Josh and I continue to discuss the August 8 (or before) 2019 Nyonoksa Russia nuclear incident possibilities. In response to Josh's August 30, 2019 comment:
I reply:
Yes a failed submarine recovery of a reactor sounds plausible.
1. The scenario may be:
with "The tests apparently showed that the nuclear-powered heart of the cruise missile failed to initiate and, therefore, the [Skyfall missile] weapon was unable to achieve the indefinite flight Putin had boasted about.". So it sounds like the liquid fuel Skyfall stage taking off from Nyonoksa succeeded. But then Skyfall's transition to reactor powered ramjet failed.
The submarine Losharik (see here and here) was tasked to recover the Top Secret Skyfall reactor before a Western submersible could snatch it. But then Losharik suffered its own battery explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Losharik#2019_fire
A second recovery of the Skyfall reactor was attempted by an X-ray class submersible https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/678.htm or similar.
But the Skyfall reactor was running hot. Perhaps deep cold ocean water + the casing were sufficient to contain the heat but as it was brought to the surface by the X-ray, shallow water + disintergrating casing + even contact with air caused a heat increase amounting to explosion of the Skyfall reactor.
2. Other possibilities were Losharik and then X-ray were attempting to recover:
A. what may be an old or newly lost submarine reactor that was running hot.
B. (before a Western submersible snatched it) a missile nuclear warhead
C. a dropped in error free-fall nuclear bomb (recalling a 1957 US incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_17_nuclear_bomb#1957_incident ), or
D. a site where a Russian aircraft crashed into the sea with a nuclear weapon aboard.
In cases B, C and D the conventional explosives portions of the warhead/bomb may have exploded spreading and/or fissioning nuclear material (similar to this old 1966 accident which included a "dirty bomb" effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash#Contamination ).
Pete
I reply:
Yes a failed submarine recovery of a reactor sounds plausible.
1. The scenario may be:
with "The tests apparently showed that the nuclear-powered heart of the cruise missile failed to initiate and, therefore, the [Skyfall missile] weapon was unable to achieve the indefinite flight Putin had boasted about.". So it sounds like the liquid fuel Skyfall stage taking off from Nyonoksa succeeded. But then Skyfall's transition to reactor powered ramjet failed.
The submarine Losharik (see here and here) was tasked to recover the Top Secret Skyfall reactor before a Western submersible could snatch it. But then Losharik suffered its own battery explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Losharik#2019_fire
A second recovery of the Skyfall reactor was attempted by an X-ray class submersible https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/678.htm or similar.
But the Skyfall reactor was running hot. Perhaps deep cold ocean water + the casing were sufficient to contain the heat but as it was brought to the surface by the X-ray, shallow water + disintergrating casing + even contact with air caused a heat increase amounting to explosion of the Skyfall reactor.
2. Other possibilities were Losharik and then X-ray were attempting to recover:
A. what may be an old or newly lost submarine reactor that was running hot.
B. (before a Western submersible snatched it) a missile nuclear warhead
C. a dropped in error free-fall nuclear bomb (recalling a 1957 US incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_17_nuclear_bomb#1957_incident ), or
D. a site where a Russian aircraft crashed into the sea with a nuclear weapon aboard.
In cases B, C and D the conventional explosives portions of the warhead/bomb may have exploded spreading and/or fissioning nuclear material (similar to this old 1966 accident which included a "dirty bomb" effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash#Contamination ).
Pete
No comments:
Post a Comment