"Burevestnik" Nuclear-powered cruise missile

GarryB wrote:

You are comparing apples with oranges... hydrogen fuel is used (with oxygen) because it is light and accelerates fast in the combustion reaction.

With ion propulsion it is different as it uses magnetism for acceleration... any material can be used... just strip off an electronic and it has an electric charge and can be manipulated easily by magnetic field.

Xenon was chosen because of its very high performance, but nitrogen is orders of magnitude cheaper and much more abundant... it is a bit like airships... hydrogen is cheaper and offers better performance but Helium was safer but expensive.

Old airships used Helium for safety but new airships can use hydrogen fuel cells, and lots of fire retardant technologies to minimise the risk of fire allowing much cheaper operations.

Nuclear thermal rocket has to use hydrogen, if it using helium ( second best candidate in the periodic table ) then the performance of it will be inferior compared to the chemical rockets.

A nuclear ramjet will use the gases the aircraft or missile the ramjet propels is flying through...

I don't think that the reactor has that much margin to locally shut it down and still operating.

I have never heard of any nuclear reactor that "drops cores" except in the Movies like Star Trek.

You need to have the reactor in an inactive state otherwise its engine will always be running... how would you store them?

I would expect in operation when the solid rocket booster engine fires and launches the missile control rods will be raised to expose the fuel rods and the nuclear reaction will rapidly generate heat, which is used to propel the missile... if the reactor overheats the control rods can be dropped down to stop the reaction... the engine wont go cold but will stop heating up and with the airflow drawing heat from the reactor it should stop overheating and start to cool down to a safer temperature...

In fact you could modify the reactor so that control rods remain in place and when the target is reached the missile climbs to 5,000m altitude and drops its warhead or 4-5 warheads over the targets and then the extra control rods can be raised to super heat the engine and melt it down so the missile crashes with a melted down reactor deep inside enemy territory somewhere as a bonus little present...

Operating at higher altitude might require more heat from the reactor so that extra heat potential could make it able to fly faster at higher altitudes too.

Ok, so same theory, .

Ion engine : it requiring only electrical source to operate, it can be reactor, solar cell, battery, RTG, steam turbine.
The reaction mass theoretically can be anything, but in practice it has many design considerations, including but not limited to be easy to storage, don't damage the cathode/anode, be preferably gas / liquid during the operations condition of the spacecraft without complex heating equipment.

Based on those requirements it needs to be noble gas, with high mass .So , they using the xenon.

Nuclear thermal ROCKET engine:
It can work only with hydrogen. Everything else will be worst than a simple chemical rocket.
However this engines can use the hydrogen as moderator in the reactor, so the nuclear reaction would be proportional to the density of hydrogen flowing through the core.
Means it is a self regulating engine.
If the engine fail, then it just impact the ground in one piece ( depending on the design).

Nuclear ramjet engine:
So, the air has no moderating capability. It means that if the flow in the engine decreasing ( even locally) then the reactor core ( the air flow thought of it) will overheat, melt and the derbies/vapour of the reactor core will go out from the engine with the air flow.
Means this engine has higher chance to fail than the hydrogen thermal rocket one, and if fail then it will not just simply impact the ground in one piece, but it will disperse the reactor core over a huge area prior of impact.
So, it is not so easy to test.


Remark: all low earth orbit nuclear reactor system had core evacuation/ejection mechanism, to eject the reactor core to a safe parking orbit.
It is a basic feature : )

No. Tests are finished because the weapon is operational.

IMHO there is still a long way to go to get that nuclear engine work and to have a reliable weapon easy to handle for the crew.

These new programmes are not just new now... they all started in 2002 when the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, so they will have already had plenty of testing and development time... this was a priority field and I rather doubt they ever suffered funding cuts.

But what does that mean? Where would they test the nuclear engine if not at Novaja Semlja? Is that already an indication of the end of the program?

I would say either testing is complete, or they want a more secret location for testing... certainly not... oops we have lost a bird.... ahhh well... lets give this up... it isn't working.

Based on those requirements it needs to be noble gas, with high mass .So , they using the xenon.

Most Ion engines use Xenon, but the Russians have reported that they are using Nitrogen because it is abundant and cheap.

It might not be as efficient as Xenon, but I rather doubt they would try it if it didn't work...

