Rosatom rocket engine failure

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

7 minutes ago, DDE said:

That, and you need something powering the ULF radio receiver.

Solar panels. They work in KSP.

 

[sh1pman]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

Solar panels. They work in KSP.

 

Floating solar panels with a cable running all the way down to the missile container. Disguised as a shark fin.

[kerbiloid]

12 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Floating solar panels with a cable running all the way down to the missile container. Disguised as a shark fin.

The solar panels can use a lamplight.
The RTG is to feed the lamp for the underwater solar panels.

(To prevent the wire from being sharked.)

Edited August 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

19 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

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

Well they managed to get a solution of reprocessed uranium from nuclear power plants to reach criticality by accident in Japan, in 1999.

The design would never be critical - but the handling might.

Edited August 14, 2019 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, YNM said:

The design would never be critical - but the handling might.

RTG is a little smaller than a pool of the reprocessed uranium solution.

We can also recall Oklo.

Edited August 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Nothalogh]

As some have previously pointed out, the RTG explanation doesn't fly.

Quite simply because RTGs REQUIRE isotopes with long half lives, whereas the radiation incident was one of isotopes which decayed in a matter of hours.

That's not a product of a blown up RTG, that's a product of fission or fusion.

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

As some have previously pointed out, the RTG explanation doesn't fly.

Quite simply because RTGs REQUIRE isotopes with long half lives, whereas the radiation incident was one of isotopes which decayed in a matter of hours.

That's not a product of a blown up RTG, that's a product of fission or fusion.

Any RTG produces a bunch of isotopes, including short-living ones.

Edited August 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5d52d8139a794747f60181b8

The jarheads asked the residents of Nenoksa to evacuate for two hours today, then called it off.

[DDE]

Vadim Lukashevich of Buran.ru comes in from the left field.

As per his idea, Burevestnik uses an RTG-powered electric propeller.

https://www.facebook.com/vadim.lukashevich.7/posts/1479600478846646

[kerbiloid]

Though, why do this on a barge.

Seems to me, he's not right.

Edited August 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[lajoswinkler]

21 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

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. 

I don't know Russian, but if they don't have a clear distinction between "radioactive" and "fissile", then it's a very sad and weird thing. You'd think a former second superpower would have such distinction.

And BTW, Pu-238 has a critical mass. Around 10 kg for a sphere of pure element. It is fissile with fast neutrons.

 

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Any RTG produces a bunch of isotopes, including short-living ones.

If you blow up an RTG unit, you will get its dust and not a spike in radioactivity, but a new, elevated value that doesn't go away (ignoring the halflife).

If you just crack the unit open, what happens? Pretty much nothing. Traces of radon-222 if the RTG is based on plutonium-238. You don't get around 16 times background dose 33 km away.

 

 

The fact you guys take Russian official claims literally is hilarious. First they said nothing happened. Then they said nothing dangerous escaped into the environment. Then they say "isotopic power source, like a battery". Hilarious.

They obviously blew up a faulty engine and damaged a very small fission reactor which fell into the sea. There was probably xenon-135 seeping out which caused a spike of ionizing radiation. It's painfully obvious.

Edited August 13, 2019 by lajoswinkler

[kerbiloid]

10 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

I don't know Russian, but if they don't have a clear distinction between "radioactive" and "fissile", then it's a very sad and weird thing. You'd think a former second superpower would have such distinction.

The international treaties are written in several languages, and "делящиеся материалы" in juridical sense mean "chain-reactable". This doesn't prohibit a wider colloquial usage for anything that fissions.

10 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

If you blow up an RTG unit, you will get its dust and not a spike in radioactivity, but a new, elevated value that doesn't go away (ignoring the halflife).

If you do this on a ship, some part will fall and dissolve, a cloud containing some part of dust and volatile ones will fly away.
They wouldn't necessary contain same isotopes.

Upd.
Why radon? There are various RTG isotopes, not necessary radon ancestors.

Edited August 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[lajoswinkler]

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The international treaties are written in several languages, and "делящиеся материалы" in juridical sense mean "chain-reactable". This doesn't prohibit a wider colloquial usage for anything that fissions.

If you do this on a ship, some part will fall and dissolve, a cloud containing some part of dust and volatile ones will fly away.
They wouldn't necessary contain same isotopes.

Upd.
Why radon? There are various RTG isotopes, not necessary radon ancestors.

