Rosatom rocket engine failure

[Nothalogh]

Quote

Five staff of Russia’s nuclear corporation Rosatom were killed and three suffered serious burns in the blast during a test of a liquid-propellant engine that resulted in a brief spike of radiation around the military testing site.

The Rosatom engineering and technical team was working on the ”isotope power source" for a propulsion system on Thursday, when the accident happened. The blast resulted in a background radiation spike, which quickly returned back to normal.

“As a result of the accident at the military firing range in Arkhangelsk region during liquid reactive propulsion system tests, five employees of the state corporation Rosatom were killed,” the company said. Three military and civilian specialists remain in serious condition, but their injuries are “not life-threatening,” a source in the regional emergency services said.

https://www.rt.com/russia/466194-rosatom-killed-arkhangelsk-blast/

 

So, with what we know of the various types of Nuclear Thermal Rockets, what can we estimate they dug out of the Soviet boneyard and tried to fire up?

[Spacescifi]

10 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

https://www.rt.com/russia/466194-rosatom-killed-arkhangelsk-blast/

 

So, with what we know of the various types of Nuclear Thermal Rockets, what can we estimate they dug out of the Soviet boneyard and tried to fire up?

 

Indeed. It is not everyday that governents will just flat out say they are testing NTR.

Because that tends to make other nations freak out.

 

Although declassification often comes decades later.

Makes me wonder about the tech projects they have'nt revealed, probably just as dangerous or more so.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Spacescifi

[Nothalogh]

Just now, Spacescifi said:

flat out say they are testing NTR

Well, they didn't.

They said it was a " liquid-propellant engine" that had an ”isotope power source".

Of course that leads me to surmise it to be an NTR, but what other designs could fit that criteria?

[Spacescifi]

6 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

Well, they didn't.

They said it was a " liquid-propellant engine" that had an ”isotope power source".

Of course that leads me to surmise it to be an NTR, but what other designs could fit that criteria?

 

Why would they? I can't see it giving them any advantage whatsoever, only negative publicity, which they already spend plenty of resources deflecting because of war and social unrest.

 

Have'nt a clue what they are using, but I bet intelligence agencies do and probably have been watching them for a while yet.

 

Either that or this is worse than it seems. Sabotage and spygames like mission impossible.

It is not like such is unthinkable.

 

Or the project blew up in their face with no outside intervention.

Has happened before,

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Spacescifi

[Ultimate Steve]

6 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

Well, they didn't.

They said it was a " liquid-propellant engine" that had an ”isotope power source".

Of course that leads me to surmise it to be an NTR, but what other designs could fit that criteria?

Radioisotope rocket?

(Propellant is heated by the decay of nuclear material like an RTG, not by a nuclear reactor)

[Cheif Operations Director]

Never trust the Russian government with nuclear tech. NEVER it always goes boom...

This does sound like a nuclear engine.

25 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

The Rosatom engineering and technical team was working on the ”isotope power source" for a propulsion system on Thursday, when the accident happened. The blast resulted in a background radiation spike, which quickly returned back to normal.

I find this interesting though, why would an isotope based power source suddenly dissipate its energy? Are they trying to use fission or something? I'm not that familiar with nuclear engines. Further more why did they say "background" radiation spike? None of this would relate to backround radiation. This may just be a journalistic mistake but I doubt it. 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Cheif Operations Director

[Spacescifi]

1 minute ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Radioisotope rocket?

(Propellant is heated by the decay of nuclear material like an RTG, not by a nuclear reactor)

 

Perhaps. RTG's still aren't as piwerful as NTR though if I recall correctly.

[Cheif Operations Director]

 

8 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

(Propellant is heated by the decay of nuclear material like an RTG, not by a nuclear reactor)

exactly!

Edited August 10, 2019 by Cheif Operations Director

[Nothalogh]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Radioisotope rocket?

(Propellant is heated by the decay of nuclear material like an RTG, not by a nuclear reactor)

Those things never seemed innately powerful enough to cause the sort of incident we see unfolding

[Cheif Operations Director]

clarification: when I say 

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

why would an isotope based power source suddenly dissipate its energy?

