for you that disproves your entire notion that a welfare state can't work: Scandanavia. Seriously, read up on the economic and social policies of the Scandanavian countries. Especially Denmark. According to every raving lunatic libertarian, any country with those kinds of policies should be a complete and utter hellhole... Except, it's one of the best places to live in the entire world by almost any standard you measure it by.
  
  You want to live in a libertarian utopia where there are no taxes and everybody is absolutely free? Check out Somalia some time.
  
  --
  Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
57. Re:If the odds are against you by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-08-31 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  > Body disposal (at least legal body disposal) is expensive
  
  We are talking ASTROnauts. If they dont return alive, there is a huge chance that they:
  1 - shattered to a gazillion little peaces after an explosion
  2 - landed crashbang on the moon, leaving them in several chunks on the surface of a celestial body that no one ever set foot on alive
  3 - evaporated in the atmosphere on the return (basically that is an cremation with immediate scattering of the ashes paid for by the taxpayer)
  
  So, I dont think that disposal is the main concern. The thing is that the wives and families lose income, and to make sure they wouldn't fall into poverty one would need a life insurance.
  
  --
  rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
58. Re:If the odds are against you by udachny · 2012-09-01 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe because I actually like a lot of the services that the government provides in exchange for my tax money, and recognize that receiving the benefits of living in a society requires me to pay my share of the social contract?
  - that's because you aren't actually paying for services.
  You see, if you paid for services, you could just buy them in the free market, you are not looking for that, you are looking for subsidized services, so that you, personally, do not have to pay for them. It is very likely that your tax burden is much smaller than that of people who run their own businesses, thus you live on a subsidy by the government, that's the money stolen from people who make more money than you do.
  As to Scandinavia - this is the exact opposite of what USA is, they don't have trade deficit in Scandinavia, they have no debt. That's the opposite of what US government does (and many other European governments) and by the way, Scandinavia went through its own huge recession 20 years ago, to fix it they started moving in the direction of freer market, the opposite direction from the one you are moving towards.
  And I don't want to live in Scandinavia, by the way, they export natural resources while they can get them out of the ground, that welfare will end, they will have the same problem that the rest of Europe has then.
  Also Somalia isn't a 'libertarian utopia', there is no protection of private property in Somalia, it's a war torn country, first fighting against the British occupation, then suffering under the Communist rule and then having a civil war to get individual freedoms back from the Communist totalitarian regime.
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
59. Re:If the odds are against you by Door-opening+Fascist · 2012-09-01 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  99% disagrees.
  FTFY - You don't see the 1% complaining that the poor don't pay their fair share, despite the fact that they pay 38% of federal income taxes, when they only earn 22% of total US income. Interesting that the bottom 50% of the population only pays 2.7% of federal income taxes. THOSE are the people asking for free money.
  That's federal *income* taxes, not total federal taxes paid. If anyone in the bottom 50% has a job, they're paying 7.65% of their income (if they have an employer), or 15.3% (if they're self-employed). Payroll taxes are a burden the rich don't have - earned income above $100k is exempt, as is any non-earned income (dividends, interest, capital gains, rent payments, etc.).
60. Re:If the odds are against you by RockDoctor · 2012-09-01 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not, you *don't* have a right to free money in this world.
  1% disagrees.
  No, that 1% don't want "free money" ; they want to take more free money from someone else.
  (Emphasised points are all important.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
61. Re:If the odds are against you by sahonen · 2012-09-01 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  A free market requires the possibility of competition to create efficiency and any of the other benefits of a free market. The nature of infrastructure is that building two copies of it, which you would need in order for the kind of true competition that brings about the benefits of the free market, is an inefficiency that dwarfs any efficiencies you could possibly hope to achieve through competition. There is no way to build two sets of roads everywhere so that different road-building companies can compete on service (and besides, the necessity of all those roads being built on property owned by those companies would mean they would have to have enormous amounts of capital just tied up in owning the land, it would be vastly more expensive for everybody). And if you've looked at your bill from Comcast lately and compared it to the prices of equivalent service in other countries, you would know that privately-owned utilities with no competition and no regulation will overcharge for their services relative to the cost of providing them. The only reason that private electricity generation is available at a reasonable price is because the government regulates it to keep the price close to the cost of generation. Because, again, running two sets of power lines to every building would be a gigantic inefficiency.
  
  To summarize: There is no way to have privately owned and operated infrastructure in a way that is both maximally efficient in terms of total resources required to implement it, and provided to the consumer at a competitive price. It just can't happen, and this is why infrastructure is best implemented by a non-profit entity such as government.
  
