• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

9M730 Burevestnik (SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise nuclear-powered missile

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,529
Reaction score
90
Sorry if I missed it or if it was already explained, but can anyone explain how such a small nuclear powerplant works?
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
Sorry if I missed it or if it was already explained, but can anyone explain how such a small nuclear powerplant works?
Lots of conflicting "evidence" on this.
I had assumed an RTG (radioisotope themoelectric generator) powering some kind of electric propeller or fan. However, if the photo you shared from @RussianSpaceWeb's twitter account is accurate then there is no sign of a prop or inlet for a fan (perhaps a prop is deployed once the rocket boosters have launched the craft, or possibly it uses a dorsal inlet for a fan).

Here's the latest about the accident from the Moscow Times. It mentions Cesium 137 found in one of the physicians who attempted to treat the unfortunates.

The Moscow times article seems questionable, it states "all staff who worked with the patients directly were asked by Federal Security Service (FSB) agents on Aug. 9 to sign non-disclosure agreements that prevent them from talking about what happened". However it then goes on to give enough detail about, the medical positions, numbers of staff and genders of their "anonymous sources" to make the list of potential NDA violators quite short. So I dont think we can be sure that Caesium 137 was found in the muscle tissue of some of the medics who treated survivors of the missile explosion. (The article makes mention of parallels to the TV show Chernobyl which also makes me suspicious of the authors motives)

Having said all of the above if Caesium 137 really was found, it is often used as a compact gamma source, could they have been trying to use it to initiate induced gamma emission of hafnium-178-m2? From all that I've read, it would appear western efforts had found a hafnium metastable isomer system to be unworkable, but as some have mentioned previously, that doesn't mean Russia wouldn't try.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
426
Reaction score
116
Which to me sees a weird isotope to be a major player here. Cesium 137 is not useful as either a weapon or a power source; while some power can be gleaned from beta and gamma during its decay, it's jsut too low power per mass to seem to be militarily useful. Cesium 137 is used in industrial applications, typically for very close-range sensors... flow meters and the like. But it hardly seems likely that such a devic even if it was blown up on a rocket test stand would make such a mess that it would contaminate doctors hundreds of miles away.
Caesium 137 is a fission product with a half-life of 30 years.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
16
I like Orionblamblam's theory on faking the technology for strategic reasons... it sounds like a sound plan.

Are certain that they weren't esting a nuclear thermal rocket at the same approximate location and had a liquid fuel explosion? That the cruise missile might just happen to also be under development at the same facility?

When it was announced I always thought it'd be more like SLAM (although maybe 1/4 sized)... but nothing as small as what we are talking about... I suppose the reason why hafnium isomers are being discussed is that any source of radioactivity that would naturally be decaying at a high rate would deteriorate in storage and/or require a prolonged 'fueling phase' prior to launch? Hence a fairly simple nuclear ramjet or nuclear fan is out of the question at these scales? Are there other limits on the minimum size of these alternative powerplants?
 

Zootycoon

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
109
Short lived sources are very difficult to handle in pure form;- Note picture below of the container for just one gram of californium. A highly active thermal decay energy source for a cruise missile would require tens of Kg’s. The real elephant in the room here is that if there was a explosion that liberated a significant amount of highly active source we would have something tending towards a Chernobyl two dot zero.

The advantage of Hafnium Isomer is the gamma output could be in essence throttled. So it would only produce the really lethal levels when it’s up, up and away. Also if the published numbers are to be believed it works with only tens of grams of source;- an explosion of which would be much more consistent with a rapid rising/failing peak as the dust blows through on the breeze.

One of the giant leaps is how energy in the gamma flux is transferred to where it can do something useful. In the known RTG’s the conversion is incredibly inefficient but is simple and it works well. Some studies have been preformed on using Stirling cycle machines but I do wonder about their ability guarantee long term serviceability. My guess they would expose hydrogen to the gamma radiation and using this this as a thermo fluid.

I do like the suggestion of using Cesium 137 as a neutron source but how would the exposure be controlled;- X-Rays was suppose to offer very fine and instant adjustment.

Maybe the suggestion circulating in the press a few years ago that Hafnium Isomer was non feasible could be disinformation intended to quell further work.

