President Putin revives Project Pluto.

Message
Author
Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#21 Post by Cacophonix » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:14 pm

AtomKraft wrote:Boac.

Aerodynamic controls, for steering and flight are conventional. The SLAM moved fast enough to do without such trivialities as wings. There is sufficient lift generated by the fuselage and only small surfaces are needed to point the thing.
Read here...

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/ ... onvich.pdf

Methinks we are being played like fish by the wily Boac Atom! The man, afer all, has flown the supersonic BAC Electric Lightning and has no doubt fired many missiles in his career! =))

Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#22 Post by Cacophonix » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:28 pm

AtomKraft wrote:Boac.
Aerodynamic controls, for steering and flight are conventional. The SLAM moved fast enough to do without such trivialities as wings. There is sufficient lift generated by the fuselage and only small surfaces are needed to point the thing.
Noth American X-15.JPG
Noth American X-15.JPG (204.74 KiB) Viewed 1162 times
Rocket motors. Speed achieved was 3856 miles hour in the 60's... assuming ISA figures this is over Mach 6.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnXs03FA5s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
The X-15 was a research program and changes were made to various systems over the course of the program and between the different models. The X-15 was operated under several different scenarios, including attachment to a launch aircraft, drop, main engine start and acceleration, a ballistic flight into thin air/space, re-entry into thicker air, and an unpowered glide to landing. Alternatively, if the main engine was not started the pilot went directly to a landing. The main rocket engine operated only for a relatively short part of the flight, but was capable of boosting the X-15 to its high speeds and altitudes. Without main engine thrust, the X-15's instruments and control surfaces remained functional, but the aircraft could not maintain altitude.

Because the X-15 also had to be controlled in an environment where there was too little air for aerodynamic flight control surfaces, it had a reaction control system (RCS) that used rocket thrusters. There were two different X-15 pilot control setups: one used three joysticks; the other, one joystick.

The X-15 type with multiple control sticks for the pilot included a traditional rudder and stick, and another joystick on the left which sent commands to the reaction control system. A third joystick on the right side was used during high-G maneuvers to augment the center stick.[9] In addition to pilot input, the X-15 "Stability Augmentation System" (SAS) sent inputs to the aerodynamic controls to help the pilot maintain attitude control. The Reaction Control System (RCS) could be operated in two modes — manual and automatic. The automatic mode used a feature called "Reaction Augmentation System" (RAS) that helped stabilize the vehicle at high altitude. The RAS was typically used for approximately three minutes of an X-15 flight before automatic power off.

The second setup used the MH-96 flight control system, which allowed one joystick in place of three and simplified pilot input. The MH-96 could automatically blend aerodynamic and rocket controls, depending on how effective each system was at controlling the aircraft.

Among the many controls were the rocket engine throttle and a control for jettisoning the ventral tail fin. Other features of the cockpit were heated windows to prevent icing, and a forward headrest for periods of high deceleration.

The X-15 had an ejection seat that allowed ejection at speeds up to Mach 4 (4,480 km/h; 2,784 mph) and/or 120,000 feet (37 km) altitude, although it was not used during the program. In the event of ejection, the seat had deployable fins which were used until it reached a safer speed/altitude, where it could deploy its main parachute. Pilots wore a pressure suit, which could be pressurized with nitrogen gas. Above 35,000 feet (11 km) altitude, the cockpit was pressurized to 3.5 psi (0.24 atm) with nitrogen gas, and oxygen for breathing was fed separately to the pilot.
Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#23 Post by Cacophonix » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:57 pm

X-43A Hypersonic Scramjet Flight 2 Highlights Mach 6+ 2004 NASA Langley-Dryden Hyper-X Program

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K_rzuSuqIg
NASA's first X-43A test on June 2, 2001 failed because the Pegasus booster lost control about 13 seconds after it was released from the B-52 carrier. The rocket experienced a control oscillation as it went transonic, eventually leading to the failure of the rocket's starboard elevon. This caused the rocket to deviate significantly from the planned course, and was destroyed as a safety precaution. An investigation into the incident stated that imprecise information about the capabilities of the rocket as well as its flight environment contributed to the accident. Several inaccuracies in data modeling for this test led to an inadequate control system for the particular Pegasus rocket used, though no single factor could ultimately be blamed for the failure.

