Thread 64096067

>russia is reportedly testing the flying chernobyl again
what are the chances it blows up again?
how many succesful flights did it have by now? 0?

>what are the chances it blows up again?
not great, not terrible

>ook ook nook nook
It's all so tiresome. The US made this shit work in the 60s.

>>64096089
But think of the posibilites! We might get project pluto restarted by some congress moron.

Oh to be alive when the zigger zapper 2000 launches. Gives me hope for the future.

WC-135R is active in the region
https://www.thebarentsobserver.com/security/rosatom-may-test-reactorpowered-missile-over-the-next-few-days/434546

>>64096067 (OP)
>>64096085
With any luck they'll kill even more of their aerospace engineers like the last time they tried (and tried recovering another).

what happened to their nuclear torpedo wunderwaffe
Im suprised there were no leaks about fuckups and accidents already

>>64096140
It's parked right next to Berkut and the Armatas.

>>64096140
hidden off the coast of the Anglo-Saxon isles, ready to sink the accursed lands under a nuclear tsunami 500 meters tall

>>64096447
drowning all of the Boris Johnsons in a single, masterful stroke

>>64096434
>Berkut

>>64096067 (OP)
Is this a bargain-bin Project Pluto?

Impressiev

>could carry nuclear or conventional warheads
>conventional
Thanks for being considerate about non-proliferation.

>>64096067 (OP)
Russians can't be trusted with fissile material. There's zero chance this project culminates in anything other than multiple radiological disasters.

>>64096067 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident

>>64097541
I don’t understand, did they testfire an ICBM with a spear attached?
How was this a radiological incident? Does (or did) Russia actually have a working warhead?

>>64096140
Last test launch failed

>>64096067 (OP)
>Belgorod transforms into Belkagorod

>>64097683
>How was this a radiological incident? Does (or did) Russia actually have a working warhead?
It wasn't the warhead that was radiological, it was the turbine engine.

Russia should be preventatively nucked

>>64096089
> The US made this shit work in the 60s.
Your ancestors made Appolo program. Now you can't even fly around Moon. Just reminder.

>>64096067 (OP)
If we fail, we just try again.
You are missing the point: nuke agreements between Ru and NATO ara null and void. Prepare for dvelling in shadow of doom again.

>>64096067 (OP)
Absolutely no strategic advantages whatsoever. If anything, probable Russian adversaries should be encouraging Russia to keep irradiating themselves in the foot with this mess of a weapons program, which will be a waste of money even if they can get it to work.

The US started working on this idea in the 50's as a hedge in case other long-range missile programs like Titan, Atlas, or Snark didn't work out. Even setting aside all of the practical problems encountered when developing such a system, ICBM's made the entire concept pointless. ICBMs still work, ergo the concept is still pointless.

>>64098098
And yet nobody else has been able to do it since. Funny that.

>>64098098
Oh and remind me again what other countries are putting rovers on Mars? How about deep space probes and telescopes? Sattellite constellations? Bugs that can't even even put a tin can habitat in space don't get to talk.

>>64098158
I don't remember you recent advances on Mars.
Looks like Musk is your last hope.

>>64096067 (OP)
If I can think of one thing Pozziya should be investing heavily into when they're stuck in a !not! existential war against their immediate neighbour and former vassal, it's a global-range cruise missile.

>>64096067 (OP)
>flights
For me the big question is shielding and warhead integrity. Can nuclear warhead even remain functional next to reactor?

Reactors have been flown and the biggest issue was shielding. While meat-bags might not complain, highly purified fission pit, fusion fuel and precisely timed electronics might not be so happy about intense neutron source beaming it from few feet away.

>>64096067 (OP)
They won't fly it because it would turn China against them, flying an open air reactor is worse than noooking for fallout.
Flying a closed loop reactor with a heat exchanger wouldn't irradiated when everything was working fine but any damage or a crash would be worse than an open loop because now you are adding a shitload of radioactive water on top of the melting core.

>>64098268
>Can nuclear warhead even remain functional next to reactor
Yes, most bomb designs include a neutron reflector on the outside that will not only keep neutrons in during detonation but also keep them out.

>>64098169
>fucking bizarre brown or chinkoid cope
this is just to mars btw

>>64098098
>Your ancestors made Appolo program. Now you can't even fly around Moon. Just reminder.
do browns and bugs get a different internet than everyone else?

>>64098098
We've put 31 flights to or around the moon. How about your shithole? Got a flag there?

>>64098598
It's just that their connection is so slow that they are technically still living in 2016

>>64096067 (OP)
3.6%

>>64098598
>do browns and bugs get a different internet than everyone else
I fucking wish, it'd make this one a lot more useable.

>unlimited range missle
what's the NATO equivalent?

>>64101426
B-52s at a base comfortably within striking distance and a B-2 already right behind you.

>>64101426
>what's the NATO equivalent?
SSBNs, just like for the last 65 years.

NOTAM issued until tuesday
so they will probably test it today or tommorow

>>64097683
They tested nuclear reactor for that missile and after powering up it literally tuned into small nuclear bomb of several hundreds tons of TNT equivalent.