GalaxyFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3351
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Unexplained Russian Explosion

Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:17 am

I haven’t seen it posted here, but limited evidence suggests the Russians had a nuclear oopsie. They are, of course telling the story very slowly.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/08/severodvinsk-authorities-confirm-mysterious-brief-radiation-spike-after-missile
 
wingman
Posts: 3717
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:59 am

Drunks and nukes..lethal combination.
 
GDB
Posts: 13232
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:25 am

Many think it is linked with that nuke powered cruise missile Putin was bragging about.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ar-reactor

A weapon concept abandoned by the US (and presumably the USSR?) over 50 years ago as mad even as part of Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction, either that or the USSR could not make it work then and Russia thinks it can now.

From the mindset that brought us a reactor design never built in the West as even in the late 1940's was seen as cheap and nasty, with no containment, where a highly dangerous test was carried out in 1986.....many of us remember what happened next and recently have seen a superb but horrific recent depiction of those events. And the rotten system that let it happen and then tried to cover it up.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:43 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I haven’t seen it posted here, but limited evidence suggests the Russians had a nuclear oopsie. They are, of course telling the story very slowly.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/08/severodvinsk-authorities-confirm-mysterious-brief-radiation-spike-after-missile

I was going to post abut it but I couldn't decide on the title, at first I was going to go with Chernobyl lite but then I thought of doing it as a dubious achievement award. But then I couldn't decide whether to do it here or in non-av so my procrastination wound up in full circle.

It does look like it qualifies for a gold star in the dubious achievement category, this is a serious nuclear incident with off site radiation release: just below Chernobyl and Fukushima (and far above Three Mile Island where there was no off site release of radiation). There isn't any doubt that this is the "skyfall" missile: the accident is nuclear and the Nenoksa base is a missile testing site. If the reports are correct, and parts of the test vessel or reactor or whatever were blown into the water, that will put an end to any fishing in the area essentially forever. Then there is the evacuated town to ponder, the Russians say that there is no evacuation, reports of such are "nonsense" but there were similar denials at Chernobyl and loading the entire population of a village onto a special train to take them away on an unexpected vacation sounds like an evacuation to me.

I can't understand the why of it, isn't the MAD doctrine still a thing? Aren't ICBMs and boomers enough? I can see why they don't put much faith in their TU-160s, but can anyone really imagine a global nuclear holocaust as being a real possibility making anything beyond keeping the current state of the art operational wasted effort?

Does Putin think that his flying Chernobyl can be more threatening than ICBMs? Doesn't everybody over there know that ABM systems don't work and hold no promise of ever working? Most everyone over here knows that.

Then there is the question of how much of a threat can this contraption be if they can't even test it, and they can't actually test it more than once or twice because all new systems experience failures, so this thing is sure to crash if they play around with it often enough. And dummy warheads won't take the bite out of the PR disaster they will experience if they try to show this thing off.

But now all those bets are off, they've already screwed the pooch even before getting the thing off the ground.
Get out the popcorn.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8473
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:01 am

Spar wrote:
this is a serious nuclear incident with off site radiation release: just below Chernobyl and Fukushima (and far above Three Mile Island where there was no off site release of radiation).


How do you come to that kind of assessment?

Reports I've seen talk about single digit MicroSievert per hour for a short time.
That is 10..20 times the background radiation. Definitely not the end of the world.

Looks much more like they smashed an RTG power source aka "nuclear battery".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisot ... _generator

Apropos: Radiation release from 3 Mile Island was not negligible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mil ... idemiology
Murphy is an optimist
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1650
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:21 am

Spar wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I haven’t seen it posted here, but limited evidence suggests the Russians had a nuclear oopsie. They are, of course telling the story very slowly.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/08/severodvinsk-authorities-confirm-mysterious-brief-radiation-spike-after-missile

I was going to post abut it but I couldn't decide on the title, at first I was going to go with Chernobyl lite but then I thought of doing it as a dubious achievement award. But then I couldn't decide whether to do it here or in non-av so my procrastination wound up in full circle.

It does look like it qualifies for a gold star in the dubious achievement category, this is a serious nuclear incident with off site radiation release: just below Chernobyl and Fukushima (and far above Three Mile Island where there was no off site release of radiation). There isn't any doubt that this is the "skyfall" missile: the accident is nuclear and the Nenoksa base is a missile testing site. If the reports are correct, and parts of the test vessel or reactor or whatever were blown into the water, that will put an end to any fishing in the area essentially forever. Then there is the evacuated town to ponder, the Russians say that there is no evacuation, reports of such are "nonsense" but there were similar denials at Chernobyl and loading the entire population of a village onto a special train to take them away on an unexpected vacation sounds like an evacuation to me.