In the second test in March 2004, the Pegasus fired successfully and released the test vehicle at an altitude of about 29,000 metres (95,000 ft). After separation, the engine's air intake was opened, the engine ignited, and the aircraft then accelerated away from the rocket reaching Mach 6.83 or 7,401 km/h (4,600 mph). Fuel was flowing to the engine for 11 seconds, a time in which the aircraft traveled more than 24 km. Following Pegasus booster separation, the vehicle experienced a small drop in speed but the scramjet engine afterward accelerated the vehicle in climbing flight. After burnout, controllers were still able to maneuver the vehicle and manipulate the flight controls for several minutes; the aircraft, slowed by air resistance, fell into the ocean. With this flight the X-43A became the fastest free flying air-breathing aircraft in the world.

NASA flew a third version of the X-43A on November 16, 2004. The modified Pegasus rocket which was launched from a B-52 mother ship at an altitude of 13,157 meters (43,166 ft). The X-43A set a new speed record of 10,617 km/h (6,598 mph, Mach 9.6)[note 1] at about 33,528 metres (110,000 ft) altitude,[10] and further testing the ability of the vehicle to withstand the heat loads involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43
CFD image of the X-43A at Mach 7.JPG
CFD image of the X-43A at Mach 7.JPG (170.51 KiB) Viewed 1159 times
Caco

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#24 Post by Boac » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:16 pm

Well, Caco, I'm afraid Mrs B had to wake me up at 6-12 of the second link. :))

I do not have any issues with scramjets, waveriders, hypersonics, and I am aware of the Breyton from UNI on my aeronautics degree, but I have asked about POWERING the controls, not 'will they work'. The Shuttle (using Isaac) used, I believe, an APU to power the aerodynamic controls - which needs fuel (hydrazine?)

What does the nuclear system use? Is there a bleed tap to power an electric generator? I am genuinely interested, guys.

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#25 Post by Cacophonix » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:53 pm

Boac wrote:Well, Caco, I'm afraid Mrs B had to wake me up at 6-12 of the second link. :))

I do not have any issues with scramjets, waveriders, hypersonics, and I am aware of the Breyton from UNI on my aeronautics degree, but I have asked about POWERING the controls, not 'will they work'. The Shuttle (using Isaac) used, I believe, an APU to power the aerodynamic controls - which needs fuel (hydrazine?)

What does the nuclear system use? Is there a bleed tap to power an electric generator? I am genuinely interested, guys.
The shuttle had three APU's...
The auxiliary power unit is a hydrazine-fueled, turbine-driven power unit that generates mechanical shaft power to drive a hydraulic pump that produces pressure for the orbiter's hydraulic system. There are three separate APUs, three hydraulic pumps and three hydraulic systems.
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/re ... biter/apu/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiKQPwyIzEM

Given the massive aerodynamic loads and pressures encountered at low level both externally and within the ramjet itself, bleed air would not be a viable option methinks. I would suspect that internalised power sources like fuel cell powered APU's would be de rigueur.

I was only joshing with as you well know. I also know that you are genuinely interested in this stuff as you wouldn't be human if you weren't! :)

Caco

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#26 Post by AtomKraft » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:28 am

Ah, I see what you're on about, boac. You mean what were they planning to use to power the guidance, flight controls and so on.
No idea!
My guess,as it would have to something that didn't need fuel, would be a RAT of some type. Don't think it would be too tricky with all that air rushing past.
LTV were given the airframe job, but it was cancelled before the design was finalised.

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#27 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:39 am

AtomKraft wrote:My guess,as it would have to something that didn't need fuel, would be a RAT of some type. Don't think it would be too tricky with all that air rushing past.
LTV were given the airframe job, but it was cancelled before the design was finalised.
I disagree with you Atom. :D

The dynamics of the airflow around a ramjet or scramjet at speeds anywhere betweem Mach 6 and 10 would simply melt protuberences such as a turbine and at the higher end of that scale would begin to cause shock waves that could endanger the integrity of the structure of the aircraft itself. Modern carbon based composites might survive however, but no turbine bearing would endure the loads and temperatures imposed in such extreme conditions for any useful length of time. Another point is that a conventional turbine would operate best in air that it not transonic to avoid tip stalling or overheating etc. and this whole process would be inefficient and problematic in the transonic regime. One has to look at the design of the jet engine and the issues at the tips of the turbines in transonic flows to appreciate that this is a complex aero and thermodynamic area and becomes exponentially more so in high transonic gas flow states.

