Russia honours 'national heroes' killed in mysterious nuclear rocket blast
Source: The Guardian
Russia has bestowed posthumous awards and praised as national heroes five nuclear scientists who died in a mysterious explosion at sea during a rocket engine test.
Officials have been drip-feeding information about the blast on a platform in the White Sea off northern Russia on Thursday that caused a radiation spike in a nearby city.
US-based nuclear experts said they suspected the explosion occurred during the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile vaunted by the Russian president Vladimir Putin last year.
The rockets fuel caught fire, causing it to detonate and knock several people into the sea.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/russia-honours-national-heroes-killed-in-mysterious-nuclear-rocket-blast
MBS
(9,688 posts)gordianot
(15,242 posts)Build it, try it, hope it doesnt kill you when it blows up. Eventually you get one that works. That is why the majority of rocket motors today (even used by NASA) trace their origin to the old Soviet Union built under license. Too bad about those failures if the fuel is radioactive.
Javaman
(62,531 posts)gordianot
(15,242 posts)Plenty of the dead in the old workers paradise that only got rebranded.
Garion_55
(1,915 posts)might have been a godzilla movie.
neither ended well if i remember right
NickB79
(19,257 posts)Fucking Russians.
hunter
(38,321 posts)Perhaps a hot radioisotope might be used to bring conventional easy to handle fuels and oxidizers, such as kerosene and liquid oxygen, to a temperature where they are hypergolic.
Conventional hypergolic propellants, such as dinitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, tend to be toxic and otherwise difficult to store and handle.
An actual nuclear powered rocket test, as opposed to a hot radioisotope assisted chemical rocket, would be a nuclear catastrophe, "successful" or not.
For example, the U.S.A.'a "Project Pluto" of the early 'sixties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
keithbvadu2
(36,836 posts)Is this the gizmo in 'The Martian' with Matt Damon?
hunter
(38,321 posts)... why bother with solar panels if you have nuclear power?
Mars ain't gonna give a shit.
Like most anywhere beyond low earth orbit, the surface of mars is bombarded with too much ionizing radiation for human habitation.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)RTG are an amazing technology, but not a great idea for a place we might want to live on some day.
Voyager 1 and 2 were launched in 1977, and are now in interstellar space, and still transmitting scientific data to us. They run on RTG.
hunter
(38,321 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_%28rover%29
As a chunk of metal or metal oxide plutonium isn't horrifically dangerous . But as a fine dust it's nothing you'd want to inhale or eat. There are plenty of common non-radioactive substances, including substances having a half life of forever, that are more toxic.
Ordinary gasoline and used motor oil are carcinogens and teratogens but nobody cares about those.
Concern about the RTG in "The Martian" was overwrought. One would assume astronauts wouldn't be the sort who'd break open an RTG with a hammer or a rock to see what's inside, not unless the natural Martian background radiation had already fried their minds and bodies, or they'd been partying too hard with ethanol, various oxides of nitrogen, and pharmaceuticals taken from the med kit.
Okay, maybe it wasn't overwrought. Mars is a horrible place to live. On earth a remote arctic or antarctic research station in the dark of winter is a tropical paradise compared to mars. Best make the RTG inaccessible to anyone who has lost their mind.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Javaman
(62,531 posts)last year they talked about the russians creating their own project pluto and just how horrifically awful of an idea that was.
when this thing exploded during a missile test and then the report of a nuke spike, this was the first thing I thought of as well.
here's a link to the podcast. it can be dry at times, but never the less it's still really interesting.
https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
hunter
(38,321 posts)These are scary times.
I'm certain Trump's bosses wish they had the same autocratic powers the bosses in Russia and China have.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)oasis
(49,394 posts)"national heroes" aren't forced to work with second rate, half assed assembled equipment.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,354 posts)Does nuclear energy power the propellers? Or impellers? Or whatever is providing thrust to keep it aloft? Or does it use more traditional fuel, and then carry a nuclear warhead?
crazytown
(7,277 posts)Wiki entry
"9M730 Burevestnik is a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear- armed cruise missile under development for the Russian Armed Forces"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)the heat from the reactor provides the thrust...
This missile as a result will be very slow-moving relatively (subsonic) and as simple to shoot down as a conventional subsonic aircraft, but it would be highly controllable and theoretically able to stay in the air indefinitely... (If they can actually make it work, of course).
The USAF in the late 50s and 60s experimented with this, but it was an engineering and environmental nightmare...
crazytown
(7,277 posts)Simple to shoot down a flying nuclear reactor? Lovely.