I can't understand the why of it, isn't the MAD doctrine still a thing? Aren't ICBMs and boomers enough? I can see why they don't put much faith in their TU-160s, but can anyone really imagine a global nuclear holocaust as being a real possibility making anything beyond keeping the current state of the art operational wasted effort?

Does Putin think that his flying Chernobyl can be more threatening than ICBMs? Doesn't everybody over there know that ABM systems don't work and hold no promise of ever working? Most everyone over here knows that.

Then there is the question of how much of a threat can this contraption be if they can't even test it, and they can't actually test it more than once or twice because all new systems experience failures, so this thing is sure to crash if they play around with it often enough. And dummy warheads won't take the bite out of the PR disaster they will experience if they try to show this thing off.

But now all those bets are off, they've already screwed the pooch even before getting the thing off the ground.
Get out the popcorn.


I'm afraid that the rational days of the Russian military passed several years back and the longer that Putin gets to stay in power, pumps up the military and keeps the P.R. machine pouring out the propaganda bullshit, the more likely these utterly ridiculous weapons will continue to be developed. I'm picturing nervous scientists being forced to attempt to develop these projects, with armed guards following them everywhere, just to make sure they're aren't passing on state secrets. It would seem that Russia under Putin is hellbent on trying to re-claim former "glories" of the Soviet Union, if that means terrifying the rest of the world with idiotic weapons such as nuclear powered cruise missiles and torpedoes, just so the world once again fears the might of the Soviet Union, sorry Russia, then a few scientists being sacrificed is a small price to pay.

I can see development continuing, more accidents, more deaths and contamination, right up to the point were they actually try to test one of these things with a nuclear warhead on board and it failing at some point and destroying a city or town and thousands of innocent Russian civilians. Of course we'll learn about it through satellites following everything, spikes in radioactivity being detected and the Russian public will be told that a test failed because of Western sabotage. The martyrs must be avenged and development will continue.

Hopefully the anti Putin resistance building up in Moscow and the rest of Russia will continue and maybe one day, hopefully soon, Russia can step back from these idiotic weapons, become a responsible member of the international community again and the average Russian can get a slice of the riches the country has, instead of it going to Putin and his cronies.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:14 pm

Spar wrote:
I can't understand the why of it, isn't the MAD doctrine still a thing? Aren't ICBMs and boomers enough? I can see why they don't put much faith in their TU-160s, but can anyone really imagine a global nuclear holocaust as being a real possibility making anything beyond keeping the current state of the art operational wasted effort?


The US missile shield, started by Bush against the perceived "Iranian threat" (but conveniently placed along the Russian border), has thrown MAD off. The Russians had to find workarounds to maintain the balance of mutually assured destruction. If ballistic missiles can't get through, cruise missiles, nuclear torpedoes and hypersonic air-launched missiles will.

Some of us warned of this way back in the early 2000s...
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:07 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
It would seem that Russia under Putin is hellbent on trying to re-claim former "glories"

As in MRGA? No doubt. Imagine the heat signature one of these things would put out. An IRST would probably detect a glow on the horizon while it's still 12,000 miles away.

WIederling wrote:
Reports I've seen talk about single digit MicroSievert per hour for a short time.
The sources you spend time with would probably call the Kaytyn woods an outbreak of legionaries disease. There is a news blackout around Nyonoksa but the Wall Street Journal says that local government "urged" residents to leave their homes on Wednesday morning; other reports claimed that a special train was being sent to take the villagers away. If Russia lifts the news blackout we will learn more.
WIederling wrote:
Looks much more like they smashed an RTG power source aka "nuclear battery".
Yea, that's the spin; here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal:
“What I can say is we’re talking about a radio-isotope generator,” the Rosatom spokesman said, referring to a fuel system known as an atomic battery, which generates energy through the decay of a radioactive isotope."

This "nuclear battery", aka "radio-isotope generator", aka "atomic battery", is a device that contains a mass of isotopes brought to criticality in the same manner as a nuclear power plant. It is a heat generator that uses radio-isotopes for fuel.

The Rosatom spokesman is just providing spin and you're propagating that spin.

Now for TMI:
I should have qualified my statement that "there was no off site release of radiation" and used the term beta radiation or radioactive material; as it was, there were some gasses that escaped. I had re-visited this incident during the Fukushima episode and in comparison concluded that there were no releases worth mentioning.
From your link:
According to the Rogovin report, the vast majority of the radioisotopes released were the noble gases xenon and krypton.

That was forty years ago and with complete assess of the press / independent investigators; the fact stands that any releases from TMI were within the realm of the effect of sunlight.

