Rosatom rocket engine failure

[NiL]

3 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

If this happened at sea or near it (which stands to reason, it's better to let a faulty nuclear engine sink beneath the White Sea than let it hit land and spill uranium over it), then reactor guts were scattered over the sea. The large zone is likely a matter of security, as well. They likely don't want anything interfering with the cleanup operation, and covertly taking photos of the test ship/test site while at it.

The problem is that rocket test site with killed people are on land and not even on the shore; the closed zone in way in the sea. So it can be turbopump explosion on a test site (i think rockets cannot fly with exploded turbopumps) OR  reactor gutts scattered across the sea. That's confusing, because my version (basically similar to your reactor gutts) does'nt explain it either. 

[NiL]

9 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

I think we can exclude any RTGs being blown to bits. They are simply way too weak to be used as energy source for any engine.

 

Since apparently this has been on a sea platform, and people have been blown by an explosion into the sea, this might've easily been an engine with a small powerful reactor with highly enriched uranium being damaged to the point it was blown into bits which fell into the sea, thus stopping the direct fission product release.

There shouldn't be lots of fission products in such reactor since they don't work for months, but are propulsion tests.

Arctic currents will dillute it, but Grenland and Alaska should be able to detect it. Grenland first.

Ocean platform?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, NiL said:

The problem is that rocket test site with killed people are on land and not even on the shore; the closed zone in way in the sea. So it can be turbopump explosion on a test site (i think rockets cannot fly with exploded turbopumps) OR  reactor gutts scattered across the sea. That's confusing, because my version (basically similar to your reactor gutts) does'nt explain it either. 

If the wind was blowing towards the sea, it could have carried radioactive particles quite far. Considering how panicky people can get with nuclear engines, this might be just somewhat excessive measures taken to ensure things aren't . That said, I'd like to see a map showing both the test site and the closed zone. 

15 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Why has this not been done yet?

Thrust sucks. Thrust power is exhaust velocity*thrust. Exhaust velocity is c. Thrust is, therefore, (laser power consumption*efficiency)/c. A 100MW laser with 30% efficiency gives you 40N of thrust. Considering how large a 100MW laser would have to be (even if we could build them), it's not exactly of much practical use. That's not even getting into trying to have it push a nuclear reactor.

All your devices can, in theory, function as particularly lousy photon rockets. Basically, what you're trying to do is to use the glow of your engine plume as your propellant. It's as silly as it sounds, but surprisingly enough, it's also physically possible. Only, most of your designs waste a lot of energy by radiating it sideways, and you'd need to make the capture gear transparent in order to get some of that thrust to actually push you. Also, because thermal emission isn't coherent (not all photons go straight back), you'll be taking cosine loses, as well. It's a Rube Goldberg contraption that loses out to a simple, if mostly impractical, laser rocket.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Guest

[lajoswinkler]

26 minutes ago, NiL said:

Ocean platform?

RT mentions it.

https://www.rt.com/russia/466238-russian-rocket-blast-sea-rosatom/

But I found Rosatom's announcement and it says nothing about it.

http://rosatom.ru/journalist/news/zayavlenie-departamenta-kommunikatsiy-goskorporatsii-rosatom/

So I don't know anymore.

[NiL]

24 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

If the wind was blowing towards the sea, it could have carried radioactive particles quite far. Considering how panicky people can get with nuclear engines, this might be just somewhat excessive measures taken to ensure things aren't . 

Sounds very realistic to me

25 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

That said, I'd like to see a map showing both the test site and the closed zone. 

You basically have it. The city (actually rather a big village) labeled "Ненокса" just under the closed zone is, i believe, where the test site is located.

[NiL]

28 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

RT mentions it.

https://www.rt.com/russia/466238-russian-rocket-blast-sea-rosatom/

But I found Rosatom's announcement and it says nothing about it.

http://rosatom.ru/journalist/news/zayavlenie-departamenta-kommunikatsiy-goskorporatsii-rosatom/

So I don't know anymore.

I think RT is just lying, it's reputation is not too good back here (but again, i'm ukrainian, my opinion about russian's officials and government-controlled news sources reputation can be somewhat unobjective lol). A lot of articles was talking about "explosion on a Nenoks rocket test site", "fire on a Nenoks rocket test site". Cosidering there are a real rocket test site in Nenoks... but it can also be a media's mistake, because there were a high radiation levels in Nenoks and a test site, so if the rocket really exploded on a platform in the sea near Nenoks and the radioactive particles was carried to it by the wind - they could be thinking that the explosion was on the test site, russian officials are not very loud about all that situation. We should check the wind direction at that day/time: if it blew from the sea, than version with platform is more probable, if from land - the explosion was on the test site. 

29 minutes ago, NiL said:

You basically have it. A city (actually rather a big village) labeled "Ненокса" just under the closed zone is, i believe, where the test site is located.

I should maybe state clearly that Ненокса is Nenoks in russian for avoiding possible misunderstanding

Edited August 10, 2019 by NiL
wrote "wond" insted of "wind" lol

[DDE]

3 hours ago, NiL said:

About the explosion: Russia just closed a huge part of Barwntsovo sea (Barenz sea? Dunno how to translate) near Archangelsk (and, i believe, Severodvinsk, in wich people spotred a high background radiation too os somewhere there too)

NOTAMs were issued for several days around the incident, standard for a missile test.

