Russian rocket accident releases radiation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The recent explosion at the Nyonoksa naval ballistic missile test site in Russia resulted in a radiation release, with radiation levels peaking at 2 microsieverts per hour for about 30 minutes before returning to normal levels of 0.1 microsieverts per hour. The incident, which killed five scientists, is speculated to involve a nuclear-powered cruise missile, specifically the 9M730 Burevestnik (SSC-X-9 Skyfall), or a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR). The explosion's characteristics suggest a possible uncontrolled thermal energy release rather than a failure of chemical propellants. The involvement of a small nuclear reactor for missile propulsion has raised concerns about the safety and implications of such technology.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear propulsion systems, specifically nuclear thermal rockets (NTR).
  • Knowledge of radiation measurement units, particularly microsieverts.
  • Familiarity with missile technology, including the 9M730 Burevestnik (SSC-X-9 Skyfall).
  • Awareness of the implications of nuclear accidents and radiation release protocols.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the operational principles of nuclear thermal rockets (NTR) and their applications.
  • Study the safety protocols and emergency response strategies for radiation release incidents.
  • Investigate the design and functionality of the 9M730 Burevestnik (SSC-X-9 Skyfall) missile.
  • Explore historical cases of nuclear accidents and their impact on military technology development.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for military technology analysts, nuclear safety experts, and researchers in aerospace engineering, particularly those focused on propulsion systems and radiation safety protocols.

  • #91
anorlunda said:
My assumption would be that such a cruise missile is not reusable. So tested several missiles, but not several tests with the same missile.
In this particular case I think it is possible to design the test device to be reusable (with limits, of course). It is just the matter of mass spent on a biological shield. As long as the burnup of the onboard reactor is (very) low the radiation might be within manageable limits (after a cooldown period, spent underwater?).
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #92
From what I have been seeing on this all, I do not think they were using 'Ramjet' tech as that is tricky enough, even though they are the leaders in that area, but consider a solid, closed permanent heat source for a turbine driven jet, mass of fissiles with a singe moderating rod. One may need to use a normal fuel to get initial takeoff speed, but once in the air it becomes a constant temperature adjustment for the speed, but other than that no fuel needed other than the fissile materials and the air going through, being compressed and then heated by the heat exchanger rather than burning fuel to expand the air.

Dirty bomb just being, let alone in use.
 
  • #93
Rive said:
In this particular case I think it is possible to design the test device to be reusable (with limits, of course). It is just the matter of mass spent on a biological shield. As long as the burnup of the onboard reactor is (very) low the radiation might be within manageable limits (after a cooldown period, spent underwater?).

I was thinking of the non-nuclear factors that might make a very short life. For example,

etudiant said:
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.

The mission of a cruise missile needs only a few hours lifetime. Making the design lifetime several times longer for the purpose of test flights is a big change. See the comparison to Saturn V in #49.
 
  • #94
anorlunda said:
See the comparison to Saturn V in #49.
For reference:
anorlunda said:
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.
The first stage of Saturn V burned for ~150 seconds and the other stages burned even longer, so I have some doubts about these numbers. Can you try to find the sources? Because I didn't find anything.
 
  • #95
anorlunda said:
The mission of a cruise missile needs only a few hours lifetime. Making the design lifetime several times longer for the purpose of test flights is a big change.
That's okay, but:
- military hardware is expected to be sturdy by default. Not a Saturn which was just erected there and fired: you (your ship) should be able to carry it around in battle
- especially so that this case it's not that easy to clean up the mess if something goes wrong, so extra reserve is expected
- and, most importantly: a test flight in this case (with the displayed distances) is likely around a few (few dozen at most) minutes, compared to the expected few hours lifetime.
 
Last edited:
  • #96
I see no reason why the nuclear missile that the Russians seem to have (we can only guess at what point of readiness) can't stay up in air for a prolonged time, because a nuclear reactor can last a rather long time (at least conventional ones do) and so long as the temperatures don't exceed material limits and the rocket doesn't hit it's target why couldn't it buzz over in the sky given it has it's heat source and due to its large speed has it's cooling in place all the time.

@anorlunda I wasn't implying that it's the same rocket, I simply meant that based on the info we have so far it seems they have done multiple test flights with such rockets.

I would suppose that they are working on a safe landing/dumping of the missile given under operational conditions it would have not only an active reactor but also nuclear warheads on board I'd say safely landing the thing is even more important than having it in the first place.Imagine it lifts off to its target in a war situation but suddenly west declares peace with east and now you need to quickly get rid of your flying apocalypse, landing on foreign territory is too dangerous and landing in your own if something goes wrong has the risk of "friendly fire" or blowing up your own country by accident, so they better get the cancel button damn right.
 
  • #97
Bit late to this thread, but been following this semi keenly via news.

Re the Poseidon torpedo, I would have thought this would be more or less based on conventional nuclear sub technology?, ie nuclear electric drive? I would think "silent running" would be key to avoid detection, so would have thought any sort of direct boiling of sea water would be too noisy? Didn't they also have a nuclear accident on a submersible or was that something else.

Re the nuke ramjet, I am not certain they would be ready to risk actual flight tests? I kind of assumed it was a stationary test. Perhaps the double explosion could be something went wrong, they failed to contain it properly, then something really went wrong?