Hole wrote:Yes, a tiny spark. Dozens of times. And you still need a battery to deliver the energy for that.
Search the article in english and read it.
Articles are misinformation when it comes to top secret military projects.
Where do you get the notion that rockets require continuous ignition? I won't bother asking for citations since what you say
is simple nonsense. We are not talking about orbital maneuvering thrusters. Gravity acts continuously so no ballistic missile
turns off its motors and burns through its fuel stock basically as fast as it can.
A single detonation spark can be produced by a microgram or smaller isotope particle housed in a metal container measuring
hundreds of a millimeter. Such a microscopic spark source is clearly reusable. If you plan to have it sitting around for
several isotope half-lives (i.e. decades) you need to scale up this microscopic battery but it will never reach a size to
produce measurable fallout in case of fire or explosion of the rocket.
Whatever article you read is spewing obvious nonsense.
BTW, the technology of small fluid driven turbines is not developed and is not deployed anywhere even though nuclear power plants
are old news. The accident in question did not involve an isotope battery and it did not have anything to do with some
ridiculous spark generator. Scaling a nuclear reactor to the isotope battery scale is not a trivial task. At the size of
an isotope battery it is likely that some hybrid variant emerges which is neither a full blown nuclear reactor burning
enriched uranium or MOX and not an simple isotope decay device.