Russian rocket accident releases radiation

[Rive]

pic via the LA Times

I think that pic is from this accident:


Not related

I can't express fully how deeply do I hate news sites for using anything convenient as 'illustration'

 

[Baluncore]

it was a pretty big bang ...
pic via the LA Times

I believe your picture may be of explosions at a military ammunition depot near the city of Achinsk in eastern Siberia’s Krasnoyarsk region in Achinsk, Russia, on Aug. 5. Can you link to the source?
The nuclear power unit for the 9M730 Burevestnik cruise missile was being tested on a platform in the While Sea. It exploded in the morning (about 9AM) on August 8th. That is 2800 km WNW of Achinsk.

 

[mfb]

I think that pic is from this accident

Nice find. As this video is from 2013 the LA times picture is clearly not from the recent accident.

 

[artis]

Well judging from this thread and the scrap of news elsewhere I think I can say that even in the 21st century with many cell phones etc around countries like Russia can still hide a secret in plain sight pretty well due to their political regime and societal structure. If this happened in the west it would have made national news for the past two weeks every single day, the greenpeace would be protesting 24/7 and a bunch of other incompetent people would blame everything on civil nuclear energy.

 

[Baluncore]

The power reactor being tested was designed to fly on a cruise missile, so it would lack heavy protective screening. The staff operating the reactor, were presumably in a protective radiation shelter on the platform. In order for people to be thrown from the platform, that shelter would need to have been destroyed by the explosion.

Radiation levels in Severodvinsk were variously reported for either half an hour, or for two and a half hours, as being 4 to 16 times the background. That radiation was reported as gamma radiation.

My question now is; If an unshielded nuclear reactor was operating on the horizon, what gamma radiation might be immediately detected at that distance? The period of elevated gamma radiation may represent the duration of the test, prior to and then the explosion, and not due to wind drift of the products after the explosion.

I think the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea has sufficiently restricted access to keep things well hidden. An offshore platform, out of sight of land, serviced from the the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine base, is most unlikely to have any local civilian viewers, even in late summer.

Potential enemies knows more of your countries secrets than the public. Military secrecy is there because without it, the public would see proof of the gross incompetence of the military and lobby for removal of the leaders, or withdrawal of funding.

 

[geoelectronics]

My question now is; If an unshielded nuclear reactor was operating on the horizon, what gamma radiation might be immediately detected at that distance? The period of elevated gamma radiation may represent the duration of the test, prior to and then the explosion, and not due to wind drift of the products after the explosion.

No radiation would be detected at a distance really. Radioactive MATERIALS (especially gas ones) could leak out and be carried by the wind to other locations, where they subsequently go though nuclear decay and then the radioactivity from that decay would be detected.

But we don't know if this is a reactor. Nuclear power doesn't require a reactor always, if the electrical demands are modest. For example, plutonium 238 was used to power internal heart pacemakers. Pu-238 isotope isn't fissile, Russians use it in smoke detectors as an alpha ionization source.
If anyone wants to know how Radioisotope Thermal Generators work, how and why they are used in interplanetary spacecraft etc. I can explain, but perhaps in another thread by itself.

Hint- Thermal=heat.

George Dowell

 

[etudiant]

It is possible to reconstruct the nature of the emission from the spectrum of decay products detected.
So the authorities must have a pretty good idea of what happened. However, apart from noting the increased iodine isotope detection, they have disclosed nothing, perhaps in order to avoid violating the terms of the various monitoring network agreements.

 

[geoelectronics]

It is possible to reconstruct the nature of the emission from the spectrum of decay products detected.
So the authorities must have a pretty good idea of what happened. However, apart from noting the increased iodine isotope detection, they have disclosed nothing, perhaps in order to avoid violating the terms of the various monitoring network agreements.

I agree. Radioactive Iodine is commonly used in many industries, medical, and geophysical surveys, even water well and waste water injection wells. The sources are many and involve different isotopes of iodine but the decay photons will give the answer right away. That is common nuclear metrology, used everywhere in the world every day by ordinary trained technicians.

