Excuse me. This one.

Are you familiar with Reaction Engines "Skylon" concept? If that vehicle performs as advertised, it would fit your bill...

I agree 100%. A very similar concept to the one you're writing about was actually under study at NASA, called an in-orbit propellant depot, when political pressures instead forced NASA to adopt the Space Launch System rocket.

For your point 1, are you counting all the time Orion spent in development as part of the Constellation program? That program ran significantly over budget.

You realize that's a picture of a *private-sector* rocket exploding, right?

What about... http://xkcd.com/413/

He is exactly right!

Let me put it another way: fundamental research and development, no matter what field, has value to all other fields.

You made the statement, "that money [spent on space science] would currently be better spent on the environmental sciences and clean/cheap energy production." All I'm arguing is that your statement doesn't necessarily follow without proof. Especially since working on space science missions will have benefits to…

I was trying to make the point that ambitious feats in space push the boundaries of technological capability. I provided a couple representative examples that were very general. I didn't intend them to be specific to the Rosetta mission.

"that money would currently be better spent on the environmental sciences and clean/cheap energy production"

For an example of a combination of hard science fiction with metaphysical ideas done right, may I suggest Poul Anderson's Starfarers?

There's a science fiction story idea: a world of fast dwindling biodiversity, in which poachers compete to nab the last few organisms of each species, while a few Lex Luthor types who maintain decadent artificial gardens try to outdo each other with the best recreations of the vanished past....

Sadly, the answer is, "the same reasons why we don't do those things with our technology today."

Of course, but the article said "a world-wide one-child policy," not "a first-world-wide" policy.

"Even a world-wide one-child policy like China's, implemented over the coming century ... would still likely result in 5-10 billion people by 2100."

This just drives home how empty space is. Science fiction gives us a much more crowded impression of the universe, or even the solar system - but it's mostly...space.

I bet your third paragraph does have something to do with it.

That's one of the reasons why strategic weapons are so fundamentally dangerous: a nation doesn't need to have any in order to fall victim to their effects. For a real historical example, look up the 1995 sounding rocket incident, in which Norwegian scientists accidentally almost provoked a full nuclear response from…

Looks cool - but, really, WALL-E shouldn't have his hand on EVE's hip all protectively like that. It should go the other way around.