I object to (2). I'm not at all sure that I would take that job. If I did, it would be because the NASA guys got me interested in it (the NASA job, not the bit about returning to Earth in the far future) before I had to make a final decision. If they only tell me what you said (or if the job sounds really boring and useless), then I wouldn't do it. Being cyrogenically frozen isn't exactly boring, but it is useless.

And in light of that, I also object to cryonics on the basis of cost. Instead of

Answering yes to (1) means you shouldn’t object to cryonics because of costs or logistics.

it would be better to say

Answering yes to (1) means you shouldn’t object to cryonics because of costs or logistics if you have no other objection.

If it were free and easy (and I knew that I was useless as an organ donor, which is an opportunity cost), then I might sign up on a whim, but high cost means that I won't. But this comes into play only after I decide that I don't want cryonics, on grounds analogous to (2).

I answer yes to (1,3,6). I'm a little worried about (5); I want to ask what else I know about this imminent singularity. But if it's just what you say in the question, then … yes. I haven't become too pessimistic about the singularity yet!

As for (4), I don't want to answer; one reason that I'm reading this site is to find out! So far, however, I'm leaning towards no, but also I don't think that it matters very much; who cares how long it takes? Except that this affects (2); if I believed that a friendly singularity was likely this decade, then we should rewrite (2) to refer to a decade-long trip, and then I lean towards yes! (The point is that people that I know will still be alive and remember me.)

Thanks for an interesting set of questions.