You're the one making the rediculous claim that DU rounds are nuclear weapons. Provide sources for that, and don't expect other people to do your work for you. Because some of us may be more knowledgeable than you doensn't mean we want to spend our day looking things up for some lazy idiot on the internet. You could have, if you were even mildly ambitious, read the wikipedia article that you yourself linked. This might have, assuming you have a 5th grade reading level, prevented you from making idiotic comments. You're a disgrace to this forum, and I for one am not in the business of teaching idiots.

Citation needed - the dieing from radiation poisoning part. If you need help looking up the definitions of words, you might try Merriam Webster. There are also a lot of resources available on the Internet about what radiation poisoning is, and you might want to learn about that. You might also consider learning about the causes of radiation poisoning, and the amount of radiation needed for a person to show any clinical signs of radiation poisoning. You might also look up the amount of radiation needed for a person to die from radiation poisoning, and go ahead and do a calculating about how much DU would be needed inside of the body to cause it. I will give you a hint and tell you that chemical toxicity will be a much bigger factor than the radiation factor.

You might have a point if you had mentioned the possible toxicological conerns about DU (caused by its chemical activity, not nuclear), and you might have a point if you cited the linear no-threshold model for radiation increasing the chance for cancer or birth defects - although the latter is certainly much more controversial. However, both of these concerns regarding DU have absolutely no relationship to nuclear weapons, so there's still that.

A round of depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.

Well, after about 400 years (~4 half-lives) that plutonium power source is going to be a completely cold and useless lump of U-234, regardless of thermocouples. That, coupled with the meager source of power the RTG represents, makes RTGs pretty much completely useless for interstellar travel. Portable fission / fusion units are pretty much the only hope, and even then, carrying enough nuclear fuel for an interstellar trip will be no easy task.

I'm sorry, but most of the difference between Voyagers and modern space probes is electronics - a technology that was just beginning to be developed in the 60s and 70s, and is only just now reaching maturity. They use pretty much the same propulsion sources and power sources. There might be a 20% difference, or even a factor of two or three, but that won't make a dent in the problems that need addressed. The energy sources in both are pretty much exactly the same, and the plutonium energy source used in both is very short-lived (40 years or so) on the order of interstellar travel. If you like, compare New Horizons with Voyager. Voyager still has the upper hand in velocity leaving the solar system - although most of that was aquired through interation with large planets.

The technology of chemical propulsion and RTG power sources has pretty much played out, so don't expect much improvement in these areas. The only reasonable power source for an interstellar trip is fission or fusion, and space portable units that can do this is the only thing on the map that has any hope of revolutionizing space travel to beyond the solar system. The multiple order of magnitude changes we see in the development of electronics is the exception with regards to technology. We don't see jet engines a million times more powerful than the first generation jet engines, nor do we see internal combustion engines a million times more powerful than the first generation. Using the technological development rate in electronics to justify that newer propulsion or more efficient energy sources will solve all of our interstellar travel problems at some future date is rather proposterous.

I'm wondering if you have ever used a cheat sheet, or had somebody show you basic tricks when using Windows, of if all basic functionality of using Windows was immediately apparent to you upon initial inspection of the desktop. If you have ever used a cheatsheet (or somebody has shown you something useful, which is pretty much the same thing) to learn how to do something basic in Windows, then it is also a failure - per your definition. I'm not a fan of Gnome 3, but I suspect that you're being a little unfair.

Maybe the car will detect the pedestrian and either stop or go around. Did you think of that possibility???

And this being reusable is entirely dependent on SpaceX making their Falcon 9 reusable. Scaled composites is providing a plane, which of course is reusable. Most planes are. I express my doubts about the viability of this method in my other comments - at least for larger payloads. If I have a large payload, why not just use a pad-launched Falcon 9? Why go to the added trouble of using the giant plane - especially when its payload to orbit is limited to less than that of a regular Falcon 9. As the article mentions, the fuel saved from launching from altitude instead of from the ground is a very small part of launch costs. Even if it does get built, it's still SpaceX putting stuff into orbit, like they already are.

Is it reusable (the Falcon 9 Air)? If it is reusable, is it because of the efforts of SpaceX, or Scaled Composites? It if does become reusable, does the added complexity of designing, building, testing, and maintaining this giant plane cover the cost of fuel savings over a pad launch (which is a small part of launch costs) that uses almost the same launch-to-orbit platform (a Falcon 9 - which can put a lot more material into orbit)? I'd put my money on the pad-launched version being economically successful for launching heavy things.

