A depleted uranium doesn't have very high radiological toxicity, and is quite safe to handle, as long as it's not traveling at 1000m/s at your torso.. It's chemical toxicity is quite high, and is especially problematic for people unlucky enough to breath or consume it after it is vaporized during a high energy event. Still, other materials projectiles are made from offer the same, if not worse, results. A nuclear weapon is something that uses fission or fusion for its energy production, and I suppose that you could add in agents that cause radiation poisoning to that list, but DU would not fit the bill under any of those definitions. The purpose of using DU is not to cause radiation sickness, and radiation sickness is not a result of using DU - there has been no known case, and calculating dosage will show that it is pretty much impossible for it to happen. If anything, DU would be labeled a chemical weapon long before it could be labeled a radiological weapon, but it's not really that either. If you want to label DU a chemical weapon, you would have to label pretty much any other metallic projectile as a chemical weapon, and you'd end up with a completely useless definition for 'chemical weapon'.
And I have to go. It's been fantastic, you prissy dick licker. I'm going to get my weekly cosmic radiation dose, which will exceed any dose I have every recieved from DU, even though I regularly handle it. Good day, shitface. I say good day!!!!
To be fair, you are an idiot, and your posts are proof enough. You're such a sucker. Don't break your keyboard getting all angry. I wouldn't want you to have to use some of that disability money you get from the government to pay your mom off for getting you a new keyboard. You should buy her some flowers for letting you live in her basement.
AWwwwww Yeah. And you're back. I'm so glad, that you are hear. I thawt that you mite be chickening out. Dude, you are so unbelievabley pathetic. The quality of your posts is falling so dramatically that it is obvious to any one that I am getting to you. You really need to take a chill pill bro. Arguing with you is like arguing with a kindergartener. You have no idea how puthetic your posts seem. As they say, ignorace is bliss. You are getting so worked up, and your misspeling all of your words and making rediculously idiotic comments, it's a wonder you can lift a spoon to eat that baby food your so fond of. Maybe you should have put that extra effort in to graduate middle school, you pathetic excuse for a human. I am so getting to you. Your spending the better part of two days arguing with me, and you can't find anything to argue about because your and idiot. You are so stupid and pathetic.
Enjoy your high blood pressure and anuerysim, buttmunch.
They why keep posting? Perhaps you're not as light-hearted as you're trying to imply? Seriously, do you have anything of merit to add. I'm still waiting for that. I can tell you are getting overworked, as your posts make less and less sense as the day goes on. You should consider logging off and taking a cold shower. Meanwhile, I'm just waiting for my flight. I'll log off when the stewardesses tell me to, or I'm tired of taking my break from doing science all day.
Likewise, after all you led with teh 'try'? Why is that? You also are easily provoked by the idiot accusations. Why is that?
You must be getting bored, you're losing your edge man. I was having a good time. Aw well. It was good while it lasted. I hope those hemorroids recover quickly for you. BTW, I think Obama will go down as one of the best presidents in history, as soon as a generation of stupid people die off and humanity forgets that they spent years looking for a magical birth certificate that could prove what a real birth certificate couldn't. You're probably one of those people, right? Admittedly, he's not perfect though, and you're right about the persecution of whistleblower part.
Wow man, you seem to be getting really worked up. Don't go take it out on your mother. All she did was give birth to you, you aren't supposed to try to get yourself back in that smelly twat. Calm down man, this Internet stuff is way too polarizing for you, and you might get hurt. Internet causes cancer, you know.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about people with science careers
More baseless insinuations? You can't help yourself can you? More name calling? BTW, chevy small blocks cause cancer. The link has been firmly established.
I opened with something along the lines of "DU rounds are not nuclear weapons.", to which you followed with another baseless claim concerning radiation poisoning. Do you have anything of merit to add to this discussion, or are you just going to continue your namecalling, production of baseless claims, and chastising of others who are continuing to point out that you have offered nothing of merit to your claims.
you're an incompetent asshole bully with a chip on their shoulder. Sorry for the mixup, incompetent asshole bully person.
Kettle, meet pot. You're not as Jesus-like as you probably want to believe.
zero risk
I don't remember saying zero risk. I might have said insignificant risk, but that's a little different, and we are to the point where the terminology will confuse you, and you're back to making stuff up.
Lemme guess, you're also one of those people who is convinced that a conclusive link exists between second hand smoke and cancer, right?
Nope, and you're back to making baseless claims.
kiddo, run out of "rational" points to make?
You haven't made any rational points. So there's that.
Doesn't surprise me, you seem the type who would get winded trying to remember your own name.
Hyperbole from an internet idiot who has nothing to add to any conversation? Say it isn't so!
You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
Keep it coming imbreed, all of your posts are filled with high blood-pressure vitriolic inanities which you are chastising others for. You still have added nothing to the topic you started. You're a disgrace to this, and every, forum. You enjoy your high blood pressure, I know I've enjoyed increasing it for you:) Calling you an idiot seems to be the only way to get a rise out of you apparently.