2101CB5C-7681-4D31-A5C2-F91585A59FCD.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,013
Reaction score
199
Maybe the suggestion circulating in the press a few years ago that Hafnium Isomer was non feasible could be disinformation intended to quell further work.
If so, it appears to have backfired on the United States.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,260
Reaction score
100
Looking true the evidence and statements on that Cruise Missile

I speculate that Burevestnik use a very compact nuclear Power source,
A kind of RTG or compact reactor that power a Ramjet similar like Tory A engine, only smaller and less powerful
The Idea is not new under NERVA program they had concept of "Poodle" a RTG powered Space engine

The Russian have allot experience in RTG, but also in compact nuclear reactors for military space applications like Romashka and Topaz thermoelectric Reactors
A Topaz model with 5 kW of power, fuel 12 kg of Uranium 235. Reactor mass around ~ 320 kg, size that could fit inside the Burevestnik
It's Thermal output of 1725 K could power a Ramjet
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,404
Reaction score
267
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The Idea is not new under NERVA program they had concept of "Poodle" a RTG powered Space engine
POODLE produced *Newtons* of thrust. Not even enough to move the engine across a table, never mind lift a whole vehicle in flight.

RTGs produce very low levels of power. Those on the Cassini probe weigh abut 58 kg and produce about 4400 watts of thermal energy. But the Williams F107 turbofan engine used on various cruise missiles - presumably roughly the sort of power needed for Buresvestnik - weighs about 30 kg. Its fuel consumption is 69.6 kg/kN/h with a max thrust of 3100 Netwons. This means it burns 69.6*3.1=215.76 kg/hr, or 0.06 kg of jet fuel per second. The energy density of aviation fuel is about 42.6 MJ/kg, meaning it releases about 2.556 MJ/second, or 2,556,000 watts. Thus a chemical engine which weighs approximately one-half the weight of the Cassini RTG puts out about 581 times the power.

An RTG ain't gonna get the job done unless the Russians have figured out how to bump up the power density by three orders of magnitude. A true reactor might do it. *Might.*
 

CiTrus90

Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
361
Reaction score
162
Just pure speculation on my part, but what if this vehicle is indeed powered by an RTG and it indeed uses liquid propellant?

Looking at the pictures we can see in the first one that it needs to be launched by a rocket booster (notice that this uses solid propellant, look at the plume) and once in flight it retains what appear to be two side boosters that run on liquid propellant (notice the different exhaust flames from the solid booster picture).

The wings are already deployed, so the vehicle should be able to fly on its own power, without a need to be accelerated farther by those boosters. So, maybe, they are not boosters needed to launch the missile but to sustain its flight (on this point, look again the the first picture: only the solid propellant booster is firing, not the side ones).

Now, thinking back on the fact that this weapon is claimed to have virtually unlimited range, could it be possible that it's using some sort of air breathing rocket engine powered by an RTG to harvest its own propellant from atmospheric air through the large intake on its bottom?
 

Attachments

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,260
Reaction score
100
An RTG ain't gonna get the job done unless the Russians have figured out how to bump up the power density by three orders of magnitude. A true reactor might do it. *Might.*
ok, The Engine has then something im stye of thermoelectric Reactors of Topaz series
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,404
Reaction score
267
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
ok, The Engine has then something im stye of thermoelectric Reactors of Topaz series
Meh. According to http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture35.pdf, Topaz-1 produced 150,000 watts thermal and the reactor weighed 320 kilograms. That's ten times the weight of the F107 turbofan, but 1/17 the power. Oddly, it seems that Topaz-2 was even worse on the reactor weight/thermal power ratio (1061 kg/135 kwt).

Obviously a nuclear system doesn't need to match a turbojet for weight to power, since the nuclear system can dispense with a ton of fuel. But it's got to be *somewhere* kinda close to turbojet in performance. Pluto made it work by being a full-up reactor of fairly substantial size. And bigger is better when it comes to reactors... if for no other reason, to get hot you need to absorb those neutrons and gamma rays. And a *small* reactor will simply let them zip right on through, to be eventually absorbed by the airframe... or the *air.*

That's another reason why I'm dubious of the hafnium isomer thing. Sure, a bit of hafnium the size of a coin might contain all the energy you want, but you not only have to nuke it with X-rays that are absorbed BY THE HAFNIUM, but the gamma rays emitted by the hafnium *also* have to be captured. And a dinky little system the size of an apple, even if made out of tungsten or iridium or some such, simply won't have the thickness to capture the energy. As memory serves, it takes from one to two centimeters of tungsten to absorb 50% of high energy gamma rays. So 2-4 cm absorb 75%, 3-6 cm absorb 87.5%, etc. Getting 99% of the gamma rays absorbed within the reactor requires from 7 to 14 cm of tungsten. And presumably what you want isn't a solid chunk of tungsten, but, like the Pluto TORY reactor a bundle of tubes. So at least 50% of your volume won't be tungsten but air or coolant channels, so your reactor has to be 14 to 28 cm thick... meaning your reactor would be a beer can of tungsten tubes half a meter in diameter. That's not too shabby when trying to replicate a modest turbofan engine, but it's still way bigger than the tiny reactors sometimes suggested.
 
Last edited:

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
16
Another thought: If the Hafnium thing worked - wouldn't that also put us pretty close to 4th gen/pure-fusion weapons?

I'd feel this was all more plausible if it could be done using early 1990s designs with some improved materials rather than some world-shaking technological breakthrough at the edge of our knowledge of physics (not that the latter is completely impossible).
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,404
Reaction score
267
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Another thought: If the Hafnium thing worked - wouldn't that also put us pretty close to 4th gen/pure-fusion weapons?

Don't see how. The energy capability is much less than that stored up in traditional fissionable nuclei byseveral orders of magnitude, so they wouldn't be useful for compressing hydrogen.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
16
Ah, okay... most of my information from comes from this paper:

I'm probably confused by the mention of short duration powerful lasers and "unknown" mechanisms for suddenly destabilising isomers as potential initiators. Perhaps a hafnium isomer missile wouldn't get us to 4th generation nuclear weapons, but the technology to produce 4th generation nuclear weapons would be likely to give us compact nuclear power cruise-missiles? I'm undoubtedly missing a lot here.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
618
Reaction score
54
The speculation is complex but this missile is not as advertised. From a strategic/tactical standpoint, why bother with radioactive materials at all? Over the decades, just about everything has been tried with the bottom line being: safe and easy to handle becomes the power source. The idea that this missile could travel long distances makes no sense for an enemy equipped with beam weapons like lasers. It doesn't matter how fast or slow it goes, it can and will be tracked. It can and will be shot down. The Russians can take their money and build whatever toys they want, but a nuclear power source will be tracked the moment it switches on in flight.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
251
The wings are already deployed, so the vehicle should be able to fly on its own power, without a need to be accelerated farther by those boosters. So, maybe, they are not boosters needed to launch the missile but to sustain its flight (on this point, look again the the first picture: only the solid propellant booster is firing, not the side ones).
Very smart observation
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
370
Reaction score
6
If you used liquid hydrogen as your coolant/-exchanger, you could even burn off a portion of it slowly as your propellant for the liquid fuel rockets (and/or in the "combustion" stage of a turbine you're already dumping the heat into. Or behind that for reheat). Steal some of that energy mechanically in the turbine engine to generate electricity for your x-ray machine, so you only need to carry enough juice stored to get the X-ray source started.
A number of directions to go with this if the IGE/SIER/whateverRussiacallsit-hafnium works as proposed. That's the kicker. If you can really get a "stimulated emission" that yields somewhat less than fission, but rather more than other fuels, you'd have any number of applications. If you cannot, everyone is wasting time and money. Perhaps as OBB observed also spending it in various methods of deception.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
16
The wings are already deployed, so the vehicle should be able to fly on its own power, without a need to be accelerated farther by those boosters. So, maybe, they are not boosters needed to launch the missile but to sustain its flight (on this point, look again the the first picture: only the solid propellant booster is firing, not the side ones).
Very smart observation
Could they potentially be sustainers to give increased flight-time prior to ignition (and thus allow more diagnostics during ignition)?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
953
Reaction score
56
Sustainer or to provide meaning to relight in flight. Notice how the side canister are aero shaped.
And why not use the nuclear source to form a plasma screen in the inlet and that engine Being just a plasma compressor (akin to a ramjet but at subsonic speed)?
Do we know who's leading the project?
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
231
Considering the codename (Skyfall) maybe they use a secret drive based on Adele acoustic power ? (runs for cover)
 

Zootycoon

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
109
[/QUOTE]
Cold fusion?
[/QUOTE]

Not an apples with apples comparison

Here we have one of the worlds most powerful people claiming to have made aero engine well beyond conventional technology, published film of it flying, and then very publicly, had people die during its development...... not to mention had a cloud of contamination blow over a town/small city.