  You see, if you paid for services, you could just buy them in the free market, you are not looking for that, you are looking for subsidized services, so that you, personally, do not have to pay for them
  
  I do pay for them... Through taxes, you see. I pay for the infrastructure that allows me to do business exactly proportionally with the amount of financial benefit I am able to receive from access to that infrastructure. You call this "theft," I call it "thank god I live in a country where I don't have to pay a toll every time I go out for a drive."
  
  Besides, assuming that an employee and employer are mutually benefitted by their employment arrangement (a big stretch, employers typically have far, far more negotiating power, but for the sake of this debate I will say that their relationship is mutual since that's something you would agree with), the employer benefits *just as much* from the employee's ability to drive to work as the employee does themselves. If a business has, say, 30 employees, it would be fair to ask that business to pay 30 times as much toward those roads than any individual employee is paying, either by paying for the roads directly or by increasing employee salaries.
  
  So you see, even under your private infrastructure arrangement, the cost would mostly be borne by business owners, because they are the ones who benefit most financially from having access to that infrastructure for themselves and their employees. Except with private infrastructure, it would cost the society more due to overhead involved in individually billing a lot of people for individual use. It's a lot more efficient for the society to build one set of infrastructure, levy taxes that pay for all of it, and let the actual providers of that infrastructure focus on providing it rather than worrying about how to monetize it.
  
  Scandinavia went through its own huge recession 20 years ago, to fix it they started moving in the direction of freer market, the opposite direction from the one you are moving towards.
  
  A freer market, yes, but still a massive welfare state. These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact a welfare state and the large tax burden it brings (Denmark's tax burden is around 50% of GDP) can actually create a *freer* market, because individuals have less short term financial pressure. You can turn dow
  
  --
  Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
62. Re:If the odds are against you by HArchH · 2012-09-01 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  He probably also believes in creation and that global warming isn't caused by man.
63. Re:If the odds are against you by HArchH · 2012-09-01 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps they loved their families?
64. Re:If the odds are against you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  I don't want my children crying when I die. I want them taken care of.
65. Re:If the odds are against you by robsku · 2012-09-05 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  Works fine for Finland and other Nordic welfare states, thank you.
  We have a wish-to-be-loud minority of nutjobs like you though, but nobody is really taking them seriously.
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
66. Re:If the odds are against you by TheMathemagician · 2012-09-06 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  No. No it isn't. Not at all.
Clever solution, but... by Seb+C. · 2012-08-30 20:32 · Score: 1

Hardly usable for me, when i'm heading toward the 10 meters high diving board...
Astronomically high? by zakkie · 2012-08-30 20:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I see what you did there :)
1. Re:Astronomically high? by Hadlock · 2012-08-30 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  Was this even written by a user, or are they just posting their own stories now?
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
2. Re:Astronomically high? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 22:03 · Score: 0
  
  Does not matter, had story.
Its kind of really sad by tanveer1979 · 2012-08-30 20:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

A group of people embark on a journey which is indeed a giant leap for our entire species. And their kind can't even provide their familes with basic security.

--
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
1. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I perfectly agree. More practically, why couldn't NASA guarantee an annuity to their families shouldn't they return home?
  I don't think it would have been so detrimental for NASA's balance sheet...
2. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If that group of people didn't want to take the risk, they could have stepped back. There would have been no shortage of applicants to replace them. If an astronaut with a family is not insurable, then perhaps people with families that depend on them shouldn't ride into space on tons of rocket fuel.
3. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:59 · Score: 0
  
  Until 'your kind' make it to the moon, STFU.
4. Re:Its kind of really sad by kasperd · 2012-08-30 21:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  why couldn't NASA guarantee an annuity to their families shouldn't they return home? I don't think it would have been so detrimental for NASA's balance sheet...
  I agree, that's what NASA should have done. But even if they didn't guarantee it beforehand, they might still be able to provide the funds after the fact. Is there any documentation on what happened in those (three?) cases where NASA missions did result in fatalities?
  
  --
  
  Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
5. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 21:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Damn right! I hate people who stick their necks out and take risks. They should have spent their careers fixing printers and ducking work in a cubicle somewhere like responsible and productive members of society and not be so irresponsible.
  This is something the science-y liberals will never understand. We have it good enough, dammit. We don't need someone to rock the boat and cause people to hope and dream of better things for themselves and the species.
6. Re:Its kind of really sad by Lumpy · 2012-08-30 22:27 · Score: 2
  
  That is how things work in the USA.. Men are asked to do great things, but FUCK your family if you die. It continues today with heros that are sent to war, they die and their families get a flag.
  As a nation we treat our warriors and heroes as crappy as possible.
  Want recent proof? Look at what the complete scumbags in congress did for the 9/11 responders fund to just pay for medical bills.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7. Re:Its kind of really sad by Lumpy · 2012-08-30 22:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How very republican of you.
  God damned astronauts... trying to suck from the public teat!
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
8. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Of all people, the astronauts are probable most aware of the risk and still willing to go, enthusiastically. The government pays for their trip into fucking space. The prevailing emotion here should be envy, not pity.
9. Re:Its kind of really sad by ciderbrew · 2012-08-30 22:52 · Score: 2
  
  government pays?
10. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 23:20 · Score: 0
  
