Russian rocket accident releases radiation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a recent Russian rocket explosion at the Nyonoksa naval ballistic missile test site, which reportedly released radiation. Participants explore the implications of the incident, including the potential causes of the radiation release, the nature of the rocket involved, and the involvement of nuclear technology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Speculative

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants speculate that the radiation release could be due to a decommissioning accident involving a fuelled rocket rather than a critical nuclear reaction.
  • Others note that the radiation levels rose significantly for a short period, suggesting potential causes such as radon release or activation of materials due to proximity to nuclear warheads.
  • A hypothesis is presented regarding the possibility of a nuclear-powered cruise missile, specifically the 9M730 Burevestnik, which could explain the incident.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of using a nuclear ramjet engine, including the type of fissile material required and the potential for radioactive emissions.
  • Some participants question the feasibility of rocket fuel becoming radioactive from exposure to nuclear materials, while others discuss the potential for gaseous decay products to be released in an explosion.
  • Reports from Time magazine indicate that the missile test involved a small nuclear reactor, prompting further speculation about the nature of the reactor and its role in the explosion.
  • There is discussion about the possibility of a turbine or reactor problem being the cause of the accident, with some suggesting that an uncontrolled thermal energy release may have occurred.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the causes and implications of the radiation release, with no consensus reached on the specifics of the incident or the technology involved. Multiple competing hypotheses remain under consideration.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of available information, including the lack of clarity regarding the isotopes involved in the radiation increase and the specifics of the reactor technology. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the mechanisms of radiation release and the nature of the rocket's propulsion system.

  • #31
DEvens said:
Not the way you seem to be suggesting. Activation from being exposed to neutron radiation is possible. But warheads have extremely little neutron radiation.

Some of the decay products of Uranium are themselves radioactive and also gaseous. Ordinarily they get trapped inside the material of the Uranium. If the Uranium were abruptly turned to powder or vapor, such as might happen in a big enough explosion, then this gas could be released. That would produce a puff of radiation that would then disperse quickly.

Please name the gaseous elements present in a refined uranium or a plutonium weapon. Can't seem to find any except helium. Is that what you mean?

Thank you.
George Dowell
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
geoelectronics said:
Please name the gaseous elements present in a refined uranium or a plutonium weapon. Can't seem to find any except helium. Is that what you mean?
Eventually some radon, but in refined/purified U or Pu, there is essentially no decay products, since the half-lives are long. Natural decay products are removed when the ore is processed, concentrated and converted.

Regarding fission products, one needs to look at the Xe, Kr decay chains, and actually, they start with Te and Se, respectively. In the case of Xe, one looks at Te -> I -> Xe -> Cs -> Ba -> La, for each of A=128 - 145. Most radionuclides are both fission products and decay products, but with varying half-lives.

Spontaneous fissions produce neutrons, but spontaneous fission rates are low in U-235 and Pu-239.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_fission#Spontaneous_fission_rates
There is very little activation of systems due to neutrons from spontaneous fission.

Initially, the Russian government mentioned a radioisotope system, apparently not wanting to admit a nuclear reactor. We're still learning about the event.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
" Regarding fission products, one needs to look at the Xe, Kr decay chains, and actually, they start with Te and Se, respectively. In the case of Xe, one looks at Te -> I -> Xe -> Cs -> Ba -> La, for each of A=128 - 145. Most radionuclides are both fission products and decay products, but with varying half-lives."