George Dowell

 

[davenn]

I think that pic is from this accident:


Not related

I can't express fully how deeply do I hate news sites for using anything convenient as 'illustration'

Yes, looks probable

 

[Baluncore]

But we don't know if this is a reactor. Nuclear power doesn't require a reactor always, if the electrical demands are modest.

We know that, unlike a nuclear reactor, heat generation by RTGs cannot be dynamically adjusted in flight, or turned off while in temporary storage prior to a launch. I think we are over the distractive and dismissive information releases. I am sufficiently convinced that it was not an RTG accident. I think we know now that a power unit for, or a 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile was being trialled. It has been admitted that the explosion happened on a platform in the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea.

It may be tangentially hypothetical, but my revised question is; What gamma radiation might be expected from the operation of an unshielded 100kW reactor?

 

[geoelectronics]

We know that, unlike a nuclear reactor, heat generation by RTGs cannot be dynamically adjusted in flight, or turned off while in temporary storage prior to a launch. I think we are over the distractive and dismissive information releases. I am sufficiently convinced that it was not an RTG accident. I think we know now that a power unit for, or a 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile was being trialled. It has been admitted that the explosion happened on a platform in the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea.

It may be tangentially hypothetical, but my revised question is; What gamma radiation might be expected from the operation of an unshielded 100kW reactor?

No comment, sorry.

George Dowell

 

[anorlunda]

An alternative option: A nuclear powered torpedo. Same idea, basically, just in the water instead of the air.

Oh, that sounds like a great engineering project. The freedom from the severe power to weight ratios needed for a flying object make it all much simpler. It could flash seawater to steam, to drive a turbine and a propeller for very effective propulsion. Seawater could also provide shielding to protect electronics from radiation.

The article says that these torpedoes are twice the size of submarine launched ballistic missiles. That provides lots of volume and mass for propulsion, payload, and navigation. Think double the size of the missile below.

Military strategists can spend entire careers working on the implications of delivering payloads 20 minutes, or 20 hours, or 20 days after launch, thinking of ICBM/cruise/torpedo variants.

 

[etudiant]

The Wall Street Journal reports that 4 Russian nuclear monitoring stations have gone silent since the accident.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-r...n-officials-says-11566232680?mod=hp_lead_pos6I have no idea whether this is a common practice or not, but it is surely suggestive.
However, the complete absence of detailed disclosure on part of the monitoring institutions is peculiar. A reactor accident that spews radioactive material is something they should be reporting on, unless they interpret their remit as purely confined to nuclear explosions.

Separately, the Russians have had extensive experience with liquid metal cooled reactors, which can operate at much higher temperatures than any water cooled design. Such a reactor would be a plausible heat source for a nuclear powered missile. Afaik, one of their main problem is that the metal coolant, usually lead or some lead/bismuth alloy, is prone to dissolve the pipes in which it runs. Perhaps this was such an incident. I've no idea however whether anyone has modeled a LOCA for these designs.

 

[anorlunda]

Afaik, one of their main problem is that the metal coolant, usually lead or some lead/bismuth alloy, is prone to dissolve the pipes in which it runs.

That might be acceptable in a missile with a design life of just a few hours.

The main fuel pumps in the Saturn V rocket had a design life of 200 seconds. 120 seconds of that was used in two pre-flight tests, and 60 seconds during the actual launch, leaving 20 seconds spare lifetime. My point is that components considered permanent in ordinary applications, can be considered consumable in short life applications like a missile.(Sorry, no link to that Saturn V data, but I could probably find it if someone wants me to.)

 

[etudiant]

Excellent point, design life is set to actual use.
That might actually help explain the accident, if they were testing the system several times and inadvertently exceeded the actual use life of some critical component.

 

[gleem]

Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious. Russia remains paranoid about releasing information about uncontrolled discharges of radioactive material. There is even a report that workers in the hospital that treated survivors were not told that the patients were contaminated. They were also asked to sign non disclosure agreements.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-covering-up-nuclear-accident-at-nyonoksa-2019-8

 

[berkeman]

There is even a report that workers in the hospital that treated survivors were not told that the patients were contaminated.

If true, that is just plain wrong, IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious.