We shall see how Nyonoksa turns out; it may take forty years, but someday we will know.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8473
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:14 pm

Spar wrote:
The Rosatom spokesman is just providing spin and you're propagating that spin.


I can easily return that compliment.
Available data does not carry your narrative one bit ( and at the moment ).

US news ( and a lot of the western media ) are strongly dominated by Spin Doctor products.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:20 pm

VSMUT wrote:
The US missile shield, started by Bush against the perceived "Iranian threat" (but conveniently placed along the Russian border), has thrown MAD off. The Russians had to find workarounds to maintain the balance of mutually assured destruction. If ballistic missiles can't get through, cruise missiles, nuclear torpedoes and hypersonic air-launched missiles will.

Some of us warned of this way back in the early 2000s...
That is a good point, I am so steeped in the knowledge that the ABM stuff is bogus and doesn't really have any value as protection against incoming ICBMs or SLBMs that I forgot about the genesis of the issue. The the Russians are rightfully miffed.

So it is a case of crazy breeds crazy I guess.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:29 pm

WIederling wrote:
US news ( and a lot of the western media ) are strongly dominated by Spin Doctor products.
Sure, but "US news" includes Russian and Chinese and Iranian news for example, but that isn't necessarily so the other way around. Here you can look at any source - and they all are available.

And how does any of that relieve you of responsibility for parroting spin anyway?

And where is your "Available data"?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:53 pm

Spar wrote:
That is a good point, I am so steeped in the knowledge that the ABM stuff is bogus and doesn't really have any value as protection against incoming ICBMs or SLBMs that I forgot about the genesis of the issue. The the Russians are rightfully miffed.

So it is a case of crazy breeds crazy I guess.


It probably is bogus and is in reality a big money grab by the MIC, but the Russians don't know or believe that. The Russians are understandably paranoid about this, they were invaded by Western nations in 1812 by the French, 1856 by the British, Turks and French, 1914 by the Germans and Austrians, 1919 by the Americans and British and 1941 by the Germans. They have a history of being attacked and threatened by the west.

Not to mention that there was a treaty in place that limited ABM sites in the name of assuring MAD. The Americans tore up that agreement when they started the missile shield project:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-01 ... atic-notes
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:05 pm

Anyone know where to find the "offshore platform" on Google Maps (or any other)? I have been looking around the town mentioned in the articles but they all say it is "offshore in the Barents Sea" and that is a big area.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:24 pm

VSMUT wrote:
It probably is bogus and is in reality a big money grab by the MIC, but the Russians don't know or believe that.
They know it as much as I know it, but a response is understandable even if it's not particularly wise in this case.

VSMUT wrote:
The Russians are understandably paranoid about this, they were invaded by Western nations in 1812 by the French, 1856 by the British, Turks and French, 1914 by the Germans and Austrians, 1919 by the Americans and British and 1941 by the Germans. They have a history of being attacked and threatened by the west.
They were invaded by Napoleon, but the rest of your examples are hyperbole, they moved first in 1856, the Tzar was all in for war in 1914 and in 1941 they were party to the divvying up of Poland; greed and naivety didn't go well together for them then.

They are the nation with the largest land mass on Earth, yet they are on the make for more territory. Most of all they are on the make for more prestige; they will never get the kind of prestige they seem to want, they need to learn to be OK with just being Russia. Doing that would enhance their prestige more than nukes ever will.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:33 pm

Spar wrote:
They were invaded by Napoleon, but the rest of your examples are hyperbole, they moved first in 1856, the Tzar was all in for war in 1914 and in 1941 they were party to the divvying up of Poland; greed and naivety didn't go well together for them then.


Which is all pointless, because that's not how the Russians see the situation, which is what governs their decisions. Ignorant and short-sighted western politicians do nothing but add weight to that paranoia. Russia should have been treated with kid gloves in the 1990s when we momentarily had their trust.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:36 pm

Tugger wrote:
Anyone know where to find the "offshore platform" on Google Maps (or any other)? I have been looking around the town mentioned in the articles but they all say it is "offshore in the Barents Sea" and that is a big area.

Tugg
How about 64°38'52.50"N 39°14'37.42"E In Google Earth?
It might be a ship - it looks manmade.

Surprisingly the image date is May 2019.

It couldn't have been very far offshore if Nyonoksa was threatened by radiation.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8473
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:44 pm

Spar wrote:
WIederling wrote:
US news ( and a lot of the western media ) are strongly dominated by Spin Doctor products.
Sure, but "US news" includes Russian and Chinese and Iranian news for example, but that isn't necessarily so the other way around. Here you can look at any source - and they all are available.