Nuclear thermal ROCKET engine:
It can work only with hydrogen. Everything else will be worst than a simple chemical rocket.

We are talking about a nuclear ramjet... not a nuclear rocket... heating air is sufficient for propulsion... no need to require carrying a propulsive gas when operating inside the atmosphere.

So, the air has no moderating capability. It means that if the flow in the engine decreasing ( even locally) then the reactor core ( the air flow thought of it) will overheat, melt and the derbies/vapour of the reactor core will go out from the engine with the air flow.

The reactor can be moderated with control rods to ensure it does not over heat, the coolant system delivering heat to the airflow could be ceramic material able to withstand enormous temperatures well beyond what the reactor heats the coolant material to. The heat transfer from the cooling system to the airflow will heat up if the airflow slows down... which will further heat the airflow and increase thrust... accelerating the missile and restoring air flow.

Means this engine has higher chance to fail than the hydrogen thermal rocket one, and if fail then it will not just simply impact the ground in one piece, but it will disperse the reactor core over a huge area prior of impact.
So, it is not so easy to test.

A cruise missile sized nuclear rocket could not contain sufficient hydrogen for an intercontinental flight...

Remark: all low earth orbit nuclear reactor system had core evacuation/ejection mechanism, to eject the reactor core to a safe parking orbit.
It is a basic feature : )

It doesn't fire them up... it accelerates them forward to a higher speed so it climbs to a higher orbit... it is a short term solution to a problem that will need to be solved at some stage.

For a reactor core in an aircraft there is no possiblity of accelerating the reactor core to orbital speed... so dropping the core where the missile happens to be risks contaminating friendly territory... it makes more sense to keep the core on board and continue flight for another couple of minutes to take it further away from the launch position...

In fact the most efficient way to make it safe would be to climb 20km and detonate the nuclear warhead to vapourise the reactor and missile.

So the program has probably been deleted. One of Putin's great weapons is gone.

Likely they have moved to where the system will be based to monitor its serial production and operational deployment...

Arrow wrote:

The US claims that all tests were unsuccessful.

Yeah, with lots of eveidence too, right?

US claims also that Idlib is all civilians. US claims AQ, who flew plane into twin towers apparently, are freedom fighters in Syria, US claims Maduro is a dictator same with Putin and others. US claims their Missile defense system works when it performed like shit in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, US lies a lot. And so do you

Arrow wrote:The missile began testing in 2017 so it is strange that it would get so fast with the test program. Rolling up the infrastructure means closing the program.

of accomplished with success

@Arrow

US claims

US claimed also in 2014 that Russian economy is dead, Iraq had nukes. US can claim anything even that they landed on moon

there are a whole lot of Russia fans in here.
Since years they are praising all the fantastic new systems like A-235 (without knowing what is really is), S-500 (every year a new adoration), 40N6 (since at least 4 years it should come around every moment), S-350 and so on.
To be a real fan sometimes turns down objectivity.

Regarding the new cruise missile:
There are two nearly identical test sites (did you know that?)
One at Kapustin Yar (for test without the nuclear propulsion) and one at Pankovo.
KY site was created in 2016 - Pankovo site spring 2017.
According to my sources KY site was only in use for throw tests in late 2016 and some system test (including troup trial simulation of the system).
The nuclear engine was tested four times between Nov. 2017 and Febr 2018 from Pankovo.
But the missile never exceeds some 30 miles! Out of whatsoever reasons.
It is very unlikely that you can declare a revolutionary new propulsion after this situation as ready! You need full range simulation and test it's behaviour.
The video showing the "production line" of the missile is just ridiculous. Clearly fabricated. No tools, nothing which looks like a real production line. Just too clean to take this serious. Moreover there is no such building at the Novator production sites (yeah I checked them all - regarding basic layout and window pattern).

Moreover why should they give up Pankovo? Just to look for another northern test site (with even worth logistic)? Novaja Semlja is ideal suited. It is already a no go area due to the radioactive contamination of the past. In case something is going fatally wrong you could find no better place.

IMHO they need to have another round of development effort for this system and only then return to testing (at Pankovo).
Before we will see this system for real it will even longer discussed here in this forum than all the other toys which didn't materialize in service yet!

BTW: maybe it would have been better not to mention the withdrawl of the equipment from Pankovo and not to spoil some dreams

I see we got another one.