  How very republican of you.
  God damned astronauts... trying to suck from the public teat!
  I love election years on US dominated message boards.
11. Re:Its kind of really sad by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-08-30 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  Well.. thanks to YOU for showing your amorality in this post, AC.
12. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, government pays. The government controls an amount of money from taxes and spends it on various things, including the space program.
13. Re:Its kind of really sad by JoeMerchant · 2012-08-31 00:05 · Score: 2
  
  Capitalism being what it is, even if NASA or the Federal Government wrote a special protection plan for the families of the astronauts in the program, one that covered all their needs and then some, the opportunity for insurance by autograph existed, so why not cover that position too?
  I wonder if the market would have supported a flood of autographs or if the volume availability would have devalued them the way modern baseball cards have.
  By the way, I met the son of a "hot laundry" worker at a cold war nuclear materials facility, his words: "they took real good care of momma after daddy passed" at age 43, from cancer. If the US government did this for anonymous families out in the sticks, I'm pretty sure they'd take appropriate care of astronaut families - though, due to their high profile, the benefits for astronaut families might be more conservative.
14. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, it was good until the asshole party became official.
15. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  More practically, why couldn't NASA guarantee an annuity to their families shouldn't they return home?
  What had NASA to do with it other than project managmement? They were USAF personnel riding on equipment produced by Lockheed, Grumman and Rocketdyne.
16. Re:Its kind of really sad by JoeMerchant · 2012-08-31 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  As a nation we treat our warriors and heroes as crappy as possible.
  Over the decades, I've seen some very uneven treatment in this area: military, police, fire, and similar benefits range from princely to insulting, and not based so much on merit, rank, or quality of service, but mostly on the economic climate at the time of service. Consistently, if you want a king's ransom, you'll have to make that on your own in the private sector, but if you're happy with a 3000sf house on 10 acres in Hawaii and money to travel at will, it's amazing how many public sector/military retirees can pull that off.
17. Re:Its kind of really sad by afidel · 2012-08-31 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually their survivors would have received both social security survivor benefits (the same ones that paid for Paul Ryan's college education) and military survivor benefits. I'm not sure what percentage of their normal officers salary that would have worked out to be but they would have received some basic security.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
18. Re:Its kind of really sad by ManicMechanic · 2012-08-31 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  NASA can't just decide to get into the life insurance game without congressional approval. Doesn't matter how much budget they have.
19. Re:Its kind of really sad by OverkillTASF · 2012-08-31 01:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "heros that are sent to war, they die and their families get a flag"
  
  Wrong.
  
  An LA times article on war death benefits:
  http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/05/news/war-benefits5
  
  And the department of veterans' affairs if you want to go reading more: http://www.vba.va.gov/survivors/agencies.htm
  
  These things aren't generally just a flat lump sum payment. And a lot of it I'm sure military members can opt out of, probably for some negligible increase in base pay. Military families aren't left to twist in the wind when their service member dies. If you're father dies in military service, that shouldn't be treated like a winning Mega Millions lottery ticket. As in any job, if you're in the military it is up to you to ensure the financial security of your family. Many of the benefits are opt-in benefits like very cheap life insurance, matched savings plans, etc. If you are the type who doesn't save a dime, lives at the very edge of your means, and doesn't contribute to any kind of retirement/life insurance fund... you've screwed your families future over, not the U.S. Government. Even in the worst case scenario, families are at least compensated sufficiently (financially) for a few years. No amount of money is going to replace a lost loved one on an emotional scale, but seems to me that the U.S. military does a good job of making it plenty financially survivable.
20. Re:Its kind of really sad by ManicMechanic · 2012-08-31 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  well, as long as you stay off Oahu and Maui land isn't crazy expensive in Hawaii. As to the travel part, well, military retirees can travel on a space available basis on military transport aircraft for some very reasonable fees.
21. Re:Its kind of really sad by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-08-31 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  ... Consistently, if you want a king's ransom, you'll have to make that on your own in the private sector, but if you're happy with a 3000sf house on 10 acres in Hawaii and money to travel at will, it's amazing how many public sector/military retirees can pull that off.
  Not really that amazing. The first way to make enough money to retire to the Hawiian estate, is to inherit it. Many politicians/bureaucrats take this route. Pick your parents wisely. (:-)
  
  The next way to become rich is networking. With a proper network, you can marry well, and find good jobs after you leave the public sector.
  
