These word-of-mouth statements are almost consistent with information from the US Senate hearing on a request to fund NASA with a figure of $ 585 million to invest in nuclear-powered propulsion technology in the fiscal year 2022. and other American efforts in this area. This means that Russia’s space nuclear energy program is not only for technical purposes, but also for geopolitical purposes. Russia’s current program has its roots in the Soviet era. The Soviet Union launched a total of 33 military satellites with the function of spying and targeting targets equipped with nuclear reactors into low orbit around the Earth from 1969 to 1988. Most of these satellites used reactors. Buk type nuclear power generation reactor, only 2 of them using advanced thermal electron furnace NPP Topaz with generating capacity from 4.5 to 5.5 kW, however, this project was suspended in 1986 . In the early 1990s, a Russian-American cooperation project aimed at continuing the development of the Topaz furnace, but this project was suspended in 1995. In the period 2000-2007, Russia also tried to find ways to cooperate with China. Nation in this field. Despite the economic decline for a long time, Moscow has been trying to continue its independent efforts in the field of the use of nuclear energy in space since 1998, and during the time of President Dmitry Medvedev in power, the This effort has been identified as a key priority for the Kremlin. The budget for this program of Russia for the period 2010-2018 is 17 billion rubles, divided between Roscosmos 9.8 billion rubles and Rosatom 7.2 billion rubles, equivalent to $560 million in 2010 exchange rates. However, the actual disbursement figure is much smaller. In 2010, only 500 million rubles ($16.5 million) were allocated for this purpose. Over the next decade, total disbursements reached nearly 10 billion rubles ($213 million), according to public information from Roscosmos and Rosatom. The results of these efforts have not been as successful as they initially suggested. For example, the technical requirements of the proposed product are an outer space nuclear reactor with a capacity of 1 MW of electricity and an ion thruster with a capacity of 50 kW. However, the reality shows that Russia is currently only developing nuclear power generation systems YaEU-25M, YaEU-25 and YaEU-50 with a generating capacity of 10-40 kW and propulsion using ionic force. 25 kW. At present, perhaps Russia is just stopping at the computational model run for more powerful reactors and engines. For comparison, NASA is still trying to design a 10 kW outer space nuclear reactor with a Stirling engine for the purpose of increasing efficiency, currently Russia is still revolving around the thermal electron model, and the problem of using Using engines or turbines in combination with reactors is still only a theory. It is hard to believe that Russia will design a nuclear reactor in space with a generating capacity of 1 MW or ion propulsion engines with a larger capacity in the near future. Anyway, Moscow is still trying to turn the results achieved into advanced applications in long-distance space travel or foreign politics. Due to a decline in space research activities in other sub-sectors, coupled with economic weakness, these problems have prompted the Kremlin to look for another trump card. While the development of nuclear reactors for space exploration is far from complete, the Russian government as well as industry is currently looking for the application of nuclear reactors to satellites. military. These satellites can be used for radar reconnaissance or electronic warfare (for example jamming) when they are deployed in low, mid or geostationary orbits. However, no tests of such satellites have yet been conducted, meaning Moscow is not ready to field such satellites in the near future. In addition, the promotion of nuclear-powered spacecraft could be used by Russian space and nuclear industry units as a tool to apply for funding, to promote a slow and risky research program. this. For its part, the Kremlin is still trying to blur its true purpose. They came up with the “Strategy for the development of nuclear energy in space by 2030 in 2019, and issued relevant policies for the first time in 1998. Even if Russian military satellites are used by Russian military satellites. Nuclear power appeared in 2030, it also did not bring about significant changes in the technical and military fields. However, Moscow is still trying to polish it as a tool to help shift political supremacy. First, Russia has consistently supported the ban on placing weapons in outer space. Second, Russia will not be able to stand in the forefront of space technology without cooperating with other countries in the field, so Russian leaders see nuclear technology in space as a way to develop. cooperation, even in times of growing hostility in the West. The Russian SPT-100 series Ion Thruster has been used on satellites since 1994.