Most of those systems have been admitted in development for a long time. 40N6 even more but for various reasons. Now they are determining if used in S-500 or S-400. They never said it was ready yet, unlike this missile.

There is a clear difference between storage and assembly and finishing shop. If they set up a whole shop for 1 sec still, then you are trying to find any excuse for being stupid.

This forums seems to be flooded with retards like Rambo and Arrow.  Great.

What I find interesting that they have multiple sites to test the missiles, yet shutting down one of them means program cancelled? Real geniuses around here. Glad none of you make decisions for countries or said country would be screwed.

Let me ask this question - do any of you have proof that the project isn't complete and isn't in service?

GarryB wrote:

The reactor can be moderated with control rods to ensure it does not over heat, the coolant system delivering heat to the airflow could be ceramic material able to withstand enormous temperatures well beyond what the reactor heats the coolant material to. The heat transfer from the cooling system to the airflow will heat up if the airflow slows down... which will further heat the airflow and increase thrust... accelerating the missile and restoring air flow.

Means this engine has higher chance to fail than the hydrogen thermal rocket one, and if fail then it will not just simply impact the ground in one piece, but it will disperse the reactor core over a huge area prior of impact.
So, it is not so easy to test.

A cruise missile sized nuclear rocket could not contain sufficient hydrogen for an intercontinental flight...

Remark: all low earth orbit nuclear reactor system had core evacuation/ejection mechanism, to eject the reactor core to a safe parking orbit.
It is a basic feature : )

It doesn't fire them up... it accelerates them forward to a higher speed so it climbs to a higher orbit... it is a short term solution to a problem that will need to be solved at some stage.

So, just summarise : the nuclear ramjet very dangerous, more dangerous than a nuclear rocket engine. If anything happens then it will disperse the core over a big area ( the material doesn't matter, the core in restricted airflow will heat up to positive infinite kelvin , and the control rods have no time to react).

Space reactor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

rambo54 wrote:there are a whole lot of Russia fans in here.
Since years they are praising all the fantastic new systems like A-235 (without knowing what is really is), S-500 (every year a new adoration), 40N6 (since at least 4 years it should come around every moment), S-350 and so on.
To be a real fan sometimes turns down objectivity.

+
BTW: maybe it would have been better not to mention the withdrawl of the equipment from Pankovo and not to spoil some dreams

no worries you didnt spoil me anything Everybody has right to express his opinion here.



The connection your opinion with realm of reality is yet another question though.

Everybody can dream, like US about Moon landing as it was real not in studios.

Singular_Transform wrote:

So, just summarise : the nuclear ramjet very dangerous, more dangerous than a nuclear rocket engine. If anything happens then it will disperse the core over a big area ( the material doesn't matter, the core in restricted airflow will heat up to positive infinite kelvin , and the control rods have no time to react).

Space reactor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

nuclear rocket engine is impossible to use on fairly slow and long flying object. The question is what is heating air there. Why not helium/xenon as heat exchanger between engine and reactor?

So, just summarise : the nuclear ramjet very dangerous, more dangerous than a nuclear rocket engine. If anything happens then it will disperse the core over a big area ( the material doesn't matter, the core in restricted airflow will heat up to positive infinite kelvin , and the control rods have no time to react).

Space reactor:

Perhaps you might want to give this a read:

https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile

About project Pluto...

nuclear rocket engine is impossible to use on fairly slow and long flying object. The question is what is heating air there. Why not helium/xenon as heat exchanger between engine and reactor?

The whole point of using nuclear propulsion is to extend range to practically unlimited... a rocket motor needs fuel to operate and when that fuel is burned up it means its range is limited by fuel capacity... you might as well use a small cheap jet engine instead of a rocket.

A nuclear ramjet makes infinitely more sense... the only reason Pluto didn't go ahead was for ethical reasons... so I suspect it will have been restarted and the US will have some in a decade too.

The nuclear fuel elements were made of refractory ceramic based on beryllium oxide, with enriched uranium dioxide as fuel and small amount of zirconium dioxide for structural stability. The fuel elements were hollow hexagonal tubes about 4 inches (10 cm) long with 0.3 inches (7.6 mm) distance between the outer parallel planes, with inside diameter of 0.227 inches (5.8 mm). They were manufactured by high-pressure extruding of the green compact, then sintering almost to its theoretical density. The core consisted of 465,000 individual elements stacked to form 27,000 airflow channels; the design with small unattached elements reduced problems related with thermal stresses. The elements were designed for average operation temperature of 2,330 °F (1,277 °C); the autoignition temperature of the reactor base plates was only 150 °C higher. The neutron flux was calculated to be 9×1017 neutrons/(cm2·s) in the aft and 7×1014 neutrons/(cm2·s) in the nose. The gamma radiation level was fairly high due to the lack of shielding; radiation hardening for the guidance electronics had to be designed.