The text you linked before all specified radioisotopes capable of reaching criticality.  I think the whole "fissile" thing is not a problem of Russian language, but your interpretation. I don't believe Russia would have a language that doesn't make distinction between radioactive and fissile. But ok. I won't beat the dead horse anymore.

 

RTGs are ceramic materials. If you blow them up with an explosive, you get that powder all over the area. You would not get powder falling into the sea and volatiles cruising around the area. There would not be a temporary spike.

 

I mentioned radon because the only RTG material that has any radon (or anything volatile) as its daughter is Pu-238. However, due to the ceramic nature of the oxide, that radon doesn't get to seep outside. It's locked in a crystal matrix. Halflife is few days and there isn't enough time.

[kerbiloid]

26 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

I mentioned radon because the only RTG material that has any radon (or anything volatile) as its daughter is Pu-238.

But most of RTG are Sr-based, producing Y.

Do reactor products disappear in two hours after fallout?

Edited August 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

And BTW, Pu-238 has a critical mass. Around 10 kg for a sphere of pure element. It is fissile with fast neutrons.

My point exactly. Do you know what Curiosity uses for power? An RTG using fissile fuel (plutonium). What I've been trying to tell you was that using the word "fissile materials" does not imply fission is actually occurring, and you can use this word in context of RTGs or anything else that uses Pu-238. 

It's actually English that's very sad and weird (on many accounts, not just this one). It's easier to explain in a Slavic language, where the word for "fission" does not immediately make people think "nuclear reactor". You're the one misunderstanding it. 

[YNM]

15 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

RTGs REQUIRE isotopes with long half lives, whereas the radiation incident was one of isotopes which decayed in a matter of hours.

A "contained" criticality accident wouldn't release their long half-life isotopes, but would eventually vent the short ones ie. iodine or radon (as they'd be in the air and whatnot).

 

So yeah, I don't know what they're testing, since a) if it was a criticality accident we don't have enough data to tell what was the parent isotope, and b) a 'contained' criticality accident wouldn't be an "explosion" exactly, yet c) an "uncontained" explosion would cause the release of long half-life isotopes, inconsistent with the reportedly transient increase in radiation. (Not to say they can't just be flat out lying to us, however.)

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

most of RTG are Sr-based

Depends on where you are. Soviet Union and Russia mostly use(d) Sr-90 indeed but US and Europe mostly use Pu-238. But the more common usage of one radioisotope doesn't mean they can't try with other ones.

EDIT : I've also heard of "sub-critical RTGs".

Edited August 14, 2019 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, YNM said:

Depends on where you are.

I am in Russia, as well as the event we are discussing, lol.
So, I mention Soviet/Russian RTG, not New Zealandian or Australian ones.

P.S.
What amuses we a lot, is when people take too seriously some general words spoken on TV for people who don't care about that "fission-schmission" details at all.
In fact, the only things we know: there was some explosion; meteorological sensors at 30 km from there have registered a short-term radiation, 4..16 greater than usual level; 5 nuke leading specialists are KIA; a ship for liquid radioactive wastes has arrived to the place which has been declared closed for sea traffic for a month.

Oh yes, and a month ago there was another accident with a reinforced submarine, unlikely relating to this event, and definitely having nothing common with burevestniks.

Everything other, like "fission/fissile", "RTG/reactor", "mallard/schmallard" is just a speculation based on pure newspaper science.

The words of that specialist can be properly translated as "... and then a nuka-thing makes a boom!"

Edited August 14, 2019 by kerbiloid

[steve_v]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

New Zelandian

For the record, this particular backwater is infuriatingly anti-nuclear, in any way shape or form.
Over here we promote stupidity, low-brow-high-impact sport, and excessive consumption of beer and red-meat. Not so much the nuclear physics.

It's Australia that's into beer and  uranium, we just do the one.

 

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The words of that specialist can be properly translated as "... and then a nuka-thing makes a boom!"

Pretty much. Information so far is all extremely suspect, and often contradictory.

[YNM]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, I mention Soviet/Russian RTG, not New Zealandian or Australian ones.

Well, maybe you guys have been having a bit of luck in getting Pu-238...

[lajoswinkler]

22 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

My point exactly. Do you know what Curiosity uses for power? An RTG using fissile fuel (plutonium). What I've been trying to tell you was that using the word "fissile materials" does not imply fission is actually occurring, and you can use this word in context of RTGs or anything else that uses Pu-238. 

It's actually English that's very sad and weird (on many accounts, not just this one). It's easier to explain in a Slavic language, where the word for "fission" does not immediately make people think "nuclear reactor". You're the one misunderstanding it. 