  The most important thing to getting rich, don't spend all your money, and invest wisely. You network can let you in on the best investments.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
22. Re:Its kind of really sad by timeOday · 2012-08-31 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Who says they wouldn't have? They were eligible for normal military / government death benefits and would have been fools not to enroll in these programs. The story just sounds better if you start with the false assumption that NASA was prepared to leave them out in the cold so they had to be clever fend for themselves.
  Another thing that would deflate the story is if the astronauts were going to cash in on the autographs regardless of whether they lived or died, which is exactly what did happen.
  Nor do I blame them. But the angle on this story is all hype.
23. Re:Its kind of really sad by Lumpy · 2012-08-31 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  You have republicans in your country, They just hide under a different name.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
24. Re:Its kind of really sad by Lumpy · 2012-08-31 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  "These things aren't generally just a flat lump sum payment. And a lot of it I'm sure military members can opt out of, probably for some negligible increase in base pay. Military families aren't left to twist in the wind when their service member dies. "
  I love your fiction, you should write more books.
  Le'ts switch to reality, show me ONE family that dad died in iraq and is doing great. because I can show you HUNDREDS that are struggling hard, and that is just in my area alone. Maybe if you actually talked to these people you would understand that what congress prints on paper is not what is reality.
  They ARE left to twist in the wind. The VA is useless to most vets and they give substandard care because they are massively underfunded. And families are destitute after their bread winner dies for this country.
  Yet a worthless senator that did nothing at all for his country, get's zero cost healthcare and $120,000 a year for life.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
25. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  The government doesn't pay anything. It's you, me and countless other taxpayers that pay, you jerk!
26. Re:Its kind of really sad by J4 · 2012-08-31 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  That attitude is always best coming from people in public service.
  Politicians, law enforcement, defense, transportation, education, sanitation, parks.
  They seem to think they're different because they don't hate america like the people who pay the majority of their salaries.
27. Re:Its kind of really sad by OverkillTASF · 2012-08-31 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  So you're alleging that despite the benefits agreed upon between the enlisted soldier and the U.S. government, the U.S. government widely and regularly breaks this contract and doesn't uphold its end of the bargain?
  
  I'm not talking about what we think is right or what people think military families are owed. Nor do I think the system is broken and the government is evil when a family, military or not, runs into financial difficulty because of a failure to plan or a series of bad decisions.
  
  Can you provide citations for not just government-ineptitude resulting in slow processing of a family's due payment, but willful disregard of the government's contractual obligations?
28. Re:Its kind of really sad by Qzukk · 2012-08-31 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  not just government-ineptitude resulting in slow processing of a family's due payment, but willful disregard of the government's contractual obligations?
  Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to government incompetence?
  Of course he can't show "willful disregard". The paperwork for disregarding the paperwork was misfiled and he's still waiting on the request for disregarding disregarded paperwork to be processed, but that's because it's his own fault for following the instructions printed on the paper that said to fill it out in duplicate and keep one copy, when clearly he was supposed to fill it out in triplicate and burn two copies.
  
  runs into financial difficulty because of a failure to plan or a series of bad decisions
  Yes, obviously its the family's fault, their bad decision was failing to plan for the VA to sit on claims for a year.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
29. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, yes, I got that from your first comment. It's meaningless anti-government drivel. Can a stay at home mom ever pay for anything or do you insist that actually her husband pays for the groceries? Besides, the argument doesn't change one bit if you replace "the government" with "the public", except then you don't see who makes the funding decision.
30. Re:Its kind of really sad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  They should have spent their careers fixing printers and ducking work in a cubicle somewhere like responsible and productive members
  My father died of a paper cut while fixing a printer jam, you insensitive clod !
31. Re:Its kind of really sad by GameboyRMH · 2012-08-31 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  No most countries really don't. Some have Democrats under a different name if they're unlucky.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
32. Re:Its kind of really sad by BeaverCleaver · 2012-08-31 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure the guys "sent to war" weren't drafted. They signed up for the military, and as such they had a reasonable expectation that they might be sent into combat and get shot at.
  I'm not debating whether the death benefits are fair, or whether some of the people who enlist have any other job prospects, just saying that these people _chose_ to be in the military, and there's a risk of them dying in combat, just like if I get a job cleaning septic tanks there's a higher risk of me getting covered in shit than if I get an office job.
  