Taishan Nuclear Power Plant, Guangdong Province, China (Photo: SCMP) Late on June 14, the US media reported that authorities in Washington spent a whole week assessing a report on a possible radioactive leak at the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant (Taishan). ) in Guangdong province, China, after a French company warned of an “imminent radiation threat”. Responding to the news, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian confirmed that radiation levels at the Taishan power plant were normal and there were no safety concerns to report. “There is nothing abnormal in the radiation levels around this nuclear power plant, and safety is still guaranteed,” Trieu said at a press conference on June 15. concerned, the current situation at the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant meets the technical requirements.” He also emphasized that Beijing pays close attention to nuclear safety issues and has a nuclear safety control/management system that fully meets international and domestic standards. Zhao made the statement after the US channel CNN reported earlier this week that the UN Security Council had spent a week assessing the report on the risk of radioactive “leakage” at Taishan. and held “many” meetings on this issue. Framatome – a French nuclear reactor manufacturer that holds a stake in the Taishan plant – is said to have alerted authorities at the US Department of Energy through a letter about the “threat of leakage”. impending radioactive leak” and accused the Chinese government of raising the allowable radiation level to avoid shutting down the power plant. According to a memo cited by CNN, Framatome has sent a letter of petition to Washington to get the US to remove sanctions., It is known that China’s atomic energy industry has been subject to many restrictions imposed by the US. since 2019, due to concerns about the industry’s relationship with the Chinese military. Beijing has criticized the US decision, while some observers say the sanctions are politically motivated. On Sunday, the Dai Son plant also released a statement indicating that radiation levels in and around the plant were “normal” and that its reactors were in good working order. “All performance indicators of the two units meet nuclear safety regulations and plant technical regulations,” the statement said. Last Friday, Framatome released a statement saying that “according to production data, the plant is operating below safety indicators”. However, despite these claims, several US media outlets continued to report on the situation in Taishan, with Newsweek magazine publishing an article titled “Leakage at the Chinese nuclear power plant”. Quoc is reminiscent of Chernobyl, while Taishan insists it is safe.” This article also claims that there are many reports indicating that Taishan brings back “the memories of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, when the Soviet Union mitigated the problem of radiation levels at one of the nuclear power plants. their nuclear power”. Several other agencies, including Bloomberg, also recalled the Chernobyl incident when reporting on Taishan. France’s Electricite de France (EDF) – the parent company of Framatome – owns a 30% stake in the Taishan plant, along with China Atomic Energy Corporation. The plant consists of two reactors located in southern China, about 75 km from Macao, 140 km west of Hong Kong. This plant started operating between 2018 – 2019 and is said to be the “new generation” of nuclear reactor technology.

Design of a space tug to carry Russia’s 500kW Zeus nuclear reactor. Russia’s federal space agency Roscosmo announced that a “space tug” – a term used to refer to a spacecraft that transports astronauts or equipment from one orbit to another – is expected to carry out an interplanetary mission. planet by 2030. Accordingly, the spacecraft’s power module called “Zeus” is designed to generate enough power to propel heavy cargo into deep space. It is essentially a mobile nuclear power plant. Several countries have been eyeing similar technology as a way to shorten trips in space. Currently, spacecraft still rely on solar energy or gravity to accelerate. But that means it could take more than three years for astronauts to make a trip around Mars. Meanwhile, NASA estimates a nuclear-powered spacecraft could shorten that timeline by a year. NASA’s Juno unmanned spacecraft