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineeri ... nsfer.page

It is not for nothing that high performance fighters that use(d) a RAT have had an extension speed limit such a noted here in the Phantom F-4 Pilot's Flight Operating Manual.
Phantom F-4.JPG
Phantom F-4.JPG (24.39 KiB) Viewed 1124 times
You are ignoring the fact that the temperature of the air around an aircraft at the higher end of these Mach scales (Mach 10 and above) begins to cause the formation of a gas plasma and any ingress into the fuselage or a nacelle of ramjet itself would be highly problematic not only due to the shock front development, at even relatively low Mach numbers, but because such points (no matter how small) would represent a weak point in the thermal protection of the aircraft.

I would suggest that any power sources would be internalised and would most likely to be (or have been) gas powered APU's not unlike the ones used in the Shuttle and could even be battery based today.

Using the shuttle as an example again, look what happened when the thermal protection of the aircraft was compromised as in the case of the shuttle Columbia.
As a spacecraft re-enters the earth's atmosphere, it is traveling very much faster than the speed of sound. The aircraft is said to be hypersonic. Typical low earth orbit re-entry speeds are near 17,500 mph and the Mach number M is nearly twenty five, M < 25. The chief characteristic of re-entry aerodynamics is that the temperature of the flow is so great that the chemical bonds of the diatomic molecules of the air are broken. The molecules break apart producing an electrically charged plasma around the aircraft. The air density is very low because re-entry occurs many miles above the earth's surface. Strong shock waves are generated on the lower surface of the spacecraft.

The only manned aircraft to currently fly in this regime are the American Space Shuttle, the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, and the Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft. The figure shows the Shuttle after it has passed through the re-entry regime. The Shuttle uses a rocket propulsion system to get into orbit, but during re-entry the aircraft is actually an un-powered glider. Small steering rockets are used for maneuvering early in the re-entry because the low density of the air at altitudes above 50 miles makes aerodynamic surfaces ineffective. The heat is so great during re-entry that a special thermal protection system is used to keep the spacecraft intact. On the Shuttle, special silicon tiles are placed on the aluminum skin to insulate the skin. On the leading edge of the wings, carbon-cabon composite material is used to withstand the heat. The high forces and high heat dictate that the Shuttle has short, blunt wings. The Shuttle flies at a high angle of attack during re-entry to generate drag to dissipate speed. It executes hypersonic "S-turn" maneuvers to kill off speed during re-entry. The lift of the wings is only important in the final flare maneuver at touchdown.

The Soyuz, Shenzhou, and all of the early Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury spacecraft used a thermal protection system that is different than the Space Shuttle. Each of these spacecraft use an ablative, or "burning", heat shield. The heat shield is made of special ceramic materials and is designed to slowly burn away as it encounters the high temperature plasma flow aft of the bow shock wave. The change of phase from solid to liquid to gas and the convection of the flow away from the spacecraft help to protect the astronauts from the heat of re-entry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RChlt5wdqBs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98K_FbuicLw


Caco

User avatar
OFSO
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 18600
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#28 Post by OFSO » Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:50 pm

Using nuclear energy to heat up air passing through a motor is for wimps.

What you do is you get your space vehicle - and it would be large: the biggest vehicle considered had a mass of 8,000,000 tonnes - and attach very strong springs and shock absorbers to the base. To this is attached a massive pusher plate. A rail gun extends from a storage facility in the space vehicle and around the side of the pusher plate.

Nuclear bombs are then taken from the store along the tracks and detonated under the pusher plate, causing the vehicle to move forwards with a chug...chug...chug...every second as another bomb is detonated.

To those who think I am being fanciful, take a look at the Orion Project on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_O ... ropulsion)

Or for a look at how a real application would work read Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's sci-fi thriller "Footfall".

Incidentally I have a dim memory from way-back-when-in-the-business of seeing a model of an Orion spaceship which was propelled by non-nuclear and very small explosives and it worked extremely well. Yes I did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Lxx2VAYi8

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#29 Post by AtomKraft » Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:44 pm

But Cackers, the Pluto missile isn't hypersonic. I think they were looking at about M. 3.5.
But really, no idea what was actually planned to power its ancillaries. For sure, they'd have used some inexhaustible source of power.
Maybe a surface mounted duct to create some low pressure, and an air turbine connected to it- who knows?

