Nuclear Powered Missile?

I just read this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/11 ... orld-war-3


Most would presume that this was a nuclear ARMED missile.
However; the radioactivity of bomb grade Plutonium much less Uranium would not cause a significant increase in rsdiation levels.

My guess is that this was a nuclear powered cruise missile that had failed in operation releasing highly radiosctive, short lived fission products,

It's more likely it contained a radioisotope thermoelectric generator but until someone else can measure what kind of isotopes where released we are in the dark.

Being a bit close to the actual events (no in Severodvynks, of course, but Moscow is quite close than USA... ), I think that the cause may be the cheap Chinese Geiger counters...

Version about missile destruction in flight did not connect well with the casualties. At least two dead & about 16 injured.

Dilandu wrote:Being a bit close to the actual events (no in Severodvynks, of course, but Moscow is quite close than USA... ), I think that the cause may be the cheap Chinese Geiger counters...

Version about missile destruction in flight did not connect well with the casualties. At least two dead & about 16 injured.

Yeah, explosions in mid-flight tends not to produce many victims.

Joat42 wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Being a bit close to the actual events (no in Severodvynks, of course, but Moscow is quite close than USA... ), I think that the cause may be the cheap Chinese Geiger counters...

Version about missile destruction in flight did not connect well with the casualties. At least two dead & about 16 injured.

Yeah, explosions in mid-flight tends not to produce many victims.

The official version currently - that liquid-fuel missile failed during land testing, which led to the release of sone radioactive materials from onboard isotope generators.

Dilandu wrote:

Joat42 wrote:


Yeah, explosions in mid-flight tends not to produce many victims.

The official version currently - that liquid-fuel missile failed during land testing, which led to the release of sone radioactive materials from onboard isotope generators.

It does not make sense to build a missile that is both chemical fueled and has radioactive isotope generator. A radioisotope heat generator has low power density and is always producing heat.

The US experimented with nuclear fission reactor powered aircraft and missiles back in the 1960s. They worked but were expensive and dangerous.

Perhaps Russia is developing nuclear Isomere powered missile? Nuclear isomere generator exploits the difference in energy states of the isomeres certain radioactive isoptopes. This is potentially throtable and rechargable using X-ray pumping. This is considered theoretically possible in the US but in open sources it is not known if practical.

The most likely accident scenario would be during the X-ray pumping.

I would love to see an analysis of the isotopes in the fallout.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I just read this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/11 ... orld-war-3


Most would presume that this was a nuclear ARMED missile.
However; the radioactivity of bomb grade Plutonium much less Uranium would not cause a significant increase in rsdiation levels.

My guess is that this was a nuclear powered cruise missile that had failed in operation releasing highly radiosctive, short lived fission products,

BTW I really, really would not rely on the Express as a source of information!!!

its quite good as a cheap toilet paper tho

isaac_newton wrote:..snip..
BTW I really, really would not rely on the Express as a source of information!!!

its quite good as a cheap toilet paper tho

No, the ink smears...

Joat42 wrote:

isaac_newton wrote:..snip..
BTW I really, really would not rely on the Express as a source of information!!!

its quite good as a cheap toilet paper tho

No, the ink smears...

Haha - thanks for that - needed a laugh!

perhaps I should have added 'in a dire emergency'

Given the reliance on British Newspapers by many of the posters, I believe that this quote from "Yes, Prime Minister" will help to put things in perspective (albeit somewhat dated).
The quote is a conversation between (fictional) Prime Minister Bernard Hacker and his Undersecretary/keeper, Sir Humphrey from the Civil Service.

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

Amusingly, at the time of broadcast, the real-life Prime Minister was Margaret Thatcher.

A more up-to-date interpretation may be found here.