Cold fusion wasn’t even in the same ball park.

Sure it’s proving a difficult technology to master but they all were.

If it’s a bluff, it’s beyond the scale of anything in the last 50 years.
 

CiTrus90

Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
361
Reaction score
162
The wings are already deployed, so the vehicle should be able to fly on its own power, without a need to be accelerated farther by those boosters. So, maybe, they are not boosters needed to launch the missile but to sustain its flight (on this point, look again the the first picture: only the solid propellant booster is firing, not the side ones).
Very smart observation
Thank you for the kind words.

I also think it's safe to assume that Burevestnik, or rather the test article we've seen so far, gets recovered after a soft splashdown in water due to the location of where the test took place, the bright colour of the vehicle and the presence of naval assets in the area.

Which, IMHO, excludes the possibilty of it being powered by any sort of nuclear thermal rocket or direct nuclear propulsion recurring to fission for a simple reason: I don't see any way the core could be cooled down significantly enough before the test article hits the water to avoid any steam explosion caused by the sea water being heated by the reactor or its shell (depending on the use of an open or closed-cycle engine).

And another thing I think it's safe to assume is that the sustainers are non-recoverable, since they're not part of the missile outer mold, are not present in the pictures where the Burevestnik is loaded in its canister and are not brightly painted. So they are probably discarded once the flight envelope is completed and Burevestnik proceeds to get recovered, probably, after a splashdown under the assistance of a parachute.

...and I also think it's better for me to stop speculating, since at the end of the month I'll make a trip to MAKS 19 and I'd like to avoid being held for questioning by any three letters agency j/k
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
8
The "sustainers" may be there to provide thrust while whatever nuclear business is getting initiated. Their continued burn may suggest that the nuclear business wasn't active when the in-flight image was captured - and lends a bit of credibility to the "they haven't gotten it to work right" commentary from the DoD.

So, an RTG seems unworkable for Burevestnik, although an RTG would match their "nuclear battery" claim. Liquid nuclear rocket seems unworkable due to their range claims (i.e. you're still gonna need fuel, meaning your range is now finite), but they claimed the test was of a liquid rocket with the aforementioned nuclear battery as a power source. It'd seem like a full nuclear engine like SLAM would've used would be the option for flying Burevestnik, which would require 1) a booster to get off the ground, and 2) some sort of propulsion to get it up to flight speed. A booster can suffice for 2), but using strap-on sustainers would let you switch back and forth, potentially, to test the nuclear engine. But that means the accident, if it involved some combination of RTG and liquid propellant (assuming those claims are accurate), should relate to something that is not Burevestnik.

I wonder if you could get an RTG to turn a pumpjet propulsor…? But then you have the issue of the liquid rocket.
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
42
Reaction score
13
I received a series of Twitter tweets just today from Pavel Podvig, and I trust his judgement. I am posting them here, in the sequence he sent them.

A few points about the Nyonoksa accident. First, on transparency. As much as I would like to know what it is that was tested and exploded there, it is unreasonable to expect that Russia should tell us what it was. But there is a big BUT... 1/

Where Russia should definitely come clean is the information about radioactive release - what, how much, where did it go, etc. Not only this is a perfectly reasonable demand, I believe Russia has an obligation to provide this information, first and foremost to its own citizens 2/

.. but to the international community as well. Yes, it would probably reveal details about the system that was tested, but public health should take priority. So far, the signs are not good - whatever information we have came from Rosgidromet and not from Rosatom 3/

The fact that two CTBTO stations "malfunctioned" doesn't quite inspire confidence. In the end, of course, it is in Russia/Rosatom/MoD interest to provide a detailed account, if they want people to trust them. It may be too late for that, but better late than never 4/

Second, whatever system was tested there, it is probably one of the "zoo" that was (partially) revealed in March 2018. Much has been said about how crazy these things are (and they are), but I don't think we should pretend that "traditional" stuff, like ICBMs, cruise missiles 5/

... low-yield warheads and all that is somehow better. Yes, they might be safer to test/operate, but these things are still nuclear weapons whose primary value is that they can kill people. Let's not lose that perspective. 6/

Finally, there are plenty of theories, but I would say there is not enough information at this point to say anything specific. My take is that we can say with fairly high confidence that it is not Burevestnik (too many pieces don't quite fit) 7/

Other than that, plenty of options are open. I wouldn't say there is a clear contender - it may well be something new that hasn't been mentioned before. We should try to get more information and make sense of it 8/8
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
397
The "sustainers" may be there to provide thrust while whatever nuclear business is getting initiated. Their continued burn may suggest that the nuclear business wasn't active when the in-flight image was captured - and lends a bit of credibility to the "they haven't gotten it to work right" commentary from the DoD.