  --
  sustainable living
33. Re:Its kind of really sad by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-08-31 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Men are asked to do great things, but FUCK your family if you die.
  These astronauts covered the scenario cleverly by their own means. Why would you try to force a social safety net upon a situation where it's not needed? That's beyond stubborn ideology.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
34. Re:Its kind of really sad by ciderbrew · 2012-09-02 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  I never post as a coward. But I agree with jerk comment if it helps.
Too Bad They Didn't Bring A Few With Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:41 · Score: 0

It would be so cool to have one postmarked "Tranquility Base July 20 1969"
Fulfilling The Kennedy Dream by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Ask not what your Life Insurance can do for you, Ask what you can do for your Life Insurance.
1. Re:Fulfilling The Kennedy Dream by 2phar · 2012-08-30 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Brilliant
Military officers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

A group of people embark on a journey which is indeed a giant leap for our entire species. And their kind can't even provide their familes with basic security.
All of them were military officers with over 20 years. Wouldn't their families have gotten at least their retirement or something?
And I'm sure the President would have at least ordered somethign special or worked the system so that the families would have gotten some portion of the military pay.
1. Re:Military officers by ewanm89 · 2012-08-30 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  From what I make out, yes being military astronauts they retain full military benefits. If they had resigned their commissions then civilian astronauts get similar provisions to federal agents. I'm sure a form of life insurance is part of the package either way.
2. Re:Military officers by geekmux · 2012-08-30 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  ...And I'm sure the President would have at least ordered somethign special or worked the system so that the families would have gotten some portion of the military pay.
  Really? I'm not so sure that I would have wasted what may have been my last few precious moments on earth signing hundreds of pieces of paper with my name, had something been in place already.
  I wouldn't bee too confident with this theory. They certainly felt like they needed to do more at the time.
3. Re:Military officers by f3rret · 2012-08-30 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I'm not so sure that I would have wasted what may have been my last few precious moments on earth signing hundreds of pieces of paper with my name, had something been in place already.
  I wouldn't bee too confident with this theory. They certainly felt like they needed to do more at the time.
  Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that the Apollo guys wouldn't.
  Maybe they just didn't think that whatever the military offered at the time would be enough, so they took out extra insurance. Doesn't regular soldiers do that sometimes too? I mean take out a private life insurance to supplement their military one.
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
4. Re:Military officers by UnknowingFool · 2012-08-30 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  According TFA, the astronauts signed the cards in their free time while in quarantine in preparation for the flight. It's like you or them could have gone to a ball game while in quarantine.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
5. Re:Military officers by Cwix · 2012-08-30 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't regular soldiers do that sometimes too? I mean take out a private life insurance to supplement their military one.
  Yes, it sometimes happens. If I am not mistaken it tends to be pricy, and even stuff marketed to soldiers may include a war clause anyways.
  The SGLI (Servicemembers Group Life Insurance) that is offered to soldiers is up to 400k and costs something like 30 bucks a month.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
6. Re:Military officers by ManicMechanic · 2012-08-31 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) went into effect in 1965 and was for $10,000. I can't find reference, but I believe retirement was at 20 years and based on 50% of BASE pay. Neil had just hit 20 years of service so he would have been eligible but, Mike and Buzz were not at 20 years of service at that point.
  Only the Congress could order a pension like that by passing a law. A Presidential order to that effect would in fact be illegal.
7. Re:Military officers by Toad-san · 2012-08-31 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  You don't understand how military retirement pay (don't call it a pension) works.
  When a retired military person dies, so does his retirement pay. Right that second (although the service is usually kind enough to round the last retirement check out to the end of the month .. but no guarantees).
  They came up with "Survivors Benefits", where you basically buy an insurance policy using part of the retirement pay that will pay the surviving spouse 50% of the retired service member's retirement pay.
  At first it was a TERRIBLE scam, 50% of your retirement pay now for 50% back after you die. But they fixed that and these days
  it's not such a bad deal. Unless the spouse dies first of course, in which case Uncle Sam keeps it all.
  And no, the President nor anyone else could've done squat. Congress could've passed an appropriation to give the families something, I suppose.
  NASA employees have life insurance available, but I suspect it isn't extended to the astronauts. Here's an article from 2003 discussing it:
  http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/10/nation/na-insure10
  Meanwhile, you can still get those covers:
  http://moonpans.com/signed/apollo_11_signed_cover.htm
8. Re:Military officers by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-08-31 02:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  My dad was Army for 4 years, then worked for the US Government for 23 years. When his retirement was calculated they included the military time for ~27 years of service. After he died, my mother gets 50% of the benefit, plus government health insurance. I don't know if this was automatic, or they had to pay for it.
  
  AFAIK, when you retire makes a big difference. How old you are, and exactly what laws are in effect at the time of retirement can cause the numbers to be different for people who might have retired only a few months apart.
  