So, the temperature margin of the Pluto reactor was 150 ceslius.

Its worked at 1277 Celsius, means only 150 Celsius means complete reactor meltdown.

GarryB wrote:

A nuclear ramjet makes infinitely more sense... the only reason Pluto didn't go ahead was for ethical reasons... so I suspect it will have been restarted and the US will have some in a decade too.

unlikely ethical, technical. To defect prone. It is not about doomsday scenario. this is about storage/tests and ability to deliver too. No I dot think anything like that is ever beed applied. In every case Putin said: with nuclear source of energy not engine.

There's no point repeat same arguments 10times. This is not the way they gone. More probable they have some intermediate medium to pass heat to the engine and moderate reactor.

Singular_Transform wrote:So, just summarise : the nuclear ramjet very dangerous, more dangerous than a nuclear rocket engine. If anything happens then it will disperse the core over a big area ( the material doesn't matter, the core in restricted airflow will heat up to positive infinite kelvin , and the control rods have no time to react).

No, complete rubbish. A nuclear powered ramjet is perfectly possible for atmospheric flight. Sure, there are engineering issues to solve,but they are not insurmountable, and arm-waving about some long-abandoned USAF project from the 1950s is hardly evidence of anything. Suggesting a nuclear ramjet reactor core can't be built without imminent risk of meltdown due to high operating temperatures is junk "science". Fuel elements and structural components can be build using refractory materials that can withstand several thousand degrees with minimal loss of structural strength. The missile body can be insulated from the reactor heat by encompassing the hot components within a circular duct cooled by a seperate air intake.

The idea that a thermal nuclear engine can't work using air as a thermal transfer media is just bullshit. FFS, its just a method of injecting heat into airflow and creating thrust via volumetric expansion... air-breathing engines do this everyday on a routine basis Helium or xenon? WTF are you smoking?

Singular_Transform wrote:The nuclear fuel elements were made of refractory ceramic based on beryllium oxide, with enriched uranium dioxide as fuel and small amount of zirconium dioxide for structural stability. The fuel elements were hollow hexagonal tubes about 4 inches (10 cm) long with 0.3 inches (7.6 mm) distance between the outer parallel planes, with inside diameter of 0.227 inches (5.8 mm). They were manufactured by high-pressure extruding of the green compact, then sintering almost to its theoretical density. The core consisted of 465,000 individual elements stacked to form 27,000 airflow channels; the design with small unattached elements reduced problems related with thermal stresses. The elements were designed for average operation temperature of 2,330 °F (1,277 °C); the autoignition temperature of the reactor base plates was only 150 °C higher. The neutron flux was calculated to be 9×1017 neutrons/(cm2·s) in the aft and 7×1014 neutrons/(cm2·s) in the nose. The gamma radiation level was fairly high due to the lack of shielding; radiation hardening for the guidance electronics had to be designed.

So, the temperature margin of the Pluto reactor was 150 ceslius.

Its worked at 1277 Celsius, means only 150 Celsius means complete reactor meltdown.

People quoting things they do not properly understand without having the sense to question what they read...

the autoignition temperature of the reactor base plates was only 150 °C higher.

What does this mean?  What are "reactor base plates" and why would they auto-ignite at 1,427 deg C? Consider that most stainless steels melt at 1,510 deg C, titanium at 1,670, zirconium at 1854, and tungsten at 3,400.  They certainly don't "ignite".  Any materials subjected to extreme temperatures will be refractories in any case, not metals.

