From RD-0410 to AMB-8: on the advantages of the Russian Federation in nuclear power plants of missiles and torpedoes


In the field of rocket engines, Russia is a clear global leader. Back in the Soviet Union, the development of a project for a nuclear power plant for missiles began, and now Russia continues Soviet development, offering weapons that have no analogues in the modern world.


Two years ago, on March 1, 2018, President Vladimir Putin officially introduced the latest types of weapons to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, among which he especially noted the strategic intercontinental missile, called the Petrel. Until now, not so much is known about it as we would like, but information about the nuclear engine mounted on the rocket, in particular, has become public.

Russian and foreign experts suggest that the nuclear power plant, which can be installed on the Petrel, most likely dates back to Soviet developments, including the experimental RD-0410 engine. After all, it was on the basis of this engine that nuclear power plants for spacecraft were subsequently created.

Interestingly, the pioneers in the development of nuclear aviation power plants at the time were precisely the Americans. Research in this area began in the United States in the mid-1940s, and already in 1946, the NEPA (Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft) project was launched. aviation power plant).

However, the Soviet Union did not lag behind for long: in 1947, the development of nuclear engines for aircraft began, which turned out to be much more successful than those of American colleagues. As a result, Russia turned out to be the only owner of compact nuclear engine development technology in the world.

American physicist Professor Jeff Terry called the approximate useful (non-thermal) power of the engine of the Russian rocket - 766 kW. According to the scientist, these figures are fully consistent with the expectations of modern compact nuclear engines.

Sebastian Roblin, author of The National Interest, suggests that the Thunderbird rocket has a ramjet engine and speaks of the dangers of radioactive exhaust. Similar fears are expressed by representatives of the Russian liberal press, for example, Yulia Latynina (a well-known master of tales about the "arrow of the oscilloscope"), who christened the rocket "little flying Chernobyl." Roblin also concludes that it is still premature to talk about developing a rocket with an efficient and practical nuclear engine in Russia.


In addition to the Petrel, missiles will also be operated at nuclear power plants, with which the Russian submarine fleet will be equipped. For example, the project of the Poseidon underwater vehicle, which is essentially a giant nuclear torpedo, also involves working in a nuclear reactor.

We are talking about the AMB-8 engine - a reactor with a liquid metal coolant, the main advantage of which is the ability to install silent magnetohydrodynamic cooling pumps of the primary circuit. According to the expert community, the reactor is capable of providing Poseidon speeds of up to 185 km / h and a range of up to 10 thousand kilometers!

President Vladimir Putin, by the way, personally announced the most important parameters of the Poseidon nuclear power plant. He indicated the ability to develop speeds of up to 190-200 km / h, which was made possible thanks to the use of such a reactor design that has never been used before.

An important feature of the power plant, in addition to compactness, is the presence of two modes - low-power and powerful, and can switch from Poseidon mode to 200 times faster than reactors of the most modern nuclear submarines. In practice, the ability to quickly switch from a low-power to a powerful mode is very important in order to "sneak up" to the enemy or, conversely, to avoid pursuing enemy submarines and torpedoes fired from them.

Thus, while Russia is a clear leader in the development of nuclear power plants for missiles and torpedoes. It is this circumstance that makes our potential opponents so worried. It is no coincidence that the American military expert Thomas Callender believes that in the near future Poseidon-type vehicles will become a very significant threat to US national security, as the Americans have yet to develop means to deal with such ultra-efficient nuclear torpedoes.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U 5 May 2020 12: 16 New
    • 13
    • 6
    +7
    Something we began to forget about these nuclear scarecrows! Thanks to the author, recalled. laughing
  2. Siberian 66 5 May 2020 12: 18 New
    • 13
    • 23
    -10
    The direct flow of the "Petrel" will infect the air immediately after the start. How to live after a volley? Or is life not planned after the war?
    1. Avior 5 May 2020 12: 25 New
      • 14
      • 11
      +3
      not after the war, but after the trials.
    2. Cyril G ... 5 May 2020 12: 29 New
      • 9
      • 14
      -5
      And what is life after a nuclear war? A little flying Chernobyl is good
      1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 5 May 2020 12: 57 New
        • 14
        • 26
        -12
        A little flying Chernobyl is good
        tell the Severodvinsk people and those who, on duty, have to deal with this “flying disaster”
        1. Olgovich 5 May 2020 14: 59 New
          • 8
          • 6
          +2
          All this is vanity ...

          Today died Evgeny Mikrin, Member of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, General Designer of Russian manned programs of RSC Energia. Coronovirus ...

          A huge loss for Russia.