I was talking about before the bomb went of. Hopefully, not too much fission going on normally.George Dowell
 
Last edited:
  • #35
it was a pretty big bang ...
pic via the LA Times

1566113392833.png
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
  • #36
davenn said:
pic via the LA Times
I think that pic is from this accident:


Not related

I can't express fully how deeply do I hate news sites for using anything convenient as 'illustration' :oldgrumpy:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DEvens, gmax137, davenn and 2 others
  • #37
davenn said:
it was a pretty big bang ...
pic via the LA Times
I believe your picture may be of explosions at a military ammunition depot near the city of Achinsk in eastern Siberia’s Krasnoyarsk region in Achinsk, Russia, on Aug. 5. Can you link to the source?
The nuclear power unit for the 9M730 Burevestnik cruise missile was being tested on a platform in the While Sea. It exploded in the morning (about 9AM) on August 8th. That is 2800 km WNW of Achinsk.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
  • #38
Rive said:
I think that pic is from this accident
Nice find. As this video is from 2013 the LA times picture is clearly not from the recent accident.
 
  • #39
Well judging from this thread and the scrap of news elsewhere I think I can say that even in the 21st century with many cell phones etc around countries like Russia can still hide a secret in plain sight pretty well due to their political regime and societal structure. If this happened in the west it would have made national news for the past two weeks every single day, the greenpeace would be protesting 24/7 and a bunch of other incompetent people would blame everything on civil nuclear energy.
 
  • #40
The power reactor being tested was designed to fly on a cruise missile, so it would lack heavy protective screening. The staff operating the reactor, were presumably in a protective radiation shelter on the platform. In order for people to be thrown from the platform, that shelter would need to have been destroyed by the explosion.

Radiation levels in Severodvinsk were variously reported for either half an hour, or for two and a half hours, as being 4 to 16 times the background. That radiation was reported as gamma radiation.

My question now is; If an unshielded nuclear reactor was operating on the horizon, what gamma radiation might be immediately detected at that distance? The period of elevated gamma radiation may represent the duration of the test, prior to and then the explosion, and not due to wind drift of the products after the explosion.

I think the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea has sufficiently restricted access to keep things well hidden. An offshore platform, out of sight of land, serviced from the the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine base, is most unlikely to have any local civilian viewers, even in late summer.

Potential enemies knows more of your countries secrets than the public. Military secrecy is there because without it, the public would see proof of the gross incompetence of the military and lobby for removal of the leaders, or withdrawal of funding.
 
  • #41
Baluncore said:
My question now is; If an unshielded nuclear reactor was operating on the horizon, what gamma radiation might be immediately detected at that distance? The period of elevated gamma radiation may represent the duration of the test, prior to and then the explosion, and not due to wind drift of the products after the explosion.

No radiation would be detected at a distance really. Radioactive MATERIALS (especially gas ones) could leak out and be carried by the wind to other locations, where they subsequently go though nuclear decay and then the radioactivity from that decay would be detected.

But we don't know if this is a reactor. Nuclear power doesn't require a reactor always, if the electrical demands are modest. For example, plutonium 238 was used to power internal heart pacemakers. Pu-238 isotope isn't fissile, Russians use it in smoke detectors as an alpha ionization source.
If anyone wants to know how Radioisotope Thermal Generators work, how and why they are used in interplanetary spacecraft etc. I can explain, but perhaps in another thread by itself.

Hint- Thermal=heat.

George Dowell
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: davenn
  • #42
It is possible to reconstruct the nature of the emission from the spectrum of decay products detected.
So the authorities must have a pretty good idea of what happened. However, apart from noting the increased iodine isotope detection, they have disclosed nothing, perhaps in order to avoid violating the terms of the various monitoring network agreements.
 
  • #43
etudiant said:
It is possible to reconstruct the nature of the emission from the spectrum of decay products detected.
So the authorities must have a pretty good idea of what happened. However, apart from noting the increased iodine isotope detection, they have disclosed nothing, perhaps in order to avoid violating the terms of the various monitoring network agreements.
I agree. Radioactive Iodine is commonly used in many industries, medical, and geophysical surveys, even water well and waste water injection wells. The sources are many and involve different isotopes of iodine but the decay photons will give the answer right away. That is common nuclear metrology, used everywhere in the world every day by ordinary trained technicians.