  Also, my dad told me what might be a military legend. Your retirement pay is based on "highest rank received", vs. your rank at the time of retirement. During WWII it was common for a corporal to be the highest ranking member of his group left after an attack, and would be field promoted to a lieutenant or higher by the nearest officer. These field promotions wouldn't last much longer than the current battle, but would be included in calculating retirement benefits.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
9. Re:Military officers by HCase · 2012-08-31 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  What would you have wasted the time doing instead?
  Keep in mind, this was done while they were in quarantine, so they weren't exactly going to be spending that time with their families or hitting up the bar.
How accurate is this story? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 20:59 · Score: 1

If they crash landed on the moon and all died it's really hard to imagine the 3 widows being evicted from their houses or eating out of soup kitchens, with the media attention that kind of event would generate congress/nasa/somebody would have to do something about it? Presumably at worst they'd be giving a highly paid interview about the trauma they'd endured or a special fundraiser would've been held for them...
It would NOT have been the same thing happening as if some trailer trash in Alabama who nobody had ever heard of became a widow, for starters that wouldn't be on the news. But great sensationalism!
1. Re:How accurate is this story? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:05 · Score: 2
  
  That depends. If Mitt were president back then, he would have expected those women to go out and get jobs and better themselves - not be god damned freeloaders sucking off the government teat for the rest of their lives. Their husbands were already freeloaders - taking money from the pockets of hard working tax-payers and wasting untold millions on a government boondoggle started by a democrat that just threw money around like it was water.
This doesn't make sense. by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-08-30 21:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it doesn't make sense. NASA should have just handled the death benefits. Setting up annuities would have been a minuscule part of their total budget. My grandpa was working in the industry in that era and once the space race was declared "on", the money flowed like wine.
1. Re:This doesn't make sense. by pthisis · 2012-08-30 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  More like wine, whiskey, beer, cider, scotch, tequila, rum, and everything else: NASA was 4% of the federal budget at its peak.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
2. Re:This doesn't make sense. by JoeMerchant · 2012-08-31 00:13 · Score: 2
  
  I think the death benefits were there, this was just a supplemental scheme...
3. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Bigby · 2012-08-31 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. The risk of death was so high, why would you buy insurance? For instance, if NASA were to insure them, they would be better off paying the money out of their own pockets (well, the Fed could just print the money). Why pay a premium that is nearly the full cost of the benefits?
  This is like getting health insurance after you got cancer. But I guess people are trying to get that to happen now. Do people understand what "insurance" means?
4. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  oh lord, you are an idiot. the reason someone with cancer needs health insurance is that it can't be paid for otherwise unless that person has huge amounts of liquid assets. yes, it creates a problem if people wait until they have serious illness to buy insurance, and there are two solutions: one, don't let them buy insurance (which means that our society lets people die when we could easily afford to treat them) or two, provide insurance for everyone in advance.
5. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Bigby · 2012-09-04 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm an idiot for understanding what insurance is. But you aren't an idiot for trying to equate health care with health insurance. I got it.
ITT by WinstonWolfIT · 2012-08-30 21:27 · Score: 0

In this thread, pseudo-celebrities unable to cash on their célébrité decide to launch a line of merchandise to sell out with. As mentioned previously, they were well provided for with their military pensions, but they ramped up their future aspirations to allow their estates to profit from their 15 minutes.
Would you buy this? by Prokur · 2012-08-30 21:38 · Score: 1

In case all three astronauts would die before landing to the moon, who would buy those signatures?
Even if each of them signed 100 papers, then the price of each paper should be over 1000 USD (e.g. to cover basic 100,000 USD life insurance)
1. Re:Would you buy this? by BillyGee · 2012-08-30 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind this was 1969, a new house cost $25k, average wage was $8k, Pontiac Transam was $4k, Cadiallac deVille $6k. Refrigerators, washing machines and such were $150-$200, fruit cost about 10 cents/lb, etc.
  Notwithstanding the great non-monetary loss to the family, $100k would be quite a lot more than "basic" back then.
Much classier than the Apollo 15 crew by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 21:44 · Score: 3, Informative

This contrasts sharply with the actions of some members of the Apollo 15 crew that actively attempted to profit from lunar memorabilia of their own creation.
1. Re:Much classier than the Apollo 15 crew by rikkards · 2012-08-30 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  I will give you the stamps as an example but the Fallen Astronaut copies was the artist trying to profit. The astronauts didn't want any of it. They tried to keep it all quiet.
My kind is... by tanveer1979 · 2012-08-30 22:02 · Score: 2

Homo Sapiens - The Human kind. What kind is yours, Mr. Anonymous Coward?

