×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

(OP)
Facts are slowly coming out, since Russia isn't very open about nuclear accidents, or its military (gee I wonder why).

The usual caution: some western media may fill the void in facts with their own speculation. It probably is a missile with nuclear propulsion, but journalists are jumping to conclusions about specifically which one it may be. If true however, missile propulsion from a nuclear reactor is a prospect I really don't want to think about.

An article with many possibly unconfirmed details:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ru...

Somewhat better article:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjw8kv/a-nuclea...

A town is being evacuated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Gads what numb skulls. Do they really think the US has designs on attacking them? Heads-in-the-sand.

Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

They don't, probably; much is about politics and having an existential threat to distract the populace from the real problems of standard of living and rampant corruption.

US isn't really that different; do we really think that we'll need our nuclear triad to defend against the Russians?

Another point is that while neither the US or the Russians might attack each other, the same cannot be completely said of any other country in the world, like, say, North Korea.

And while Trump is trying to distract the US with "Space Force," the reality is that 3 other countries have already demonstrated the capability and willingness to deploy and use satellite killers.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

I think the missile was Putin's attempt to keep Trump in power by giving Trump's base something to strong-man about. The application of a nuclear powered missile has already been explored and found to be of microscopic use. Anyone launching one will just participate in a War Games movie scenarios. Some were quite pretty, but wearing an anti-radiation suit would decrease Putin's enjoyment of his retirement horse-back riding. Also consider that the Chinese, having all their current plans put into the garbage, might find it worth while to send a 300 million man army across Russia to ensure there are none left for part two and might get a similar number stirred up from India.

The sad thing is that satellite killers will send everyone back at least 50 years and keep it that way for a few thousand. It's like unleashing an incurable virus with no vaccine in order to harm the enemy. I knew at least one guy working out the first test for an F-15 ASAT launch and, had I a time portal, might reach back and smack some sense into him on the off chance that it could ripple into a general realization if the US did one then everyone would feel similarly compelled to show they could also, rather than setting up a no-damage treaty for satellites.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

I'm guessing the nuclear propulsion component refers to an orbital propulsion technology, not atmospheric. Or is there some principle for the use of nuclear isotopes in liquid propulsion?

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

When I hear 'nuclear and 'missile in the same sentence, I think of something like Project Pluto. Project Pluto was a late 50's military development to build a nuclear ram-jet engine to power what we would now call a cruise missile. Given that Russia has recently announced having hypersonic weapons I assume they're trying to create a nuclear powered hypersonic cruise missile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Sounds about right Com.

Had an engineer share holder at a company I worked at who worked on our nuclear powered engine. He had some crazy stories. Apparently they had to run hundreds of air compressors for days before a few minute run of the engine. Polluted like hell.

Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

(OP)
Better coverage from the New York Times.

Similar but not specific descriptions of the machine:
...
Putin said Russian scientists had developed a “small-scale, heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile.”
...
"It was a rocket with a nuclear engine,” Yulia Latinina, a columnist for Novaya Gazeta, an opposition newspaper, wrote. “And when it blows up it is a liquid unit with isotopic sources.”
...
Rosatom said in a statement that scientists were studying an “isotope power source for a liquid engine unit,” the company said.

So I think they are talking about nuclear propulsion to give a missile thrust, and a separate issue from the warhead that it might carry.

Sleep well, folks.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Here's an article about a similar nuclear-powered cruise missile program that the US abandoned more than 50 years ago. Officially, it was called SLAM (Supersonic Low Altitude Missile). Unofficially, it was called 'The Big Stick'.

Why the U.S. Abandoned Nuclear-Powered Missiles More Than 50 Years Ago

President Donald Trump says the U.S. has a missile like the one that killed seven in the Russian arctic. That's untrue, because the U.S. abandoned the idea decades ago.


https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research...


John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

I'm still having trouble figuring out what principle is involved. As best I can tell from what has been posted, a small nuclear reactor runs an electric turbine on a ramjet engine so that the missile can operate indefinitely at low altitude (atmospheric).