          Everlasting memory !
        2. xvot 5 May 2020 16: 31 New
          • 6
          • 5
          +1
          it’s a doomsday weapon, when much will not be important, and tell me how to destroy nature and people's health with a car, otherwise you’ll send “honest people” to the stand
        3. Aag
          Aag 5 May 2020 18: 37 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Apparently, we can’t argue with anything else (either a vegetable in the end, or a bosom to smithereens!).
      2. Vita vko 5 May 2020 14: 44 New
        • 12
        • 6
        +6
        Why repeat liberating delirium. It is clearly written that the primary coolant is liquid metal. This is a significant difference from direct-flow American air-cooled reactors. Back in the 60s, a similar reactor with a metal coolant (an alloy of lead and bismuth) was considered as one of the options for equipping K-222, which is with a titanium body. Now the technology has gone far ahead and unmanned underwater and airborne vehicles are just that intermediate option, after which the guaranteed safety of these technologies will allow them to be used on manned aerospace vehicles.
        1. Warrior with machine gun 5 May 2020 15: 18 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          Well, how can you not believe the "great, world-renowned" nuclear physicist Latynina (and in fact a fan heater)))
        2. Errr 5 May 2020 17: 40 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Vita VKO
          It is clearly written that the primary coolant is liquid metal. This is a significant difference from direct-flow American air-cooled reactors.
          Something you, my friend, mixed submarines with missiles ... smile
    3. AllBiBek 5 May 2020 12: 43 New
      • 20
      • 5
      +15
      Direct flow, by the way, was just developed by the Americans, and even blew the engine. And then they figured out what kind of crap it was there at the exit (the child prodigy was called SLAM), and they closed the project out of harm's way. Google, Satan wouldn’t come up with this; on supersonic at a low altitude a sort of flying crowbar flies, leaving behind an extremely radioactive trail (that is, who does not die out in the flight zone — dies from radiation), and periodically shoots megaton bombs in large cities. And when they end - well, maybe another week to fly, or maybe make a candle over a large city, and will kill itself with a dirty bomb.

      In the USSR, the maximum was still worked out on a controlled aircraft with a nuclear engine and in the format of a weapon of retaliation.

      What and how the "Petrel" - you can guess for a long time, but I do not think that there is a banal nuclear direct-flow open to everything.
    4. mark1 5 May 2020 12: 56 New
      • 21
      • 1
      +20
      Quote: Siberian 66
      Forwardness of the Petrel

      As you noticed forward flow !!! ???
      Generally - great! The Chinese said that they have the 5th generation of fighters
      the 5th and our Su-57 sucks and everyone repeats, even though the glider was stripped off of the MiG-1.44 (not a model of stealth forms) and the engines are not even AL-41 ... We all, with knowledge of the matter, re-sing someone else’s mess, said don’t understand who's talking about forward-lookingness - well, that's the last resort! Etc. etc. - well, just like small children!
      1. Joker62 5 May 2020 17: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, these are the Chinese, what do you want to take from them? And that’s all said ... They’re masters to rip everything off from someone else’s mind ... a little shamanism and everything, they give out to the mountain, as for their own creation ... And not for nothing, China is angry with Russia that it does not provide know how. Although, there are Jews in our country who are willing to sell 30 pieces of silver ....
      2. Siberian 66 5 May 2020 18: 32 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        As you noticed forward flow !!! ???
        We all competently re-read someone else’s get along, said who don’t understand about straightforwardness - well, everything is the last resort! Etc. etc. - well, just like small children!

        Dear, I try not to rehash but to think. In general, it has previously been stated that the “Bururevnik” is subsonic. I do not believe in this. Justified.
        1. I generally do not believe in the need for an overly expensive and complex project with unlimited range. There are quite a few spent nuclear submarines with cruise missiles deployed in relative proximity to the coast of the enemy, with a correspondingly short flight time compared to firing from the territory of Russia with the Petrel.
        2. Assume all the same, he is subsonic and he does not need forward flow. What purpose will we assign to him at a distance of, say, 30 thousand km, taking into account the circumvention of air defense areas and some other reasons. How long will he fly to her? subsonic is roughly 300 m / s. A moving target can already move significantly, and re-targeting in war conditions, especially nuclear, when satellites fall like autumn leaves, electronic warfare is working or the whole atmosphere is agitated by electromagnetic storms from nuclear explosions. A stationary target like missile bases? So if she shot back and reloaded, it was necessary to somehow have time to reach her second salvo, otherwise the meaning would be completely lost such an attack.
        So you need to accelerate. The tactics of using subsonic missiles on conventional solid propellant rocket engines can be very flexible, ballistic missiles are very fast and accurate. Where's the niche for Petrel?
        Regarding airborne contamination. It is clear that air is a working fluid. Otherwise there will be no unlimited range. It is clear that it must be pumped in hundreds of kilograms per millisecond through the active zone. And in these milliseconds to warm up, say, to 1000 degrees. Estimate the power of the reactor. And what it radiates around itself.
        Unless this pepelats is an electric propeller reactor. Then definitely not straightforward.))
    5. VicktorVR 5 May 2020 13: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Probably thought out the starting engine?
      Yes, and it seems that in order to start the straight-through it is necessary to disperse it not weakly, in any case it will be far from the launch site.
    6. Egor53 5 May 2020 13: 51 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Dear Siberian.
      In a direct-flow nuclear engine of Burevesnik, the time of contact of air with the radioactive channel will be milliseconds. Induced air radioactivity will be scanty. Read. https://studme.org/241417/tehnika/navedennaya_radioaktivnost_vozduha

      The nuclear engine of Burevesnik cannot create any radioactive contamination of the atmosphere.
      1. opus 5 May 2020 16: 58 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Quote: Egor53
        In a direct-flow nuclear engine of Burevesnik, the time of contact of air with the radioactive channel will be milliseconds. Induced air radioactivity will be scanty. .

        1. Who said that he is direct-flow? Roblin? - Duc education: Bachelor of Arts
        2. not scanty, maybe there:
        -100-500 thousands Sv / h (10000-50000 thousands X-ray / hour). This is a fantastic value. milliseconds will be enough.
        - the passing air will cause erosion (either of the active zone or of the cooling jacket) and carry away the good with itself
        - air density and pressure will differ by a couple of orders of magnitude from normal blood pressure
        Air enters the engine inlet at a flight speed its kinetic energy is converted into internal, pressure and air temperature increase. At the entrance to the combustion chamber and along the entire length of the flow part, the maximum pressure is observed.

        Quote: Egor53
        Read it.

        there completely about other
        Quote: Egor53
        No radioactive contamination of the atmosphere by the nuclear engine of Burevesnik

        1. None of the "Petrel" with direct-flow NRE-no.
        2.And if there is, it fonit so that it’s easier to glue the fins themselves than to suffer
        read the dosimetric bible:
        1. srelock 6 May 2020 04: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: opus

          -Who said he was straight-through?
          -tam: 100-500 thousands Sv / h (10000-50000 thousands X-ray / hour). This is a fantastic value. milliseconds will be enough.
          - the passing air will cause erosion (either of the core, or of the cooling jacket) and carry away the good with itself
          - air density and pressure will differ by a couple of orders of magnitude from normal blood pressure
          -No kakago "Petrel" with direct-flow NRE-no.
          -And if there is, then it fonit so that it’s easier to glue the fins themselves ...

          Publicly available information indicates that the Petrel is a subsonic missile and the presence of a "forward flow" is unlikely, but you are mistaken in some other judgments.
          -Working background value is critical only for rocket equipment.
          -Even if the engine is SPVRD, then the flow rate in the CS zone is subsonic and there will be no significant erosion.
          - The pressure in the zone of the compressor station will not differ in a big way from similar chemicals. engines and will be max. several dozen atmospheres.

          The most “scary” thing that can be emitted by a nuclear engine or nuclear engine during normal operation is short-lived nitrogen isotopes hi
    7. Alex Nevs 5 May 2020 14: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      You can immediately stop your ... for fear of the wolf, do not go to the forest.
    8. Narak-zempo 5 May 2020 18: 36 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Siberian 66
      Or is life not planned after the war?

      Have you forgotten that we will all go to heaven, and they just die?
    9. Torak 5 May 2020 19: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Do not carry nonsense, but first ask how the engine is arranged, you won’t look so stupid ..
    10. Russobel 5 May 2020 21: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Or is life not planned after the war?
      good
      1. Cympak 5 May 2020 23: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        so one must also experience this "good." It will not be tested over America
  3. Pvi1206 5 May 2020 12: 26 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Eh ... if all the energy of people would be directed not to the development of means to destroy their own kind ... but in the opposite direction ... utopia ... it's a pity ...
    1. U-58 5 May 2020 13: 57 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      For this utopia, people even sat. In 1942, SS member Werner von Braun was sent to the Gestapo for the idea of ​​creating spaceships. They envisioned the engineer and ... he began to do battle FAA
      1. Narak-zempo 5 May 2020 18: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But Korolev suffered for dreaming of making an anti-aircraft guided missile.
        1. Vladimir_2U 6 May 2020 03: 29 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          But Korolev suffered for dreaming of making an anti-aircraft guided missile.
          I didn’t dream, but I did, though with a liquid poor engine and a deliberately non-viable guidance system, in short I killed in vain a bunch of money and, more importantly, time, for which I sat down.
    2. AllBiBek 5 May 2020 14: 09 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Well, then a fatal overpopulation of the Earth will happen in a century and a half, and other threats will come to their full height. The same epidemics and the same hunger.

      And there’s nowhere to fall from the Earth. And nothing. Terraforming anything is an extremely distant prospect, and the task is by no means for a century.
      1. Joker62 5 May 2020 17: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        First, we need to create a technology for terraforming in our own, on a poor ball of the Earth, eliminate droughts and deserts, and create a favorable climate throughout the region.
        1. Narak-zempo 6 May 2020 07: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Joker62
          First, we need to create a technology for terraforming in our own, on a poor ball of the Earth, eliminate droughts and deserts, and create a favorable climate throughout the region.

          For this, a real trifle is needed - to move the continents so that they do not create extended barriers from almost one pole to the other, like two Americas, and do not interfere with the free movement of water and air masses.
          Say what you like, but to kill five or six billion people is an easier task.
    3. Narak-zempo 5 May 2020 18: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Pvi1206
      and in the opposite direction

      Do not. And so too crowded, and well, decent people would be, so no, some dolbyotyaty around.
  4. Snail N9 5 May 2020 12: 31 New
    • 9
    • 18
    -9
    ABOUT! "Petrel"! I-I! "Their bean fly karasho!" "Zer gut-Wunderwafel!" "America-kaput!"
    1. Boa kaa 5 May 2020 14: 10 New
      • 14
      • 1
      +13
      Quote: Snail N9
      "Zer gut-Wunderwafel!"

