2

The New York Times' Russia Confirms Radioactive Materials Were Involved in Deadly Blast discusses the potential nuclear aspects of the recent missile test and references several time the possibility of development and testing of nuclear propulsion in missiles.

MOSCOW — A mystery explosion at a Russian weapons testing range involved radioactive materials, the authorities admitted on Saturday, as the blast’s admitted death toll rose and signs of a creeping radiation emergency, or at the least fear of one, grew harder to mask.

In a statement released at 1 a.m. Saturday, Russia’s nuclear energy company, Rosatom, said five employees had died, in addition to the two military personnel previously confirmed dead, as a result of a test on Thursday morning involving “isotopic sources of fuel on a liquid propulsion unit.”

“A bright memory of our comrades will forever live in our hearts,” the statement said.

Later it says:

Novaya Gazeta, an independent Russian newspaper, interpreted the presence of Rosatom nuclear engineers at the test site as confirming “the version that the military could have been experimenting with the newest rocket with a nuclear power unit.”

One new weapon Mr. Putin had discussed was a globe-spanning cruise missile called Burevestnik or the Petrel, named for the far-flying seabird. It would have an unlimited range thanks to a nuclear propulsion unit, he said. Mr. Putin said the device had already been tested.

“Russia’s advanced arms are based on the cutting-edge, unique achievements of our scientists, designers and engineers,” Mr. Putin said in the 2018 speech. “One of them is a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile.”

Nuclear propulsion would use a thermonuclear source of some type to heat a material of some type to extremely high temperature and channel it though a nozzle. Often liquid hydrogen is mentioned.

Based on known principles of nuclear propulsion and any other reputable and possibly recent sources of information what is most likely to be the basis of the suspected and advertised Russian nuclear rocket propulsion? For example, would it be possible to be a fission reactor where the thermal output can be turned up and down, or a radioisotope that's "hot" all the time, or something more exotic such as the isomer source discussed in answers to How did Northrop Grumman propose to make the Global Hawk nuclear powered??

Community
  • 1
uhoh
  • 148,791
  • 53
  • 476
  • 1,473
  • 3
    Not sure this is space exploration related. It's a endoatmospheric military system. – Organic Marble Aug 11 '19 at 08:52
  • @OrganicMarble A functioning nuclear engine would of substantial interest in spaceflight and not necessarily limited to only military systems nor useful only near the ground. We have many hypothetical questions about nuclear propulsion here already, if this is an actual working liquid-reaction-mass, nuclear heated propulsion system or even in the development or prototype stage, I don't see how my question would possibly be off-topic. – uhoh Aug 11 '19 at 09:02
  • 3
    We'll have to disagree then. – Organic Marble Aug 11 '19 at 09:13
  • 1
    Dammit, don't scare me like that. It's Arkhangelsk area... while my mother is about to travel through Krasnoyarsk region where a completely different ammo depot exploded recently... – SF. Aug 11 '19 at 09:26
  • 3
    The obvious thing if you want a cruise missile with unbounded range is to have a nuclear-powered jet engine, since this means you don't have to carry your reaction mass which is obviously going to limit the range. Cruise missiles are generally powered by jets, not rockets already. Given that the thing Russia is rumoured to be developing is a cruise missile, then this is off-topic for this SE I think: it's nothing to do with space, and a nuclear-powered jet engine is not very useful in space. –  Aug 11 '19 at 12:39
  • @tfb so the liquid mentioned in the question is not a reaction mass, but perhaps a conventional fuel used to run a jet engine until the nuclear heat source "warms up"? I agree if it turns out not to be a rocket engine, then the question is likely off-topic. To me "isotopic sources of fuel on a liquid propulsion unit.” sounds like a liquid reaction mass than liquid fuel, but it's probably been translated and so it may be less than precise language. – uhoh Aug 11 '19 at 12:58
  • @uhoh: My guess is that if you have some kind of significant failure in a thing like this then everything ends up radioactive, especially given probably-low safety standards. –  Aug 11 '19 at 13:08
  • 1
    In his 2018 speech, Putin claimed a cruise missile with a "highly-efficient on-board miniaturized nuclear reactor"; other sources have suggested that this is a liquid-salt design with the fuel dissolved in the salt. That would explain the “isotopic sources of fuel on a liquid propulsion unit.” language. – Bob Jacobsen Aug 11 '19 at 20:40
  • What is the policy for off-topic questions that are not clearly off-topic? Should they be reformatted. i.e. in this case: "Could this article indicate development of nuclear rocket"? – drjpizzle Aug 12 '19 at 17:50
  • @drjpizzle I don't see how that particular edit makes the question more on-topic, I think it moves it in the wrong direction, I've kept the question specifically about nuclear rocket propulsion, which is on topic because if developed could be used in space. Unfortunately or fortunately, the current system will likely not turn out to be rocket propulsion using a self-contained reaction mass, though I don't think that's conclusive yet. – uhoh Aug 12 '19 at 21:59
  • 1
    This article says it's a nuclear scramjet powered cruise missile. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/08/russian-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile-blows-up-creating-mini-chernobyl/ – Organic Marble Aug 12 '19 at 22:38
  • @OrganicMarble "... according to Novaya Gazeta and other sources..." – uhoh Aug 12 '19 at 22:48
  • I found the article there, but Google Translate fails with a 404 (?) and my Russian is pre-kindergarten. – Organic Marble Aug 12 '19 at 22:49
  • 1
    @OrganicMarble if you remove the arstechnica part from the url and just put www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/08/10/81561-malenkiy-letayuschiy-chernobyl into google it might work (might need an http:// or https:// in front) – uhoh Aug 12 '19 at 22:52