And how does any of that relieve you of responsibility for parroting spin anyway?

Yes Why do you!
And where is your "Available data"?


--> Here you can look at any source - and they all are available.
Murphy is an optimist
 
JJJ
Posts: 3231
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:46 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Spar wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I haven’t seen it posted here, but limited evidence suggests the Russians had a nuclear oopsie. They are, of course telling the story very slowly.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/08/severodvinsk-authorities-confirm-mysterious-brief-radiation-spike-after-missile

I was going to post abut it but I couldn't decide on the title, at first I was going to go with Chernobyl lite but then I thought of doing it as a dubious achievement award. But then I couldn't decide whether to do it here or in non-av so my procrastination wound up in full circle.

It does look like it qualifies for a gold star in the dubious achievement category, this is a serious nuclear incident with off site radiation release: just below Chernobyl and Fukushima (and far above Three Mile Island where there was no off site release of radiation). There isn't any doubt that this is the "skyfall" missile: the accident is nuclear and the Nenoksa base is a missile testing site. If the reports are correct, and parts of the test vessel or reactor or whatever were blown into the water, that will put an end to any fishing in the area essentially forever. Then there is the evacuated town to ponder, the Russians say that there is no evacuation, reports of such are "nonsense" but there were similar denials at Chernobyl and loading the entire population of a village onto a special train to take them away on an unexpected vacation sounds like an evacuation to me.

I can't understand the why of it, isn't the MAD doctrine still a thing? Aren't ICBMs and boomers enough? I can see why they don't put much faith in their TU-160s, but can anyone really imagine a global nuclear holocaust as being a real possibility making anything beyond keeping the current state of the art operational wasted effort?

Does Putin think that his flying Chernobyl can be more threatening than ICBMs? Doesn't everybody over there know that ABM systems don't work and hold no promise of ever working? Most everyone over here knows that.

Then there is the question of how much of a threat can this contraption be if they can't even test it, and they can't actually test it more than once or twice because all new systems experience failures, so this thing is sure to crash if they play around with it often enough. And dummy warheads won't take the bite out of the PR disaster they will experience if they try to show this thing off.

But now all those bets are off, they've already screwed the pooch even before getting the thing off the ground.
Get out the popcorn.


I'm afraid that the rational days of the Russian military passed several years back and the longer that Putin gets to stay in power, pumps up the military and keeps the P.R. machine pouring out the propaganda bullshit, the more likely these utterly ridiculous weapons will continue to be developed.


So you mean Putin is having his wunderwaffen phase?
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:54 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Russia should have been treated with kid gloves in the 1990s when we momentarily had their trust.
No doubt that was horribly mishandled. The worst part was our moronic "capitalists" going over there and pumping them full of Ayn Rand BS.

A bit later, on the national policy level, there was a decision taken that Russia will always be a problem as it always has been an outlier in the European civilization and we should take all we can take before they revert to being what they always have been.

Like you, I was strongly opposed to that choice of action at the time.
But then along comes Putin and proves them right.

At least it sure seems that way. The Russian people have never known anything except autocratic leaders, so a Putin is almost a given.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9477
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:49 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I haven’t seen it posted here, but limited evidence suggests the Russians had a nuclear oopsie. They are, of course telling the story very slowly.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/08/severodvinsk-authorities-confirm-mysterious-brief-radiation-spike-after-missile


A big oopsie, since the citizens were told to leave: Russian villagers told to leave — no, stay — following missile test explosion.

The missile is a dumb idea, polluting the whole world with nuclear radiation if it works properly, as we see now, if it blows up, you have all kinds of problems and you are polluting your own soil.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:06 pm

Proper shielding of a reactor is quite heavy, usually a problem with aviation and missiles. Before first use it wouldn't be difficult to shield, but once operated it would be incredibly 'hot'. I suppose it could be a single use weapon that explodes as a dirty bomb over the target. To transfer a lot of energy quickly the rod bundle would need to be direct air cooled, thus having the thin nickle alloy tube containing the fissile material exposed to very, very high heat. Within minutes the tube would melt and then it would be quite easy to track. What could possibly go wrong. Quite easy to score on one's own goal with this device.