The subsequent close-off is also quite non-indicative. It could be a toxic fuel spill from an ordinary missile, for example.

42 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

RT mentions it.

https://www.rt.com/russia/466238-russian-rocket-blast-sea-rosatom/

But I found Rosatom's announcement and it says nothing about it.

http://rosatom.ru/journalist/news/zayavlenie-departamenta-kommunikatsiy-goskorporatsii-rosatom/

So I don't know anymore.

If it’s a Navy missile, it uses one of these.

If the missile is supposed to be launched underwater, you’re going to test it underwater.

[Guest]

Yeah, I don't trust any non-specialist press reporting on anything nuclear. If they're not intentionally lying, they're usually wrong anyway.  RT probably couldn't get it right if they wanted to, just like Western media. They could turn a small fire at a nuclear storage site into a huge explosion, complete with a mushroom cloud on the front page. All scientific reporting in popular press has this kind of problems, really. I'd say, all we know there was a mishap and some sort of radioactive material release, since there's this nuclear cleanup ship in the area.

From that map, though, it's obvious it's either a wind effect or a NOTAM for a missile test that they didn't bother to update. Notice how you can draw a line from the test site down the middle of the closed zone. 

[DDE]

1 minute ago, Dragon01 said:

They could turn a small fire at a nuclear storage site into a huge explosion, complete with a mushroom cloud on the front page.

It’s already happened. There’s been a fire at an ammo disposal ground in Achinsk:

Naturally, some people couldn’t tell the difference.

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Yeah, I don't trust any non-specialist press reporting on anything nuclear. If they're not intentionally lying, they're usually wrong anyway.  RT probably couldn't get it right if they wanted to, just like Western media. They could turn a small fire at a nuclear storage site into a huge explosion, complete with a mushroom cloud on the front page. All scientific reporting in popular press has this kind of problems, really. I'd say, all we know there was a mishap and some sort of radioactive material release, since there's this nuclear cleanup ship in the area.

From that map, though, it's obvious it's either a wind effect or a NOTAM for a missile test that they didn't bother to update. Notice how you can draw a line from the test site down the middle of the closed zone. 

1. What is a NOTAM

2. Yes very true, they were fine with it when it was above ground nuclear testing though!

Just now, DDE said:

It’s already happened. There’s been a fire at an ammo disposal ground in Achinsk:

Naturally, some people couldn’t tell the difference.

Lol

[DDE]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What is a NOTAM

Notice To Airmen. Things to look out for when militaries conduct otherwise-secret launches.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, DDE said:

Notice To Airmen. Things to look out for when militaries conduct otherwise-secret launches.

Thanks

[DDE]

3 hours ago, NiL said:

20 km/s is obv silly, but in general...

There’s does seem to be a lot of confusion among the laymen. In the public mind, Burevestnik and the unpowered Avangard have completely merged. And then you have exaggerated claims of the velocity of the Poseidon torpedo...

2 hours ago, NiL said:

People are scared and buying iodine (because there's a myth that it protects from radiation) and/or joking about season 2 of "Chernobyl", that piece of paper in the phrmacy's window says "All the iodine was sold out":

 

As explained before, iodine-131 is a major gaseous fusion product. Even Three Mile Island AFAIK blew off some of it. That’s why all Soviet meds with iodine mentioned its radioprotective qualities; the guys from Oak Ridge disagree. The preferred form, one that doesn’t create the risk of poisoning, are potassium iodide tablets.

Instead, back in 2004, when Balakovskaya NEP sprung a leak in the outer cooling loop, about 30 people poisoned themselves in fright.

Meanwhile, if I’m right and we’re looking at a blown strontium titanite RTG, what’s required is Ferrocyne, postassium-iron hexocyanoferrate. It’s so capable it was used to resume milk production in Chernobyl-contaminated areas, they put it right into cattle fodder.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

There’s does seem to be a lot of confusion among the laymen. In the public mind, Burevestnik and the unpowered Avangard have completely merged. And then you have exaggerated claims of the velocity of the Poseidon torpedo...

Sometimes it's difficult to sort out what's being attributed to what. Another reason to take claims from popular press with a whole barrel of salt. Soon, in the public mind the Russians will have an nuclear-powered jet torpedo that moves at 20km/s through air, water and space alike, and launches multiple salted fission bombs at the poor, helpless Americans...  

I'm not sure how one would go about blowing up an RTG, seeing that they have a tendency to fall down intact from space-rated LV explosions. However, given how much radioactive materials are in a typical RTG (and, more crucially, what kind, for RTGs you want alphas and betas that'll easily turn into heat), I'm not sure if there's much danger even if one did blow up, unless some bums tried to sell the pieces for scrap. Which they may, this being Russia... 

[lajoswinkler]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Meanwhile, if I’m right and we’re looking at a blown strontium titanite RTG, what’s required is Ferrocyne, postassium-iron hexocyanoferrate. It’s so capable it was used to resume milk production in Chernobyl-contaminated areas, they put it right into cattle fodder.