So, an RTG seems unworkable for Burevestnik, although an RTG would match their "nuclear battery" claim. Liquid nuclear rocket seems unworkable due to their range claims (i.e. you're still gonna need fuel, meaning your range is now finite), but they claimed the test was of a liquid rocket with the aforementioned nuclear battery as a power source. It'd seem like a full nuclear engine like SLAM would've used would be the option for flying Burevestnik, which would require 1) a booster to get off the ground, and 2) some sort of propulsion to get it up to flight speed. A booster can suffice for 2), but using strap-on sustainers would let you switch back and forth, potentially, to test the nuclear engine. But that means the accident, if it involved some combination of RTG and liquid propellant (assuming those claims are accurate), should relate to something that is not Burevestnik.

I wonder if you could get an RTG to turn a pumpjet propulsor…? But then you have the issue of the liquid rocket.

Would the power density of an RTG be up to the task?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,404
Reaction score
267
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
I wonder if you could get an RTG to turn a pumpjet propulsor…? But then you have the issue of the liquid rocket.
Would the power density of an RTG be up to the task?
More to the point: why bother? If you have a chemical turbojet/rocket/ramjet/whatever, you have so much power to spare that the power you might get out of an RTG would be merely a rounding error on the power you could get by simply tapping a bit of the chemical fuel. And if you have a chemical propulsion system that will last at most an hour or two, why use is an RTG that could last for years?

I'm just not seeing what the point of even *discussing* an RTG for a missile is.There is no such thing as an acknowledge *theoretical* RTG that comes within several orders of magnitude having the weight-to-power rato that would be useful for a missile application.

The only possibility I can see is a missile designed to *deliver* an RTG. Maybe an underwater rover/mine/torpedo/thing lobbed by a rocket, designed to lurk for months or years using an RTG for low-level power during hibernation. But as part of the missile itself? No. Just no.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
8
I'm not thinking the RTG/pumpjet would be for Burevestnik...
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,404
Reaction score
267
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
I'm not thinking the RTG/pumpjet would be for Burevestnik...
A main propulsion system for even a torpedo would require more power than an RTG could produce. Granted, an RTG in water would doubtless be more efficient than one radiating to space, but torpedoes still require a lot of power. I suppose an RTG might be used to trickle-charge a bank of batteries so the torpedo could go on occasional bursts of speed.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
397
I'm not thinking the RTG/pumpjet would be for Burevestnik...
A main propulsion system for even a torpedo would require more power than an RTG could produce. Granted, an RTG in water would doubtless be more efficient than one radiating to space, but torpedoes still require a lot of power. I suppose an RTG might be used to trickle-charge a bank of batteries so the torpedo could go on occasional bursts of speed.
Maybe a long-range sea mine? With a nuke. Sits on the ocean floor just off the continental shelf in hibernation mode with the RTG keeping things warm and ready to go. If it receives a signal it fires up the motor and cruises to the shore and BOOM.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,404
Reaction score
267
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Maybe a long-range sea mine? With a nuke. Sits on the ocean floor just off the continental shelf in hibernation mode with the RTG keeping things warm and ready to go. If it receives a signal it fires up the motor and cruises to the shore and BOOM.
That's posssible I suppose. And I suppose it could be launched by a large enough missile, though there is a problem: a weapon such as this is a "peacetime-deployed" weapon, launched *quietly.* You drop it from a sub or a "fishing trawler." Launching it with an intercontinental missile is a giant "hey, lookit me!"
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
397
Maybe a long-range sea mine? With a nuke. Sits on the ocean floor just off the continental shelf in hibernation mode with the RTG keeping things warm and ready to go. If it receives a signal it fires up the motor and cruises to the shore and BOOM.
That's posssible I suppose. And I suppose it could be launched by a large enough missile, though there is a problem: a weapon such as this is a "peacetime-deployed" weapon, launched *quietly.* You drop it from a sub or a "fishing trawler." Launching it with an intercontinental missile is a giant "hey, lookit me!"

No, let it swim out of a torpedo tube.
 

