Reactor explosion in russia

[Novalee]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019...olved-in-russian-explosion-expert-says-a67022

i have not looked around for other articles yet , but this can not be good if it is true a reactor exploded and not the missile engine like first reported .

 

[ryzno]

Nuclear energy is good and clean they said...

 

[novcze]

if it is true a reactor exploded and not the missile engine like first reported

is this new? ... we already know for weeks it was failed test of nuclear missile engine.

 

[Imari]

Nuclear energy is good and clean they said...

It is when used to provide civilian energy, but when the item in question is a weapon I think it's safe to say that "safe" and "clean" are not primary design goals.

 

[Rage Racer]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019...olved-in-russian-explosion-expert-says-a67022

i have not looked around for other articles yet , but this can not be good if it is true a reactor exploded and not the missile engine like first reported .

Both is true.
Nuclear reactor of a cruise missile engine.

 

[Novalee]

Both is true.
Nuclear reactor of a cruise missile engine.

He explains that such a mixture of short-lived isotopes would not have been found if it was simply an "isotope source" in a propellant engine that exploded like Russian authorities first said.

i think the story is getting at a reactor that wasnt in a missle

 

[Imari]

He explains that such a mixture of short-lived isotopes would not have been found if it was simply an "isotope source" in a propellant engine that exploded like Russian authorities first said.

i think the story is getting at a reactor that wasnt in a missle

Reactors don't generally go in missiles. That's the point. However, the information so far points to an accident that somehow involved both a reactor AND a missile. If they're not the same thing, generally those two are kept as far apart as humanly possible. For very good safety reasons that I assure you the Russians are well aware of.

That it wasn't an "isotope source" means that it wasn't some random piece of radioactive matter, like a radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Those could have potential use in a missile as a replacement for batteries or other electrical sources, but they're ruled out because of the isotopic byproducts detected. Far more likely is a real reactor, and various missile designs using a reactor have been proposed since the fifties. Nuclear powered aircraft (specifically bombers) were in the same line of research, but it sort of fell out of popularity when it turned out that "traditional" ICBMs weren't actually that hard to make compared to a flying nuclear reactor.

Russia have stated that they aim to build a nuclear powered, nuclear armed cruise missile. They're obviously trying very hard to avoid admitting that this is that, because in large part that project seems to be intended as a source of national pride (they held a public vote to name it) and it would be damaging to that goal. But it seems pretty likely that project is the source of this incident, given what we know so far.

 

[Dennisch]

Now all we have to do is wait for that floating nuclear reactor to sink to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Now all we have to do is wait for that floating nuclear reactor to sink to the bottom of the ocean.

It's probably one of the best places for a damaged reactor. Local radiation levels are insanely high (of course) but the dilution of emissions is high. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48949113

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's probably one of the best places for a damaged reactor. Local radiation levels are insanely high (of course) but the dilution of emissions is high. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48949113

Water is a great radiation shield as well.

 

[Rage Racer]

He explains that such a mixture of short-lived isotopes would not have been found if it was simply an "isotope source" in a propellant engine that exploded like Russian authorities first said.

i think the story is getting at a reactor that wasnt in a missle

From what I read and understand, there were two theories about what happened.

The first is the explosion of an engine of the Tsirkon hypersonic missile, which uses that isotope source as you quoted.

The second, which is more likely now, is that it was the Burevestnik cruise missile, which is subsonic and has a small nuclear reactor inside.

Russia have stated that they aim to build a nuclear powered, nuclear armed cruise missile. They're obviously trying very hard to avoid admitting that this is that, because in large part that project seems to be intended as a source of national pride (they held a public vote to name it) and it would be damaging to that goal. But it seems pretty likely that project is the source of this incident, given what we know so far.

Uhm?
The official Russian sources say that the explosion occurred on a test of a nuclear powered missile engine. It’s like they’re denying it. But they don’t tell too many details for obvious reasons. This is a secret facility and some information about it is not for publicity.