--
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
1. Re:My kind is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Homo numbnuts?
  Homo dumbfuck?
  (I'm not the same AC...)
$8 per day per diem while in space by SpzToid · 2012-08-30 23:34 · Score: 2

The government did pay them $8 per day per diem while they were in space, minus costs for accomodations since they were provided with beds and shelter.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apollo-11s-astronauts-received-8-141240938.html

--
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
1. Re:$8 per day per diem while in space by Existential+Wombat · 2012-08-31 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  I would have claimed the mileage allowance.
Heroes, fuckin' heroes by Brazilian+Geek · 2012-08-30 23:37 · Score: 1

Soon after I heard of Neil Armstrong's passing I was chatting with my wife about the lack of real heroes, men that were so far above mortal men with actions, deeds and behavior that all of us could only look up to them in awe.
From now on we'll hear more and more about the Apollo 11 crew and I truly doubt what we'll hear will make them lesser Gods. These little tidbits of how these men were scared but braved through it accomplish such feats are part of the mythology of our times.
Full moon tonight, don't forget to look up and remember Neil.

--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
1. Re:Heroes, fuckin' heroes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  Armstrong was always quick to point out that they were only successful because of the effort of thousands of scientists, engineers, machinists, administrators, cooks, truck drivers, and more.
2. Re:Heroes, fuckin' heroes by Spy+Handler · 2012-08-31 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  no we were successful because our germans were better than their germans
Freeloaders - all of them! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes, that's right - freeloaders. Sucking off the government teat swollen with the cash of a Democratic president who just didn't know how to say no to federal spending. Millions and millions of dollars...for what? A few guys walk on the moon, bring back some rocks, then scrap the program. Useless government waste I say. This was possibly the only thing of commercial value - and even if they had died the signatures should have been sold to cover the massive federal hemorrhage that was the space program. I mean, they signed those on government time, they belonged to the government. Where is the IP outrage?
If Mitt were president, we wouldn't have to worry about this kind of foolishness - we'd have bought the ruskies at a fire sale, stripped the cash they had, leveraged their oil fields, and sold the rest to the chinese. We'd ALL be living on caviar and drinking Dom Perignon while admiring our fleet of American vehicles from one of many vacation homes today.
Fuck the Democrats - Romney / Ryan 2012!!!
(gotta remember to check that AC box this time...no sense squandering karma!)
1. Re:Freeloaders - all of them! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Is there any way to mod +1 Partisan hack? I've already had to drop numerous friends off my Facebook lists for continually tying everything into why they hate Obama/Romney.
  So FUCK YOU AC. Seriously. Just go vote in November and stop this nonsense. Sheesh! I can't even begin to imagine how annoying this is to anyone not from the U.S.
I was going to tell you to fuck off. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:15 · Score: 0

But instead I will agree. And extend this to most dangerous jobs, like for example the military.
In fact, especially if we include long-term effects like PTSD, those "jobs*" are much more dangerous than astronaut.
No one should volunteer for the (US) military. Force the fucking 1%'s to reinstate the draft - that is when the tide will finally turn.
*Travel. See the World. Meet interesting people. Kill them. Then FOAD.- realistic military slogan.
Ironic captcha: [echo] chamber
Smart money is always on both sides by Overzeetop · 2012-08-31 00:28 · Score: 2

Careful individual financial management always bets on both sides. It limits your upside, but protects the downside. This was an admittedly creative way of ensuring financial stability for their families. A bit morbid, but I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing if it meant ensuring that - if I didn't make it back - my family was accounted for.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:Smart money is always on both sides by spire3661 · 2012-08-31 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing morbid about objectively contemplating your demise on a very dangerous mission.
  
  --
  Good-bye
Need a new mod category by Overzeetop · 2012-08-31 00:29 · Score: 1

Mod +1: Colbert

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
NPR by cHiphead · 2012-08-31 01:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Hey look, someone else was listening to NPR.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
One Neil Armstrong cover is now worth about $30k by caseih · 2012-08-31 01:08 · Score: 2

Interestingly enough, after 40 odd years, one of these signed covers is now worth nearly $30,000 to a collector.
smart ones... by hesaigo999ca · 2012-08-31 01:27 · Score: 1

They could have also made a few extra special items, like recordings karaoke, and other memorabilia stuffs to sell out there (ebay didnt exist back then, but you get the drift)...that would also made them even more money....
1. Re:smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  ebay didnt exist back then
  Really??
Whoosh! by pem · 2012-08-31 02:00 · Score: 1

Wait a minute...
You figured it out in the last paragraph.
Glad I kept reading.
Taking care of yourself by n0w0rries · 2012-08-31 02:05 · Score: 1

I applaud them for taking care of themselves, and not looking for or expecting a handout. I think we should have free hand outs on mars. Load up a rocket with all the people who want free handouts, then top it off with lawyers, and fire them off at Mars. When that call comes "Earth, this is mars 1. Do you copy?" We just have to go "Kssschhhhssss Mar 1 kssscchhhhh break-shhhhhhh up"
Re:One Neil Armstrong cover is now worth about $30 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:09 · Score: 0

