Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: What are the Russians messing with now?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,989

    What are the Russians messing with now?

    Russian village near nuclear-powered missile explosion to be briefly evacuated

    Reactor power missile with radioactive exhaust, or a reactor pushed too close to its material limits?
    Five scientists died in an explosion, now a village a few miles off is evacuated.
    I know we have some old nuclear powered aircraft engines in Arco Idaho, but this sounds like something running at much higher power levels.
    Likely a missile, not a space ship.
    Has anyone found a clue as to what's going on over there?

    Here's a good shot of the explosion, hidden behind an annoying robot detector. Looks like regular old rocket fuel to me, and pretty big. Perhaps the thing blew before the fission stage started up?
    Last edited by Squink; 2019-Aug-13 at 07:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,204
    Scott Manley has put out a YouTube video on this, where he speculates on several ideas, including a nuclear-powered ram-jet cruise missile. But I think the answer is that no one outside of the Russian military knows at this point, and we might never know.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,946
    Isn't this the Burevestnick cruise missile they've been talking about for a few years? Supposedly, it's driven by Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion - essentially a jet engine that uses a nuclear reactor, rather than combustion, to heat the exhaust. The USA tried for a while in the 1950s (13MB pdf) but got nowhere with it.

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,439
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    ....Supposedly, it's driven by Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion - essentially a jet engine that uses a nuclear reactor, rather than combustion, to heat the exhaust.....
    As the link says, with respect to aircraft....

    It also would have safety provisions that are designed to prevent the release of radioactive material in the worst aircraft accidents.
    So what's the sense of putting this power source in a missile?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,849
    From that story:

    'A top naval official later said the men gave their lives preventing a “planetary catastrophe.”'

    I find that hard to believe as a fact, the situation/event seemed too small. I do find it interesting because such statements seem to indicate that they are ultra conservative when it comes to damaging anything or upsetting anyone.
    Solfe

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    As the link says, with respect to aircraft....

    So what's the sense of putting this power source in a missile?
    Some designs are essentially autonomous bombers, carrying multiple warheads - so you wouldn't necessarily crash the aircraft itself. But if it's a "single use" cruise carrying a nuclear warhead, the engine just makes the resulting explosion dirtier. Part of the fun, I imagine.

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    As the link says, with respect to aircraft....



    So what's the sense of putting this power source in a missile?
    I think the general idea is that once it's launched, it doesn't need refuelling so can remain aloft until called upon to fulfil a mission.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,204
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Originally Posted by Cougar
    As the link says, with respect to aircraft....

    So what's the sense of putting this power source in a missile?
    Some designs are essentially autonomous bombers, carrying multiple warheads - so you wouldn't necessarily crash the aircraft itself. But if it's a "single use" cruise carrying a nuclear warhead, the engine just makes the resulting explosion dirtier. Part of the fun, I imagine.

    Grant Hutchison
    That was the impression I got from Scott Manley's video, at least the part about an autonomous bomber. I gather one use is that the vehicle could fly around for days or longer (since it needs no fuel once airborne) flying a very circuitous route to its final destination. I suppose during a war you could launch a bunch of these, have them do loops around the middle of nowhere, and then send them off to where you needed them.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    From that story:

    'A top naval official later said the men gave their lives preventing a “planetary catastrophe.”'

    I find that hard to believe as a fact, the situation/event seemed too small. I do find it interesting because such statements seem to indicate that they are ultra conservative when it comes to damaging anything or upsetting anyone.
    Perhaps they meant something along the lines of containment of a situation before fallout could be spread by wind?
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,787

    Not Good

    The still photo is of an impressive explosion. Anyone want to guesstimate a size?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    The still photo is of an impressive explosion. Anyone want to guesstimate a size?
    The still photo in the Bloomberg article was actually of the Achinsk explosion, not the White Sea one. The Achinsk explosion was a conventional ammunition depot going up, according to the article.

    I was going to mention this earlier but it seemed like pedantry, until someone commented on it!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,828
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    Perhaps they meant something along the lines of containment of a situation before fallout could be spread by wind?
    What's tricky about that is that sometimes people say things that sound nice but are not really accurate. For example, people will say that a pilot heroically fought to restore control to the aircraft, but in reality it's not all that heroic because, since the pilot of an airliner doesn't wear a parachute, he doesn't really have the option of getting off the plane and letting the passengers die. The best he can do for his own survival as well as the others is to try to get the plane under control. But people still say it's heroic. In this case, though I don't know what happened, it may simply be (it seems most likely to me) that they were in the room and there was a big explosion and they were killed by the blast so didn't have a chance to make a decision on whether to try to contain something.
    As above, so below

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594
    Speaking of that, the Russians had a Sully situation of their own recently--no Hudson here however.

    Now, I'd like an atom powered drone in a gas giant, say.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The still photo in the Bloomberg article was actually of the Achinsk explosion, not the White Sea one.
    Thanks. Another example of bad Journalism.
    It's possible a second stage contained radioactive isotopes. If they noticed the first stage going bad seconds after liftoff, they might have pushed the abort button extra early because of that, resulting in deaths on the ground.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    From that story:

    'A top naval official later said the men gave their lives preventing a “planetary catastrophe.”'

    I find that hard to believe as a fact, the situation/event seemed too small. I do find it interesting because such statements seem to indicate that they are ultra conservative when it comes to damaging anything or upsetting anyone.
    I think this quote was in connection to the fire on the AS-31 Nuclear powered mini-sub last month.

    https://russianmilitaryanalysis.word...rief-overview/

    hushed up.. but maybe a meltdown prevented.. and then there is this one too:

    https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-iss...-research-says

    possibly third most severe nuclear accident ever, and it just happened in 2017.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594
    Last edited by publiusr; 2019-Aug-16 at 10:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Scott Manley has put out a YouTube video on this, where he speculates on several ideas, including a nuclear-powered ram-jet cruise missile. But I think the answer is that no one outside of the Russian military knows at this point, and we might never know.
    It's possible they are working on an engine that cruises with air and then transitions to a sprint mode with some kind of afterburner to prevent interception during the terminal approach. Just my two cents.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by transreality View Post
    I think this quote was in connection to the fire on the AS-31 Nuclear powered mini-sub last month.

    https://russianmilitaryanalysis.word...rief-overview/

    hushed up.. but maybe a meltdown prevented.. and then there is this one too:

    https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-iss...-research-says

    possibly third most severe nuclear accident ever, and it just happened in 2017.
    It looks like I didn't understand what they were doing. I thought it was a straight up rocket test, not that there was a complicated nuclear component and/or test in progress with it.
    Solfe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •