Russias new nuclear powered test goes BOOM

pretty crazy this is going now considering where the tech was in the 70 and 80's and the russians have been using reactors is all sorts of small form factors so i wonder what caused this accident

It is like Crowbar all over again. I don't remember the official name for our nuke engined cruise missile.

a reply to: penroc3

It's not a "reactor". Its just theoretically utilizing an isotopes radiated energy -- perhaps after being excited by X-rays. They aren't splitting atoms.

a reply to: RadioRobert

ohh theres a reactor in there.

it uses the heat from the reactor to heat the air enough that this ICCM(intercontinental cruise missile) can fly almost indefinitely or they add a bit of fuel to make it work better but obviously limits range. ironically with a dirty(open) cycle system there are almost ZERO moving parts inside the actual part that is heating and expanding the air

there was even reaction byproducts detected so its more than just isotopheating like a RTG.

this is more like a small naval or space sized reactor

Didn't they lose another a few years back?

a reply to: Flipper35

That was project Pluto, i believe.

Not 100%, but pretty sure.

originally posted by: Notoneofyou
a reply to: Flipper35

That was project Pluto, i believe.

Not 100%, but pretty sure.

Yep. Project Pluto, the one that even the US Military of the 60's deemed too insane to try.

I'll leave this here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: penroc3

It's not a "reactor". Its just theoretically utilizing an isotopes radiated energy -- perhaps after being excited by X-rays. They aren't splitting atoms.

You are stating this as fact....so you have a source for us?

a reply to: CraftBuilder

He's talking about nuclear isomers. There's no evidence the Russians were using them. Nuclear isomers would not have caused a radiation spike of the sort seen in the village. Nor would they have left radioactive iodine to be detected by the Norwegians as reported today.

The US has publicly stated the incident was related to the Skyfall/Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile.

a reply to: CraftBuilder

you have a source for us?

Only all the Russian sources saying they were working on isotopic powersources for liquid-fuel powerplants...

there was even reaction byproducts detected so its more than just isotopheating like a RTG. 

Perhaps because many isotopes are in fact fissile byproducts...

a reply to: RadioRobert

Only all the Russian sources saying they were working on isotopic powersources for liquid-fuel powerplants...

Isotopic power sources cover anything from radiothermal generators to nuclear reactors to potentially isomers. It's one of those deliciously nonspecific phrases used to avoid saying what you are doing.

As for isomers, tantalum, technetium and hafnium don't (iirc) decay into iodine.

a reply to: anzha

From DSA:

The measurement result is comparable to earlier measurements. Norwegian monitoring stations detect radioactive iodine about 6-8 times a year and the source is usually unknown. When no other radioactive substances than iodine is detected, the source is most likely releases from production facilities for radioactive pharmaceuticals containing iodine.

At present it is not possible to determine if the last iodine detection is linked to the accident in Arkhangelsk last week. DSA continues more frequent sampling and analysis.

Not exactly a "spike" or related. IMO, of course.

And while deliberately vague, I've never seen fission referred to as a isotopic power source. Nor would it involve "liquid fuel".

Given that Russians are notorious liars, I don't see the need for obfuscation. A closed reactor and exchanger could do much the same thing, though it'd be a lot harder to fine tune than a (theoretical) halfnium turbine which you could fine-tune with Xrays.

Whether that does work, or the Russians have an operating example, is all very much in the air, but I think it's relatively safe to assume that they have enough experience with reactors as noted. And fission creates enough energy that there isn't a need for a hybrid approach with a liquid propellant.

a reply to: anzha

like the so called hafnium bomb....

its been theorized that you could 'charge' up hafnium to have a constant high output or a bomb by way of some nuclear force voodoo

if russia broke making isomers it would be the warhead not the propulsion system but i guess with an isomer it could be one and the same, the longer it flew around the less yield it would have.

whatever the russians are working on they are clearly having problems, the first one they lost(mentioned above) was rumored to have had us spy ships swarming the area no word on recovery from the russians or the US(obviously).

either way if they could get a nuclear powered scramjet/rocket working in a clean way(or not) it would be great for air breathing hypersonic missiles with a range only dependant on the heat shield lifetime.

a reply to: RadioRobert

there are some interesting liquid fuel cycle fast reactors that a super small and run HOT and the fuel is the coolant as well.


cool link



i always found it interesting that isomers can have almost infinite half lives when compared to normal elements( hate to say it but it made me instantly think of bob and S4)

As an aerospace engineer and nuclear reactor operator I can see why there seems to be a lot of confusion on this story. The initial story said that an “isotope power source for a liquid propulsion system” blew up. It also said that residents local to the test site were told to take Iodine tablets (presumably to offset the uptake of radioactive Iodine 131). All 3 statements are in conflict with each other. A power source that is powered purely by radioisotope decay does not produce Iodine 131. A nuclear power source is not needed for a liquid propulsion system. A reactor system for a nuclear ramjet couldn’t blow up. So what is the public supposed to believe?

Presumably, this accident involved the development of the “Skyfall” nuclear powered cruise missile. If that’s true, then we can make a few inferences. First of all, this could not be a radioisotope decay power source (what we in the West would call a radioisotope thermal power source). Radioisotope thermal sources do not have anything close to enough power density to power a ramjet. Also, they are not throttleable. If this was a test of the Skyfall system, then it included a fission reactor. If there was Iodine 131 floating around in the air, then that also indicates a fission reactor. Radioisotope thermal sources do not include random mixtures of fission products; they consist of a single isotope chosen to give a predictable decay half-life and power curve. Technically, a reactor is an “isotope power source”; it’s just one that uses fissionable isotopes.

A later English-language press release translated the Russian as an “isotope power source IN a liquid propulsion system” blew up. That makes a lot more sense. A ramjet has to have some external booster to get it up to the speed where the ramjet will take over. That would be the liquid propulsion stage. A liquid propulsion system (presumably a storable propellant system) would most likely be a Hydrazine system. Poorly designed storable propellant systems are notorious for blowing up, especially if they are bipropellant systems with leaky valves. The SpaceX Dragon capsule explosion in April is a recent example.

The best explanation for this event is that this was a test of the Skyfall nuclear ramjet cruise missile system in which the liquid propulsion stage blew up and scattered the contents of the reactor core into the air. The reactor might or might not have been powered up when the explosion occurred. However, it had definitely been run at some point in the past, otherwise it would not have had Iodine 131 in it. According to a news story in Tass in February, successful tests of the nuclear power source were completed at that time. Normally, a reactor (whether for a ramjet or a commercial power station) first undergoes a criticality test to show that it behaves like the mathematical models predicted. Then, because this is a ramjet power source, it would also have been run in some kind of ground based airflow test, the way the Project Pluto reactor (Tory IIC) was in 1964. The fact that the Iodine 131 signal was not very high indicates that the reactor had been run at its design power level, but not for very long.
a reply to: penroc3

a reply to: 1947boomer

I will bet you they will go with a liquid violent leak like LOX or hydrogen they were cooling the core with or using the hydrogen for space use.

I would also love to know the target power level they are going for as that would shed some light on how big or small the core is.

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia used a sheildless reactor or as little as possible and how crazy would an all nuclear TSTO using the hydrogen for space be

Whatever they do I just hope they keep it away from the ocean from now on.

I know the NERVA was run for the better part of an hour at 1000MW using liquid hydrogen as ctyo and fuel and in our own DOE tapes we had a few big hydrogen leaks and explosions

What ever happened it appears the fuel was contained, but if not that would mean someone admitting to a second nuclear accident in Russia and the HBO series ruffled feathers

a reply to: penroc3

Running it open cycle would leave all sorts of 131 and depending on the field used might not be there in large numbers.

Imagine running the reactor as hot as your material science can handle and by design it will emit alllot of nasty stuff
If they get launched as envisioned it wouldn't matter

a reply to: 1947boomer

We don't know that there was a release of iodine with this event.

The whole hafnium idea rests on the reported ability to raise the release level/rate using a relatively low ( under 300KeV) source of photons (X-rays). They call it Induced Gamma Emmisions (IGE).

Does that work? There's a lot of controversy. Initial reports say yes. Some saying they could get 60 times the energy-out compared to energy-in. Several later reports said, no. Somewhat curiously a method of producing quantities of hafnium was developed a little after many reports said it probably wasn't feasible. What is clear is the US has spent a lot of money trying to demonstrate this. For a couple decades now. Maybe it works. Maybe they seed money to get other people to chase something that doesn't work. Maybe it is feasible, but not perfected. Maybe not.

IF it works, the gamma release would theoretically be about two magnitudes lower than fission, but several magnitudes larger than anything else. It also is essentially just decaying hafnium, which while nasty is considerably safer than fission and its byproducts.

There are patients out there for turbine engines using this technique. There are also hybrid designs that ignite and burn a portions of the liquid-hydrogen used to dump the heat to add even more energy to the turbine. All this would meet the "isotopic powersource for liquid propellant powerplants"-talk at the most literal level.

There are studies out there from the USAF, Navy, and Army about possible ways of utilizing this. Scientific journals. AFRL, DARPA, etc all have information available. All misdirection? Possibly. Hopelessly fraught with problems? Possibly. Does it actually work? Possibly.

But I'm pretty sure that's what is being alluded to in Russia. Start the X-ray emission, irradiate the hafnium, gamma is released, convert to heat liquid hydrogen, drop all that heat between a compressor and turbine, convert some of that turbine energy into mechanical energy to generate electricity to continue to power the X-Ray machine, the rest dumps out thrust.

Makes me wonder if Trump's "we have similar engines that actually work" is simple braggadocio or just a taunt to make them throw money at the impossible. Or maybe it's a double fake, and Russia is trying to convince us they made it work after we gave up on it.