On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:12:22 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...nh_launch.html
Riding aboard the NASA spacecraft are ashes of the late astronomer
Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet in 1930 at the Lowell
Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.

I must confess, I don't understand the reasoning behind sending the
ashes of the discoverer of Pluto aboard a spacecraft.

Um...I guess you missed the text that reads "who discovered the planet".

No. I'm aware of that.

Why do you find that phrase significant justification for launching
incinerated human remains into space aboard a publicly funded
scientific mission?

I see absolutely no reason that science needs to be completely devoid of all
human influence. Sentimentalism is just as valid a reason for doing
something as anything else, IMHO.

Really? I much prefer to separate objective and subjective rationale.
Imagine the impact of permitting emotionalism guide your operation of
an automobile. It's inappropriate if the intent is to arrive safely
at your destination.

As a fellow pilot, you are not afforded the luxury of indulging
emotional and sentimental feelings while performing the requirements
of your flight missions. Imagine the outcome if you were to say, I
really love the sight of cumulonimbus clouds; let's get a closer look.
This newsgroup is *littered* with
sentimental tributes and comments about aviation, and yet you never saw a
need to comment on *those* (when your comments would have actually been ON
TOPIC, as opposed to this thread which is decidedly NOT on topic).

I'm not paying for the comments you mention, but we are all paying for
NASA's decision to include incinerated human remains aboard this
mission to Pluto. What will NASA do if the discoverer of the next
planet to which they decide to send a spacecraft has chosen not to be
cremated? Will they send rotten human flesh into space at our
expense? Where will this dubious practice lead?

This whole concept of flying ashes sets a bad precedent, IMO.

I suppose you're right about the subject being off-topic, as the
remains are clearly flying as a passenger, not piloting. :-)

And it's NOT "unenlightened", it's NOT "medieval", and it's NOT
"superstitious". It's just about making an acknowledgement to human needs
and desires.

If I have no such need nor desire, does that make me less human? Isn't
it just a little presumptuous on the part of the NASA decision maker?

If pilots routinely made such concessions to such emotional desires,
they'd be poorer pilots, IMO.

Frankly, I find it fairly "unenlightened" for a person to go around
pretending that rituals in memory of the dead have no useful purpose for
humanity.

If you had read my previous article in this thread Message-ID:
, you'd know I made no
such pretence. I guess you missed that.... :-)