Never took physics (should have, would have enjoyed it)
This is the point where you ask questions regarding physics, instead of declaring knowledge. It would be like me saying that a Chevy small block has three cylinders instead of the four cylinder big block, and passing that off as absolute knowledge in a car forum, and then being dumbfounded that people react strongly to the claim. Then, I defend myself by pointing out their behavior is not perfect, and the they maybe misspelled a word, all the while not addressing the original claim. This is exactly what you are doing!
I also like your insinuation that people with a career in the sciences never get laid, never experiment with drugs, and can't build a fast car, and don't live. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Man, I really, really hope you never have any involvement in the education of children, with an attitude like that.
You see, if you had said something along the lines of "Wow, I didn't know DU was not a significant radiological hazard. Can you help me to understand this, and maybe show me how you would calculate the expected dose from ingestion or inhalation of DU?", you might actually get a good response. These are the kinds of people (children or adults - it really makes little difference) who are worth teaching.
Instead, you are making claims, acting like you already know something, and then expecting everybody else to go through all sorts of contortions to teach you, when all available evidence points to that fact that you have no interest in learning anything. You're just looking to start a flame war.
Is anything here beginning to make any sense to you? In any case, if you actually come back with something that is related to the topic that you started with your trollish comment, I might respond. Otherwise, good luck with your stubborn trollish fucktardishness.
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning. You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim. You said depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon. You need to provide evidence of that, and you can start with the definition for 'nuclear weapon'. You are making the claim. It is not my or anybody elses responsibility to disprove all the claims people make, and certainly not yours. You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge. Interesting how you haven't responded to my earlier point when I was nice about it. You seem only interested in chastising people who get frustrated with your stupidity. You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.
From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards"
Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.[77]
There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine. There's still the nuclear weapon comment you made. Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way. Not that it is a meaningful or productive way (you still have providing nothing put idiotic claims, and chastisement of others responding to you poorly), but it's as least some sort of response. You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning. You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim. You said depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon. You need to provide evidence of that, and you can start with the definition for 'nuclear weapon'. You are making the claim. It is not my or anybody elses responsibility to disprove all the claims people make, and certainly not yours. You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge. Interesting how you haven't responded to my earlier point when I was nice about it. You seem only interested in chastising people who get frustrated with your stupidity. You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.
From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards"
Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.[77]
There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine. There's still the nuclear weapon comment you made. Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way. Not that it is a meaningful or productive way (you still have providing nothing put idiotic claims, and chastisement of others responding to you poorly), but it's as least some sort of response. You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Rockets in general don't scale well (which is why you quickly get one much too big to be carried by a plane).
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, heck, if you're needing something to do, I'm sure there's at least one or two TSA agents with nothin' going on who would be happy to oblige...
You fucking got that right.
A depleted uranium doesn't have very high radiological toxicity, and is quite safe to handle, as long as it's not traveling at 1000m/s at your torso.. It's chemical toxicity is quite high, and is especially problematic for people unlucky enough to breath or consume it after it is vaporized during a high energy event. Still, other materials projectiles are made from offer the same, if not worse, results. A nuclear weapon is something that uses fission or fusion for its energy production, and I suppose that you could add in agents that cause radiation poisoning to that list, but DU would not fit the bill under any of those definitions. The purpose of using DU is not to cause radiation sickness, and radiation sickness is not a result of using DU - there has been no known case, and calculating dosage will show that it is pretty much impossible for it to happen. If anything, DU would be labeled a chemical weapon long before it could be labeled a radiological weapon, but it's not really that either. If you want to label DU a chemical weapon, you would have to label pretty much any other metallic projectile as a chemical weapon, and you'd end up with a completely useless definition for 'chemical weapon'.
And I have to go. It's been fantastic, you prissy dick licker. I'm going to get my weekly cosmic radiation dose, which will exceed any dose I have every recieved from DU, even though I regularly handle it. Good day, shitface. I say good day!!!!
To be fair, you are an idiot, and your posts are proof enough. You're such a sucker. Don't break your keyboard getting all angry. I wouldn't want you to have to use some of that disability money you get from the government to pay your mom off for getting you a new keyboard. You should buy her some flowers for letting you live in her basement.
AWwwwww Yeah. And you're back. I'm so glad, that you are hear. I thawt that you mite be chickening out. Dude, you are so unbelievabley pathetic. The quality of your posts is falling so dramatically that it is obvious to any one that I am getting to you. You really need to take a chill pill bro. Arguing with you is like arguing with a kindergartener. You have no idea how puthetic your posts seem. As they say, ignorace is bliss. You are getting so worked up, and your misspeling all of your words and making rediculously idiotic comments, it's a wonder you can lift a spoon to eat that baby food your so fond of. Maybe you should have put that extra effort in to graduate middle school, you pathetic excuse for a human. I am so getting to you. Your spending the better part of two days arguing with me, and you can't find anything to argue about because your and idiot. You are so stupid and pathetic.
Enjoy your high blood pressure and anuerysim, buttmunch.
I could give a rat's ass.
They why keep posting? Perhaps you're not as light-hearted as you're trying to imply? Seriously, do you have anything of merit to add. I'm still waiting for that. I can tell you are getting overworked, as your posts make less and less sense as the day goes on. You should consider logging off and taking a cold shower. Meanwhile, I'm just waiting for my flight. I'll log off when the stewardesses tell me to, or I'm tired of taking my break from doing science all day.