      Dear, and you want to convince me that top secret developments (their traces) are just like that, taken and thrown out for review and fun to everyone? belay
      Yes, you do not hold us for suckers uneducated, go-otov, hold? Or do you seriously believe that the “glorious 90s” in the courtyard, and the TsEReUshniki sit at ease in all the power corridors and cabinets, and with our top-level secrets they glue the public toilets next to the research institutes and testing grounds? fool
      Surely the FSB has now become so deaf and naive that it never occurred to them - it was easy and simple - to take and drown 2 barges away from the coast. And "ends in the water"! Moreover, in the literal and figurative sense of the word!
      Don’t you find that this would be more logical and safer both from the radiation point of view and from the side of state secrets protection?
      And you can believe the testimony of the radiometer "at a distance" if you yourself take part in the measurements, without "interested parties".
      1. Snail N9 5 May 2020 14: 19 New
        • 12
        • 18
        -6
        Yes, yes, you are absolutely right! This is KP from the great "grandmaster of world political parties of all time"! Eye tap for the CIA and the State Department with the NSA! The corpses of test scientists, "dummies!" The real "Petrel" flies so far, cuts circles, invisible to the adversaries, because the "super-stealth" with nanotechnology from Chubais! Sometimes he meets with Poseidon to exchange information and coordinate actions. So there is1 Won Kirienko “Hero Star” received, not just! And we also have RD-180, the Fedor robot and the Federation! And the ISS was drilled by an American who wanted to use the toilet! Rally together. hi
        1. Boa kaa 5 May 2020 14: 27 New
          • 13
          • 2
          +11
          Quote: Snail N9
          Rally together.

          Fullness ernichat! am
          The absurdity of finding unguarded "material evidence" is obvious not only to the military, but also to anyone who has ever been in production with the First Division.
          Do not believe? Ask a colleague of Opus. yes
          1. Snail N9 5 May 2020 14: 36 New
            • 8
            • 12
            -4
            The "first department" .... Everything that was "valuable", that could be taken away by helicopters, was removed, the overall things were thrown (they thought that everything would sink). . While we sorted it out, we made decisions, it turned out that the trash had not drowned and it was carried ashore. The people have found. Then they began to think how to "release it on the brakes" and dispose of it all. These are absolutely characteristic actions lately - the RF is for you, not the USSR.
          2. military_cat 5 May 2020 16: 01 New
            • 5
            • 5
            0
            Quote: BoA KAA
            The absurdity of finding unguarded "material evidence" is obvious

            It is absurd to believe that something is impossible only on the basis that it should not be there on paper. If it were possible to cope with everything in the world by entering the corresponding item in the papers, our world would be completely different.

            (Minuscule with this my comment is not that they disagree, but simply think that I am betraying a great and important military secret. winked )
          3. Joker62 5 May 2020 17: 37 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Absolutely right! I myself dealt with the First Division. Everything turned out well for me. This is not a joke ... for such things they can solder until I can’t ...
        2. Sergey Averchenkov 5 May 2020 15: 20 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Pull together? With you? Brr ... You’ll think of disgusting things.
      2. opus 5 May 2020 16: 37 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        Quote: BoA KAA
        just like that, they took it and threw it on display and fun for everyone?

        So there is a phonite, almost like in AZ RBMK.
        There are corpses of testers, doctors with radiation, there are recycled ambulances too
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Are the TsErEUshniks sitting at ease in all the power corridors-cabinets, and with our top-level secrets they glue the public toilets next to the research institutes and test sites?

        I didn’t understand this, but from the administration of the President of the Russian Federation, the secret bearer escaped west with his family to the west .... so that
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Really the FSB has now become so deaf and naive

        this is a medical fact, and they violate the oath: they don’t protect the people, they pack, they press, they muss and torture, and so on. And what did you want? This is the result:

        Do you think the daddies of these graduates are in contact with the crusaders or with the anshniki? or just as FSB colonel Cherkalin live for pleasure?
        Quote: BoA KAA
        take and drown 2 barges away from the coast. And "ends in the water"! Moreover, in the literal and figurative sense of the word!