Since I speak a Slavic language, I know of know what I'm talking about. Also I've asked one language expert who even speaks Russian about this and the comment was "they're talking crap", they being all you here who think that RTGs can be described with that word.

If there is no fission occuring, there is no need for mentioning fissile material, even though the material might, in special circumstances, be fissile.

It's enough to say radioactive material, and that is the case with Russian and my own Croatian language.

 

I'm still waiting for the explanation how can a damaged or even destroyed RTG unit produce a temporary spike in ionizing radiation values, a telltale sign of volatile, highly radioactive fission products that are the most mobile in the environment.

[lajoswinkler]

23 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

But most of RTG are Sr-based, producing Y.

Do reactor products disappear in two hours after fallout?

I mentioned RTG for the sake of argument, playing the devil's advocate. I don't think it was an RTG.

 

First, there is no fallout in radiological accidents. Fallout is exclusively calcinated dirt intimately mixed with atomic bomb leftovers and contains large amounts of extremely alpha-radioactive high transuranics, going even above lawrencium IIRC. It's highly basic due to Cao/MgO content, corrosive and falls as dust.

Uranium fission products from a fission reactor stop at californium (present in traces). It's a very different beast, with most of the radioactivity contained in Xe-135, I-131, Sr-90 and Cs-137. The difference is not miniscule or unimportant and it's one of the reasons why fallout is a word exclusively used for nuclear warfare.

And yes, if the event where the reactor's fuel rods are damaged and the reactor then immediately falls on the seafloor, there will be a short airborne release of Xe-135. which is present as gas dilluted in helium which is what fuel rods are filled with. Since it's inert, it won't form aerosols, won't stick to anything, won't dissolve in anything, and will just continue to be dilluted by wind.

Other short lived radioisotopes are chemically very reactive and will form various compounds, emerging into the environment as aerosolized salts and in the case of iodine, also methyl iodide.

 

Since there was a short spike of elevated ambient ionizing radiation 33 km away, that ceased after around 1 h, it suggests a copious amount of volatile, inert source. Nothing an RTG could offer.

Edited August 14, 2019 by lajoswinkler

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

If there is no fission occuring, there is no need for mentioning fissile material, even though the material might, in special circumstances, be fissile.

Except that being fissile is a property of a material. Nothing to do with a system it's used in. A lump of plutonium sitting in a container is as fissile as the one being used in a nuclear reactor. The statement is correct no matter the system being discussed. A "radioactive material" is a more general classification. It would be enough to say that, but it's not incorrect to use the narrower definition, either. Your language expert is clearly not a nuclear physics expert, which, I think is more important here. 

Even Wikipedia says so:

Quote

In nuclear engineering, fissile material is material capable of sustaining a nuclear fission chain reaction.

Capable. Doesn't matter what's happening to it at the moment. It's like that in both English and Russian technical terminology. Colloquial usage may differ (that's what I was referring to earlier), but it's not something that's going to be consistent, anyway.

As for the spike, perhaps it was the RTG's core being exposed? I wouldn't want an unshielded core laying around for an hour or so, but with the mess the explosion had caused, it might have well taken them that long to covert it with some proper shielding. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

43 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

First, there is no fallout in radiological accidents.

Fallout is what falls out from the mushroom cloud. Its composition totally depends on the evaporated substrate.

I thought it's clear that as "fallout" I mean "what falls out of a volume of air, containing unknown set of radioactive isotopes from a nuclear incident".
Radiological experiments usually don't produce radioactive clouds, so certainly you can suggest any other term for the cloud and what falls out from it.

43 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Uranium fission products from a fission reactor stop at californium (present in traces). It's a very different beast, with most of the radioactivity contained in Xe-135, I-131, Sr-90 and Cs-137. The difference is not miniscule or unimportant and it's one of the reasons why fallout is a word exclusively used for nuclear warfare.

So, where are they in the radiological survey? They usually don't decay by 16 times in two hours. Of course, you know a thumb rule "7/10" for a nuclear blast fallout.
Chernobyl (without a nuclear blast) didn't get cleaner several days later.

The described radiation level peak doesn't look like either a fission, or RTG. It's like a set of short-living radioactive isotopes escaped from somewhere.
This makes to think that available info is too insufficient to make any other reasonable conclusion rather than "an unknown nuka-boom happened".

