Isn't that thought more tantalizing than being buried on Earth?

Who knows, perhaps we were created from some dead aliens shot into space.

The odds are low, but it's worth the care.

Anyone being sent into space is well aware that they have about a one-in-twenty chance of not coming back. They are selected and trained on the understanding that if they become unwell in space, they could jeopardise the lives of their fellow crewmen.

Repatriation of remains is an unaffordable luxury in space and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. No-one with the constitution to be an astronaut would allow their own death to hamper a mission.

As to whether Mars is worth dying for - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/390933.stm

Exactly the other way round. The rituals are solely for the benefit of those still living to better deal with their grief and loss.

I suppose strange requests could become an inconvenience. But Hunter Thompson's request that he be sent up as fireworks for his friends to observe and enjoy, for example, seems less an inconvenience and more a thoughtful gesture to those he left behind.

So it all depends on the request, I guess.

I assume that other religions offer explanatory contexts for their rituals as well. These may or not make sense when transferred to a modern secular society.

I think at its basic level there is something along these lines: change is uncertain, the group is here to witness the change and the group is not startled, I'm ok because the group is ok.

"ceremonial burial was practiced by archaic secular societies as well - including Neanderthals."

Is there evidence regarding religious belief among the Neanderthals? I'd love to read some material on that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K3YV20100621

One man, one way to Mars. There's no need to carry a body then.

I had the pleasure of meeting Noel Odell at the RGS (Royal Geographic Society) in London once when Doug Scott was presenting. It was like I imagine meeting Einstein. He "knew" that Mallory topped out, and because of that, so do I. But I also agree that a climb is not completed until you get down, so Ed and Tenzing hold their place, regardless.

Let each choose his own.

As long as we have enough energy, we can make fertilizers. Of course, petrochemicals are a nice raw material, but not necessary.

And we are not running out of energy, anytime soon. (Though we may run out of oil.)

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe - Carl Sagan

On the practical side: Using coal as a raw material, you should be able to make fertilizers with only somewhat more energy than from oil.

Rather than the government funding everything, the mere possibility of being able to find a 100 ton lump of gold (or whatever) would get multiple space exploration efforts kicked up the butt immediately ;-)

If we want to advance our Space Travel technology, we need to keep trying to do things beyond our reach, to force us to improve.

http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space.htm

http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm

http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/lifeboat.htm

Give up and hide in your cave, and you are dead already.

I sincerely disagree. The only valid question is whether the time is right - that's something you can argue about.

Wrap the body up, strap a 4-kilo rocket on it, say some nice words, and off she goes. No new technology or engineering required.

Unfair question, but it's how I feel: Does NASA always have to have some great new over-engineered plan for every little new thing they come across?

That would have been my choice anyway.