uses solar batteries to make a journey to explore Jupiter. Photo: NASA The US hopes to put a nuclear power plant – a 10-kilowatt reactor integrated with a lander to be exact – on the Moon as early as 2027. However, NASA has only sent one so far. nuclear reactor into space, on a satellite in 1965. Other spacecraft, such as the Mars rovers Curiosity and Perseverance, also run on nuclear power, but they do not use a reactor. Meanwhile, Russia has sent more than 30 reactors into space. Those efforts will be further pushed as the “Zeus” module uses a 500 kilowatt nuclear reactor to propel itself from planet to planet. Watch a video of a Russian space tug model announced in 2020 (Source: ETF News): According to the plan announced on the Russian state news agency Sputnik, the Zeus spacecraft will approach the Moon first, then move towards Venus. From here it can use the planet’s gravity to redirect toward its final destination, Jupiter. That will help save propellant fuel. According to Alexander Bloshenko, Roscosmos Science and Long-Term Programs Executive Director, the entire mission will last 50 months (more than four years). During a presentation in Moscow on May 22, Bloshenko said that Roscosmos and the Russian Academy of Sciences are still working to calculate the trajectory of the flight, as well as the mass it can carry. Going further, this mission could be the precursor to a new frontier of Russian space. Sputnik reported that Russia is designing a space station using similar nuclear-powered technology. The Soyuz rocket launches the spacecraft to the International Orbital Station (ISS) from Baikonur, Kazakhstan. Photo: Getty Images Nuclear power has advantages over solar energy Most spacecraft get their energy from some source: the sun, batteries, or unstable atoms called radioisotopes. For example, NASA’s Juno unmanned spacecraft at Jupiter uses solar panels to generate electricity. Solar energy can also be used to charge batteries in spacecraft, but this energy source becomes less efficient as the spacecraft gets further and further away from the Sun. In addition, lithium batteries can power shorter missions. For example, the Huygens probe used batteries to briefly land on Saturn’s moon Titan in 2005. Design of a NASA spacecraft using nuclear thermal propulsion. Photo: NASA NASA’s Voyager spacecraft uses radioactive isotopes (also known as “nuclear batteries”) to survive in the harsh environments outside the Solar System and interstellar space, but that’s not the same thing. bring a nuclear reactor on board. Putting nuclear reactors on spacecraft offers several advantages: They can survive in the dark, cold regions of the Solar System without sunlight. They are also stable, reliable in the long run. The Zeus nuclear reactor, for example, is designed to last 10 to 12 years. Plus, with their powerful energy, they can propel spacecraft to other planets in less time. But nuclear power also has its own set of challenges. Only certain fuels, like highly enriched uranium, can withstand the extreme heat of a reactor – and they may not be safe to use. In December 2020, the US banned the use of highly enriched uranium to propel objects into space if that mission was possible with other sources of nuclear fuel or non-nuclear energy. Russia prepares to build a nuclear-powered space station Russian cosmonaut Sergey Kud-Sverchkov returning from the ISS landed in a remote area in Kazakhstan on April 17, 2021. Photo: Reuters Russian engineers began developing the Zeus module in 2010 with the goal of getting it into Earth orbit within two decades. And they’re on track to get there. This technology could help Russia develop a new space station by 2025. In April, the BBC reported that Russia plans to stop cooperating with the International Space Station (ISS), which it currently shares with the International Space Station (ISS). America, Japan, Europe and Canada – in that year. Russia cooperated with the United States to launch the ISS in 1998. However, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov told Russia 1 state television last month that the status of the ISS “a lot of things are not yet achieved”. . Even recently, this orbiting station has experienced air leaks and oxygen supply system failures. NASA has announced that the ISS will operate until at least 2028, however, the agency will probably maintain the station for the next 10-15 years.