Pure Sr-90 source has power density of 0.46 W/g. Not even Pu-238 gets hot enough for this. Not even close. Whenever you see glowing PuO₂ pellets, that's photo taken after the sample has been thermally isolated for some time, usually old photos feature asbestos flakes around it. A lump of strontium-90 titanate would just be warm.

What would a Sr-90 RTG do in any scenario applicable here?

Plus, if it was one, the levels of ionizing radiation would not drop because Sr-90 comes as titanate or carbonate. All nonvolatile compounds, basically ceramics. If that stuff gets dispersed and falls on the ground, it stays there.

If there is a spike in gamma levels, and then drop, it's something volatile. Apart from Xe-135, the most volatile thing related to radiological accidents I can think of is I-131 in the form of methyl iodide, which was the principal contaminant in the 1986 cloud over Europe.

[KeranoKerman]

I believe that it wasn’t an RTG power source but instead a nuclear ramjet. The flash of radiation detected looks like a nuclear reactor going supercritical and for a brief moment becoming a small nuclear bomb. The flash would have created an initial flash and then atoms hit remitting the radiation. From my knowledge (not very much) it is a lot easier for a nuclear  reactor to go critical compared to an RTG.

[kerbiloid]

At last, 9 pages of this thread made for me clear what's happened.

It was a failure of a radioisotope power source feeding magnets in a floating SLBM equipped with a closed-loop engine, gathering the burnt fuel back, and returning it to the tank to reuse.
This makes this SLBM range unlimited, because the fuel is not spent due to the magnetic scoop.
The fuel is liquid. Initially.

This has granted several pleasant minutes of celebration to our Ukrainian comrade, a little bit darkened as permanently being interrupted by the discussion: did Progress hit Mir, or was Mir hit by Progress.

(Some comrades have demonstrated horrible ideas of the iodine solution drinking for fun.
Don't do this at home! Use only a nutritional alcohol as people do here in Russia.)

Though, the compassion to the local people is understandable, as the iodine theme is not unknown for the Ukrainian people.
Maybe even said, is closely familiar, as their engineers have a great experience in the nuclear plants testing, we could see that in the movie.

But there is no  clear answer to the main and most significant question related to the topic:

Spoiler

When will we get full-featured underwater mechanics in KSP to build the underwater bases?

Upd.

Spoiler

And contamination. We need a contamination mechanics in KSP to be careful with NTR.

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Scotius]

Yeah, sure - go ahead. Take away all our fun of flying around in nuclear powered rockets without the headache of dealing with those pesky by-products of fission

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

Yeah, sure - go ahead. Take away all our fun of flying around in nuclear powered rockets without the headache of dealing with those pesky by-products of fission

Show must go on.

[DDE]

11 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

I'm not sure if there's much danger even if one did blow up, unless some bums tried to sell the pieces for scrap. Which they may, this being Russia... 

They have. The last such incident was in 2004 in the village of Valentin. The RIT-90 isotope slug was thrown out, while all thermocouples and shielding were scavenged.

9 hours ago, KeranoKerman said:

I believe that it wasn’t an RTG power source but instead a nuclear ramjet. The flash of radiation detected looks like a nuclear reactor going supercritical and for a brief moment becoming a small nuclear bomb.

But was there a flash, as opposed to a "short-term increase"?

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Don't do this at home! Use only a nutritional alcohol as people do here in Russia.

Jokes aside, alcohol does help resist extreme radiation doses. It won't prevent cancer, but it will help reduce the probability of you dropping dead on the spot. So, not RadAway, but Rad-X.

However, B-190 works better.

Edited August 11, 2019 by DDE

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, DDE said:

Jokes aside, alcohol does help resist extreme radiation doses. It won't prevent cancer, but it will help reduce the probability of you dropping dead on the spot. So, not RadAway, but Rad-X.

In amounts making the consumer unable to work, iirc. As the oriental wisdom teaches us, the best defence is to keep away from the danger.
Better dropping dead under table than do the same on the spot.

[Guest]

I found this vid 

https://mobile.reuters.com/video/2019/08/10/russian-test-accident-kills-five-nuclear?videoId=585781673&videoChannel=117760

[Guest]

On 8/10/2019 at 11:27 AM, 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?

Project Pluto style nuke ramjet prolly.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Dale Christopher said:

I found this vid 

https://mobile.reuters.com/video/2019/08/10/russian-test-accident-kills-five-nuclear?videoId=585781673&videoChannel=117760

Spoiler: stock footage and speculation.

[kerbiloid]

As looks like the pollution is mostly in water (the cleaning ship, not cleaning rovers), probably the event happened indeed on a barge. So, unlikely Burevestnik (why launch it from barge).

(Big picture is quoted)

Spoiler

14 hours ago, DDE said:

If it’s a Navy missile, it uses one of these.

If the missile is supposed to be launched underwater, you’re going to test it underwater.

 

And several weeks ago we were discussing a Chinese barge launch.

Edited August 11, 2019 by kerbiloid