        1. who will drown? / phonite, if only to torpedo? So even more blurred
        2. Fishery - who will be punished, forced to get. Nuclear submarines and other graves get
        3. the trail of the flooded easily reaches Norway.
        4. first, probably on a stretch from them dismantled everything necessary for the experiment, otherwise the victims are in vain
        Quote: BoA KAA
        And you can believe the readings of the radiometer "at a distance" if you yourself are in measurements

        1. measurements were made by fairly respected people
        2. the means of monitoring p / a infection on the track suddenly stopped working
        3. They still didn’t hide it and had to admit it.
        Quote: Snail N9
        ABOUT! "Petrel"! I-I! "

        it’s not a fact that it was “Petrel” (what is the point of experiencing KR from water?
        only if you want
        Quote: BoA KAA
        take and drown 2 barges away from the coast.
        1. Joker62 5 May 2020 17: 40 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          From such children, higher officials in uniform - keep an eye out and keep a distance. They are masters at making an act of innocence for the sake of a career.
    2. bars1 5 May 2020 17: 48 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And in a video like strong radiation! Funny, damn it.
  5. frizzy 5 May 2020 12: 56 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    URoda, damn it !!!! Cossacks and kazakhs do not unblock us either. We enter the current through VPN.Svolochi. And this is during an emergency, and what will happen when the Americans destroy Kitaeoz? What will I be very good for !!
  6. opus 5 May 2020 13: 02 New
    • 15
    • 18
    -3
    Quote: Ilya Polonsky
    In the field of rocket engines, Russia is a clear global leader

    That's very strong.
    RDTT - the best American in the world
    on hydrogen LRE we lose even India (USA, ESA, Japan all the more)
    the farthest and longest American rocket engines
    Proton: 50 years and more than 8 thousand tons thrown into orbit is the result. as if
    Over 30 years of operation, five shuttles made 135 flights. Space shuttles lifted 1,6 thousand tons (3,5 million pounds) of payloads. They flew 355 (consider 100 kg each, this is if without food, water and oxygen) astronauts and astronauts. COMPARATIVE
    Quote: Ilya Polonsky
    Sebastian Roblin, author of The National Interest, suggests the Petrel rocket

    IF ROBLIN SAID THIS, IT MEAN EXACTLY THERE IS NOT
    Quote: Ilya Polonsky
    We are talking about the engine AMB-8 - a reactor with a liquid metal coolant

    belay
    .
    1.engine or reactor (well, at least it didn’t name it)?
    2.
    The main result of the reconstruction of the building. 101 and the construction in it of the promising PPU AMB-8KM1 with LMW there will be a reconstruction of the previously lost experimental bench base for the comprehensive development and comprehensive research of nuclear power plants with LMT new generation.

    lost !, research! recreation!
    http://zakupki.rosatom.ru/1407210476240
    And Ilya already started bubbling into the status of a steam generating plant

    Quote: Ilya Polonsky
    President Vladimir Putin, by the way, personally voiced

    well then it is. multi-path
    Quote: Ilya Polonsky
    moreover, switching from mode to Poseidon mode can be 200 times faster,


    belay
    Quote: Ilya Polonsky
    It is this circumstance that makes our potential opponents so worried.

    no bread, no circuses, no decent portcuts, but with a nuclear installation ... Vovchik Solovyov will develop a theme
    1. sabakina 5 May 2020 13: 25 New
      • 15
      • 8
      +7
      opus, and even the mattresses overcame the radioactive belt, did not go to the toilet for two weeks and left the spacecraft like a brothel!
      1. opus 5 May 2020 16: 26 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: sabakina
        and the mattresses overcame the radioactive belt, didn’t go to the toilet for two weeks and left the spacecraft like a brothel!

        buddy ...
        for appolon / mercury / jameni and diapers, I did not drown.
        Voyager / Pioneers and all the shuttles are quite tangible achievements, this even David MAC-GOUAN does not deny.
        Threat. fresh: L. Konovalov took the ladder
    2. Bobrick 5 May 2020 23: 20 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Is it worse than the Indians? Although it is possible.
      There is already a greater question of the appropriateness of liquid hydrogen as a fuel (impractical, most importantly, at the same time, in terms of calorific value per m3 of fuel, kerosene will be several times better, which makes it possible to reduce the size of the fuel tank, cheaper and much more)
      For solid propellant rocket engines, the doubts are very significant or information is outdated for 20 years.
      The Americans have not developed any solid propellant rocket engines for the last 20 years at least (alterations of peacekeepers into space rockets, this is not the development of a new solid propellant rocket) in Russia they have been developing and are developing for ballistic missiles, at least.

      And according to the number of working hours of engines, if desired, you can choose such comparison criteria that the steam engine will be better than any engine invented by mankind.

      Could you really write something sensible if the subsonic mover, where to get the necessary air flow (turbojet engine with heating the working fluid from a nuclear reactor is too cool)? For the supersonic version - how to launch and output to the required height?
      1. opus 6 May 2020 12: 52 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Bobrick
        Is it worse than the Indians? Although it is possible.

        "GSLV" with a cryogenic stage / block "12KRB". Our rocket engine, their rocket. we do not have
        Quote: Bobrick
        There is already a greater question of the appropriateness of liquid hydrogen as a fuel

        read here:


        and draw conclusions
        Quote: Bobrick
        For solid propellant rocket engines, the doubts are very significant or information is outdated for 20 years.
        Americans have not developed any solid propellant rocket motors in the last 20 years

        the fact remains.
        The Russian Federation has not created anything similar to Solid Rocket Booster or PAP-10, P238.
        Dai on ICBMs with solid propellant rocket engines we are significantly behind, with missiles with solid propellant rockets
        Quote: Bobrick
        Could you really write something sensible if the subsonic mover

        Who am I?
        and why?
        in the petrel / Poseidon / death ray - I do not believe.
        how absolutely I do not believe Matvienko, Sechin, Chemezov, Shoigu, Putin.
        1. Bobrick 7 May 2020 08: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          read here:

          Is there anything not mentioned in these links?