Nuclear propulsion is excellent, but it doesn't come cheap. Properly done it is quite safe, I live within 25 miles of over 30 reactors and a whole shed full of Trident missiles and I sleep well at night. The Navy found it couldn't afford nuclear propulsion on cruisers, just only subs and carriers now. For the money Putin spent on this stunt he could have bought the new floating drydock so they can fix their only carrier.
 
bhill
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:28 pm

Why would a munition need an ATOMIC battery? Sure, a space vehicle, but a missile? There are many safer methods to keep any electronics energized when needed...capacitors come to mind....and if they ARE doing this and adding all the mass for shielding...dumb.
Carpe Pices
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:57 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Nuclear propulsion is excellent, but it doesn't come cheap. Properly done it is quite safe, I live within 25 miles of over 30 reactors and a whole shed full of Trident missiles and I sleep well at night. The Navy found it couldn't afford nuclear propulsion on cruisers, just only subs and carriers now. For the money Putin spent on this stunt he could have bought the new floating drydock so they can fix their only carrier.
The propulsion you're talking about is electric propulsion; the electricity is generated by steam turbines and the steam was created by heat from a more or less conventional reactor, with rods, shielding and such.

From what I can discern, this thing uses the heat from a piece of radioactive material that has tailored to create a sustaining nuclear reaction (critical reaction). The heat from a criticality is enormous and in a nuclear power plant the radioactive material (the rods) are held in a containment vessel which allows the whole shebang to get up to a couple thousand degrees and boil water to a dozen atmospheres or more pressure.

But this thing apparently has no cooling other than air flow which moves at the velocities of a jet engine and apparently drives an impeller which drives a fan section like any other jet engine. A jet engine operates by expanding air through the burning of hydrocarbons; this thing needs no hydrocarbons to generate the heat and expansion of air, it's done by the radioactive material in a critical reaction.

How they hold the radioactive material in place beats me, but it might be by a magnetic field or some such trickery from the field of physics. I am reminded of breeder reactors which have a similar design structure. It needs no shielding because nobody goes near it once it goes critical and when it gets to it's target, its warhead, which is a nuclear bomb, explodes.

The above is pretty much guess on my part. But I have read things that have led me to this understanding of the device.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10597
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:09 pm

Spar wrote:
But this thing apparently has no cooling other than air flow which moves at the velocities of a jet engine and apparently drives an impeller which drives a fan section like any other jet engine. A jet engine operates by expanding air through the burning of hydrocarbons; this thing needs no hydrocarbons to generate the heat and expansion of air, it's done by the radioactive material in a critical reaction.


Why so complicated, just build a nuclear RAM jet. Fuel burn no issue after all. A 600 MW reactor will do just fine: http://www.vought.org/special/html/sslam3.html

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:20 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
But this thing apparently has no cooling other than air flow which moves at the velocities of a jet engine and apparently drives an impeller which drives a fan section like any other jet engine. A jet engine operates by expanding air through the burning of hydrocarbons; this thing needs no hydrocarbons to generate the heat and expansion of air, it's done by the radioactive material in a critical reaction.


Why so complicated, just build a nuclear RAM jet. Fuel burn no issue after all. A 600 MW reactor will do just fine: http://www.vought.org/special/html/sslam3.html

Best regards
Thomas
We're talking about essentially the same thing. It may just depend on ram air and need no impeller.
 
Noray
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:00 pm

Spar wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Anyone know where to find the "offshore platform" on Google Maps (or any other)? I have been looking around the town mentioned in the articles but they all say it is "offshore in the Barents Sea" and that is a big area.

Tugg
How about 64°38'52.50"N 39°14'37.42"E In Google Earth?
It might be a ship - it looks manmade.

I see nothing but breaking waves. There's no pier either, so how would an offshore platform be reached from the test site?
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1650
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:25 pm

JJJ wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Spar wrote:
I was going to post abut it but I couldn't decide on the title, at first I was going to go with Chernobyl lite but then I thought of doing it as a dubious achievement award. But then I couldn't decide whether to do it here or in non-av so my procrastination wound up in full circle.

It does look like it qualifies for a gold star in the dubious achievement category, this is a serious nuclear incident with off site radiation release: just below Chernobyl and Fukushima (and far above Three Mile Island where there was no off site release of radiation). There isn't any doubt that this is the "skyfall" missile: the accident is nuclear and the Nenoksa base is a missile testing site. If the reports are correct, and parts of the test vessel or reactor or whatever were blown into the water, that will put an end to any fishing in the area essentially forever. Then there is the evacuated town to ponder, the Russians say that there is no evacuation, reports of such are "nonsense" but there were similar denials at Chernobyl and loading the entire population of a village onto a special train to take them away on an unexpected vacation sounds like an evacuation to me.

I can't understand the why of it, isn't the MAD doctrine still a thing? Aren't ICBMs and boomers enough? I can see why they don't put much faith in their TU-160s, but can anyone really imagine a global nuclear holocaust as being a real possibility making anything beyond keeping the current state of the art operational wasted effort?

Does Putin think that his flying Chernobyl can be more threatening than ICBMs? Doesn't everybody over there know that ABM systems don't work and hold no promise of ever working? Most everyone over here knows that.

