The recent civilian video showing the very large shock wave from the recent Russian offshore military explosion, as evidenced by condensation behind the shock wave front, indicates either a low-power nuclear detonation or massive chemical explosion. Since the fission reaction rate for normal density plutonium is too low to achieve nuclear explosive yield, plutonium must be imploded to give sufficient density for nuclear detonation. Presumably the nuclear cruise missile motors would not have been built with implosive shells of high explosives, which seems to indicate that the nuclear motor fuel was uranium-235. Does this reasoning seem correct?
Ask HN: Nuclear Cruise Missile Fuel
1–4 of 4 posts
Re: Ask HN: Nuclear Cruise Missile Fuel
#2Speculations on the Nenoksa Explosion[1] is interesting. I'm not qualified to judge its accuracy.
The author's opinion is that it had to have been U-235:
"When you are concerned about weight, as a cruise missile designer must be, the places to look in these designs would be the moderator and reflector for the reactor. Highly (above 90%) enriched uranium is the only possible fuel; plutonium is too hard to handle, and lesser enrichments add too much weight. The moderators in the Tory and Rover reactors also served as structural elements."
[1] https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2019/08/11/speculations-o...
Re: Ask HN: Nuclear Cruise Missile Fuel
#3If youre talking about one of these videos, they are from the munitions dump in Siberia, not where the nuke missile tests were
https://observers.france24.com/en/20190806-residents-russian...
Re: Ask HN: Nuclear Cruise Missile Fuel
#4If youre talking about one of these videos, they are from the munitions dump in Siberia, not where the nuke missile tests were https://observers.france24.com/en/20190806-residents-russian...
The video I refer to shows the sea and some coastline, with the fireball far offshore. Good comment, but no.