          The Russian Federation has not created anything similar to Solid Rocket Booster or PAP-10, P238.
          Dai on ICBMs with solid propellant rocket engines we are significantly behind, with missiles with solid propellant rockets

          Write why such engines are needed? In those industries where their use is justified, solid propellant rocket engines are at least not far behind (ICBM Bulava already surpasses Minitman 3 in specific parameters).

          in the petrel / Poseidon / death ray - I do not believe.

          Even if this does not exist, this does not mean that it is impossible to make a "death ray" in the future.
          1. opus 7 May 2020 22: 50 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Bobrick
            Is there anything not mentioned in these links?

            What did you mention?
            Is this nonsense?
            Quote: Bobrick
            There is already a greater question of the appropriateness of liquid hydrogen as a fuel (impractical, most importantly, at the same time, in terms of calorific value per m3 of fuel, kerosene will be several times better, which makes it possible to reduce the size of the fuel tank, cheaper and much more)

            fool
            What do you mean the thread in Iud?
            Quote: Bobrick
            Write why such engines are needed?

            1. maximum thrust per unit of media. The solid propellant rocket motor is essentially limited only by geometries and transport dimensions.
            Tear off the mass planned for flight from the SC.
            2. Reusability ... not even compare with Russian Railways.
            Quote: Bobrick
            (ICBM Mace is already superior to Minitman 3 in specific parameters).

            1.Do not tell me the place I'm sitting in
            The mace must be compared with Trident 2, and Poplar -M with Minuteman -3
            3M30-derivative of RT-2PM2 (Topol-M). Slag and not SLBMs: shame and punishment of the Russian Navy. And it will hiccup. This is a threshing floor that plainly cannot start from the Premier League.

            Mace -90x thought and technology Russian / Soviet (more Soviet)
            LGM-30G Minuteman III is 1965-1970
            2. A young man you kremlebot what. Nonsense, you don’t break it. She squeals
            3. Shaw tse takoe "remote parameters"?
            Quote: Bobrick
            that it’s impossible to make a “death ray” in the future.

            What are you going to do?
            after such a vyser
            Quote: Bobrick
            ICBM Mace already surpasses Minitman 3 in specific parameters

            I am "calm for my homeland."
            The nation cannot provide itself with masks, household and tests for coronovirus.
            1. Bobrick 8 May 2020 01: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Firstly, I was not the first to become personal.
              Secondly, I am happy for you if you understand the specific impulse parameter.
              Only a rocket and a rocket engine have other parameters (from dry weight, to the cost of withdrawal and payload).

              https://topwar.ru/109898-pravka-saga-o-raketnyh-toplivah.html

              Even in your link it is written about the difficulty of choosing a fuel and the big minuses of a pair of liquid hydrogen - liquid oxygen, and the very significant advantages of kerosene.
              According to your comments, it turns out that a pair of liquid hydrogen - liquid oxygen has no alternative, and the complex design process is reduced to 2,3 parameters.
              Quotes from the same links (
              https://topwar.ru/109898-pravka-saga-o-raketnyh-toplivah.html
              ):
              Trade-offs clearly show themselves in Iud .: High-density TCs (kerosene + LOX) are usually used on the lower stages of the PH, although they lose the same LH2 and LOX, which in turn are used on the upper steps of the PH (Energy 11K25 )

              And again, the beautiful LH2 + LOX pair cannot be used for deep space or for long-term stay in orbit (Voyager-2, Breeze-M upper stage, ISS, etc.)

              And this is only for application issues, excluding the economic part.

              1. maximum thrust per unit of media. The solid propellant rocket motor is essentially limited only by geometries and transport dimensions.
              Tear off the mass planned for flight from the SC.
              2. Reusability ... not even compare with Russian Railways.

              This is not an answer why such engines are needed, it is an enumeration of their advantages, to which you can add ease of storage.
              The answer would be something in the spirit: for use in missiles that are on duty for a long time and providing for the possibility of immediate use, including in a discharged or airless space.
              On a number of missiles, including anti-aircraft, they are used as the main, direct-flow engines, due to the gain in the same specific impulse parameter


              Why is there no comparison of the same Mace and Trident 2? Keep links to a dedicated site:
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Булава_(ракета)
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133A_Трайдент_II_(D5)
              According to these data, everything turns out very well for the Russian "inept designers."

              .Young man you kremlebot what. Nonsense, you don’t break it. She squeals

              And why should the Kremlin protect in Internet correspondence, and even for free?
              Honestly, I didn’t like the too biased look at Russian engines, and even one-sided, in addition.

