This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Deleted phrase 'height of the Cold War' as this is a meaningless term which can be applied to many points between 1947-1989 - 25 June 2009.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.225.69 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Early in the article it states that the common belief that the vehicle itself would release so much radiation during normal flight operations that it could be considered a "secondary" weapons in and of itself was a "misconception" while later the article states the program was cancelled because, amongst other things, it was thought testing would be problematic because of the amount of radiation that would be released - which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.91.48.16 (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not— please, try an actual moment of reflexion upon the subject and the context, a flight to target would be a one-time and unique path with perishing small transitory exposure to any one point upon the ground below, it’s not a loitering drone, whereas, a test facility of even a low number of limited test cycles would leave that land-based location a tad bit, uh, saturated. WurmWoodeT 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
But both of the external links at the bottom of this article directly contradict the claims that the radiation from the vehicle itself wouldn't be dangerous. 173.226.63.104 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