Russia’s federal space agency Roscosmos has said that a “space tug” – a term used to refer to a spacecraft that transports astronauts or equipment from one orbit to another, is expected to be launched into space. to perform an interplanetary mission in 2030. This spacecraft is powered by a power module called Zeus. Basically, Zeus is like a mobile nuclear power plant, able to generate enough energy to operate spacecraft, transport equipment and goods in space. Currently, several countries are interested in similar technology as a way to shorten journeys in space. Design of the space tug. Photo: Roscosmos. Traditionally, spacecraft have relied on solar power or gravity to accelerate. This means that it takes astronauts more than 3 years to make the trip around Mars. NASA estimates that a nuclear-powered spacecraft could make that journey in a year. The US hopes to put a 10-kilowatt nuclear reactor integrated with the lunar lander, on the Moon as early as 2027. However, so far, NASA has only put one nuclear reactor. launched into space for the SNAP-10A satellite in 1965. Other spacecraft such as the Mars Curiosity and Perseverance probes are also nuclear-powered, but they do not use a reactor. Meanwhile, Russia has sent more than 30 nuclear reactors into space. The Zeus module is expected to further Russia’s space efforts by using a 500 kilowatt nuclear reactor to power spacecraft to travel from planet to planet. other planets, Sputnik quoted information from Roscosmos said. According to the Russian plan, the nuclear spacecraft will approach the Moon first, then head towards Venus, where it can use the planet’s gravity to move to its final destination, Jupiter. This will help save propellant. The entire mission will take 50 months (more than four years), said Alexander Bloshenko, executive director of development programs and advanced science at Roscosmos. According to the official, Roscosmos and the Russian Academy of Sciences are still working to calculate the trajectory of the flight, as well as the payload the spacecraft can carry. Ultimately, this mission could lay the groundwork for a new strategy for the Russian aerospace industry. Sputnik reported that Moscow is designing a space station using similar nuclear energy technology. The advantage of nuclear energy in the universe Most spacecraft get their energy from some source: the sun, batteries, or radioactive atoms (also called radioisotopes). For example, NASA’s Juno spacecraft at Jupiter uses solar panels to generate electricity. Solar energy can also be used to charge spacecraft batteries, however, it becomes less efficient if the spacecraft is far from the Sun. In other cases, lithium batteries could help power spacecraft for short journeys. Earlier in 2005, the Huygens probe used batteries to make a lightning landing on Saturn’s moon Titan. NASA’s Voyager spacecraft uses radioactive isotope (sometimes called a nuclear battery) to survive in the harsh environments of the solar system and interstellar space, but this is not the same thing. integrate a nuclear reactor into the spacecraft. Nuclear reactors offer several advantages as they can survive in dark and cold areas of the solar system without sunlight. They are also quite useful and quite reliable for long-term activities. The Zeus nuclear reactor is designed to last 10 to 12 years. In addition, they can propel spacecraft to other planets in less time. But nuclear power also presents some challenges of its own. Only certain fuels, such as highly enriched uranium, can withstand the extreme heat of the reactor. Furthermore, they may not be safe to use. In December 2020, the United States banned the use of highly enriched uranium to send objects into space if the operation could be made possible by other alternative sources of nuclear or non-nuclear fuel. Russia is about to build a space station in space Russian engineers began developing the “Zeus” module in 2010 with the goal of putting it into orbit within two decades, and they are on track to accomplish this goal. Production and testing commenced in 2018. By 2020, Roscosmos has signed a contract worth 4.2 billion rubles ($57.5 million) with St. Petersburg for the preliminary design of the space station. This will help Russia accelerate its efforts to develop a new space station by 2025. Earlier in April 2021, the BBC said that Russia plans to withdraw from the International Space Station (ISS) by 2025 and is ready to build its own space station. The International Space Station was established in 1998. This is an international cooperation project of 16 countries including the US and Russia, Japan, Canada, European Space Agency member states and Brazil. with a total investment capital of more than 100 billion USD.