I heard about that this afternoon. Apparently the accident was Aug 8, and by Aug 10, two of the CTBTO monitoring stations were turned off, then three more further away were turned off.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ent-offline-after-mystery-blast-idUSKCN1V9183
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-nuc...fuels-fears-extent-deadly-blast/30119174.html

 

[mfb]

Russia to nuclear test ban monitor: Test accident not your business

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...test-accident-not-your-business-idUSKCN1VA0OL
One of the the dead stations is transmitting again.

Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious.

Not necessarily. It can also mean that studying the nuclide distributions could give some indications how the weapon was designed and tested.
Reported levels outside Russia are really small, the radiation levels outside the testing site are probably not that high.

 

[artis]

@berkeman not telling someone something that they should otherwise under any normal circumstances know is exactly how everything is done in this part of the world. Trust me I know, same thing only on a larger level was back in the USSR, now it has decreased simply because the global information exchange capabilities have skyrocketed compared to the 1980's for example, thanks to internet and capable cell phones. So say this happened back in 1986, unlike Chernobyl which was simply too big to hide this would have been hidden better than a needle in a haystack, there would never be a thread of this type.
I believe China has the same exact policy towards secrecy and maybe some other countries do as well.
It's a philosophical issue because the value of human life is very low as seen here unlike seen in the western world

 

[artis]

If indeed the missile is a torpedo like mentioned here before I suppose then the reactor could be very simple and not have to use any liquid metal cooling etc?
But even for an surface to air missile if it had a nuclear reactor as the heat source why would one want to use liquid metal as coolant? Doesn't that simply add an unnecessary weight and complexity given that the final product which needs heating is air so why not heat it directly by some heat exchange from the core to the by passing air?
Given it's a missile that carries a warhead meant for a thermonuclear detonation does one really worry about some minor radioactive pollution along the way to the target?

 

[Baluncore]

But even for an surface to air missile if it had a nuclear reactor as the heat source why would one want to use liquid metal as coolant?

The liquid metal is a heat exchange fluid. It cools the core while it heats the jet air.

 

[artis]

yes I know it's a heat exchange fluid but again why not use air directly to cool the fuel? they did that in Windscale

The only reason I can think up at the moment is that a highly enriched core has rather small surface area so the passing air probably couldn't keep the temps low enough for safe operation of the reactor so that it lasts long enough so maybe the liquid metal then circulates through a much larger heat exchanger wit large surface, could this be the case?

 

[Baluncore]

could this be the case?

That is the case. It permits different contact areas for the two heat exchangers.

 

[geoelectronics]

I heard about that this afternoon. Apparently the accident was Aug 8, and by Aug 10, two of the CTBTO monitoring stations were turned off, then three more further away were turned off.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ent-offline-after-mystery-blast-idUSKCN1V9183
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-nuc...fuels-fears-extent-deadly-blast/30119174.html

Help me out here, I'm a little confused. Someone posted this link in this thread earlier:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...-arms-depot-at-russian-military-base/11386418

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...-kills-two-sparks-radiation-concerns/11398604

Inside is a video with this caption:
Video: The rocket explosion comes days after a fire at a military ammunition depot in Siberia. (ABC News)

Is this the same incident? The video shows a populated town and metnions the accident was at a military ammunition depot?

Thanks

Geo

 

[Baluncore]

Is this the same incident?

No, two different events.

5 Aug 2019. Ammunition and explosives storage, Lat 56.173310° Long 90.399937°. Kamenka, 10 km south of Achinsk. No radiation. Many pictures, some wrongly attributed. When google Earth updates that area, the storage facility will look different.

8 Aug 2019. Platform in Dvinskiy Gulf, White Sea. No pictures or details available. 5 people reported dead. Radiation released. It appears that Nyonoksa was the closest military test facility to the accident, but Nyonoksa was not involved in the trials, nor could it have provided access to the platform. The Nyonoksa reference appears to be Russian misinformation.

 

[geoelectronics]

No, two different events.

5 Aug 2019. Ammunition and explosives storage, Lat 56.173310° Long 90.399937°. Kamenka, 10 km south of Achinsk. No radiation. Many pictures, some wrongly attributed. When google Earth updates that area, the storage facility will look different.

