Comments on: Making the case (again) for launch indemnification

By: A M Swallow

A M Swallow — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:42:34 +0000

@pathfinder_01 the alternative is not no insurance but compulsory third party insurance. Insurance companies charge a fee for their services.

By: pathfinder_01

pathfinder_01 — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:05:01 +0000

“In a good year this is a subsidy equal to the value of the insurance premium. In a bad year it is equal to the insurance third party payout.”

In a good year the government pays nothing. It is just a promise to pay over that first $100 million.

In a bad year, no company could pay hundreds of millions for losses.

By: A M Swallow

A M Swallow — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 23:56:01 +0000

In a good year this is a subsidy equal to the value of the insurance premium. In a bad year it is equal to the insurance third party payout.

By: pathfinder_01

pathfinder_01 — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 23:32:50 +0000

“A few critics have grumbled that the system puts the government on the hook for potentially billions of dollars in losses should such a catastrophe take place (although Congress would have to appropriate the funds to pay any damages above the MPL level.)”

Congress would be paying out anyway if the thrid party was the public and they took a loss that exceded the ability of the company to pay.