Mt Putins version might be able to get by with a decent battery, as months of flogging about irradiating and deafening, or killing the population is to 'yesterday' these days....

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#30 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:52 pm

AtomKraft wrote:But Cackers, the Pluto missile isn't hypersonic. I think they were looking at about M. 3.5.
But really, no idea what was actually planned to power its ancillaries. For sure, they'd have used some inexhaustible source of power.
Maybe a surface mounted duct to create some low pressure, and an air turbine connected to it- who knows?

Mt Putins version might be able to get by with a decent battery, as months of flogging about irradiating and deafening, or killing the population is to 'yesterday' these days....
Atom it is true that I have been focussing on hypersonic missiles and the like and not specifically on Pluto and, besides, I am enjoying this thread so much I couldn't let it go by without some argument and controversy. :-bd

As for Putin while what he is proposing is old hat it is fundamentally worrying that the Russians are working on this technology.

Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#31 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:53 pm

Well being a nerd at heart I had to find out what made Pluto specifically tick...
With the engine development proceeding toward flight hardware, in 1963 Ling-Temco-Vought was awarded the contract to develop the airframe, with Marquardt chosen as contractor for propulsion hardware other than the reactor. Intended to fly near Mach 3 in the thick lower atmosphere, the missile would undergo aerodynamic and thermal stresses never before encountered. With the nuclear powerplant, however, there was no need to trade off weight and strength as in conventional aircraft. Most of the structure was made of stainless steel, with high temperature sections near the reactor using the René 41 alloy earlier used in the Mercury spacecraft. So robust was the structure that project director Ted Merkle nicknamed it “the flying crowbar”. With no need to carry fuel on board, the design was simple: nuclear engine, guidance system, and warhead(s), with small control surfaces to steer. There were no wings; at supersonic speeds, the shape of the missile body provided sufficient lift. Solid rocket boosters would lift Pluto from its launcher (both fixed and mobile launchers were envisioned) and accelerate it to the speed where the ramjet could operate. The reactor would not go critical until the moment of launch, rendering it safe for ground personnel in pre-launch operations.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/pluto/

Which we already knew and it doesn't talk in detail about how the control surfaces were to be powered but a careful look at the design indicates that it had a reactor sub-sonic duct which would have allowed the use of a RAT, assuming the radiation levels in this area would allowed electrical systems to work and this diagram also notes 18 - Secondary power (APU?)...

Reviewing this document shows that the craft would also have held pneumatic air systems...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/350533.pdf
Pluto.JPG
Pluto.JPG (134.41 KiB) Viewed 1110 times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL5o ... QGBBsLiP6w

See the other 4 videos for the full story of this potentially deadly Frakensteinian monster... - Fascinating stuff!
By far the most difficult part of the vehicle to design was the nuclear motor. This was something that had never been previously attempted. It had to produce more than 500 megawatts of power while still being small enough to fit in a plane. Obviously, it had to be unshielded. However, this meant that the conditions within the reactor were more extreme than anything had ever been designed for. the temperatures in the center of the reactor exceeded 1370 degrees Celsius, which is well above the operating temperatures of most alloys. In the end, the core was made of ceramics, molybdenum, advanced steel and Hastelloy R-235. Even then, it was designed at a low factor of safety, as the materials were operating very close to their thermal maximum while still resisting the incoming air, which created up to 2400 Kilo-Pascals of pressure on the core.
Tory II-C Engine.JPG
Tory II-C Engine.JPG (207.4 KiB) Viewed 1110 times
It is interesting to compare this monstrosity with the very functional and successful Pratt & Whitney J58 used in the SR-71 which was a quasi ramjet (turbo ramjet).
The compressor redesign, as well as addressing the need for high temperature materials such as Waspaloy in the rear stages had to address the aerodynamic shortcomings inherent in any turbomachine compressor when ingesting very hot air (800 °F or 427 °C at Mach 3.2).[9] The route chosen to keep the J58 compressor pumping was to bleed air from the compressor 4th stage through 6 external tubes to the afterburner. In addition a 2-position trailing edge flap was added to the inlet guide vanes. The bleed and adjustable flap position kept the compressor working efficiently despite the high temperature air delivered to it by the intake.

The afterburner received the exhaust from the turbine as well as the bleed air from the compressor. Most of the compressor bleed was required for cooling the afterburner duct and propelling nozzle and the remainder was used, together with the turbine exhaust, to burn the afterburner fuel flow.

The combustor liner and flame holders were sprayed with ceramic thermal barrier coating to allow sustained afterburner operation at temperatures up to 3,200 °F (1760 ℃).
Caco

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#32 Post by AtomKraft » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:43 pm

Cackers.
Truly, you are a fellow acolyte of missiles.
Accordingly, I shall post up my favourite youtube of a pukka missile for others to comment on.

Here's the Sprint missile.
Supersonic before it left the silo, Mach 10 to intercept Mach 25 incoming re-entry vehicles. First stage burn, 1.2 seconds only...... yep, one point two....

https://youtu.be/5vq4mWyYl2Y

This was a program, comparable in size to the Apollo Mooonshot-, but a bit lower profile.

Watch out for the video of a Sprint launch. No, its not speeded up, neither is Meck island a model. Zero to Mach 10 in 5 seconds!

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#33 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:19 pm

AtomKraft wrote:Cackers.
Truly, you are a fellow acolyte of missiles.
Accordingly, I shall post up my favourite youtube of a pukka missile for others to comment on.

Here's the Sprint missile.
Supersonic before it left the silo, Mach 10 to intercept Mach 25 incoming re-entry vehicles. First stage burn, 1.2 seconds only...... yep, one point two....

https://youtu.be/5vq4mWyYl2Y

This was a program, comparable in size to the Apollo Mooonshot-, but a bit lower profile.

Watch out for the video of a Sprint launch. No, its not speeded up, neither is Meck island a model. Zero to Mach 10 in 5 seconds!
Excellent stuff Atom, perhaps you should ask Alisoncc to move your bonnie baby (i.e. this thread) to a more suitable venue for everybody's delectation and delight!

What do you think? That post on the Orion (OFSO's interesting steer) and Sprite programmes alone could just run and run as well... ;)

Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#34 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:37 pm

and this diagram also notes 18 - Secondary power (APU?)...
One more point ref. the APU possibility on the PLUTO programme. It is interesting that most of the nuclear scientists/physicists from Livermore moved on to SNAP design leading me to wonder if the APU on PROJECT PLUTO might have been planned to have been an early version of a SNAP APU?

Systems For Auxiliary Nuclear Power

SNAP-10A


See the SAFE programme for outgrowths of this technology using a closed Breyton power cycle.
Safe affordable fission engine (SAFE) are NASA's small experimental nuclear fission reactors for electricity production in space. Most known is the SAFE-400 reactor producing 400 kW thermal power, giving 100 kW of electricity using a Brayton cycle closed-cycle gas turbine. The fuel is uranium nitride in a core of 381 pins clad with rhenium. Three fuel pins surround a molybdenum–sodium heatpipe that transports the heat to a heatpipe-gas heat exchanger. This is called a heatpipe power system. The reactor is about 50 centimetres (20 in) tall, 30 centimetres (12 in) across and weighs about 512 kilograms (1,129 lb). It was developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Marshall Space Flight Center under the lead of Dave Poston. A smaller reactor called SAFE-30 was made first.

The working fluid used in the reactor is a helium–xenon gas mixture.

The project is funded with discretionary money in the lab's budget and done mostly outside the researchers' normal work.
SAFE Power System

Caco

User avatar
ian16th
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 10029
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:35 am
Location: KZN South Coast with the bananas
Gender:
Age: 87

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#35 Post by ian16th » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:20 pm

Cynicism improves with age

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#36 Post by AtomKraft » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Stanby, el Cack

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#37 Post by AtomKraft » Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:33 pm


Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#38 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:16 pm

Interesting article. One wonders at the notion of the Russians testing such an irradiating and environmentally devastating monstrosity.

Techno barbarity of the worst kind but one can conceive of the Russians being uncivilised enough to countenance the local collateral damage such a programme might entail.

Caco

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: President Putin revives Project Pluto.

#39 Post by AtomKraft » Wed May 02, 2018 8:45 am

A lot of info in this clip.


Post Reply