Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday August 10 2019, @08:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the apply-twice-a-day-until-the-second-head-and-third-arm-have-gone dept.

Russia explosion: Five confirmed dead in rocket blast

Five people were killed and three injured following a rocket explosion on an Arctic naval test range in Russia on Thursday, state nuclear company Rosatom confirmed. Rosatom said the accident occurred during tests on a liquid propellant rocket engine. The three injured staff members suffered serious burns in the accident. Authorities had previously said that two people died and six were injured in the blast at the site in Nyonoksa.

The company told Russian media that its engineering and technical team had been working on the "isotope power source" for the propulsion system. The Nyonoksa site carries out tests for virtually every missile system used by the Russian navy, including sea-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and anti-aircraft missiles.

Authorities in Severodvinsk, 47km (29 miles) east of Nyonoksa said that radiation levels shortly after the blast were higher than normal for about 40 minutes but returned to normal. Locals have rushed to buy medical iodine, with pharmacies' stocks of iodine reported to be running out in the cities of Arkhangelsk and Severodvinsk. The rush for iodine was reported earlier by a news website for the Arkhangelsk region, 29.ru.

Also at The Guardian, NBC, and CNN.

See also: U.S.-Based Experts Suspect Russia Blast Involved Nuclear-Powered Missile

Update: Russia Confirms Radioactive Materials Were Involved in Deadly Blast

In a statement released at 1 a.m. Saturday, Russia's nuclear energy company, Rosatom, said five employees had died, in addition to the two military personnel previously confirmed dead, as a result of a test on Thursday morning involving "isotopic sources of fuel on a liquid propulsion unit."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday August 11 2019, @01:29AM

    by driverless (4770) on Sunday August 11 2019, @01:29AM (#878617)

    A direct-cycle nuclear engine sounds highly unlikely, given that not even someone like Kim Jong-Un would be crazy enough to try and run one of those. Maybe it's an RTG? OTOH why would you use something like that when a reserve battery provides more power at a much faster rate? Nuclear sources really aren't much good for delivery large amounts of power at once unless you make them impractically large for anything that has to be airborne.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2