              After the devastation of the 90s, it is surprising that engines are now generally being produced that are not much inferior, but in some ways superior to world standards.
              Although, judging by the policy of the Kremlin, soon this will not happen.
              But even this is not a reason to belittle the achievements of Soviet / Russian designers, especially taking into account working conditions (as an example, in China, the salary of an assembly technologist is 1,5-2 times higher than in Russia for a designer of the defense industry, you can keep silent about financing projects, so it is the lowest among all major countries).

              it is impossible to make a "death ray" in the future.

              At the current level of technology, “Status-6” is a very real project, with worse than the specified characteristics, but it is quite capable of overcoming the American PLO network.
              As an example: K-222 (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/К-222), which set an underwater speed record of 44 knots.
              Given the lack of crew and the development of technology, a speed of 60-70 knots, which allows Mark 48 to break away from the main US torpedo, becomes quite real.

              Ps Consider me wrong, if you will. I will no longer respond to semi-provocations and veiled insults.
              1. opus 8 May 2020 01: 38 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Bobrick
                Only a rocket and a rocket engine have other parameters (from dry weight, to the cost of withdrawal and payload).

                belay
                Quote: Bobrick
                I won’t be anymore.

                and you don’t get sick. Take care of yourself, stay home
            2. Disant 8 May 2020 23: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I always read your comments with interest, but something is wrong with the poster:
              Minuteman’s ranges were declared good, but they didn’t bullet tests beyond 8500 km, and failures occur during control shootings (reliability checks).
              8500km and claimed unverified 13000km. it’s still not liquid, it’s necessary to check to the fullest - all of a sudden that the fuel is dry or cracked, or what parameters it doesn’t withstand ..
              .
              besides, the poster does not understand the year of issue; the modernized poplars and minuteries are much more accurate, which reduces the benefits to minimal ones.
              .
              again, they are not indicated on the poster of the year of issue - poplar can also be converted with multiple warheads (3-7) or maneuvering warheads.
              .
              again, the poster does not indicate a set of missile defense systems - what and how much one and the other missile pulls, what are the possibilities.
              .
              this is not a poster with characteristics - this is some kind of enemy propaganda. Probably to sleep better.
              .
              somehow you are very critical, especially since solid fuel poplars - only 18 pieces, and solid fuel minutenmen WITH UNPROVED RANGE - 400-450
              1. opus 8 May 2020 23: 49 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Disant
                But they didn’t bullet tests beyond 8500 km, and failures occur during control shootings (reliability checks).

                counter "?" : how much did our bullets (poplars there, wunderwaffles of the "mace" type)?
                LGM-30B, if Thiokol M55 is not defective (in the first versions): confirmed range of 10100 km (with light warheads W-62), in defective 6900 km
                LGM-30G with the third stage Aerojet / Thiokol SR73-AJ / TC-1 and a breeding bus Rocketdyne RS-14 estimated range with W87 = 13000 km.
                Based on MX-1 trials
                What do you want? in our bad cartoons there are Poseidons / Burreves, and also zircons

                and nothing! ELECTORATE BELIEVES!
                Zircon with each publication ljk, j`, jd increase their speed by 0,5 M-1M and range by 100 km.
                Quote: Disant
                here it is necessary to check to the fullest - suddenly there that the fuel has dried up or cracked, or what parameters it doesn’t withstand ..

                10-15 years will not dry out anything, does not crack.
                gravity - yes = affects the shape (geometry = which is equal to the thrust) of the discharge. But it’s solvable how they deal with bedsores
                Quote: Disant
                again on the poster the release year is not clear

                Yes, you hammer on this poster = what was at hand and put
                Quote: Disant
                Probably to sleep better.

                they have been sleeping quietly since 1989
                Quote: Disant
                somehow you are very critical, especially since the poplars are solid fuel

                they even already understand in the Moscow Region - what kind of threshing floor it was, into which they got into it
                1. Disant 9 May 2020 00: 51 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  object
                  counter "?" : how much did our bullets (poplars there, wunderwaffles of the "mace" type)?

                  I think the same way, no further than the Americans - there are no miracles.
                  I have so far objected only to poplars, and I repeat, of which there are only 18 pieces - their range performance is not as critical as 400-450 pieces of minuten.
                  .
                  LGM-30G with the third stage Aerojet / Thiokol SR73-AJ / TC-1 and a breeding bus Rocketdyne RS-14 estimated range with W87 = 13000 km.

                  again - the range is CALCULATED, the charge power is two to three times less than that of the poplar.
                  Based on MX-1 trials

                  tell me what is it

                  10-15 years, nothing will dry out, not crack.

                  so from the modernization (replacement of solid fuel 1998-2009) of the minuten, nothing had happened before the test firing in 2009-2017 - 8500 is the farthest, something didn’t shoot further, of the six launches, two were definitely unsuccessful, one in part.
                  1. too many unsuccessful starts - at least 33 percent
                  2. a lot of missiles (400-450), with many unsuccessful launches + with an unconfirmed range + and even with a weaker charge - HOW CAN THEY SLEEP GOODLY?
                  1. opus 9 May 2020 12: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Disant
                    I think the same way, no further than the Americans - there are no miracles.