Likewise, after all you led with teh 'try'? Why is that? You also are easily provoked by the idiot accusations. Why is that? You must be getting bored, you're losing your edge man. I was having a good time. Aw well. It was good while it lasted. I hope those hemorroids recover quickly for you. BTW, I think Obama will go down as one of the best presidents in history, as soon as a generation of stupid people die off and humanity forgets that they spent years looking for a magical birth certificate that could prove what a real birth certificate couldn't. You're probably one of those people, right? Admittedly, he's not perfect though, and you're right about the persecution of whistleblower part.
Wow man, you seem to be getting really worked up. Don't go take it out on your mother. All she did was give birth to you, you aren't supposed to try to get yourself back in that smelly twat. Calm down man, this Internet stuff is way too polarizing for you, and you might get hurt. Internet causes cancer, you know.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about people with science careers
More baseless insinuations? You can't help yourself can you? More name calling? BTW, chevy small blocks cause cancer. The link has been firmly established.
I opened with something along the lines of "DU rounds are not nuclear weapons.", to which you followed with another baseless claim concerning radiation poisoning. Do you have anything of merit to add to this discussion, or are you just going to continue your namecalling, production of baseless claims, and chastising of others who are continuing to point out that you have offered nothing of merit to your claims.
you're an incompetent asshole bully with a chip on their shoulder. Sorry for the mixup, incompetent asshole bully person.
Kettle, meet pot. You're not as Jesus-like as you probably want to believe.
zero risk
I don't remember saying zero risk. I might have said insignificant risk, but that's a little different, and we are to the point where the terminology will confuse you, and you're back to making stuff up.
Lemme guess, you're also one of those people who is convinced that a conclusive link exists between second hand smoke and cancer, right?
Nope, and you're back to making baseless claims.
kiddo, run out of "rational" points to make?
You haven't made any rational points. So there's that.
Doesn't surprise me, you seem the type who would get winded trying to remember your own name.
Hyperbole from an internet idiot who has nothing to add to any conversation? Say it isn't so!
You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
Keep it coming imbreed, all of your posts are filled with high blood-pressure vitriolic inanities which you are chastising others for. You still have added nothing to the topic you started. You're a disgrace to this, and every, forum. You enjoy your high blood pressure, I know I've enjoyed increasing it for you:) Calling you an idiot seems to be the only way to get a rise out of you apparently.
Never took physics (should have, would have enjoyed it)
This is the point where you ask questions regarding physics, instead of declaring knowledge. It would be like me saying that a Chevy small block has three cylinders instead of the four cylinder big block, and passing that off as absolute knowledge in a car forum, and then being dumbfounded that people react strongly to the claim. Then, I defend myself by pointing out their behavior is not perfect, and the they maybe misspelled a word, all the while not addressing the original claim. This is exactly what you are doing!
I also like your insinuation that people with a career in the sciences never get laid, never experiment with drugs, and can't build a fast car, and don't live. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Man, I really, really hope you never have any involvement in the education of children, with an attitude like that.
You see, if you had said something along the lines of "Wow, I didn't know DU was not a significant radiological hazard. Can you help me to understand this, and maybe show me how you would calculate the expected dose from ingestion or inhalation of DU?", you might actually get a good response. These are the kinds of people (children or adults - it really makes little difference) who are worth teaching.
Instead, you are making claims, acting like you already know something, and then expecting everybody else to go through all sorts of contortions to teach you, when all available evidence points to that fact that you have no interest in learning anything. You're just looking to start a flame war.
Is anything here beginning to make any sense to you? In any case, if you actually come back with something that is related to the topic that you started with your trollish comment, I might respond. Otherwise, good luck with your stubborn trollish fucktardishness.
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning. You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim. You said depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon. You need to provide evidence of that, and you can start with the definition for 'nuclear weapon'. You are making the claim. It is not my or anybody elses responsibility to disprove all the claims people make, and certainly not yours. You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge. Interesting how you haven't responded to my earlier point when I was nice about it. You seem only interested in chastising people who get frustrated with your stupidity. You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.
From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards" Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.[77]
There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine. There's still the nuclear weapon comment you made. Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way. Not that it is a meaningful or productive way (you still have providing nothing put idiotic claims, and chastisement of others responding to you poorly), but it's as least some sort of response. You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning. You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim. You said depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon. You need to provide evidence of that, and you can start with the definition for 'nuclear weapon'. You are making the claim. It is not my or anybody elses responsibility to disprove all the claims people make, and certainly not yours. You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge. Interesting how you haven't responded to my earlier point when I was nice about it. You seem only interested in chastising people who get frustrated with your stupidity. You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.
From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards"
Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.[77]
There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine. There's still the nuclear weapon comment you made. Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way. Not that it is a meaningful or productive way (you still have providing nothing put idiotic claims, and chastisement of others responding to you poorly), but it's as least some sort of response. You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
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.
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).
Rockets in general don't scale well (which is why you quickly get one much too big to be carried by a plane).
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.