Then there is the question of how much of a threat can this contraption be if they can't even test it, and they can't actually test it more than once or twice because all new systems experience failures, so this thing is sure to crash if they play around with it often enough. And dummy warheads won't take the bite out of the PR disaster they will experience if they try to show this thing off.

But now all those bets are off, they've already screwed the pooch even before getting the thing off the ground.
Get out the popcorn.


I'm afraid that the rational days of the Russian military passed several years back and the longer that Putin gets to stay in power, pumps up the military and keeps the P.R. machine pouring out the propaganda bullshit, the more likely these utterly ridiculous weapons will continue to be developed.


So you mean Putin is having his wunderwaffen phase?


Yes, very much so.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:09 am

Dutchy wrote:
The missile is a dumb idea, polluting the whole world with nuclear radiation if it works properly, as we see now, if it blows up, you have all kinds of problems and you are polluting your own soil.


They probably feel it will be a long time before they run out of soil in Russia...
 
tu204
Posts: 1912
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:22 am

I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.

The torpedo makes sense though.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:57 am

tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.


So you can launch a nuclear tipped missile at the US bases in Europe striking them from behind. Something like that. The US isn't watching out for missile attacks around Cape Horn or Cape of Good Hope. Just send it through the South Sea and up the Atlantic.
 
tu204
Posts: 1912
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:26 am

VSMUT wrote:
tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.


So you can launch a nuclear tipped missile at the US bases in Europe striking them from behind. Something like that. The US isn't watching out for missile attacks around Cape Horn or Cape of Good Hope. Just send it through the South Sea and up the Atlantic.


Won't it be not too difficult to detect it by it's radiation and heat signature?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
WIederling
Posts: 8473
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:44 am

VSMUT wrote:
tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.


So you can launch a nuclear tipped missile at the US bases in Europe striking them from behind. Something like that. The US isn't watching out for missile attacks around Cape Horn or Cape of Good Hope. Just send it through the South Sea and up the Atlantic.


Why strike bases.
Strike the US proper. Feel the hurt.

Stationing missiles on Cuba ( able to reach the US East Coast towns )
was the Soviet answer to US launchers in Italy and Turkey able to reach Moscow.

Look what kind of reaction that brought on.
Murphy is an optimist
 
cpd
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:54 am

tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.

The torpedo makes sense though.


Easy, you send the missile flying along spewing out dirty emissions, making the enemy population very sick, perhaps drop multiple warheads at the right places and then when done, crash the thing and make an even bigger mess. That's what this kind of missile is good for, as well as not taking predictable attack paths.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:56 pm

tu204 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.


So you can launch a nuclear tipped missile at the US bases in Europe striking them from behind. Something like that. The US isn't watching out for missile attacks around Cape Horn or Cape of Good Hope. Just send it through the South Sea and up the Atlantic.


Won't it be not too difficult to detect it by it's radiation and heat signature?


Even if you could, what would you do about it? Few nations have air defences set up all around themselves. Nobody can reach a target like that in the South Atlantic. MH370 disappeared without traces in the Indian Ocean, and it didn't even try to hide.


cpd wrote:
tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.

The torpedo makes sense though.


Easy, you send the missile flying along spewing out dirty emissions, making the enemy population very sick, perhaps drop multiple warheads at the right places and then when done, crash the thing and make an even bigger mess. That's what this kind of missile is good for, as well as not taking predictable attack paths.


Very valid point. You don't even want to shoot it down over your own territory. Would Poland, Germany or France take one down over themselves in a conflict that doesn't directly involve them?
 
estorilm
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:23 pm

cpd wrote:
tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.

The torpedo makes sense though.


Easy, you send the missile flying along spewing out dirty emissions, making the enemy population very sick, perhaps drop multiple warheads at the right places and then when done, crash the thing and make an even bigger mess. That's what this kind of missile is good for, as well as not taking predictable attack paths.

Radiation created during a direct-cycle nuclear "engine" would likely still require a very long period of time to have any direct effects. From a weapons point of view, it would be kinda pointless.

Now if you needed that direct cycle to achieve given performance numbers, then sure - do it, but it's not like it would be done intentionally to "poison" an enemy population along the way lol.
 
GDB
Posts: 13232
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:37 pm

estorilm wrote:
cpd wrote:
tu204 wrote:
I don't get the point of the nuclear powered cruise missile.

The torpedo makes sense though.


Easy, you send the missile flying along spewing out dirty emissions, making the enemy population very sick, perhaps drop multiple warheads at the right places and then when done, crash the thing and make an even bigger mess. That's what this kind of missile is good for, as well as not taking predictable attack paths.