2 Answers2

2

The missile in question is a cruise missile. That means this is probably not a rocket, but a jet engine driven by a nuclear reactor. If there's any sanity left in Russia, it'll be a closed-cycle system.

Hobbes
  • 127,529
  • 4
  • 396
  • 565
  • rats, no nuclear rocket :-( – uhoh Aug 11 '19 at 13:40
  • The BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49319160 is interesting, and links to https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/krnd.htm – uhoh Aug 12 '19 at 16:21
  • I agree, I can see how this could be a reaction mass based nuclear rocket design. I can see little reason for a weapon system to use a nuclear thermal rocket. The high ISP doesn't add much for an sub-orbital hop being able to fly low and fast on the other hand... (Or it could just be the payload). – drjpizzle Aug 12 '19 at 17:46
  • @drjpizzle wasn't there a nuclear-thermal V2 missile proposal? – ikrase Dec 12 '19 at 09:38
0

more possible, it's long-range cruise missile (powered by air-breathing engines). Fission component just provides power to on-board systems (electronics, radars, etc).

Z0dCHiY8
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1
    The press releases on Burevestnik brag about a range that's far longer than possible with fossil fuels. A nuclear power system just to run the radars would be heavier than the generator it replaces. – Hobbes Aug 11 '19 at 19:36
  • isotope sources have been used to power deep space probes. electric generator on kerosene is overkill to power on-board stuff, the're no need for MW's or even kW's. however, the're possible second variant == rocket pushes on LEO silent MRV (maneuverable reentry vehicle) to stand on orbit for long time. That MRV is coated w/ radar-absorbing & low albedo material, so it cannot have solar batteries nor chemical power sources (they're short lasting). – Z0dCHiY8 Aug 11 '19 at 20:08
  • 1
    I'm familiar with RTGs. They deliver a few hundred W for a weight of ~50 kg. A 1 kW generator weighs less than 1 kg. The generator is driven by the jet engine and can be sized for any load. – Hobbes Aug 11 '19 at 20:38
  • The SNAP 8 Experimental Reactor was a 600 kWt reactor that was tested from 1963 to 1965.[citation needed]

    The SNAP 8 Developmental Reactor had a reactor core measuring 9.5 by 33 inches (24 by 84 cm), contained a total of 18 pounds (8.2 kg) of fuel, had a power rating of 1 MWt. The reactor was tested in 1969 at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.[21]

     – Z0dCHiY8 Aug 11 '19 at 23:34
  • i agree that a cruise missile is quite good w/ a classical generator, but silent satellites get the another story. – Z0dCHiY8 Aug 11 '19 at 23:41