43 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Xe-135

With halflife 9.5 h, while the radiation got 4..16 times lower in 2 hours.

43 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Since there was a short spike of elevated ambient ionizing radiation 33 km away

And we don't know exact time and place when/where the incident happened, even to estimate the time of cloud arrival.
Did it take several hours? Or maybe these are two different incidents? Or maybe it is one incident but in reversed sequence? If you believe it's a rocket, why couldn't it fly over before hitting a barge?

55 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Also I've asked one language expert who even speaks Russian about this and the comment was "they're talking crap", they being all you here who think that RTGs can be described with that word.

In official documentation probably not (though history knows even stranger things). Colloquially or in a TV ritual speech for profans - easily and with pleasure.

Edited August 14, 2019 by kerbiloid

[farmerben]

There are many isotopes which could make RTG's far more powerful than the Pu 238 ones.  For example, Po 210 is about 300 times more powerful.  And we know the Russians are capable of making things with it.  Some isotopes are way more powerful than that, but could they be used?  The stuff would not store well.  

More than likely it was a fission reactor.  

[lajoswinkler]

22 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Fallout is what falls out from the mushroom cloud. Its composition totally depends on the evaporated substrate.I thought it's clear that as "fallout" I mean "what falls out of a volume of air, containing unknown set of radioactive isotopes from a nuclear incident".
Radiological experiments usually don't produce radioactive clouds, so certainly you can suggest any other term for the cloud and what falls out from it.

I'm just trying to avoid a wrong term that makes people think this, or Chernobyl, were nuclear explosions. That's it. I call it fission product contamination, radiological contamination, etc.

Quote

 

So, where are they in the radiological survey? They usually don't decay by 16 times in two hours. Of course, you know a thumb rule "7/10" for a nuclear blast fallout.
Chernobyl (without a nuclear blast) didn't get cleaner several days later.

The described radiation level peak doesn't look like either a fission, or RTG. It's like a set of short-living radioactive isotopes escaped from somewhere.
This makes to think that available info is too insufficient to make any other reasonable conclusion rather than "an unknown nuka-boom happened".

With halflife 9.5 h, while the radiation got 4..16 times lower in 2 hours.

And we don't know exact time and place when/where the incident happened, even to estimate the time of cloud arrival.
Did it take several hours? Or maybe these are two different incidents? Or maybe it is one incident but in reversed sequence? If you believe it's a rocket, why couldn't it fly over before hitting a barge?

In official documentation probably not (though history knows even stranger things). Colloquially or in a TV ritual speech for profans - easily and with pleasure.

 

Apparent level of radioactivity doesn't depend just on the halflife because it's not a controlled condition. It depends on the physical and chemical characteristics of the source and current environmental characteristics.

With xenon-135, a noble inert gas, you get zero chemical reactions. If there is sufficiently fast air mixing, it's dispersed and dilluted very fast. No residues.

Radioactive methyl iodide is vapor and mostly just has similar behaviour, and is easily carried by the wind. It is not inert so there will be residues (photochemical and other kinds of decompositions, giving radioiodine, radioactive hydroiodic acid, etc.), all very soluble in water.

Aerosols of mentioned salts are very soluble in water. Some are even hygroscopic. Some will be deposited (later washed by rain into depths), some will get carried by the wind.

The short spike means there were no residues and the contaminant has been easily dilluted by wind. That smells like a reactor structurally compromised by some explosion, landing into the sea seconds later. It's a perfect match.

Sea would prevent direct release of volatile fission products, but some will find their way out as aqueous ions and I'm almost certain countries of the arctic circle will detect them as sea currents spread them. Although probably not radioiodine, as it will be gone fast on its own...

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

As for the spike, perhaps it was the RTG's core being exposed? I wouldn't want an unshielded core laying around for an hour or so, but with the mess the explosion had caused, it might have well taken them that long to covert it with some proper shielding. 

Exposed RTG would only leak volatiles if the source was Pu-238, as one of the daughter radionuclides was Rn-222. Still, amounts of Rn-222 produced are small (there is an equilibrium in a closed system) and most of it is trapped in the matrix of PuO₂.

Cracking open such source would not cause 16 times elevated ionizing radiation 33 km away. It would be like that experiment where thorium compound is held in a closed bottle and then the air with traces of radon is puffed into a cloud chamber to see the decays. That's nothing.

Plutonium, whether a ceramic oxide or a bulk metal, is not something that oozes radon like radium does. Otherwise it would be impossible to work with it using present safety protocols.