Radiation created during a direct-cycle nuclear "engine" would likely still require a very long period of time to have any direct effects. From a weapons point of view, it would be kinda pointless.

Now if you needed that direct cycle to achieve given performance numbers, then sure - do it, but it's not like it would be done intentionally to "poison" an enemy population along the way lol.


How reassuring, only that WAS the intention when these weapons were first mooted in the late 50's/early 60's. The US and USSR both.
The US stopped work on them seeing this type of weapon, even at the height of the Cold War as just being insane and that the public would likely not accept it. So did the USSR for either the same reasons or just that the US had cancelled their projects in this area. They did not have to worry about domestic public opinion however, assuming they could have made a workable system 50+ years ago.

As for why Putin is reviving this class of weapons, you'd have to ask them. The way it was unveiled in 2017 suggests dick waving. And they think they can now make it 'work'.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11630
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:05 pm

These weapons were originally developed because ICBM didn't exist, and strikes had to rely on bombers. The nuclear missile was just its own long range bomber. Nuclear bombers were also considered.

Radioactive pollution along the way was not a goal, the trajectory would probably have been over the North Pole anyway, not much population to hurt there.

A possibility is also to have the thing stay in the air for days, but frankly, that would require extreme reliability, that clearly isn't easy to achieve.

I think many kinds of SAM should be able to down it, many countries have those.

You wouldn't want to down it over a large population center, but aside from that, it would probably not be that big of a disaster.

A really scary weapon in my opinion should come from space.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:27 pm

Aesma wrote:
A possibility is also to have the thing stay in the air for days, but frankly, that would require extreme reliability, that clearly isn't easy to achieve.

And people are touting it as being able to go 7,000 mph at sea level. In reality, it wouldn't be able to go much faster than a SR-71, and only that fast at very high altitudes, because of skin friction with the air. The practical limit for airspeed near sea level must be around 1,500 mph before even a titanium skin would heat up to the point of weakness.
 
cpd
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:26 am

GDB wrote:
estorilm wrote:
cpd wrote:

Easy, you send the missile flying along spewing out dirty emissions, making the enemy population very sick, perhaps drop multiple warheads at the right places and then when done, crash the thing and make an even bigger mess. That's what this kind of missile is good for, as well as not taking predictable attack paths.

Radiation created during a direct-cycle nuclear "engine" would likely still require a very long period of time to have any direct effects. From a weapons point of view, it would be kinda pointless.

Now if you needed that direct cycle to achieve given performance numbers, then sure - do it, but it's not like it would be done intentionally to "poison" an enemy population along the way lol.


How reassuring, only that WAS the intention when these weapons were first mooted in the late 50's/early 60's. The US and USSR both.
The US stopped work on them seeing this type of weapon, even at the height of the Cold War as just being insane and that the public would likely not accept it. So did the USSR for either the same reasons or just that the US had cancelled their projects in this area. They did not have to worry about domestic public opinion however, assuming they could have made a workable system 50+ years ago.

As for why Putin is reviving this class of weapons, you'd have to ask them. The way it was unveiled in 2017 suggests dick waving. And they think they can now make it 'work'.


The original missile was supposed to go at a huge speed at low altitude, and would have been the size of a railway engine. Its noise was supposed to be 150db from what I read somewhere.

It would have dropped its deadly payloads at correct points, while spewing toxic exhaust (and running at extreme temperatures), then eventually would be crashed and the radioactivity would do the rest of the damage. A truly awful weapon.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:29 am

As bad a nuke accidents are the desperate nature of modern day Russia is more worrisome.

Russia is squeezed between Nato and China which requires very delicate diplomacy.

Here’s a recap of what happened the last time a major power in Europe felt desperate. And mind you I’m not suggesting We anywhere near 1939 but w nukes it the trigger is tighter.

https://townhall.com/columnists/victord ... o-n2551661
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10597
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:32 am

VSMUT wrote:
tu204 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

So you can launch a nuclear tipped missile at the US bases in Europe striking them from behind. Something like that. The US isn't watching out for missile attacks around Cape Horn or Cape of Good Hope. Just send it through the South Sea and up the Atlantic.


Won't it be not too difficult to detect it by it's radiation and heat signature?


Even if you could, what would you do about it? Few nations have air defences set up all around themselves.


So, you fire your hart to intercept missile, which probably can be detected all the way out at Jupiter, and everyone in your country is dead because the counter strike gets there about 60 minutes before your missile hits it, and every single country it flew over on the way is out for vengeance?

Nobody can reach a target like that in the South Atlantic. MH370 disappeared without traces in the Indian Ocean, and it didn't even try to hide.


