If we combined a rather large vehicle meant to return with a shuttle-type profile (ceramic heat shield and glide control)...

I'm not convinced the shuttle has much to teach us beyond "don't do it this way". Powered landing has all sorts of advantages over wings, and I think that's where we should be concentrating our efforts.

Can anyone explain to me why we need the SLS when SpaceX is on track to provide the same functionality for a tiny fraction of the price?

While that's probably true it has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal concept of obesity as a disability.

It is seen as especially significant because of rising obesity levels in Europe and elsewhere, including the US.

Eh... no. This decision will have no effect on the US whatsoever. Or are you trying to say obesity in the US had some effect on the European decision? Either way, it's not relevant.

Australia has a pretty high cost of living, too. But more importantly, Australia has a more sensible immigration policy than the US and hasn't flooded the low end of the job market with unskilled labor.

Yes. We can look and see the relatively high cost of living that goes along with it, plus a very high youth unemployment.

How many years have I been hearing this? The South Bay was too expensive. Everyone was moving to Vegas, or Austin, or Massachusetts. They moved all right - to the only place outside Manhattan that was more expensive. Like real estate prices you have to believe it can't go on forever, but it can go on a lot longer than you expected.

That's what I was thinking. Putting earth bacteria on mars is like dropping naked people on the north pole and saying "go forth and multiply". I can't imagine them colonizing anything except in tandem with humans.

Less cynically, Air Force brass have been burned over and over again by companies who lowballs bids and can't deliver. It's human nature to try to steer contracts to companies that have made good on promises in the past.

My was in the Air Force and worked on big contracted projects. You would not believe how often the AF has to deal with companies taking progress payments and then declaring bankruptcy.

Of course the really big contracting decisions are all made on Capitol Hill *cough*F-35*cough*.

Oh, I'm willing to grandfather in people who are already retired, since finding a job at that age isn't a trivial undertaking. But I don't see why someone who is 60 gets to retire at 62 just because that's what he was planning.

I'm suggesting people who were planning to retire at 62 should work until 67 like I'll have to. What kind of planning do you have to do? So they didn't plan to work longer? Boo hoo. I don't want to work longer either.

That's what pisses me off about the way they raise the retirement age. Here in the US you always hear "yes, it's going up, but it's going up slowly - only five years (or whatever) over the next thirty". If I'm set to retire in thirty years it didn't go up slowly. It went up instantly. And since I'm going to have to work until age 67, the people who are fixing to retire at 62 this year can damn well work until 67.

The latest infrared goggles actually integrate infrared and normal vision. Probably be awhile before we can fit all that processing into contacts, though.

Roads. Of course they had some bureaucracy to work through.

In the actual real world (outside of your worker's paradise) having companies lay their own cable works better, because otherwise there's no incentive for the company that owns the cable to keep overhead expenses down. That's the way it was done in my town, and it works quite well.