Zootycoon

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
109
That's another reason why I'm dubious of the hafnium isomer thing. Sure, a bit of hafnium the size of a coin might contain all the energy you want, but you not only have to nuke it with X-rays that are absorbed BY THE HAFNIUM, but the gamma rays emitted by the hafnium *also* have to be captured. And a dinky little system the size of an apple, even if made out of tungsten or iridium or some such, simply won't have the thickness to capture the energy. As memory serves, it takes from one to two centimeters of tungsten to absorb 50% of high energy gamma rays. So 2-4 cm absorb 75%, 3-6 cm absorb 87.5%, etc. Getting 99% of the gamma rays absorbed within the reactor requires from 7 to 14 cm of tungsten. And presumably what you want isn't a solid chunk of tungsten, but, like the Pluto TORY reactor a bundle of tubes. So at least 50% of your volume won't be tungsten but air or coolant channels, so your reactor has to be 14 to 28 cm thick... meaning your reactor would be a beer can of tungsten tubes half a meter in diameter. That's not too shabby when trying to replicate a modest turbofan engine, but it's still way bigger than the tiny reactors sometimes suggested.
With an energy dense fuel, a much lower thermal efficiency is acceptable, just as it’s routine practice on IC engines. With the exception of a few electric aeroplanes every single powered aircraft that’s flown has had thermal efficiency of less than 40%, with most in the 20% region. There’ll be a lovely optimisation curve indicating the lowest mass solution even if it means loosing, say 60, 70%, of the gamma radiation overboard but with the thing at 10kft that’s not a problem for a flight feasibility demo. Maybe not so good for detectablity.
 
Last edited:

DWG

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
400
Reaction score
87
Stories in various places alleging the Russians appear to have nobbled four Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation sensors, and told the CTBTO they have no intention of cooperating with its investigation into the nuclear release. Which is not a great development.

 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,404
Reaction score
267
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
There’ll be a lovely optimisation curve indicating the lowest mass solution even if it means loosing, say 60, 70%, of the gamma radiation overboard but with the thing at 10kft that’s not a problem for a flight feasibility demo. Maybe not so good for detectablity.
Or for the structure or the electronics. Those gamma rays are gonna play hell with things. Plus: with an experimental engine bsed on dubious physics, it may well be that the difference between "interesting bench-top experiment" and "system capable of flight" might be capturing every bit of the energy the system releases.
 

Zootycoon

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
109
I guess shadow shielding will be used as it was employee to protect the delicate bits of the NB36.

When it comes to any complex and demanding design task there’s only bad solutions and worse one. The end result is the least bad compromise that actually works.
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
42
Reaction score
13
Here is the latest on the contamination. This is becoming a more serious event than previously anticipated. Something went boom and radioactivity was spread over a good distance.

Yes, Cesium 137 confirmed as contamination in the hospital where the unfortunates were taken. Not merely on one doctor.

From Novaya Gazeta


A quote (in translation): "According to Novaya Gazeta, three patients were taken to the Arkhangelsk Regional Hospital at 16.35 on August 8. Due to the lack of information,

people were first examined in the emergency room. Later, it was necessary to deactivate the entire receiving ward, as cesium-137 was taken to the hospital along with these victims

(a radioactive isotope, which is a by-product of nuclear decay of uranium-235), its dose was 22 thousand microparticles per square [centimeter]. See, but it was revealed only an hour after the arrival

of the victims."

Also:

"During this time, they managed to be examined, visited on computed tomography, were transferred to the operating unit, three operating rooms were involved, Subsequently, when the

dosimetrists arrived and it was revealed that they were carriers of beta radiation, they were transferred back to the emergency room. There, doctors, nurses and nurses already carried out

decontamination with soap solutions. For protection, they had only ordinary dressings, ”says the source of the Novaya Gazeta. According to him, the event was attended by 57 people, despite

the fact that the usual shift is 15–20 people, that is, most people either voluntarily or at the request of the leadership left to work overtime. “No one refused, even knowing that they were

radioactive victims,” he says, noting that some colleagues complained of tingling in the face and hands."




Pavel Podvig as of this afternoon on Twitter:

"The story says that Cs-137 was found in the hospital (earlier reports only mentioned that it was detected on one of the doctors). It even gives the dose - 22k micro particles [sic!] per sq cm. The photo seems authentic and suggests that people were seriously contaminated"
 
Top