George Dowell
 
  • #44
Rive said:
I think that pic is from this accident:


Not related

I can't express fully how deeply do I hate news sites for using anything convenient as 'illustration' :oldgrumpy:
Yes, looks probable :smile:
 
  • #45
geoelectronics said:
But we don't know if this is a reactor. Nuclear power doesn't require a reactor always, if the electrical demands are modest.
We know that, unlike a nuclear reactor, heat generation by RTGs cannot be dynamically adjusted in flight, or turned off while in temporary storage prior to a launch. I think we are over the distractive and dismissive information releases. I am sufficiently convinced that it was not an RTG accident. I think we know now that a power unit for, or a 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile was being trialled. It has been admitted that the explosion happened on a platform in the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea.

It may be tangentially hypothetical, but my revised question is; What gamma radiation might be expected from the operation of an unshielded 100kW reactor?
 
  • #46
Baluncore said:
We know that, unlike a nuclear reactor, heat generation by RTGs cannot be dynamically adjusted in flight, or turned off while in temporary storage prior to a launch. I think we are over the distractive and dismissive information releases. I am sufficiently convinced that it was not an RTG accident. I think we know now that a power unit for, or a 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile was being trialled. It has been admitted that the explosion happened on a platform in the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea.

It may be tangentially hypothetical, but my revised question is; What gamma radiation might be expected from the operation of an unshielded 100kW reactor?

No comment, sorry.

George Dowell
 
  • #47
mfb said:
An alternative option: A nuclear powered torpedo. Same idea, basically, just in the water instead of the air.
Oh, that sounds like a great engineering project. The freedom from the severe power to weight ratios needed for a flying object make it all much simpler. It could flash seawater to steam, to drive a turbine and a propeller for very effective propulsion. Seawater could also provide shielding to protect electronics from radiation.

The article says that these torpedoes are twice the size of submarine launched ballistic missiles. That provides lots of volume and mass for propulsion, payload, and navigation. Think double the size of the missile below.

1566223058390.png


Military strategists can spend entire careers working on the implications of delivering payloads 20 minutes, or 20 hours, or 20 days after launch, thinking of ICBM/cruise/torpedo variants.
 
  • #48
The Wall Street Journal reports that 4 Russian nuclear monitoring stations have gone silent since the accident.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-r...n-officials-says-11566232680?mod=hp_lead_pos6I have no idea whether this is a common practice or not, but it is surely suggestive.
However, the complete absence of detailed disclosure on part of the monitoring institutions is peculiar. A reactor accident that spews radioactive material is something they should be reporting on, unless they interpret their remit as purely confined to nuclear explosions.

Separately, the Russians have had extensive experience with liquid metal cooled reactors, which can operate at much higher temperatures than any water cooled design. Such a reactor would be a plausible heat source for a nuclear powered missile. Afaik, one of their main problem is that the metal coolant, usually lead or some lead/bismuth alloy, is prone to dissolve the pipes in which it runs. Perhaps this was such an incident. I've no idea however whether anyone has modeled a LOCA for these designs.
 
  • #49
etudiant said:
Afaik, one of their main problem is that the metal coolant, usually lead or some lead/bismuth alloy, is prone to dissolve the pipes in which it runs.
That might be acceptable in a missile with a design life of just a few hours.

The main fuel pumps in the Saturn V rocket had a design life of 200 seconds. 120 seconds of that was used in two pre-flight tests, and 60 seconds during the actual launch, leaving 20 seconds spare lifetime. My point is that components considered permanent in ordinary applications, can be considered consumable in short life applications like a missile.(Sorry, no link to that Saturn V data, but I could probably find it if someone wants me to.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron and etudiant
  • #50
Excellent point, design life is set to actual use.
That might actually help explain the accident, if they were testing the system several times and inadvertently exceeded the actual use life of some critical component.
 