Interpreting this as meaning that a 150 deg C temperature excursion on high side means a reactor meltdown simply confirms that you have no frigging idea what you are talking about.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:The nuclear fuel elements were made of refractory ceramic based on beryllium oxide, with enriched uranium dioxide as fuel and small amount of zirconium dioxide for structural stability. The fuel elements were hollow hexagonal tubes about 4 inches (10 cm) long with 0.3 inches (7.6 mm) distance between the outer parallel planes, with inside diameter of 0.227 inches (5.8 mm). They were manufactured by high-pressure extruding of the green compact, then sintering almost to its theoretical density. The core consisted of 465,000 individual elements stacked to form 27,000 airflow channels; the design with small unattached elements reduced problems related with thermal stresses. The elements were designed for average operation temperature of 2,330 °F (1,277 °C); the autoignition temperature of the reactor base plates was only 150 °C higher. The neutron flux was calculated to be 9×1017 neutrons/(cm2·s) in the aft and 7×1014 neutrons/(cm2·s) in the nose. The gamma radiation level was fairly high due to the lack of shielding; radiation hardening for the guidance electronics had to be designed.

So, the temperature margin of the Pluto reactor was 150 ceslius.

Its worked at 1277 Celsius, means only 150 Celsius means complete reactor meltdown.

People quoting things they do not properly understand without having the sense to question what they read...

the autoignition temperature of the reactor base plates was only 150 °C higher.

What does this mean?  What are "reactor base plates" and why would they auto-ignite at 1,427 deg C? Consider that most stainless steels melt at 1,510 deg C, titanium at 1,670, zirconium at 1854, and tungsten at 3,400.  They certainly don't "ignite".  Any materials subjected to extreme temperatures will be refractories in any case, not metals.

Interpreting this as meaning that a 150 deg C temperature excursion on high side means a reactor meltdown simply confirms that you have no frigging idea what you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature

It means that the steel burn like wood or coal.
And that temperature margin calculated for normal air pressure, the engine works with higher pressure, means the auto-ignition temperature is actually closer to the reactor normal operating temperature.

During iron/steel making there are materials used that float on the top of the steel to separate it from the air ( O2).

These are solvable problems(using ceramic or whatever), but the very basic characteristic will stay : in the event of restricted flow the reactor will melt like ice in a furnace.
So, if it ingesting a bird then it will melt down .

This is the reason why everyone wants to use this as a final doomsday weapon delivery system.

The US nuclear airplane supposed to use molten salt reactor with heat exchanger.

However the molten salt is soluble in water....

Big_Gazza wrote:air-breathing engines do this everyday on a routine basis Helium or xenon?  WTF are you smoking?  

it was me not Singular

Suggesting a nuclear ramjet reactor core can't be built without imminent risk of meltdown due to high operating temperatures is junk "science".  Fuel elements and structural components can be build using refractory materials that can withstand several thousand degrees with minimal loss of structural strength.

like? what does it mean several thousands and if core is not moderated is there any limit of temp?

The missile body can be insulated from the reactor heat by encompassing the hot components within a circular duct cooled by a seperate air intake.  

and if air stops flowing then?

Singular_Transform wrote:What does this mean?  What are "reactor base plates" and why would they auto-ignite at 1,427 deg C? Consider that most stainless steels melt at 1,510 deg C, titanium at 1,670, zirconium at 1854, and tungsten at 3,400.  They certainly don't "ignite".  Any materials subjected to extreme temperatures will be refractories in any case, not metals.

Interpreting this as meaning that a 150 deg C temperature excursion on high side means a reactor meltdown simply confirms that you have no frigging idea what you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature

It means that the steel burn like wood or coal.
And that temperature margin calculated for normal air pressure, the engine works with higher pressure, means the auto-ignition temperature is actually closer to the reactor normal operating temperature.

During iron/steel making there are materials used that float on the top of the steel to separate it from the air ( O2).

These are solvable problems(using ceramic or whatever), but the very basic characteristic will stay : in the event of restricted flow the reactor will melt like ice in a furnace.
So, if it ingesting a bird then it will melt down .

This is the reason why everyone wants to use this as a final doomsday weapon delivery system.

The US nuclear airplane supposed to use molten salt reactor with heat exchanger.

However the molten salt is soluble in water....

Keep barking up the tree all you like, but again you are misinterpreting what you read....

Metals don't "ignite" as you suggest, but they will undergo surface oxidisation when subjected to high temperatures in an oxygen-bearing environment. To actually combust in any real sense they need to be in particulate form (eg filings) or very thin sheets/ribbon.  Metallic components in a reactor will not catch fire... that is self evident, and any insistence to the contrary is just BS.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Keep barking up the tree all you like, but again you are misinterpreting what you read....