MH370 didn´t have a 100MW or so beacon shouting "look at me, shoot at me" during its whole flight.

Very valid point. You don't even want to shoot it down over your own territory. Would Poland, Germany or France take one down over themselves in a conflict that doesn't directly involve them?


France would probably vaporize where the missile came from for just sending it over its territory.

And since there is no way of knowing for a fact that the conflict doesn´t involve Poland or Germany they´d probably shot it down as early as possible.
How is that even going to go "Hi Ms. Merkel, we are about to lunch a surprise attack against the United States, and in the process we will fly a supersonic nuclear tipped doomsday machine with an active nuclear reactor flying over your territory. Its not meant to hit you, so please don´t shot at it".

Its a nonsense weapon.

Spar wrote:
because of skin friction with the air.


heat from skin friction is not the problem, but that is a common misconception, it is compression that does most of the heating....

tu204 wrote:
The torpedo makes sense though.


Yeah. If you want to be sure that every time someone detonates a nuke in or near a harbor everyone automatically assumes you did it and may retaliate before figuring out where the Plutonium came from, then a nuclear Torpedo makes absolute sense. The "beauty" of ballistic missiles is that it is pretty hard to not know where it came from.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
WIederling
Posts: 8473
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:37 am

cpd wrote:
It would have dropped its deadly payloads at correct points, while spewing toxic exhaust (and running at extreme temperatures), then eventually would be crashed and the radioactivity would do the rest of the damage. A truly awful weapon.


And thus completely useless for an aggressor.
What kind of worth has loot that you can't access and use?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9477
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:55 am

WIederling wrote:
cpd wrote:
It would have dropped its deadly payloads at correct points, while spewing toxic exhaust (and running at extreme temperatures), then eventually would be crashed and the radioactivity would do the rest of the damage. A truly awful weapon.


And thus completely useless for an aggressor.
What kind of worth has loot that you can't access and use?


Indeed, this supposed missile is a misguided concept, thus obsolete from the get-go.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8473
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:18 am

Dutchy wrote:
WIederling wrote:
cpd wrote:
It would have dropped its deadly payloads at correct points, while spewing toxic exhaust (and running at extreme temperatures), then eventually would be crashed and the radioactivity would do the rest of the damage. A truly awful weapon.


And thus completely useless for an aggressor.
What kind of worth has loot that you can't access and use?


Indeed, this supposed missile is a misguided concept, thus obsolete from the get-go.


Wrong.

Not everyone is an expansive aggressor.
Read up on Frank Herbert's Dune and the concept behind "Family Atomics" ( and shield technology )
Murphy is an optimist
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:42 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
because of skin friction with the air.


heat from skin friction is not the problem, but that is a common misconception, it is compression that does most of the heating....

Well if you want to quibble then explain yourself.

How fast can such a thing travel at sea level before it comes unglued?
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:48 am

Dutchy wrote:
Indeed, this supposed missile is a misguided concept, thus obsolete from the get-go.

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on your point of view.

If he could have presented the thing as a working weapon it might have been a useful weapon in the political sphere.

Now, not so much.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10597
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:49 am

Spar wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
because of skin friction with the air.


heat from skin friction is not the problem, but that is a common misconception, it is compression that does most of the heating....

Well if you want to quibble then explain yourself.


I already did: Gases get hotter when compressed, an object moving through gas compresses it....

How fast can such a thing travel at sea level before it comes unglued?


Depends on many things. As weight probably doesn´t play that much of a role since fuel efficiency doesn´t you can probably build something that goes mighty fast at sea level....

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:51 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Spar wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

heat from skin friction is not the problem, but that is a common misconception, it is compression that does most of the heating....

Well if you want to quibble then explain yourself.


I already did: Gases get hotter when compressed, an object moving through gas compresses it....

How fast can such a thing travel at sea level before it comes unglued?


Depends on many things. As weight probably doesn´t play that much of a role since fuel efficiency doesn´t you can probably build something that goes mighty fast at sea level....

best regards
Thomas
OK so the 7,000 mph claim is valid to you.

I'm not so sure about that.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:57 am

I think Russia is using this weapon such as it is for deterrence rather than offensive purposes.

The problem w any nuke is that there is a very fine and yet blurry line between deterrence and provocation.

For deterrence to work both sides have to have a certain amount of trust that the other side isn’t crazy or desperate.

This weapon seems to have a bit of both.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10597
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Unexplained Russian Explosion

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:06 am

Spar wrote:
OK so the 7,000 mph claim is valid to you.

I'm not so sure about that.


i think that speed is unlikely, but not impossible to achieve. I don´t think the whole project makes sense though.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 10 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos