Talk:9M730 Burevestnik

collegated

Check spelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How does this work?

Is there a link explaining how a nuclear-powered rocket is meant to work.

I am about to delete the current link to TEM_(nuclear_propulsion), which links to Nuclear_electric_rocket. A nuclear electric drive uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity and then uses an electric engine, such as an ion drive, for thrust. The Ion thruster page says they are used for spaceships and "recommended for near-vacuum conditions".

Is this a Nuclear_thermal_rocket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.18.219 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would tend to believe this is a classical chemical rocket where the electric source is a nuclear source (RTG ?) rather than a chemical battery. Nuclear electric would not provide enough thrust and nuclear thermal in the atmosphere would be crazy I think. Hektor (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• We don't know how it works. We do know that none of the descriptions so far given are at all consistent with any plausible propulsion system that is known outside Russian secrecy. We must not pretend to go any further than that – it would be WP:OR otherwise. If we report anything which confidently claims to know, then we have to phrase it clearly to show that it's their opinion, not ours. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nyonoksa accident and its link to Burevestnik's development.

According to the official statement from the VNIIEF, the accident involved a small radioisotope power source of the similar type that is used to power satellites and remote Arctic facilities. Search in YouTube for "Заявление РФЯЦ-ВНИИЭФ по событиям на полигоне в Архангельской области" and enable auto-translate to English. Unfortunately linking it directly is prohibited by Wikipedia. I think it's time to dispose of any links between Nyonoksa and Burevestnik as it directly contradicts the official position of the very institute responsible for the testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey user:Nicholas Velasquez, your edits are disruptive. Cut it out.

Stop using your edit summaries as a discussion forum. If you have something to say, do it on the talk page.

And read stuff before you delete it. You deleted my edit with summaries “Editing according to the source. No "nuclear reactors" have been mentioned,” and “Actually I am deleting the whole sentence, because it is not said anywhere, that the "energy source had exploded". It says, that the energy source with fissile materials was involved in the incident. There's a big difference. It needs to be rephrased.”

The source I cited has this passage about four sentences in:

Late Sunday night, officials at a research institute that had employed five of the scientists who died confirmed for the first time that a small nuclear reactor had exploded during an experiment in the White Sea, and that the authorities were investigating the cause.

Vyacheslav Solovyov, the scientific director of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center, said in a video interview with a local newspaper that the institute had been studying “small-scale sources of energy with the use of fissile materials.”

Smarten up. —Michael Z. 2019-08-12 20:42 z

Nicholas Velasquez - If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the source the New York Times relies on, the video interview, does not support the claim that a nuclear reactor exploded. Is that correct? For the aid of others, the removed New York Times link is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/world/europe/russia-nuclear-accident-putin.html , and the video interview is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsDOuH91LEU&feature=youtu.be . The section with Vyacheslav Solovyov runs from 7.08 to 9.20. Unfortunately I do not speak Russian and the auto-translation is not at all clear. For what it's worth, Solovyov seemed to be talking about thermo-electric generators. Reactors were mentioned at one point, but this seemed to be in the context of American work. I did not get any impression that a claim had been made that a reactor exploded, but as I say, I do not speak Russian. - Crosbie 03:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

HI, I think the NYT article is quite poorly sourced, and welcome the removal of the explosion (at least for th time being). WikiHannibal (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you understood me correctly, and everything you've got from the auto-translate is also correct. Sadly, these are the times when Wikipedia becomes a propaganda platform. For some external reference to the actual content of the video you may look at this twitter page: https://twitter.com/sbidgood/status/1160630505714278400 Although, I should point out, that there is a minor mistake - he doesn't speak of it "as analog", he just says, that Americans too perform experiments in the field of small-scale sources of energy and uses NASA's Kilopower as an example. The bottom line, once again, is that there is no mention of a nuclear reactor being involved in the accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again.

What you're doing is highly unprofessional. Have you even watched the video the article is referencing to? There is no phrase in this video about a "nuclear reactor" being involved in the explosion. You don't have to believe me - just go to YouTube, enable English auto-translate and it's going to do the job. Once again: Vyacheslav Solovyov DID NOT mention a "nuclear reactor" being involved in the accident. What he said was the following: "small-scale sources of energy with the use of fissile materials". That is it. Moreover, there is not a single hint in that video about the "power source" being the reason of explosion, so any attempts of linking the "power source" with the explosion have no back-up whatsoever. The consensus would be in the following: you either remove the passage with the link to the 3rd party news website which made up the story about a "NUCLEAR REACTOR" explosion and re-write your edit in accordance with what ACTUALLY has been said in the OFFICIAL response of the VNIIEF, or you keep the link to the 3rd party website, but re-write it so that the words about a "NUCLEAR REACTOR explosion" would not be put in Vyacheslav Solovyov's mouth. If you don't do this, the only explanation for your actions would be a propaganda war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, please prefer secondary sources, don’t conduct original research, don’t make absolute statements about what Burevestnik is and isn’t or what caused or didn’t cause the explosion when nobody knows, and don’t take ever-changing Russian government sources as fact. What we put in the encyclopedia is that the New York Times and the Guardian linked this accident with the Burevestnik program and cited experts and authorities. —Michael Z. 2019-08-13 22:12 z

And don't make rude accusations against other Wikipedians. —Michael Z. 2019-08-13 22:13 z

Firstly, nothing of what I've written there is 'original research', since I am not proposing my own thoughts on the subject as the content of the article, secondly, the Wikipedia's policy of using primary sources of information contains the following sentence: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". By bringing the official VNIIEF response to the table, what I am doing is precisely this. As to what you put in the encyclopedia, I would tell you the following - Wikipedia has much bigger potential than being a news aggregator. Of course, it doesn't mean, that using materials from the online newspapers here is bad, but carefully filtering information from these sources should be your primary responsibility as an editor, considering the amount of potential consumers of what you put in here. Also, I do not take Russian government sources as a fact. It just so happens that any other information on this matter present on the internet right now is a mix of guesswork and outright speculation, which is not surprising, considering the propagandistic value of this particular topic. Unless there is an indisputable evidence of something, it is a supposition, and such things as "nuclear reactor explosion" (let alone "Nyonoksa Burevestnik test") are falling into this category, whether you like it or not, because fallout composition analysis data is required to make such conclusions. That being said, I find the article satisfactory in its present form, because it doesn't throw any conclusions into readers, as would have been the case with the "nuclear reactor explosion"-style edits. Also, I do not think I've said anything rude there - if you feel offended by something, it is your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Nicholas Velasquez. The list of isotopes released, per Russian agency Roshydromet, indicate a nuclear chain reaction. “Isotopes composition proves a reactor was involved in Nenoksa accident, expert says: Analyses of the radionuclides in the fallout over Severodvinsk show several isotopes that would not have been present if was a simple RTG in the explosion.” —Michael Z. 2019-08-26 16:47 z

Yes, I have seen that and made appropriate edits in the 'Nyononksa accident' article. Directly linking it to the Buvevestnik's development, however, is another matter. There is no evidence the destroyed power source belonged to the Burevestnik, or that Burevestnik is what actually was being tested there. Taking in the consideration that this article and the "Nyonoksa accident" one are already interlinked, I think for now it's all right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 05:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Radioisotope thermoelectric generator link

Hi Smeagol 17. We shouldn't be linking 'isotope power source' to radioisotope thermoelectric generator as you did in this edit: [1] As far as I know 'isotope power source' is not a term of art and it's meaning is not clear. It could even be a euphemism for a nuclear reactor. If the original statement in Russian does in fact unambiguously refer to a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, then we should make that clear somehow, but if it does not, we should make the implication - Crosbie 14:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a little tricky. The original statement does not contain the phrase "radioisotope thermoelectric generator", but it is fairly common in Russian scientific community to refer to RTGs as "isotope power sources". Also, when Vyacheslav Solovyov was talking about it, he listed satellites and remote Arctic facilities as traditional applications of the technology in question, once again hinting towards an RTG. Sadly, due to classification of the program the statement is deliberately composed in such a way, that no definite answer is provided as to the exact nature of the power source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is probably more correct to link "radioisotope power source" to this article instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Is RT a wikipedia reputable source? The following states that "isotope power source" means "radioisotope thermoelectric generator": https://www.rt.com/russia/466238-russian-rocket-blast-sea-rosatom/. I don't believe this is what exploded, given that elevated radiation was recorded 30km away, but, if, on the one hand, we take RT as a reliable source, then it's worth including the RT link justifying that this means radioisotope thermoelectric generator, and, if, on the other, RT is viewed as a repeating the views of the Russian government, then it is probably worth including the RT link for that reason. I'm beginning to feel that the entire section should be replaced by a single sentence saying that it has been suggested that this missile is connected to the 2019 explosion in Nyonoksa and that the content of this section should be merged into that page. 86.159.18.219 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RT is very far from reliable. They're a propaganda mouthpiece for Putin and the Russian state. Not so much inaccurate, but their political bias is enormous. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd avoid using RT as a source here as well simply because it's not primary and the official response of VNIIEF already has everything we 'need' to know on this matter. RT's passage about "radioisotope power source" necessarily being a RITEG is a pure guesswork, since that quote of Solovyov and the context in which it was used do not provide the degree of clarity required for such conclusions. At this point the situation is just unclear and what exactly exploded there is a question which most likely will never be answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nyonoksa radiation accident links do not belong here

We now have two links on this page to Belona Foundation articles on the consequences of the Nyonoksa radiation indident. These do not belong here. The connection between Burevestnik and the Nyonoksa incident is unsubstantiated. If they belong anywhere, they belong at the Nyonoksa radiation accident article. - Crosbie 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

They probably belong at both. As yet we have no idea if the two topics are related or not. Creating the split articles was probably premature. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I want to comment on the reasoning only: If you say that "we have no idea if the two topics are related or not", we should not include the links, esp. those not mentioning the topic of the article (Burevestnik). Including them is basically original research. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Rather we should include them, because we don't know that they're unrelated. Many commentators have linked the two. WP is in no position to judge, we just have to present what is available and leave it to the readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your way of thinking means that we should add any link unless proven unrelated. That could me thousands (or more) of external links. I hope you see the point. Also not sure who you mean by "commentators" but the article mentions only two people. If there are more, as you claim, please improve the article by adding specific people/agencies/sources (but no rumors or journalese-churnalese, please). WikiHannibal (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - Here is an article that links the accident to the 9M730 Burevestnik - https://theconversation.com/nuclear-powered-missile-accident-in-russia-what-really-happened-121966 The article also cites additional reputable articles where experts are saying the same. 217.28.191.33 (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just a commnent in case someone is tempted to believe the claim by the IP user: the author does not claim anything about Burevestnik, and no specific experts are mentioned in this respect; B. is menioned only as "...American and UK experts to conclude the source of the radiation leak must be a type of long-range missile that Russia has previously claimed would be nuclear powered. It is known by the Russians as 9M730 Burevestnik, and by NATO as the SCC-X-9 Skyfall." WikiHannibal (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW A more interesting claim here. Basically the explosion occurred during an attepmt to collect, from the seabed, a missile unsuccessfuly launched in 2018. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI everyone, the Russian article, which I am slowly ttranslating and carrying over to this one as per the expand header tag at the top of the article, contains a section that is called "Alleged Test Accident" but links to a separate article as well under the heading. Maybe at least match the title as it seems a better description than the section heading in this article which gives the impression of something more factual and definite ? If no one objects in the next week or two I will change it. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Translated a sentence from the Russian article

I'll add some more soon when I get time.

Added a new section today.

Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

NATO reporting name.

Sky fall or redrod? Springnuts (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)