Metals don't "ignite" as you suggest, but they will undergo surface oxidisation when subjected to high temperatures in an oxygen-bearing environment. To actually combust in any real sense they need to be in particulate form (eg filings) or very thin sheets/ribbon.  Metallic components in a reactor will not catch fire... that is self evident, and any insistence to the contrary is just BS.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting#Cutting

In high temperature supersonic airflow the metal parts will burn away in the fraction of second, if the temperature is above the auto-ignition.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EGmrPiumEU

like? what does it mean several thousands and if core is not moderated is there any limit of temp?

Did I say the core wasn't moderated? Power will be controlled by varying the control rod insertion and operating temperature limited accordingly. Sure, you can create hypothetical failure scenarios where rods fail in the fully withdraw condition and cooling air-flow stops - in which case core temperature would skyrocket and the fuel elements will melt. Depending on materials used in the fuel element cladding (likely to be ceramics due to high temperatures) you would likely get loss of containment and molten fuel escaping into the engine. Sounds bad but we are talking about a Doomsday scenario where thermonukes have already given us a real shitty day of eye-ball melting artificial sunlight flash, DNA-shredding hard radiation bursts, and city-wrecking thermobaric detonations.... a handful of smoking rad-filled craters in remote areas or a patch of steaming ocean is fairly low on our list of problems!

and if air stops flowing then?

The air flow won't stop unless the missile stops flying.... and if it should, you simply scram the engine, eg by slamming the control rods fully home with a pyro-technic charge.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Keep barking up the tree all you like, but again you are misinterpreting what you read....

Metals don't "ignite" as you suggest, but they will undergo surface oxidisation when subjected to high temperatures in an oxygen-bearing environment. To actually combust in any real sense they need to be in particulate form (eg filings) or very thin sheets/ribbon.  Metallic components in a reactor will not catch fire... that is self evident, and any insistence to the contrary is just BS.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting#Cutting

In high temperature supersonic airflow the metal parts will burn away in the fraction of second, if the temperature is above the auto-ignition.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EGmrPiumEU

..and why do you assume that any super-heated metal parts are going to be exposed to supersonic airflow?  Firstly, hottest components will be refractories, not metals.  Secondly, airflow through the "combustion" chamber will be subsonic, because that's how a ramjet works.

Meh, we could argue this all day and get nowhere.  

Bottom line is that a nuclear thermal engine using ramjet principle is the only method taht I can see working.  Forget any BS designs using a coolant flow into an exchanger to add heat to the engine airflow or drive a turbine.  Too bulky and heavy to fit into a cruise missile.  Whatever is under the hood of the Burevestnik is not some clunky 1950s tech, but something new, using advances in materials technology, rad-hard control electronics and fast-mechanical control mechanisms. Its classified so we don't know and can only hypothesize, but we can eliminate solutions that don't work...

For those who doubt the Primitive Ruskies can build something like this, may I remind you that the Exceptionalists in the Clown Empire didn't think that a closed-cycle rocket engine running oxidiser-rich could be practical as the materials science challenges raised by flowing super-hot oxidising gases through the engine would be unsolvable.  They couldn't bring themselves to accept that Kuznetsov had solved the problem back on the late 60s with his NK-15/33s until they bench-tested one of his creations. Score one for the "primitives"...

Russians excel in metallurgy and materials science.  If anyone can solve the challenges to build a nuke-powered air-breathing ramjet engine, my money is on them...

Big_Gazza wrote:

For those who doubt the Primitive Ruskies can build something like this, may I remind you that the Exceptionalists in the Clown Empire didn't think that a closed-cycle rocket engine running oxidiser-rich could be practical as the materials science challenges raised by flowing super-hot oxidising gases through the engine would be unsolvable.  They couldn't bring themselves to accept that Kuznetsov had solved the problem back on the late 60s with his NK-15/33s until they bench-tested one of his creations. Score one for the "primitives"...

Russians excel in metallurgy and materials science.  If anyone can solve the challenges to build a nuke-powered air-breathing ramjet engine, my money is on them...

It means two things:
1. it is too dangerous to use it for everyday work, like power drones or fighter jets.
2. It is very hard to test during the development phase.

No 2. actually means that what the US considered as failed test was a purposefully made partial test. Considering that a full, hours long run of it can risk very significant radioactive material emission.