8 Aug 2019. Platform in Dvinskiy Gulf, White Sea. No pictures or details available. 5 people reported dead. Radiation released. It appears that Nyonoksa was the closest military test facility to the accident, but Nyonoksa was not involved in the trials, nor could it have provided access to the platform. The Nyonoksa reference appears to be Russian misinformation.

Thanks for clarification.

Geo

 

[artis]

yup that link was a bit fake news, they write about one story and put a video from a totally different one and unrelated , I assume to make the whole story sensational.
They do that with ordinary things like car crashes everyday, putting a deadly wreck when writing about a traffic bump.

 

[Astronuc]

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a joint news conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto in the Presidental Palace in Helsinki, Finland, August 21, 2019
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...red-during-weapons-systems-test-idUSKCN1VB1YC
Apparently Putin acknowledged that "a deadly blast at a military site in northern Russia earlier this month had taken place during the testing of what he called promising new weapons systems." Of course, he will not elaborate on the system, but simply minimize the consequences, especially concerning the release of radioactive substances.

 

[mfb]

A more detailed analysis by Norway: Probably two explosions two hours apart, the second one was in the air and that's what released the radiation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-says-idUSKCN1VD1DR?__twitter_impression=true

 

[anorlunda]

Probably two explosions two hours apart

Oh wow. Now we have a real mystery. If a missile exploded in the air, what was the earlier explosion? If the first explosion was the missile, what was still in the air an hour later?

The Russians are good at concealment, but most of their secrets leak out eventually.

 

[artis]

@anorlunda , oh trust me most of their secrets are lost to history and no one is talking about them, I know because only the ones who live "here" and have had a common past in the USSR know, the ones that leak are the really nefarious ones, sadly so many atrocities are still unknown.

This on the bright side was just a technical mishap and both Russians and Americans as well as others have had plenty of them, I guess trying to conceal them is a standard practice. The real crimes are the ones against humanity and sadly on this side of the pond we have had too many.as for the thread topic, well wasn't it the case that these nuclear ramjets need to get to some minimum airspeed first in order to generate a strong enough thrust?because I can't imagine how one could start a rocket that has no expanding hot gasses but simply a very hot heat exchanger sitting in ambient air, in that case maybe the chemical propellant that was used to give the rocket it's firs boost exploded when it launched and some of the rocket got away and then exploded in air together with the secondary nuclear engine, or is this completely wrong?

PS. quite frankly with as little info as we have all we can do is speculate

 

[Rive]

If a missile exploded in the air, what was the earlier explosion?

... and how got the staff contaminated?

maybe the chemical propellant that was used to give the rocket it's firs boost exploded when it launched and some of the rocket got away and then exploded in air together with the secondary nuclear engine...

I had a similar speculation a bit back here, but the time difference seems to be two hours (!). At any relevant flight speed that's quite a big distance.

 

[Borg]

There is even a report that workers in the hospital that treated survivors were not told that the patients were contaminated.

If true, that is just plain wrong, IMO.

Looks like the Russians are going back to their old playbook. When all else fails, make up something - no matter how ridiculous.
Russian officials blame cesium exposure on 'Fukushima crabs'

Despite the doctor's exposure to patients from an area where a short-term radiation spike was recorded, the local health ministry blamed the trace amounts of the isotope on bad seafood.

"Cesium-137... has the feature of accumulating in fish, mushrooms, lichens, algae," the statement posted on the local government's website reads. "With a certain degree of probability, we can assume that this element got into the human body through the products of food."

 

[etudiant]

It is very difficult to tie these two accidents together, especially given the Norwegian assessment that the second explosion was airborne. The claim that the radioactivity was detected after the second explosion is unhelpful. There is quite a distance between the test site and the Norwegian sensors, so we would need wind speeds and direction to give some plausible time line.
We know at least 5 senior researchers were killed and that their bodies were contaminated. That indicates a ground based accident, perhaps a reactor burping because a pipe gave way. Whether a reactor with that kind of damage could still power a flight vehicle for a couple of hours is doubtful, but not impossible, as Russia's military greatly prefers robust and overdesigned gear. It is unlikely that the initial failure was just a booster issue, because of the contamination of the victims. However, it is also difficult to understand why a leak in metal cooled reactor would cause an explosion sufficient to contaminate and blow overboard the observers.