  • #51
Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious. Russia remains paranoid about releasing information about uncontrolled discharges of radioactive material. There is even a report that workers in the hospital that treated survivors were not told that the patients were contaminated. They were also asked to sign non disclosure agreements.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-covering-up-nuclear-accident-at-nyonoksa-2019-8
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, BillTre and geoelectronics
  • #52
gleem said:
There is even a report that workers in the hospital that treated survivors were not told that the patients were contaminated.
If true, that is just plain wrong, IMO. :mad:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
  • #53
gleem said:
Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious.
I heard about that this afternoon. Apparently the accident was Aug 8, and by Aug 10, two of the CTBTO monitoring stations were turned off, then three more further away were turned off.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ent-offline-after-mystery-blast-idUSKCN1V9183
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-nuc...fuels-fears-extent-deadly-blast/30119174.html
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: geoelectronics
  • #54
Russia to nuclear test ban monitor: Test accident not your business
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...test-accident-not-your-business-idUSKCN1VA0OL
One of the the dead stations is transmitting again.
gleem said:
Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious.
Not necessarily. It can also mean that studying the nuclide distributions could give some indications how the weapon was designed and tested.
Reported levels outside Russia are really small, the radiation levels outside the testing site are probably not that high.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: geoelectronics, anorlunda, russ_watters and 2 others
  • #55
@berkeman not telling someone something that they should otherwise under any normal circumstances know is exactly how everything is done in this part of the world. Trust me I know, same thing only on a larger level was back in the USSR, now it has decreased simply because the global information exchange capabilities have skyrocketed compared to the 1980's for example, thanks to internet and capable cell phones. So say this happened back in 1986, unlike Chernobyl which was simply too big to hide this would have been hidden better than a needle in a haystack, there would never be a thread of this type.
I believe China has the same exact policy towards secrecy and maybe some other countries do as well.
It's a philosophical issue because the value of human life is very low as seen here unlike seen in the western world
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: geoelectronics
  • #56
If indeed the missile is a torpedo like mentioned here before I suppose then the reactor could be very simple and not have to use any liquid metal cooling etc?
But even for an surface to air missile if it had a nuclear reactor as the heat source why would one want to use liquid metal as coolant? Doesn't that simply add an unnecessary weight and complexity given that the final product which needs heating is air so why not heat it directly by some heat exchange from the core to the by passing air?
Given it's a missile that carries a warhead meant for a thermonuclear detonation does one really worry about some minor radioactive pollution along the way to the target?
 
  • #57
artis said:
But even for an surface to air missile if it had a nuclear reactor as the heat source why would one want to use liquid metal as coolant?
The liquid metal is a heat exchange fluid. It cools the core while it heats the jet air.
 
  • #58
yes I know it's a heat exchange fluid but again why not use air directly to cool the fuel? they did that in Windscale

The only reason I can think up at the moment is that a highly enriched core has rather small surface area so the passing air probably couldn't keep the temps low enough for safe operation of the reactor so that it lasts long enough so maybe the liquid metal then circulates through a much larger heat exchanger wit large surface, could this be the case?
 
  • #59
artis said:
could this be the case?
That is the case. It permits different contact areas for the two heat exchangers.
 
  • #60
Astronuc said:
I heard about that this afternoon. Apparently the accident was Aug 8, and by Aug 10, two of the CTBTO monitoring stations were turned off, then three more further away were turned off.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ent-offline-after-mystery-blast-idUSKCN1V9183
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-nuc...fuels-fears-extent-deadly-blast/30119174.html
Help me out here, I'm a little confused. Someone posted this link in this thread earlier:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...-arms-depot-at-russian-military-base/11386418

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...-kills-two-sparks-radiation-concerns/11398604

Inside is a video with this caption:
Video: The rocket explosion comes days after a fire at a military ammunition depot in Siberia. (ABC News)

Is this the same incident? The video shows a populated town and metnions the accident was at a military ammunition depot?

Thanks

Geo