Late Astronauts Fly In Space Without Medical Certificate

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

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

Pete


I've got to thank you for that phrase. You've got a nice touch.

Mike Weller

I'm re-reading a book "I Could Never Be So Lucky Again"

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?

Skywise wrote in
:

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

Following up on this...

From the Launch Press Kit at (top right corner):
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ne...ews/index.html

Mission cost: $700 million
Space craft weight: 478 kg

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat..._United_States

Population of US, December 2005: 298 million (estimate)

Cost per person per gram of weight: .00049 cents

In my brief search I found no informaiton on exactly how
much of Clyde's remains were on board, but I doubt is was
even as much as a gram.

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?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:27:24 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

Skywise wrote in
:

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


From the Launch Press Kit at (top right corner):
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ne...ews/index.html

Mission cost: $700 million
Space craft weight: 478 kg

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat..._United_States

Population of US, December 2005: 298 million (estimate)

Cost per person per gram of weight: .00049 cents

In my brief search I found no informaiton on exactly how
much of Clyde's remains were on board, but I doubt is was
even as much as a gram.


So your thesis is, that as long as the per capita amount of tax money
misappropriated by NASA is small, that sort of malfeasance is
acceptable?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
So your thesis is, that as long as the per capita amount of tax money
misappropriated by NASA is small, that sort of malfeasance is
acceptable?

I doubt that's his thesis. My guess is that, as with mine, the question is
how much YOU are paying. YOU are the one complaining. Many taxpayers are
satisfied with how their money is being spent.

I don't know why "Skywise" thinks the ashes are less than a gram (about a
teaspoon, I'd guess?), but I agree they are not heavy. My grandfather's
ashes didn't weigh even a kilogram, if I recall correctly. They definitely
weren't as heavy as two kilograms. Using Skywise's numbers, that puts the
cost at still under a penny (just as he guessed).

Even if I were bothered by the concept of someone's ashes riding along to
Pluto, a half-cent misappropriation of my tax dollars by the US government
is a drop in the bucket compared to the other things they spend money on and
which I object to. When the stuff that's tens and hundreds of my dollars is
dealt with, then I would consider worrying about the half-cent problems.

IMHO, it's pretty irrational and not at all scientist-like to fixate on such
a teensy tiny issue when the huge elephant-sized ones are still unresolved.

Pete

"Skywise" wrote

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.

I would suggest that there is no additional cost. The launch vehicle is
capable of launching x number of pounds. If the launch weight of the
vehicle is under that weight, you could fill up the rest of the vehicle with
tire weights and launch it, and it would not cost any more to launch.
--
Jim in NC