USS San Francisco was one of the first Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines of the United States, built in 1972 and commissioned on April 24, 1981. It is also the quietest submarine in the US Navy. The bow part of the ship was crushed after hitting a mountain. Photo: National Interest USS San Francisco has a displacement of 6,900 tons when submerged, 110 meters long and 10 meters wide. The train is equipped with a General Electric PWR S6G nuclear reactor with a capacity of 35,000 horsepower, helping it to move at a maximum speed of 61km / h. According to the National Interest, the accident occurred with the Los Angeles-class submarine USS San Francisco (SSN-711), on January 8, 2005. At the time of the collision, the ship was near Guam conducting training and preparing to sail to Australia. At that time, the ship was diving at a depth of 160m and moving at a great speed, more than 48km / h. The impact was very strong. The sailors present in the dining room were thrown into the air. In a 60-minute interview, Brian Barnes, a submariner, recalled: “I just saw people lying everywhere. Glass was broken, dishes were splattered, sailors groaned from their injuries, screamed.” The bow of the USS San Francisco was severely damaged, 30m of the front hull was flattened and exposed to the sea. Water flooded the submarine. The urgent task at that time was to urgently pump compressed air into the ballast tanks of the submarine to help the ship float to the surface. The USS San Francisco has a total of 127 crew members. The collision left 98 people injured and many of them were unable to continue operating the ship. Sailor Joseph Allen Ashley was wounded in the head and later died. Another sailor broke both arms but still managed to open the submarine’s air valve to fill the ballast tanks. Danny Hager, who monitors the submarine’s depth gauge, had a terrifying experience after the valves were opened. “I told everyone that the ship was at a depth of 160m. And I kept waiting, 5 seconds, 10 seconds passed and so on I don’t know how much longer, the ship was still at a depth of 160m. The atmosphere is very calm because everyone is waiting for me to announce that we are preparing to come up.” The problem was that the ballast tanks at the front were broken in the collision. The air escapes to the outside. 60 seconds passed and the ship remained unchanged in depth. Fortunately, the aft part of the submarine began to point upwards as the ballast tanks at the aft were filled with compressed air. Danny Hager now feels less worried: “It feels really relieved when I announce the ship has risen to a depth of more than 152m”. Finally, the USS San Francisco also surfaced, but the journey home is still quite far. Fortunately, the nuclear reactor was not damaged in the impact. The crew steered the ship back at a speed of 16km/h and so to return to Guam, it took the ship 52 hours. Unexpected causes Despite its immense firepower and nuclear propulsion, the USS San Francisco, like all submarines, relies on charts providing data on the topography of the seabed. After the investigation, the US Navy found that the submarine used old charts that did not mention the submarine mountain range in the area of ​​​​the ship’s operation. Meanwhile, other maps warn about this mountain range. The charts used by the crew of San Francisco were provided by the Defense Mapping Agency in 1989. By 2008, a study by the University of Massachusetts showed that images obtained from the Landsat satellite showed An underground mountain range more than 30m above the seabed in the area. However, the US Navy did not update this information to the chart. During the repair, the bow of the USS San Francisco was removed and replaced with the bow of the submarine USS Honolulu, which was about to be decommissioned. USS San Francisco rejoined the fleet in 2009 and served for another seven years. It was later converted into a training submarine. Ship commander Kevin Mooney was reprimanded for this unfortunate accident. Several sailors received medals for their brave actions when the ship was in distress. Only the sailor who died Ashley is inscribed at the Navy Memorial in Washington DC So how could the ship survive the high-speed crash into the underground mountains? In 1963, after the sinking of the submarine USS Thresher, the US Navy established the SUBSAFE program. The goal of this program is to ensure that the hull will remain pressurized in the event of an accident and that it can float. This program makes keeping nuclear reactors safe and making them recover from accidents a top priority. If the ship can surface and the nuclear reactor continues to operate, the crew will have a good chance of survival. USS San Francisco has ensured those conditions. Thus, the fact that the USS San Francisco can “survive the accident” is the result of the dedication and relentless research efforts of the US submarine force.

