Late Astronauts Fly In Space Without Medical Certificate

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:47 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

I would characterize the service held when someone dies as an attempt
to bring closure to the trauma and sorrow felt by the deceased's
family and other survivors.

But launching someone's ashes into space on a government funded
mission seems inappropriate.

There are different ways to bring closure, and different ways to honor
the dead. That =you= don't think one way is appropriate doesn't make
it, as you said earlier, "unenlightened, medieval and superstitious".

So, do you consider the practice of launching the ashes of the
incinerated bodies of humans into space aboard spacecraft funded by
our tax dollars reasonable, enlightened and rational?

And honoring Gene Shoemaker (whom I happened to know personally and
professionally)

(I hope you're not seizing on the death or misfortune of someone else
as an opportunity for your own tasteless self-aggrandizement.)

in this way is most certainly =not= "unenlightened,

Main Entry:enlighten
Pronunciation:in-*l*-t*n, en-
Function:transitive verb
Inflected Form:enlightened ; enlightening \-*l*t-ni*, -t*n-i*\
Date:1587

1 archaic : ILLUMINATE
2 a : to furnish knowledge to : INSTRUCT b : to give spiritual
insight to

medieval

Main Entry:1medieval
Variantr mediaeval \m*-*d*-v*l, mi-, me-, -d*-**-v*l\
Function:adjective
Etymology:New Latin medium aevum Middle Ages
Date:1827

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Middle Ages
2 : extremely outmoded or antiquated
–medievally adverb

and superstitious".

Main Entry:superstition
Pronunciation:*s*-p*r-*sti-sh*n
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English supersticion, from Middle French, from
Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes
standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to
stand more at STAND
Date:13th century

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the
unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of
causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the
supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Given the definations of the words above, please support your
contention, that it is not appropriate to characterize the practice of
launching the ashes of the incennerated bodies of humans into space
aboard spacecraft funded by our tax dollars as unenlightened, medieval
and superstitious.

He was a pioneer in the field of asteroid
studies, especially earth crossing asteroids, as well as a fine
planetary scientist and geologist. I would say that sending him to
Jupiter is appropriate, enlightened, and the highest honor".

I don't mean to denegrate the accomplishments of Mr. Shoemaker, but I
fail to see how the launching the ashes of the incennerated bodies of
humans into space aboard spacecraft funded by our tax dollars is
appropriate, enlightened, or any sort of honor. Rather, I see the
practice as intentionally contaminating an antiseptically setral
machine and possibly jepardizing its functioning and possibly
contaminating an environment about which we know presious little as
unacceptably ill conceived.

Would that any of us would merit even close to the same.

Any of us can pay a fee to cleaver eutrapaners who will gladly take
our money and claim they have sent our ashes into space:

Launch Cremated Ashes into Space
www.spaceservicesinc.com Space Services, Inc. Provides a unique
memorial service by launching a small portion of cremated remains
into space for $995.

And while you're at it, you can take advantage of this limited time
offer:

http://www.nameastarspacelaunch.com/
Name A Star for your loved one!
For as little as $19.95



--

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

So, do you consider the practice of launching the ashes of the
incinerated bodies of humans into space aboard spacecraft funded by
our tax dollars reasonable, enlightened and rational?

Give it up Larry. People are so used to things like maudlin death rituals
(while the death companies make massive profits) that they are beyond
rational thought.

What's worse it the arrogance of people to demand real estate to be
permanently allocated to their "memory". I say if they can continue to work
and pay taxes for it, fine.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Why should science and ceremony be mutually exclusive? Especially when
the
ceremony is directed related to the science?

It seems to unenlightened, medieval and superstitious.

Seems to you. However, rest assured there are plenty of scientists who
still hold to certain "unenlightened, medieval, and superstitious" ways. In
any case, without knowing the underlying motivation for launching a person's
ashes into space, you have no idea whether the behavior is actually
"unenlightened, medieval, and superstitious".

It could just be that the person likes the idea of having their loved one in
space, or it may be that the person is simply respecting the wishes of their
loved one (who themselves may or may not be acting in an "unenlightened,
medieval, and superstitious" way).

Sometimes ceremony is simply for the sake of ceremony. A ritual that helps
comfort an individual, through the act of the ritual itself, rather than
some greater significance.

Seems to me you're being awfully judgmental about the whole thing. Are you
against burials generally as well? How about the practice of scattering
ashes from airplanes? Or boats? Or from cliffs? Do you think that
scientists should be banned from going to church? From having any religious
beliefs whatsoever? Keep in mind that even an athiest holds a religious
conviction: that there is no supreme being, God, whatever you want to call
it.

Just where do YOU draw the line?

And finally, just what about this story invokes "science" anyway?

Although I couldn't find the reference, I heard on the News Hour
(PBS), that there will be ashes also flying on NASA's Pluto probe.

Well, when you have a reference, perhaps that would be a good time to take
up the conversation again. Until then, it seems you're putting the cart
before the horse.

Who thinks of this stuff? Who approves it?

I don't know. Don't care, either.

Pete

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:31:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
....
Although I couldn't find the reference, I heard on the News Hour
(PBS), that there will be ashes also flying on NASA's Pluto probe.

Well, when you have a reference, perhaps that would be a good time to take
up the conversation again.

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. What possible
rational function does that serve?

"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".

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. 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).

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.

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.

Pete

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.... :-)

"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

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

Snipola
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?
Snipola

I have to ask, how much do you think it is costing *YOU* to add
those ashes on the mission?

Here's a suggestion. Why not email NASA and ask them for details
about the how much extra it costs placing those ashes on the craft
for each each tax payer.

How much does the craft weigh?

How much do the ashes weigh?

What is the total cost of the mission?

From that you should be able to figure out the cost of the ashes.

Then spread that out over all the taxpayers.

I'd be astonished if it cost more than a penny per person.

I bet somewhere in NASA there is already a document covering this.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

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.

Maybe we can all hold hands around the spacecraft and have a sun dance to
keep the rain gods away to assure good weather for the launch.
OOGIDABOOGIDA!

Really, firing ashes into the sky isn't going to do a thing for humanity.
Using the space for a time capsule might though.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:26:41 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:28:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules containing
the burnt human remains of celebrities into space? Isn't this
ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of science?

Why should science and ceremony be mutually exclusive? Especially when the
ceremony is directed related to the science?

It seems to unenlightened, medieval and superstitious.


Not really. I've been trying to get rid of my dearly departed
mother's ashes. None of the other kids want any part of her.

Mike Weller

Oh, except for her money.