Even if this is successful, it is still SpaceX doing the heavy lifting, and Scaled Composites providing an interesting aircraft (which I hope does get built - I really want to see it).

Heh - very true. The air-launched rockets might be cheaper for small satellites when these technologies have matured (this woudn't surprise me at all), but using such a system to put humans and anything much over a couple tons into orbit seems unlikely. Below someone pointed out Stratolaunch, which is a reduced Falcon 9 carried under an aircraft with a ~400 foot wingspan to get ~14,000 lbs into orbit. Of course it's not reusable unless the Falcon 9 is reusable, and I would be surprised if the added complexity of designing a plane of that size to launch something of that payload to be economical. Especially if the (almost) same launch-to-orbit vehicle can perform better when launched from a pad.

The only way this will be reusable is if the Falcon 9 from SpaceX that Stratolaunch intends to use is reusable, and that depends on if SpaceX can get their pad-launched Falcon 9 to be reusable. Again, it has nothing to do with comparing reusability between whatever Scaled Composites is doing and what SpaceX is doing. This is the point being made.

On another topic, this says the goal is to get 13,500 lb to low earth orbit. What happens if you want to launch twice this payload to low earth orbit? Building twice the plane (which is already going to be the biggest ever, by wingspan) won't be enough. These things don't scale like that. For getting heavy hardware and people into orbit, pad-based launches make a lot more sense, especially if SpaceX can drive down the cost as they seem prepared to do. For putting that small satellite into orbit, perhaps an air-launched rocket will be cheaper. This is already done, as NuSTAR was launched by a Pegasus recently.

The point is that SS2 has no chance of making orbit after a few modifications, while SS2 is the next iteration of SS1. SpaceX is putting things into orbit. Comparing anything that SpaceX is doing with anything scaled composites is doing as far as reusability is concerned is stupid, done only by those who don't understand the difference between orbit and just touching the edge of the atmosphere for a short time. The fact that Scaled Composites is reusing their plane with attached rocket engine really isn't relevant. Besides, even if they do put things into orbit, they will only be able to put very small things into orbit. The concept of dropping a rocket from a plane doesn't scale well. SpaceX is making things to go to space and stay there. Scaled Composites is making interesting airplanes, with one that can go to space briefly.

I totally agree with this. The typical fearmonger will lose a lot of momentum when surrounded by people who all got bored watching their phone-based radiation detectors spike by several orders of magnitude as they walk around day to day. The fearmonger survives on attention and ignorance of others, not on shoulder shrugs.

Bring on the phone-based radiation detectors. I'd like to have one, even though I would also get bored with it after a week. It would still be occasionally useful, just as the compass on my phone is occasionally useful. A great teaching tool for the kids too.

The more likely reason the F-22 hasn't seen combat use is that the United States hasn't been involved in a conflict that has required it. The B-2 is quite a bit more expensive and they have seen use, so this calls into question your reasoning. I'd trust the people in charge of planning missions on deciding the equipment used to execute the mission before I'd trust your hunches about their motivations.

The German WWII anology is silly. If the United States decides to attack all of Europe and Russia, I'd expect early successes as the Germans experienced, followed by a war of attrition that would eventually be hopeless (not counting nuclear, of course). This attrition would happen whether F-15s or F-22s are used. You think the Germans would have been more successful with inferior equipment? I don't. Their problem was that they attacked everybody, not their advanced equipment. They were fighting pretty much all of Europe, Russia, and the United States. That is a lost cause no matter what equipment is used.

Frustration with the cost overruns with the F-22 and F-35 are understandable. I agree it's a mess. I think everybody does. I don't know what to do about it, but the answer is certainly not stocking up on old designs. The F-15Es, F-16s, F-18Es, and Warthogs will still be in service for a long time after introduction of the newer planes. If a conflict arises where the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35 are needed, those planes will be there. Until then, I guess you can continue to post your comments about how the reason they haven't been used is that they are too expensive, even though that's not the reason at all.

I don't think that taking a page from Iran is an idea worth even the slightest bit of respect. You really think that the chance of the United States gaining air superiority during an Iranian conflict would be better using Iranian hardware? You think chances are hurt by having the F-22?

The difference between 1 and 100 is 2 orders of magnitude.