                    Yes there are no miracles.
                    But it’s just scandalous, you’ll also find a training ground with a drop point, and so that the opponents wouldn’t uncompete, what fell
                    CALCULATED THIS is quite accurate and reliable. This is ballistics: Keplerian laws. Compared to the fusion thermonuclear fusion and virtual explosions, baby talk.
                    And I will believe the calculations of Americans more. If only because we "Communize" with them, and not with us.
                    Quote: Disant
                    charge power - two to three times less than that of poplar.

                    they always have this: because the accuracy is significantly higher, and the damaging factor loses its characteristics inversely with the square of the distance
                    Quote: Disant
                    tell me what is it

                    LGM-118A Peacekeeper
                    Quote: Disant
                    How can they sleep peacefully?

                    sleep
                    they have another 400+ 50 UGM-133A Trident II (D5) have
  7. Pavel57 5 May 2020 13: 12 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Some scarecrows dangerous to themselves.
  8. Mikhail m 5 May 2020 13: 47 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    A little flying Chernobyl is good

    In case of war, it will be a very small and inconspicuous Chernobyl amid many large ones.
  9. Morrrow 5 May 2020 14: 03 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    ABOUT! For a long time there was no news about the prodigy. Especially funny about the threat to the States. Scare-scare them, and they climb into Syria.
  10. _Ugene_ 5 May 2020 14: 09 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    In the field of rocket engines, Russia is a clear global leader.
    they like to attribute the successes of the Soviet Union to themselves, in Russia they make rocket engines created in the USSR, which are modernized to the maximum
  11. Amateur 5 May 2020 14: 11 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Some set of rumors and gossip about anything. Mr. Polonsky successfully competes with Mr. Damantsev in the contest "the largest set of meaningless words" request
    1. military_cat 5 May 2020 16: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I do not agree, Damantsev simply has a bad speech style, ultra-clerical, and the set of words is not meaningless.
  12. Nemo 5 May 2020 14: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This article will be more suitable for Analytics or Opinion, but not for News
  13. Vladimir SHajkin 5 May 2020 15: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    whose main advantage is the ability to install silent magnetohydrodynamic primary cooling pumps.
    An interesting word that is highlighted.
    Pumps may not be hydrodynamic? Can it be hydro, but not dynamic?
    Can someone clarify?
    1. Motorist 5 May 2020 20: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Can someone clarify?

      Hello. hi Ejector, for example - not a single moving part. wink
  14. Antokha 5 May 2020 15: 48 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Similar fears are expressed by representatives of the Russian liberal press, for example, Yulia Latynina (a well-known master of tales about the “arrow of an oscilloscope”), who christened the rocket “a small flying Chernobyl”

    It is not clear why the article refers to such people. You could also write who writes something on the fence, or in a drunken stupor yells obscenities on the street. A serious note. And so a plus.
  15. Joker62 5 May 2020 17: 24 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I wonder what relation does Yulia Leonidovna Latynina have to the nuclear engine and nuclear technology, if she is a journalist herself and a candidate of philological sciences and broadcasts in Ekho Moskvy by Lehi Venekditov as an ardent champion of democratic values ​​of pro-Western and pro-American henchmen ??? Such figures as the fifth column, in essence, must be pressed hard and made clear to them that they are superfluous!
  16. APASUS 5 May 2020 18: 26 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    There is too little information in the material to judge our superiority over the Americans in nuclear technology of rocket engines.
    1. Snail N9 5 May 2020 22: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Unlike the “mythical” “achievements” that no one has seen and will never see, these are real achievements:
      On May 5, 2020, China successfully launched a test version of a new type of Chinese spacecraft using the Long March-5B carrier rocket (Great March 5B, Changzheng 5B) from the Wenchang Cosmodrome (Hainan Province, South China). This is stated in the message of the Program of space manned flights of China.
      "According to the Office of the Chinese manned space flight program, on May 5, 2020 at 18:00 (13:00 Moscow time) from the Wenchang cosmodrome in China, the Changzheng-5B launch vehicle was launched with a test version of a new type of manned spacecraft and a prototype cargo return capsule, "the report said. "After about 488 seconds, the unmanned] prototype of the manned spacecraft, together with the test version of the returned capsule, successfully disconnected from the rocket, entered a given orbit. The mission was recognized successful," the statement said.
      It is also noted that "the successful launch of the rocket laid a solid foundation for the creation of the Chinese orbital space station," which is scheduled to be completed in 2022. It is expected that "Changzheng-5B" will be used to put the base module of the station into low Earth orbit.

  17. LVMI1980 6 May 2020 00: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Siberian 66
    The direct flow of the "Petrel" will infect the air immediately after the start. How to live after a volley? Or is life not planned after the war?

    Do you think that after this war life will remain? naive
    1. agond 6 May 2020 12: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Most agreed that the Thunderbird is subsonic, then it is very likely that it has a turboprop engine, that is, a steam turbine rotates the gearbox, the gearbox in turn rotates the pushing screw, and the same reactor delivers steam, if this is true, then the main miracle is this installation is a couple air conditioner, how they managed to fit it