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."

42 of 168 comments (clear)

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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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?
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
15. 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.
16. 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
Astronomically high? by zakkie · 2012-08-30 20:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I see what you did there :)
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 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?
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Re:Its kind of really sad by ciderbrew · 2012-08-30 22:52 · Score: 2
  
  government pays?
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
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.
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 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)
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 JoeMerchant · 2012-08-31 00:13 · Score: 2
  
  I think the death benefits were there, this was just a supplemental scheme...
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.
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
$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.
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.
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!)
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?
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.