Scott Ritter, a former Marine Corps intelligence officer, writing in the The American Conservative, August
26, 2019, has a different account regarding the August 8, 2019 Nyonoksa
(aka Nenoksa) explosion. Ritter's account is partly in line with Pete's belief (part
expressed here) that there is no way, with Russia's limited military budget, and competing weapons' project demands, that it could be up to the nuclear reactor rocket engine test phase for the Skyfall cruise
missile.
Ritter's full report is at
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-medias-russian-radiation-story-implodes-upon-scrutiny/ . The following is an abridged version:
The Media’s Russian Radiation Story Implodes Upon Scrutiny
What really happened at Nenoska was less
explosive than everyone, including Trump, wanted you to believe.
How the mainstream media
reported an August 8 [2019] accident at a top-secret missile test facility in northern
Russia should serve as a cautionary tale regarding the dangers of rushed
judgments via institutional bias.
In the days following the initial report of the accident, the media exploded with speculation over both the nature of the device being tested at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site and the Russian government’s muted response.
In the days following the initial report of the accident, the media exploded with speculation over both the nature of the device being tested at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site and the Russian government’s muted response.
...They’re all wrong. Here’s the
real story of what actually happened at Nenoksa.
...Russia has long been
pursuing so-called “autonomous” weapons that can
be decoupled from conventional means of delivery—a missile silo or a
submarine—and instead installed in canisters that protect them from the
environment. They would then be deployed on the floor of the ocean, lying in
wait until remotely activated. One of the major obstacles confronting the
Russians is the need for [constant temperature of rocket fuel and oxidizer and electrical/electronic] system equilibrium, including the onboard
communications equipment, prior to activation. The power supply for any system
must be constant, reliable, and capable of operating for extended periods of
time without the prospect of fuel replenishment.
The solution for this power
supply problem is found in so-called “nuclear batteries,” or radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG). [also see Wiki] An RTG generates electricity using thermocouples that convert the heat released
by the decay of radioactive material. RTGs have long been used in support of
operations in space. The Russians have long used them to provide power to
remote unmanned facilities in the arctic and in mountainous terrain.
Cesium-137, a byproduct of the fission of U-235, is considered an ideal radioisotope for
military application RTGs.
On August 8 [2019], a joint team
from the [Russian] Ministry of Defense and the All-Russian Research Institute of
Experimental Physics, subordinated to the State Atomic Energy Corporation
(ROSATOM), conducted a test of a liquid-fueled rocket engine,
in which electric power from Cesium-137 “nuclear batteries” maintained its
equilibrium state. The test was conducted at the Nenoksa State Central Marine
Test Site (GTsMP), a secret Russian naval facility known as Military Unit
09703. It took place in the waters of the White Sea, off the coast of the
Nenoksa facility, onboard a pair of pontoon platforms.
The test had been in the making
for approximately a year. What exactly was being tested and why remain a
secret, but the evaluation went on for approximately an hour. It did not
involve the actual firing of the engine, but rather the non-destructive testing
of the RTG power supply to the engine.
The test may have been a
final system check...
When the actual testing
finished, something went very wrong. According
to a sailor from the nearby Severdvinsk naval base, the hypergolic
fuels contained in the liquid engine (their presence suggests that temperature
control was one of the functions being tested) somehow combined. This created
an explosion that destroyed the liquid engine, sending an unknown amount of
fuel and oxidizer into the water. At least one, and perhaps more, of the
Cesium-137 RTGs burst open, contaminating equipment and personnel alike.
...The Russian Meteorological
Service (Roshydromet) operates what’s known as the Automatic Radiation
Monitoring System (ASKRO) in the city of Severdvinsk. ASKRO detected
two “surges” in radiation, one involving Gamma particles, the other
Beta particles. This is a pattern consistent with the characteristics of
Cesium-137, which releases Gamma rays as it decays, creating Barium-137m, which
is a Beta generator. The initial detection was reported on the Roshydromet
website, though it was subsequently taken offline.
Specialized hazardous material
teams scoured the region around Nenoksa, Archangesk, and Severdvinsk, taking
air and environmental samples. All these tested normal, confirming that the
contamination created by the destruction of the Cesium-137 batteries was
limited to the area surrounding the accident. Due to the large amount of
missile fuel that was spilled, special restrictions concerning fishing and
swimming were imposed in the region’s waters — at least until the fuel was
neutralized by the waters of the White Sea. The damage had been contained, and
the threat was over.
