National Gun Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
RICK MORAN
AUGUST 15, 2019




The U.S. detected a powerful explosion at the Nyonoksa test site in Russia on August 8 that experts believe occurred during a test of a new Russian nuclear-propelled missile referred to as the SSX-C-9 Skyfall by NATO and as the 9M370 Burevestnik (Storm Petrel) by Russia. Radiation in the area spiked up to 16 times the normal level.

Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed the existence of the missile last year.

Theoretically, a missile fueled by a nuclear reaction could strike any target on planet Earth. But the challenges of building such a missile are daunting and Western experts believe developing the missile to be beyond the technological capabilities of Russia.

The explosion was handled in typical Russian fashion: they denied everything and then sought to minimize what happened when the truth was exposed.

ABC News:

There was a spike in radiation immediately after the explosion on Friday, briefly elevating levels up to 16 times higher than normal in a city 20 miles from the Nenoksa Missile Test Site on Russia's northern Arctic coast. Russian authorities only officially acknowledged this spike on Sunday, three days after the accident. Nenoksa’s local administration had posted a notice on its website immediately after the blast, warning levels had spiked two times above normal. But this notice was then deleted after Russia's defense ministry denied levels had increased.Russia’s state weather service, Roshydromet, later acknowledged that the spike had sent radiation levels 4 - 16 times above the norm. But it appears the spike was also brief, lasting no more than 2 hours, before the lives returned to normal, according to Roshydromet.​

Norwegian authorities detected tiny amounts of radioactive iodine a week after the blast, giving rise to fears that there was more danger from the blast than the Russians were reporting. But the amounts were small, and it appears that the danger had passed -- for now.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump bragged on Twitter that the U.S. has "similar, but more advanced technology."

The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia. We have similar, though more advanced, technology. The Russian “Skyfall” explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2019

Blabbermouth.

Nuclear policy expert David Burbach called Trump's bluff:

It is a bad idea for the President to tell the world the U.S. has secret nuclear powered super-weapons and that we've been lying about that for years. Especially if we don't actually have them, which we almost certainly do not. https://t.co/pK0sNPRpeg
– David Burbach (@dburbach) August 12, 2019

The question isn't so much is Russia really developing a nuclear-powered missile, but rather do they really know what they're doing?

The Bulwark:

The Burevestnik has the greatest chances for creating a real disaster, a fact picked up immediately by none other than the former oligarch and Putin critic-in-exile, Mikhail Khodorkovskiy. In a short video response delivered almost immediately after Putin’s presentation, he zeroed in on the Burevestnik when he highlighted Putin speaking “of tests that have already taken place of a new missile that supposedly has an on-board nuclear engine. And where did these tests take place? Overhead of the territory of Russia.”“And of this missile with an on-board nuclear motor — what is that exactly? It is a missile that has a five millimeter internal canister that holds a wildly dangerous radioactive substance and if that missile crashes into some hill–well you can yourselves clearly imagine that this is a territory that will be permanently contaminated. I do not know, but does he [Putin] understand this? And the people who are listening to him–do they understand this? These people who are watching and applauding. You people–do you realize that you are being told that Chernobyl is flying overhead above you?”​

Putin revealed the existence of the Burevestnik in March 2018 when he also announced several other "super-weapons" that no Western experts believe are anywhere close to being operational. This video of the explosion from several vantage points makes the statement "Chernobyl is flying overhead above you" frighteningly real.


Is it irresponsible for Russia to test this weapon? After all, as the Chernobyl accident showed, much of northern Europe would also be affected by nuclear fallout. Putin's massive inferiority complex about Russia's relative weakness compared to the West could be driving his government toward another nuclear disaster.




https://pjmedia.com/trending/mystery-surrounds-explosion-of-nuclear-propelled-missile-in-russia/
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Compiled
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
The date on the videos is August 5, 2019.

Here is the description of the incidence:

Credit Google Translate from Russian to English.

In the evening of August 5 ammunition depots began to explode, located near the village of Kamenka, Achinsky district, Krasnoyarsk Territory. I had to evacuate not only the residents of Kamenka and two nearby settlements (Maly Uluy and Klyuchi)
From Endgadget:

Russia's military technology push has unfortunately produced deadly consequences. The country's Rosatom has confirmed that five people have died and three injured after an explosion on August 8th while testing an isotopic power source for a rocket's liquid propulsion system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,892 Posts
The date on the videos is August 5, 2019.

