Nothalogh

Rosatom rocket engine failure

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

By the time the Cherenkov glow in air is visible, the ionizing is already so powerful it not only makes it glow, but turns it into plasma that glows from the sheer high temperature.

You do realize, that this is different from claiming that: "You can't get Cherenkov radiation in air." Because that claim would mean that high energy gamma ray astronomy doesn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IACT

So you are saying, that the "flash of blue light" reported here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Second_incident was not Cherenkov radiation?

Edited by AHHans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Yes, but why did you reply to me with condolences?

???
You asked to translate. I explained: "Condolences".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AHHans said:

You do realize, that this is different from claiming that: "You can't get Cherenkov radiation in air." Because that claim would mean that high energy gamma ray astronomy doesn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IACT

So you are saying, that the "flash of blue light" reported here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Second_incident was not Cherenkov radiation?

That method captures glow from a cascade made by a shower of cascading relativistic particles from a primary cosmic ray. Very different thing.

 

Yes, the glow from the demon core accident(s) was not Cherenkov radiation because it is simply too weak. It is ionized air glow. It's a pretty basic nuclear physics thing, but I suppose one HBO series now made everyone accept one crappy disinformation as a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

That method captures glow from a cascade made by a shower of cascading relativistic particles from a primary cosmic ray. Very different thing.

I assume you mean "very different thing" in the sense: "The source and thus the properties of the relativistic particles is very different than radiation from nuclear reactions."

I now understand what you want to say, but sometimes using a few more words to be more specific can be very helpful. (And avoid statements that - as such - are wrong.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Unrelated to the thread topic).

On 8/10/2019 at 7:51 PM, DDE said:

Given the proposed strategic role and that it was a cooperation between the submarine manufacturer Rubin and the Makeyev SLBM guys, it’s probably an R-29 missile in a new, reinforced, autonomous launch container.

Looks like has been declared officially.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4746647

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-746.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys from the well-respected Bellona environmental nuclear safety group are trying to restore some sanity to the hysteria and point out that a NBC suit that the victims were wearing during transport doesn’t just protect against N, and that UDMH-NTO is nasty excrements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

They claim that this was RTG testing (a "small-sized" "nuclear battery").

Too bad they didn't say what exactly it was supposed to power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

They claim that this was RTG testing (a "small-sized" "nuclear battery").

https://www.rbc.ru/society/12/08/2019/5d5151b29a7947b98b9cb045

They did not claim "RTG".

The article says:

"создание малогабаритных источников энергии с использованием радиоактивных делящихся материалов"

Google translate says:

"The creation of small-sized energy sources using radioactive fissile materials"

 

Fissile. It was a fission reactor. They can downplay what they did there all they want, but this had to be a fissile reactor, likely with a material of very low critical mass.

Temporary spike in radioactivity in nearby town suggests a volatile fission product escaping from a damaged reactor vessel. Dispersal of an RTG would not be temporary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Fissile. It was a fission reactor

There is no word about fission reactors.

Quote

«Это ядерная батарейка, чтобы вам было понятно», — сказал представитель «Росатома» в разговоре с «Фонтанкой».

"This is a nuclear battery, to make it clear for you", said the official from Rosatom.
 

18 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

делящихся материалов

includes any isotopes able to fission, uncluding spontaneous fission used in RTG.

You may read the reference.

https://normative_reference_dictionary.academic.ru/15334/Делящиеся_материалы

18 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Temporary spike in radioactivity in nearby town suggests a volatile fission product escaping from a damaged reactor vessel. Dispersal of an RTG would not be temporary.

If the event happened on barge, most part of the results can be now dissolved in water, while only a small cloud reached the land.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

There is no word about fission reactors.

"This is a nuclear battery, to make it clear for you", said the official from Rosatom.
 

includes any isotopes able to fission, uncluding spontaneous fission used in RTG.

You may read the reference.

https://normative_reference_dictionary.academic.ru/15334/Делящиеся_материалы

If the event happened on barge, most part of the results can be now dissolved in water, while only a small cloud reached the land.

If course there isn't. It's Russia, and it's the military. That combination alone should make some things obvious.

 

I translated your link with GT and it says:

5. Fissile materials

5-C1. The definition is in accordance with IAEA-96 Rules, Clause 222.

5-C2. The fission chain is supported by neutrons. Since the chain reaction depends on the behavior of neutrons, fissile materials are packaged and transported in accordance with the requirements, the purpose of which is to ensure subcriticality and, thus, criticality safety during transportation. In the Rules, the term “fissile materials” is used from time to time either to fissile radionuclides, or in relation to materials containing such radionuclides. Users of the Rules should be careful about the context in which the term “fissile material” is used (paragraph 222.1 of TS-G-1.1).

5-C3. In most cases, radionuclides are capable of fission, but many of them are difficult to share and only in the presence of special equipment and special conditions. A distinctive feature of fissile nuclides arising from their definition is their ability to SCR under the influence of thermal neutrons (neutron energy less than ~ 0.3 eV) under the condition of accumulation of sufficient mass. No other special actions, mechanisms or conditions are required. For example, the Ri-238 is no longer ranked among them, because, although it is able to maintain a chain reaction of fission at fast neutrons in special laboratory conditions, in the form in which it is transported, it does not possess such properties. Under no circumstances can the Ri-238 support thermal neutron scr. It is more likely to be “divisible” than “fissile” (paragraph 222.2 of TS-G-1.1).