The reality of what happened
at Nenoksa is tragic. Seven men lost their lives and scores of others were
injured. But there was no explosion of a “nuclear cruise missile,” and it
wasn’t the second coming of Chernobyl. America’s intelligence community and the
so-called experts got it wrong — again. The root cause of their error is their
institutional bias against Russia, which leads them to view that country in the
worst possible light, regardless of the facts.
At a time when the level of
mutual mistrust between our two nuclear-armed nations is at an all-time high,
this kind of irresponsible rush to judgement must be avoided at all costs.
Scott Ritter is a former
Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union
implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s
Road to War.
See Ritter's FULL REPORT HERE.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
There being no photos of radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), that support Russian missiles, available, see the Cassini space probe RTG in the photo (above) and diagram (below) (courtesy NASA via Wikipedia).
Pete
An RTG with cesium 137 would not explain the isotopes of barium 139, 140, and lanthanum 140 that was reportedly released. Pretty much everyone agrees that the release of these elements means it was a full up nuclear reactor that was breached.
ReplyDeletehttps://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1VG0H2-OCATP
Hi Josh
ReplyDeleteCould it have been an rocket stage fuel explosion wherein the stage actually took off and hit a small Russian test reactor at Nyonoksa?
This is noting a 2015 Barents Observer article https://thebarentsobserver.com/ru/node/95 :
"Russia’s mini nuclear reactors plan causes concern"
"Norway’s radiation watchdog says the risk of accidents and releases of radioactive substances will increase in the Arctic.
A [Russian] military plan building up to 30 small transportable nuclear reactors for the Arctic was announced earlier this week. The reactors will provide electricity to remote bases currently under development as part of Russia’s Arctic militarization..."
...Russia current militarization of the Arctic includes new bases and re-opening of Cold War bases along the north coast of Siberia and on archipelagoes like the New Siberia Islands, Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land.
The aim of creating small nuclear reactors is to fly- or ship them in to the bases and produce electricity- and heat instead of diesel generators and steam boilers.
The reactors are so small they can be transported around by a KAMAZ truck, in a cargo plane, on a sledge or even carried by Russia’s huge Mi-26 cargo helicopters.
The first of the new mini reactors could be ready for testing before 2020, TASS reported on Wednesday."
Regards
Pete
@Pete
ReplyDeleteMy personal theory is that whatever this missile uses as a booster exploded. Because the system is nuclear, I believe it has a much larger, longer ranged booster than a standard cruise missile (like for instance Tomahawk) so that the weapon can get clear of its launch site (or ideally the entire coastline) before it starts up. This booster may be liquid instead of solid fueled. In any case, either said booster had a catastrophic failure upon launch, or else the reactor somehow overheated resulting in the booster exploding. Either way, the booster explosion shredded the reactor and resulted in the release of isotopes.
I doubt the reactor is related to the underwater reactors that the Russians are working on for Arctic use - those are cooled by water and wouldn't remotely work (ie - they would melt) in open air.
It is hard to establish how the Russian missile could work though - the US design, SLAM, didn't go critical until post launch and needed mach 2 airflow to act as a coolant. Any airborne nuclear reactor will require air cooling on some level, where as a typical power plant and all submarines use water cooling. Having the reactor go critical at sea level before launch seems like an incredibly bad idea - the air isn't moving fast enough to exchange heat. Some people theorize the Russian model uses a liquid nuclear fuel or molten metal coolant, but I don't see how that would be possible in the small airframe that has been pictured in Russian press releases.
Your guess is as good as mine, but I think we can rule out an RTG if only RTGs generate electricity in the hundreds of watts or less. At that level it wouldn't be remotely powerful enough to be a source of thrust for a missile. It's enough to keep an automated light house or space probe warm and with a constant trickle of charge, but not enough enough to jump a car or run a microwave without some kind of long term collection and storage system.
Cheers,
Josh
Thanks Josh
ReplyDeleteFor your Aug 29 comment.
Lets hope new details seep out from Russia or from Western (eg. US or Israeli) Intelligence via some media like Strategypage or Washington Free Beacon.
Regards
Pete
ReplyDelete@Pete:
Yet another possible twist in the story, this article concerning the incident claims it was not a test, but a recovery of a previously failed test launch that exploded after being brought above water:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/29/intel-says-russian-explosion-was-not-from-nuclear-powered-missile-test.html
This makes me wonder if the Losharik incident was also part of the recovery effort. The two incidents were widely spaced out in both time and position, though both near the White Sea. But Losharik would be the kind of asset used for the recovery of a test missile from the sea floor. If nothing else, its loss probably forced the Russians to use one of their other recovery assets (X-ray class?).
Cheers,
Josh