Here is the description of the incidence:

Credit Google Translate from Russian to English.



From Endgadget:



Recently someone posted a video of a ammo bunker exploding in Russia. is it possible they are one in the same and that's the excuse they used at first?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigNastyCowboy

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Recently someone posted a video of a ammo bunker exploding in Russia. is it possible they are one in the same and that's the excuse they used at first?
What I know is the videos posted here are not from liquid fuel, eh?

We've all seen liquid fuel explosions. These videos have debris and sparks without black smoke.

Also, these videos happened before detectors extant to Russia picked up radiation.

The Russian translations of the descriptions and comment sections are not about a liquid fuel explosion that was going to happen in the future very much North of the location in the video, along the coastline.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,861 Posts
I'm not real sure that did much to reduce global warming.

Alan
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,861 Posts
Credit Google OK Translation from Russian to English. Just OK ........

"They are bendy people, and they need a hug".

"Your sisters floor lamp is green".
It's happening!



Alan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stevejet

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,892 Posts
Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion - Compliments Wikipedia

The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program and the preceding Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project worked to develop a nuclear propulsion system for aircraft. The United States Army Air Forces initiated Project NEPA on May 28, 1946.[SUP][1][/SUP] After funding of $10 million in 1947,[SUP][2][/SUP] NEPA operated until May 1951, when the project was transferred to the joint Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)/USAF ANP.[SUP][3][/SUP] The USAF pursued two different systems for nuclear-powered jet engines, the Direct Air Cycle concept, which was developed by General Electric, and Indirect Air Cycle, which was assigned to Pratt & Whitney. The program was intended to develop and test the Convair X-6, but was cancelled in 1961 before that aircraft was built.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Contents



Types

Direct Air Cycle


Aircraft Reactor Experiment building at ORNL


Direct cycle nuclear engines would resemble a conventional jet engine, except that there would be no combustion chambers. The air gained from the compressor section would be sent to a plenum that directs the air into the nuclear reactor core. An exchange takes place where the reactor is cooled, but it then heats up the same air and sends it to another plenum. The second plenum directs the air into a turbine, which sends it out the exhaust. The end result is that instead of using jet fuel, an aircraft could rely on the heat from nuclear reactions for power.
The General Electric program, which was based at Evendale, Ohio, was pursued because of its advantages in simplicity, reliability, suitability and quick start ability. Conventional jet engine compressor and turbine sections were used, with the compressed air run through the reactor to be heated by it before being exhausted through the turbine.
Indirect Air Cycle

Indirect cycling involves thermal exchange outside of the core with compressor air being sent to a heat exchanger. The nuclear reactor core would heat up pressurized water or liquid metal and send it to the heat exchanger as well. That hot liquid would be cooled by the air; the air would be heated by the liquid and sent to the turbine. The turbine would send the air out the exhaust, providing thrust.
The Indirect Air Cycle program was assigned to Pratt & Whitney, at a facility near Middletown, Connecticut. This concept would have produced far less radioactive pollution. One or two loops of liquid metal would carry the heat from the reactor to the engine. This program involved a great deal of research and development of many light-weight systems suitable for use in aircraft, such as heat exchangers, liquid-metal turbopumps and radiators. The Indirect Cycle program never came anywhere near producing flight-ready hardware.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Experimental Reactors and Projects

Aircraft Reactor Experiment

The United States Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) was a 2.5 MW[SUB]th[/SUB] thermal-spectrum nuclear reactor experiment designed to attain a high power density and high output temperature for use as an engine in a nuclear-powered bomber aircraft. The advantage of a nuclear-powered aircraft over a conventionally-powered aircraft is that it could remain airborne orders of magnitude longer and provide an effective nuclear strategic deterrent to a nuclear-armed Soviet adversary. The ARE was the first molten salt reactor (MSR) to be built and operated. It used the molten fluoride salt NaF-ZrF[SUB]4[/SUB]-UF[SUB]4[/SUB] (53-41-6 mol%) as fuel, was moderated by a hexagonal-configuration beryllium oxide (BeO), and had a peak temperature of 860 °C. A redundant liquid sodium coolant system was used to cool the moderator and reflector materials. A secondary helium gas coolant loop was circulated around the primary coolant to transfer heat to a water radiator where heat output was dumped to atmosphere. Reactivity control rods were installed and it was found that the control rods did not determine the output power of the ARE; rather, the power demand did, which affected the outlet and inlet temperatures because of the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. The ARE was operated at power for 221 hours up to a peak of 2.5 MW[SUB]th[/SUB].[SUP][6][/SUP]
MX-1589 project


