Yes.
“Not good" is our Third Grade President’s assessment of a nuclear disaster. 
Doesn’t Rick Perry handle our nuclear infrastructure?
If you’re talking about Nuclear propulsion they’re working on, not 2 days but 100 days. Basically cutting it down to slightly less then half the time for chemical rockets.
First flight test is in 2024…I think. I read where they have tested the engines successfully…but can’t seems to find that article.
No one knows, including him.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.^^^^
2 Likes
The point is that it could fly around for hours eluding defenses all around the world before striking it’s target.
Here is a link to a related thread:
The explosion appears to be related the development of a nuclear-powered cruise missile. Here is some background information:
Nuclear-powered aircraft were investigated back in the 1960’s, but the shielding required to protect human pilots made them impractical. A cruise missile would not have that problem, and theoretically it could remain in the air indefinitely.
Still, so what? The launches would be detected by satellite and there would have to numerous launches to override MAD, a which point they would be facing a counterstrike of numerous ICBMs which are equally difficult to eliminate.
And then there are the subs.
Can’t be unlimited thrust, you can have unlimited power but you still need mass to eject to provide actual thrust.
Hopefully we are not actually trying to develop these things. Waste.
Oh good lord, that thought is enough to give me nightmares.
Sorry. I was just asking. 
1 Like
Actually we are, but for interplanetary travel.
I am cool with that.
But not for redundancy in our already solid triad.
Good explanation of this here
Theoretically a nuclear-powered aircraft could remain the air for months or years; commercial nuclear reactors run for years without refueling.
Cruise missiles could fly over the ocean near the US or Europe and strike coastal targets within minutes. Stealth technology means that they could be invisible to radar.
The recent explosion in the northern Russia is not the first incident that appears to be related to secret nuclear propulsion technology. A secret Russian nuclear sub sank in July with 14 dead:
Russian researchers have been investigating nuclear reactions that most US nuclear scientists have dismissed as impossible. For example here is a Russian paper on nuclear reactions from lightning:
Researchers in other countries have seen similar results, but most of the researchers are from earth science, not nuclear physics:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07266-w#ref-CR6
In the US, nuclear physicists have generally dismissed the possibility of starting nuclear reactions with such small amounts of energy after debunking early tests in the 1980s with “cold fusion”.
My guess is that the Russians may be investigating new nuclear-reactor technology that US nuclear scientists have dismissed as impossible. Another possibility is that the US has been secretly working on similar technology, and the hostility of nuclear physicists comes from their concerns loss of government funding or security clearances if they publicly support the validity of research in this area.
Thank you.
Did a little more reading last night and now understand.
Basically a nuclear ramjet. At speed suck in air, compress air, heat air to very high temperatures, and eject super-heated air out the rear.
Totally different than a Nuclear Thrust Propulsion engine for space flight since for space flight propellant must still be carried to provide mass for the ejection (i.e. thrust).
.
.
.
.^^^^
Yeah, I was wrong when I said they needed reaction mass. In any case, Putin should probably be advised that the last time Russia tried to win an arms race against us, they were called the Soviet Union and it resulted in their going broke and collapsing. I don’t see it working out well for them if they do come up with something destabilizing that gets a full on arms race between us going again.
Didn’t we try this once? Project ROVER or such like for space travel?
With their aging and outclassed submarine fleet and considering our ballistic missile defense system development, I think they were feeling a little squeezed on maintaining MAD.