Edit: I can't make any sense out out of the references to a liquid rocket.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

A regular air breathing engine takes air in and heats it, causing the volume to increase, and uses that increased volume and energy to jet out the back for propulsion. There's no need to use fuel if there is some other source of heat.

All I can think of is that a scramjet needs to be boosted to a high speed in order to use shockwave compression; maybe instead of using an external booster they just dump liquid in to cause enough volume increase to get going from 0 mph, saving the extra external component and ensuring the nuclear pile is completely functional before leaving the pad.

If the nuclear pile was sent critical at launch and there wasn't enough airflow it would just melt on the pad; if they launch it and it fails to go critical then it crashes nearby with a smashed nuclear pile. Better to pour liquid in, and if the pile goes critical, away it goes, all working. If the pile fails, then they have it in one piece to figure it out.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

(OP)
NASA is still studying it:

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

That's a power-point presentation, implying a text that goes along with it, but sadly not included. The slides need some explanation to be fully understood, but there is a link embedded in it:

https://youtu.be/miy2mbs2zAQ

Those are spacecraft applications, and they assume the fuel is transported with the vehicle. Could the Russians have been trying to build such an engine that breathes air?

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Quote (3DDave)


All I can think of is that a scramjet needs to be boosted to a high speed in order to use shockwave compression...

This is from the article I posted earlier today:

SLAM, also known unofficially known as "The Big Stick," was designed as a low-flying cruise missile. A rocket booster would launch SLAM into the air and boost it to speeds where its nuclear-powered ramjet engine would kick in. Once activated, the engine would give SLAM a top speed of Mach 3.5.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

The NASA space probe nuclear engine and the SLAM engines are slightly different. The SLAM, once boosted to RAMJET speeds, would suck in atmosphere, super-heat it in the nuclear engine and get essentially infinite fly time at Mach 3-4. NASA's nuclear engine would superheat a fuel that's carried on board, and has a limited fueled flight time, but the side-effects of radioactive exhaust, sonic booms, etc, are not of major concern.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Quote:

And while Trump is trying to distract the US with "Space Force," the reality is that 3 other countries have already demonstrated the capability and willingness to deploy and use satellite killers.

Given his demonstrated willingness to juggle budgets and staff between agencies, I'd say launching the "Space Force" was a pretty smart strategic move if the goal was to accomplish anything in space regardless if its military or exploratory. The three services have all staffed small Space Commands for decades sponsoring separate research with separate goals. We've also had NASA on the civilian side, and they've been criticized in recent decades for their inability to accomplish stated goals in a timely manner. Private space exploration has proved a dud, so why not bring the military back into the equation as we had through the 70s?

I'd caution anyone jumping to conclusions about the militarization of technology with limited information. Al Shepherd rode a missile as a commissioned Naval officer for NASA with peaceful, exploratory intentions. This could be the beginning of something good, something bad, or nothing at all.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Not sure how current NASA is comparable to military and/or original NASA, given that current NASA is mostly about pure science, and manned missions have been completely limited to Space Station, and there's no real time limit on pure science missions. The military procurement of the past few decades has been far from stellar, FCS poofed, Commanche poofed, etc.

My understanding of the new Space Force is a completely separate ask of $6B, so that's new money.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

"Space Force" is no better than "Brilliant Pebbles" and "Star Wars" (Reagan Version) NASA has its own problems, many due to what is between a 2 and 4 year window after which any project can have the funding vanish, and many other problems due to a fundamental lack of self-control that makes rules into obstacles.

Recall that the current rovers on Mars would likely not be there except for one guy who managed to get his tiny rover as dead weight on a test landing mission. He had been turned down as a science mission because everyone knew the Mars mission required a rover to crawl over a 1 meter diameter boulder and his tiny rover could never manage that and the minimum "space rated" hardware would weigh far too much.

I see no particular unification between the various missions that putting them under one command structure would help and a lot of experience seeing such unification turn into a such a total failure that damage that takes decades to repair is done. Does anyone recall how well Central Planning did for the USSR?

<rant about Trump>

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

The air compressors I mentioned coincide with the scramjet principal. Enough compressed air and the system thinks it's been boosted to some high speed.

Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

"...radioactive exhaust, sonic booms..."

Assuming the missile is intended to be a weapon, then what happens to the propulsion nuclear reactor while and after the warhead explodes?

Is every one a Dirty Bomb?

And no, even a nuclear warhead would not properly consume the heavy elements in an adjacent reactor. It would merely disperse them.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

It's a Doomsday weapon. Pick the worst option and go with it.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Quote (3DDave)


It's a Doomsday weapon.

Shades of Dr. Strangelove...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

“The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia. We have similar, though more advanced, technology,” Trump tweeted Monday

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Quote (Phil1934)


“The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia. We have similar, though more advanced, technology,” Trump tweeted Monday

If this is true, did the President of the United States just leak classified information? If it's NOT true, did the President of the United States just lie to the rest of the world? In either case, making comments like this is reckless in today's international environment.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

I know we ought to keep politics out of this ... but ... given recent history, would you expect anything else??

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

I feel we have a mine shaft gap. Perhaps it's time to stop mountain top removal and go back to sinking small holes again.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

15 yrs ago there was a New Scientist article about a claim that an effective neutron bomb could be fabricated using an unstable isotope, so that it technically was not a "nuclear warhead" as defined by the treaties. Shortly thereafter there was an intense campaign to discredit such a claim , so either the isotope powered nuclear warhead was a false idea or it is a true claim but it would be dangerous to allow nations to use this technology , as it is not yet controlled by treaty, so a disinformation campaign was mounted.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia



maybe he was just trying to get as far away as fast as possible
story link

EDIT: typo fix

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

I don't recall that anyone tried to discredit the concept of a neutron bomb, per se; it seemed like it was more that the supposed lack of radioactive fallout and other consequences that "kills people and spares buildings" that gave it an "eww" factor and massive dislike.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Quote (VEIBLL)

"Assuming the missile is intended to be a weapon, then what happens to the propulsion nuclear reactor while and after the warhead explodes?"
As originally envisioned, the SLAM nuclear powered missile would be launched and fly race-track patterns over a remote place like the South Pacific. When needed the missile would be directed to, and bomb the target. Afterwards, in order to plow nuclear salt into enemy ground, it would fly race-track patterns turning the enemy territory into a nuclear wasteland. Once launched this missile would be far too radioactive to be dealt with. No plans I'm aware of were made for it to ever land anywhere.

A doomsday weapon? After all, it was the Cold War. Good thing they never built one.

I understand that the engine was tested on a stationary stand. Miles and miles of drilling pipe were setup as a compressed-air tank/reservoir to provide a sonic air source to flow through the engine. This follows with ItSmoked reference to the compressors for the project. Before being used the engine was relatively safe - but afterwards! They used remotely controlled train engines to shuttle the engine to the test stand and back to storage. I read about this in a book somewhere. I think it was done at the Idaho National Lab.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Quote:

Not sure how current NASA is comparable to military and/or original NASA

They're comparable being the same agency in different time periods. Until the mid-70s NASA had a strong mandate (beat the Russians) and military leadership driving that mandate. They were also much less reliant on private industry as was our military. I don't see how focusing efforts on common goals is a bad thing, esp when the status quo sucks. The only time it seems to fail is when the team refuses the cooperate, in which case any competent leader immediately terminates them.

Quote:

If this is true, did the President of the United States just leak classified information?

Its not like he leaked the existence of classified military vehicles and described how to defeat them while they're in daily mass service like the last guy. I'd wager the folks threatened most by this technology already know it exists to some degree.

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

Quote (CWB1)


Its not like he leaked the existence of classified military vehicles and described how to defeat them while they're in daily mass service like the last guy.

Could you please clarify your statement for us?

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

RE: Missile Test Failure, Northern Russia

I was referring specifically to "We've also had NASA on the civilian side, and they've been criticized in recent decades for their inability to accomplish stated goals in a timely manner. " as the point of comparison between the military and NASA, since the military has not exactly been about to "accomplish stated goals in a timely manner." Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind; we spent over a decade in Afghanistan, which is better than what the Soviets managed, but the stated goal of not leaving failed countries has not been realized.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close