The NB-36H in a test flight, shadowed by a Boeing B-50 Superfortress


On September 5, 1951, the USAF awarded Convair a contract to fly a nuclear reactor on board a modified Convair B-36 Peacemaker[SUP][7][/SUP] under the MX-1589 project of the ANP program. The NB-36H Nuclear Test Aircraft (NTA) was to study shielding requirements for an airborne reactor, to determine whether a nuclear aircraft was feasible. This was the only known airborne reactor experiment by the U.S. with an operational nuclear reactor on board. The NTA flew a total of 47 times testing the reactor over West Texas and Southern New Mexico. The reactor, named the Aircraft Shield Test Reactor (ASTR), was operational but did not power the aircraft, rather the primary purpose of the flight program was shield testing. Based on the results of the NTA, the X-6 and the entire nuclear aircraft program was abandoned in 1961.
Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments


HTRE-3.


As part of the AEC/USAF ANP program, in 1956 modified General Electric J47s were first operated on nuclear power using a reactor test assembly known as Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment 1 (HTRE-1). HTRE-1, which used vertically-oriented control rods, was reconfigured with a removable core to become HTRE-2 for additional testing. HTRE-3 was built separately to test horizontally-oriented control rods as appropriate for use in an airframe.[SUP][8][/SUP]
The decommissioned HTRE-2 and HTRE-3 reactors and test assemblies can be viewed by the public in the Experimental Breeder Reactor I parking lot at Idaho National Laboratory.
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Reactor-1

On February 5, 1957, another reactor was made critical at the Critical Experiments Facility of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) as part of the circulating-fuel reactor program of the Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Company (PWAC). This was called the PWAR-1, the Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Reactor-1. The purpose of the experiment was to experimentally verify the theoretically predicted nuclear properties of a PWAC reactor. The experiment was only run shortly; by the end of February 1957 all data had been taken and disassembly had begun. The experiment was run at essentially zero nuclear power. The operating temperature was held constant at approximately 675 °C (1,247 °F), which corresponds closely to the design operating temperature of the PWAR-l moderator; this temperature was maintained by external heaters. Like the 2.5 MWt ARE, the PWAR-1 used NaF-ZrF4-UF4 as the primary fuel and coolant.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Cancellation

Technological competition with the Soviet Union (as represented by the launch of Sputnik 1), and continued strong support from the Air Force allowed the program to continue, despite divided leadership between the DOD and the AEC. Numerous test facilities were funded and constructed through the 1950s and 1960–61 in order to produce a flight-worthy nuclear power unit, including one at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). While the ARE successfully demonstrated operation of a MSR concept, the program was cancelled by President Kennedy on March 26, 1961[SUP][3][/SUP] citing the outrageous cost with no flight-worthy reactor having been produced up to that point[SUP][6][/SUP] – "15 years and about $1 billion have been devoted to the attempted development of a nuclear-powered aircraft; but the possibility of achieving a militarily useful aircraft in the foreseeable future is still very remote". Also contributing to the cancellation was the fact that the first intercontinental ballistic missiles entered into active service in September 1959 which all but eliminated the need for a nuclear-powered aircraft as a strategic deterrent.[SUP][10][/SUP] Nevertheless, the results of the ARE program prompted scientists and engineers at ORNL to submit a preliminary design proposal to the Atomic Energy Commission for a 30 MW[SUB]th[/SUB] experimental MSR to explore MSR as a civilian power station concept.[SUP][11][/SUP] The result of the proposal was direction from the Atomic Energy Commission for ORNL to design, construct, and operate the molten salt reactor experiment (MSRE).[SUP][12][/SUP]
See also


 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top