My point is that isotopes do not instantaneously decay. I doubt RT got that part wrong so in order for background radiation to return to normal shortly after the isotopes would need to decay very quickly. But if they are quickly decaying isotopes it would defeat the point of a nuclear engine since you could only use it for awhile. It may be fission based.

[Nothalogh]

Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

It may be fission based

See, that's what I'm suspecting.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Nothalogh said:

Those things never seemed innately powerful enough to cause the sort of incident we see unfolding

Im willing to bet that this is fission based

Just now, Nothalogh said:

See, that's what I'm suspecting.

yes me too. Because those isotopes would NOT decay in a short period of time. 

[Nothalogh]

I forget, who are our resident nuclear rocketry experts?

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Nothalogh said:

I forget, who are our resident nuclear rocketry experts?

No idea unfortunately.

[Ultimate Steve]

Nuclear electric propulsion maybe? It does specify liquid propellant, though, so that's unlikely.

This is almost certainly wrong and would make no sense, but maybe a nuclear reactor driving the pumps? I don't think that would be worth it at all though.

If the article is correct, it certainly sounds like a nuclear engine. But it says "isotope" power source, which makes me think more of an RTG... But the word *can* be used to describe both. Maybe it's a Russian translation thing. Maybe they use the word for both over there...

Maybe they were doing tests on a spacecraft that had both a liquid engine and an RTG on board.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Ultimate Steve said:

This is almost certainly wrong and would make no sense, but maybe a nuclear reactor driving the pumps? I don't think that would be worth it at all though.

Weight to thrust, yea not worth it. 

 

Just now, Ultimate Steve said:

If the article is correct, it certainly sounds like a nuclear engine. But it says "isotope" power source, which makes me think more of an RTG... But the word *can* be used to describe both. Maybe it's a Russian translation thing. Maybe they use the word for both over there...

The thing for me is that is says the isotopes decays quickly. RTGs do not do that. Frankly neither do nuclear reactors. 

[Nothalogh]

1 minute ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Maybe they were doing tests on a spacecraft that had both a liquid engine and an RTG on board.

Interesting point of note, this was under the authority of Rosatom, not Roscosmos.

Roughly, this is like the Department of Energy doing a rocket engine test.

[YNM]

9 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

isotopes do not instantaneously decay.

It might be a criticality event, the sort that happened if you somehow enclosed the radioactive source a bit too closely.

Though it also says "explosion" so I'm not sure.

1 minute ago, Nothalogh said:

this is like the Department of Energy doing a rocket engine test.

The US did it once.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, Nothalogh said:

Interesting point of note, this was under the authority of Rosatom, not Roscosmos.

Roughly, this is like the Department of Energy doing a rocket engine test.

Hmm. Could be a partnership. Or Rosatom wants to power a turbine with a nuclear rocket engine...

[Nothalogh]

2 minutes ago, YNM said:

The US did it once.

I know, that's what I was thinking of.

 

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Or Rosatom wants to power a turbine with a nuclear rocket engine.

Ah, the old back to back rocket engines to generate electricity with the alternators, trick...

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

It might be a criticality event, the sort that happened if you somehow enclosed the radioactive source a bit too closely.

Though it also says "explosion" so I'm not sure.

elaborate, sorry I do not know a ton about nuclear tech.

[Ultimate Steve]

If it is an actual nuclear engine, I would at first be happy that they are trying to do this, but after this accident, if it becomes very public, this may set back nuclear engines by years.

However, it is Russia. I wouldn't be too surprised if they just continue.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, Nothalogh said:

Ah, the old back to back rocket engines to generate electricity with the alternators, trick...

would not be the first time they went full kerbal
*they being the russians

[KeranoKerman]

I would guess that they are using a fission reactor engine. Fusion is very hard to make work, and an rtg rocket breaking apart would have radiation seep out. A nuclear reactor going critical would create a flash of high energy  photon radiation, possibly making some atoms undergo alpha and beta decay, Making those types of radiation 

Edited August 10, 2019 by KeranoKerman
More clarity

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, Ultimate Steve said:

However, it is Russia. I wouldn't be too surprised if they just continue.

Comrade, in glorius soviet union, no mistakes are made!