5-C4. As noted in paragraph 5-СЗ, the basic principle used in the Rules when selecting nuclides defined as fissile material is based on the easy accumulation of sufficient mass for potential criticality. Other actinides with the ability to create criticality are discussed in ANSI / ANS-8.15-1981 [4], where the limiting subcritical masses for isolated Np-237, Pu-238, Pu-240, Pu-242, Am-241, Am- 242m, Am-243, Cm-243, Cm-244, Cm-245, Cm-247, Cf-249 and Cf-251. The predicted limit values for subcritical masses range from a few grams for Cf-251 to tens of kilograms. The lack of critical experiment results limits knowledge of the behavior of these nuclides under conditions of various moderators and reflectors. The uncertainty of cross-sectional data for many of these nuclides requires that sufficient attention (and an appropriate margin of subcriticality) be provided within those operations in which a sufficient amount of these nuclides can participate (or it can be obtained by decay before or during transport). The recommendations of the competent authority on the need and means of performing a criticality safety assessment can be found in the requirements set out in paragraphs. 671-682 of the IAEA-96 Rules for cases where significant quantities of these materials may be transported (Clause 222.3 of TS-G-1.1).

 

Have you read it before linking it? It mentions fissile material and a nuclear chain reaction. Not spontaneous radioactivity.

Fission and fissile are terms that are not used with RTGs. RTGs can be furiously radioactive, as a matter of fact they are just like that, but they are not fissile - they can not sustain a chain reaction.

There is a reason why vessels transporting these things have a special label system that makes a clear distinction between radioactive and fissile.

Class7.jpg

 

What would an RTG even do in a rocket engine? I see no purpose for it there.

Also, the "small cloud that reached the land" would stay there. RTG material would not be gone because it's not volatile. It would be an aerosol covering the land and the ionizing radiation levels would stay the same, at some new, higher level.

Edited by lajoswinkler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Fission and fissile are terms that are not used with RTGs. RTGs can be furiously radioactive, as a matter of fact they are just like that, but they are not fissile - they can not sustain a chain reaction.

In Russian, they are. Actually, "fissile material" just means that the material is capable of fission. So, for example, plutonium is a fissile material, no matter if it's in a reactor or an RTG. RTGs, therefore, are fissile. It would be correct in English, too, if unusual. "Fission" as a word refers to something coming apart, and a decaying radionuclide does just that. Chain reactions are a way to induce that, but it's not the only way. Besides spontaneous decay, an external neutron source, for instance, can induce fission without there every being a chain reaction involved anywhere.

Going by Rosatom statement, this was definitely an RTG of some kind. What for, I don't know. Or, for that matter, how did they manage to blow one up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

If course there isn't.

Ok, you can follow the discussion about what is legally "делящиеся"
http://forums.balancer.ru/tech/forum/2007/12/t58949--kakie-izotopy-otnosyatsya-k-delyaschimsya-kamrady-fiziki-pom.html
, but you can just take that in narrow sense it's "those who can produce a chain reaction", while in wide sense "radioactive", "those who can fission, no matter how".
Because literally "делящиеся" means exactly the latter.
Any legal definition here is imported from various treaties in English, so is only for official papers, not for daily usage.

With no doubt, he means "radioactive materials" and "nuclear battery (with suffix "-ка", "small")", i.e. a low-power source, RTG.
So, unless he had used this as an euphemism for greater secrecy, he means exactly RTG.

58 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Have you read it before linking it?

I have searched Pu-238, as never heard it's used in chain reaction devices.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Small-sized nuclear battery" is a dead giveaway. A reactor is not a battery. RTG kind of is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

RTG testing

So criticality accident ? Why "explosion" then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Why exactly RTG should explode?

Presumably because a missile full of fuel and oxidizer went off right next to it. 

If I've understood it correctly, the RTG would be mounted as a heating element in an autonomous launch container to be placed on the seafloor, sort of an underwater, unmanned missile silo. It would keep the missile nice and warm, as the cold of the ocean floor might cause its liquid fuel to clot over time. However, it seems like during a test of this launch container the missile accidentally exploded, breaking the RTG and killing a handful of technicians present on the site. An accidental dirty bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Presumably because a missile full of fuel and oxidizer went off right next to it. 

No, I mean why RTG should necessarily explode? Why can't it be just crashed and destroyed by something other. Just an RTG next to the explorocket.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Why exactly RTG should explode?

Well, they might've stupidly arranged the fuel in such a way they make criticality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evacuation is in order, says the governor. The citizens just got an advice to keep away from town for several hours while the job will be running.

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/672579

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

Well, they might've stupidly arranged the fuel in such a way they make criticality...

A criticality of RTG would be a new word in the non-proliferation process and in physics.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

If I've understood it correctly, the RTG would be mounted as a heating element in an autonomous launch container to be placed on the seafloor, sort of an underwater, unmanned missile silo. It would keep the missile nice and warm, as the cold of the ocean floor might cause its liquid fuel to clot over time.

So long as I’m right and US intelligence is wrong )

As I’ve said, the fuel wouldn’t just clot. NTO is just plain rated not freeze-proof. That, and you need something powering the ULF radio receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.