Slashdot Mirror
Life Insurance Restrictions For Space Tourists
RockDoctor writes: Reuters reports that there are changes afoot for life insurance contracts, which will require additional premiums for "space tourists." While not likely to be a disabling issue for the industry — the statistics for astronauts dying in flight are not that bad — it is an issue that people considering such a jaunt will need to address. Obviously this has been brought to the fore by the unfortunate crash of the Virgin Galactic craft under test.
Relatedly, an article at IEEE Spectrum explains why SpaceShipTwo's rocket fuel wasn't the cause of the accident.
Just found out my policy only applies to earth. Fucking rip-off!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The submitter, passed by the "editor":
Relatedly, an article at IEEE Spectrum explains why SpaceShipTwo's rocket fuel wasn't the cause of the accident.
Not.
It says this:
The company’s larger suborbital vehicle, SpaceShipTwo, also employs a hybrid rocket, which at the time of this writing did not appear to have caused October’s tragic accident.
"wasn't" != "does not appear to be".
Q - What's the best decade of a Slashdot editor's life?
A - Third grade.
All I want to do is get on a giant pile of explosives, accelerate at several G's, go many times the speed of sound, up into a place utterly lacking in oxygen, sit in unfiltered ionizing solar radiation for a few hours, plummet rapidly to the ground, and go home.
What's so dangerous about any of that?
Anyone inclined to become a "space tourist" is, pretty much by definition, rich.
In other words, he or she almost certainly doesn't need life insurance to make sure the spouse and rugrats can afford the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed when the breadwinner gets splattered all over the desert.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Quick tell the OP this usually applies to skydiving too. (Check your policy - it might be explictly listed, or just covered under a general "if you die while engaging in a risk sport you're SOL" clause.)
Insurance companies need a giant base of numbers to determine probability. When they don't, you get month-after-ACA type prices. Humana had no idea what would happen when they picked up 10 million very unhealthy people under the ACA plan so all ACA plans were about 4x the price of my identical non-ACA compliant plan. So in other words, when insurance companies gamble on something without enough data, they guess. When they guess, the price skyrockets.
In other words, he or she almost certainly doesn't need life insurance to make sure the spouse and rugrats can afford the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed when the breadwinner gets splattered all over the desert.
"Need"? Strictly speaking you are correct. But people who are rich generally actually do have life insurance policies as a part of their estate plan. Violating the terms of these policies could cause them some fiscal heartburn. These policies have a price and payout terms that are based on certain expectations of the policy holder's lifespan. Things that could radically alter this expectation may void the terms of the policy or necessitate a material change in underwriting charges. Spaceflight is one of those things that falls into the category of radically adjusting risk.
If you apply for a life insurance policy of any real value, they will ask you to take a physical and you will be asked questions like whether you have a pilot's license or have flown in a non-commercial aircraft in the last 5 years. The insurance company will adjust their price accordingly if they are willing to underwrite the policy at all. Lie about it and the policy can be null and void to the detriment of you or your family.
If it had been the engine, it would have been forgettable. Rocket engines explode all the time, because they're funneling huge amounts of extremely volatile fuels and oxidizers into a high-pressure, high-temperature chamber. SS2 was also testing a new design - new engines are particularly failure-prone, because there's still stuff rocket scientists don't know. While it would have been worse than "not exploding at all", if the problem had been the engine, they could fix it and move on.
The news that it was the wing, and not the engine, that caused the failure is, in my mind, worse. It means they fucked up on a relatively simple, well-understood problem. Part of the blame can be assigned on the pilot disabling the safety early, but it still activated spontaneously and catastrophically. That makes me suspicious of what other simple things they've screwed up.
"if you die while engaging in a risk sport you're SOL"
note to self: check policy before going to Walmart on Black Friday.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Smoking, sky diving, hang gliding, scuba diving, racing pretty much any motor vehicle...all are generally called out on a life insurance policy. Adding another exemption for space tourism is not really news worthy.