You should read the book "The Case for Mars". It does a really good job about laying out all of the issues and technologies related to establishing a manned presence on Mars.

To summarize one of the points; there is no reason to go to the Moon first as a staging ground for Mars. Quoting from the Wikipedia article:

"In the same chapter, Zubrin decisively denounces and rejects suggestions that the Moon should be used as waypoint to Mars or as a training area. It is ultimately much easier to journey to Mars from low Earth orbit than from the moon and using the latter as a staging point is a pointless diversion of resources. While the Moon may superficially appear a good place to perfect Mars exploration and habitation techniques, the two bodies are radically different. The moon has no atmosphere, no analogous geology and a much greater temperature range and rotational period. Antarctica or desert areas of Earth provide much better training grounds at lesser cost."

What the hell are you talking about? What do you think fuels our continuing huge advancements in science, and well, everything from manufacturing technologies to medicine? Building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas, that's what.

When you hear stories talking about how we lost the technology to rebuild the Saturn V rockets that were used last time, it's absurdly shortsighted to interpret that as meaning that humanity can't go to the Moon. We are sending unmanned missions there all the time; the only thing keeping manned mission from returning are other budget priorities.

Yes, we would probably have to relearn some of the manufacturing steps involved if we wanted to recreate the original rocket designs exactly, but why the hell would we want to do that? It's 50 year old technology that we no longer care about. We also can't build giant stone pyramids as well as we used to be able to, but does that stop us from building modern cities?

Take your hands out of your pants and go get an education.

There's been this breakthrough in technology for working in the dark, called floodlights.

On second thought, submersible designers probably don't like the terms breakthrough and flood used in conjunction with their projects.

Everyone is banging their head over trying to hit Mach 10 on the track.

TFS and everyone else is misunderstanding the proposal.

The current idea is for the sled on the track to accelerate a scramjet up to about 600mph, then the scramjet lifts off, flies up to altitude and at about mach 10, releases a rocket which boosts the payload into orbit.

Sled (reusable) on the ground = 1st Stage
Scramjet (reusable) in the atmosphere = 2nd Stage
Booster Rocket in space = 3rd Stage

All extensions of more or less current technology.

How does something going 7 km/sec catch something going zero?

Colliding, I can see. Gently catching and accelerating up to the same speed, I don't see.

Capsules are great if you don't mind landing in an ocean or a desert; someplace big and empty.

However, if you would like the efficiencies created by being able to land your spacecraft someplace specific and useful near a population center, like a spaceport or airport, than wings are just the ticket.

Actually they are saying that they will build it from plastic that they recycle from the ocean.

from their website, www.recycledisland.com:

They are saying that there are 4 million tons of plastic out there, and they want to build a 10,000 square km island.

Assume a basic building unit of a plastic floating barrel and a square plastic platform to sit on top of it. Assume that 40kg of plastic are used in the barrel/platform and it will provide all of the necessary flotation for a square meter chunk of island.

In the above scenario, 4 million tons of plastic gets you one hundred million barrel/platform units, and therefore a surface area of one hundred million square meters. That means an island that is TEN square km. Not really enough land to make self sufficient home complete with farmland for half a million people.

What are they going to build the other 9,990 square km of floating island out of?

I don't believe that Freedom of Speech applies to corporations.

There would need to be a clause specifically protecting reporting on military, political and government issues.

This would not keep any single person from saying anything at all, just allow 'news' organizations to stay out of the tabloid gossip business.

Read what you quote; they don't pay 17,000 each, and evidently don't want to pay 17,000 for even one.

They need to legislate a separation of true news media from all of the vapid attention seeking media that calls itself the 'news'. Other professions are governed similarly; you cannot call yourself a Medical Doctor without earning that title and the same should go for News media.

Report on a celebrity crashing their car as news and you loose your news license. Fake or manipulate a news story and loose your license and you are no longer allowed to call your show a 'news' show. It would not support an particular medium; papers, or tv or blogs, but would support the news generating industry.

I think it would allow true news shows to hold up their heads and to proudly do what they do best, without having to worry about competing with entertainment gossip shows.