"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Why do you find that phrase significant justification for launching
incinerated human remains into space aboard a publicly funded
scientific mission?

There is a very clear connection between the space mission, and the person
traveling along with it. I don't understand why you aren't comprehending
that, but whatever.

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.

The two cannot co-exist in your life? Pity.

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.

No one is talking about "emotionalism" guiding the operation. Straw man,
red herring, your pick.

As a fellow pilot, you are not afforded the luxury of indulging
emotional and sentimental feelings while performing the requirements
of your flight missions.

I most certainly am. Practically every flight I make includes the
indulgence of emotional and sentimental feelings while performing the
requirements of my flight missions.

Again, perhaps yours do not. I pity you.

Imagine the outcome if you were to say, I
really love the sight of cumulonimbus clouds; let's get a closer look.

And?

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.

I doubt that the inclusion of one person's ashes on the Pluto mission
represent ANY significant additional expenditure on your part.

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?

IMHO, your above scenario is a clear example of why your outrage is
misplaced. The reason ashes are included is that they are an
inconsequential payload. It's absurd to think that NASA is going to start
carrying complete human bodies just for the sake of being sentimental.

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

You are welcome to your opinion, however misplaced it may be.

[...]
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?

The NASA decision maker is not making decisions for your satisfaction alone.
As far as your humanity goes, it does seem that's in question at this point.
However, each human individual is different. You are welcome to ignore
your emotional inclinations, or to discard them entirely, but when you start
trying to impose your attitudes and preferences on the rest of the human
race, you are set for trouble. The vast majority of humanity is quite
content in their irrational behaviors, and there are even those of us who
*recognize* certain irrationalities even as we acknowledge their value.

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

Negative on that. Aviation is filled with concessions to emotional desires,
and most of the time it has absolutely no effect on safety or competence.

Pete