Yes, but the direct benefit to the family is only the first time they sell it. If they still have covers to sell, great, the rest are probably worth that. If they're out... any future trading of the covers does not directly benefit the families, as they get no vigg from future transactions of the covers.
But if the covers were not sold, but merely licensed copies, with a EULA with terminology that they can only be sold thru an authorized seller (the families)
Could'of, should'of, would'of by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:31 · Score: 0

The US government should have provided a taxpayer-funded annuity for the families of these heroes, so if they didn't make it back, their families would have been made "whole", at least in the financial view.
Uhh, this doesn't add up. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:47 · Score: 0

Hollywood isn't that dangerous, why do they need special insurance for? In case a boom mic fell on them during the moon shoot?
Even faked landing can be life threatening ... by perpenso · 2012-08-31 03:06 · Score: 1

What is the big need for insurance? I guess they could have tripped in the studio, or had a light fall on them.
Apparently you never saw the movie Capricorn One, where a faked Mars landing occurs. This movie's plot demonstrates how even a faked landing can be severely life threatening to the astronauts.

And yes I know the Apollo missions were *real*. I also support legislation giving Buzz Aldrin lifetime immunity for punching deniers in the face.
"military mindset" in those days by peter303 · 2012-08-31 04:15 · Score: 1

Most of the astronauts were soldiers, or recent soldiers. NASA contractors followed the model of militiary contractors, on hog-heaven since winning WWII. Soldiers cant get significant life insurance because of the relatively high probability of their death.

Ironically, Armstrong was from the nascent "civilian" side of NASA. That grew into dominance by the Shuttle age.
No Conspiracy Theories about this? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 06:02 · Score: 0

Look at the entertainment value: While the astronauts were supposedly on a journey to and from the moon, postmarked ie. "date and time stamped" proof of their actual presence on the Earth during that time!
And the PTB's spun this off as a fluff piece about insurance - it was really meant to be a clear outing of the true story shortly after Niel Armstrong's death.
milatery pensions by mjwalshe · 2012-08-31 06:14 · Score: 1

Did they not have death in service benefits and widows pensions already as they where all milatery types - sounds like a way to cash in on the side :-)
They also received per diem by Lucas123 · 2012-08-31 06:41 · Score: 1

From what I've heard, the astronauts got $8 a day per diem while they were off planet, minus ... wait on it, room and board. No kidding.
1. Re:They also received per diem by darkonc · 2012-08-31 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  I hope that they didn't charge room and board based on the cost of the 'lodgings'. Given the cost of an Apollo capsule, they would have probably ended up paying about $100/day.
  
  --
  Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
2. Re:They also received per diem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Day, not "diem" you pretentious douchebag.
3. Re:They also received per diem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  He's NOT being pretentious. "Per Diem" is the term companies use for your daily expenditure limit. It is quite common. You being ignorant doesn't make him pretentious.
Re:One Neil Armstrong cover is now worth about $30 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 07:27 · Score: 0

And one of those covers is currently available on eBay, with a price of $20,000. And it's clearly listed as an Insurance cover.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEIL-ARMSTRONG-AUTOGRAPHED-APOLLO-11-INSURANCE-COVER-/400290628047?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5d332e41cf
Well written? by hackwrench · 2012-08-31 10:05 · Score: 1

Well, with an obvious mistake in the first paragraph, I'd hardly call it well written. It's "taking care of", not "taken care of". It appears to be a wordy way of complaining that the unable to work are preying on the barely working
1. Re:Well written? by udachny · 2012-08-31 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  I get the point across though, regardless of the grammar.
  I would like to add that the unemployed, the retired, the fake disabled, they are not spotless in this, they have voted for the politicians that promoted the policies that caused the destruction of the economy, caused the exodus of productivity and thus of the jobs elsewhere. You can't get things for free, by forcing somebody to give you stuff for free you are only giving them the reasons to search for a way out. Some find this way out in bribing the political system and becoming part of it, some cannot afford that type of a solution so they end up moving their productivity elsewhere to stay competitive, to stay afloat. With them the jobs leave.
  This is a bread and circuses economy and the unemployed, the fake disabled and the retired will not be able to live off of it for much longer. The unemployed will have to find jobs but that cannot happen as long as the government stays this big and powerful. But the power government at this point is on its last legs as is the dollar. The life of the government now is completely tied to the life of the dollar. Once the dollar collapses, so does the government and then finally maybe people will get their freedoms back, only then the economy will restructure and restart.
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
Yes they did by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 13:18 · Score: 0

Hi,
Check Travelers, it included the Astronauts.
https://www.travelers.com/about-us/careers/life-at-travelers/company-firsts.aspx