The main difference between these three types of hydrogen lies in the number of neutrons in the nucleus. Protium is the default type of hydrogen in our natural habitat, which consists of a proton and an electron, while deuterium has an extra neutron when compared to proti and tritium with two more neutrons when compared to proti. . Most of the hydrogen in nature exists in the form of proti, with a relative abundance of 99.9844%, while deuterium abundance is relatively low, at about 0.0156%. For tritium, since abundance is less than 0.001% it is usually noted as a trace amount. During the recent nuclear wastewater incident in Fukushima, Japan, tritium content was a major issue being discussed. Tritium is radioactive and undergoes beta decay with a half-life of 12.43 years. It is often thought that it was caused by the interactions of cosmic radiation and hydrogen in the atmosphere. Since the introduction of nuclear technology, humans have produced 5 times more natural tritium (about 7.3 kg in nature). Although proti (H2O), deuterium (D2O), and tritium (T2O) differ in atomic composition, the differences in their chemical properties are very small (D2O and T2O are commonly known as heavy water and super heavy water). Also because many of the three properties are similar, tritium is also one of the most difficult to separate and remove substances in nuclear wastewater. However, non-radioactive heavy water is much more interesting than super heavy water. Since the density of heavy water is 10% greater than that of water, heavy ice can sink to the bottom in the water. In 1931, the American scientist Harold Clayton Urey discovered the isotope of hydrogen, deuterium and he also received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1934. In 1933, Urey’s mentor Gilbert Newton Lewis produced 0.5 ml of heavy water by electrolysis of water, with a purity of 65.7%. Harold Clayton Urey However, deuterium in natural water does not always exist in D2O form, and it is more likely to exist as HDO (half heavy water). During the production of heavy water by electrolysis, when the HDO molecules reach a certain rate, there will be an exchange of hydrogen ions between the water molecules, and the ratio of D2O also increases accordingly. . When the method of producing heavy water by electrolysis appeared, it quickly applied in practice. The year after Lewis produced high-purity heavy water, Norway built the Venmork hydroelectric plant in 1934, which uses nature’s abundant water to electrolyze water, creating hydrogen for production. Nitrate fertilizers. Norway’s Venmork hydroelectric plant. However, the manufacture of chemical fertilizers requires hydrogen from electrolytic water, and does not use the heavy water remaining in the electrolysis cell. So after a period of operation, the plant analyzed the residue of electrolysis and found that the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen (protium) was 1:48, much higher than the natural ratio 1. : 6400, though most of them exist in semi-HDO form. So the Norwegian Hydropower Company accepted the request of the person in charge of the hydrogen plant to produce heavy water from the byproducts of electrolysis. Therefore, it can be said that Norwegian Hydropower has become the earliest heavy water supplier in the scientific community. However, the story of heavy water has only just begun. In late 1938, the Germans discovered that the bombardment of a neutron on uranium could cause nuclear fission. In late 1939, the Soviet Union concluded that heavy water and graphite were the only viable regulators for uranium reactors, and each of these reactors required about 15 tons of heavy water to function. So heavy water then became a strategic substance because it can slow down the neutrons produced by chain nuclear reactions, and all nations take it seriously. From 1940 to World War II, the Norwegian heavy water plant was under Nazi control and bought nearly all of the heavy water in bulk. Allied forces crossed the mountain plateau to destroy heavy water factories under Nazi control. In short, when heavy water first appeared was associated with nuclear reactions, many people’s first impression of it was extremely dangerous, but it was not. Right after the discovery of heavy water, scientists were curious about it, so someone drank heavy water right after the discovery of deuterium. GeorgeCharles de Hevesy and Harold Clayton Urey, who discovered the deuterium, were good friends. In 1934, Hevesy asked Urey to get several liters of heavy water with low purity, only 0.6%. Hevesy then drank this heavy water to use deuterium as a marker, studied the water metabolism of the human body, and eventually concluded that the average residence time of water molecules in the muscle. human body is 13 ± 1.5 days. But if absorbing the amount of heavy water with a higher purity, it will have a significant effect on the body of animals and plants. Plants will die in high concentrations of heavy water. Animals such as mice and dogs will become infertile if D2O reaches more than 25% in the body, and fish will die rapidly in water that is more than 90% heavier. Mammals will die about a week after being given about 50% heavy water. In fact, humans and animals can hardly be exposed to such high purity heavy water, except animals raised for research purposes.

RT reported that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed that an SA-5 long-range surface-to-air missile was launched from Syria towards the Israeli fighters while they were in progress. attack in the Golan Heights of Syria. The missile exploded in a village in the Negev desert on the morning of April 22, just a few miles from Israel’s nuclear reactor. The explosion did not cause any serious injury or damage. IDF does not believe a nuclear reactor or any other ground site is the target for the missile. Photo of a missile explosion from Damascus, Syria. Photo: REUTERS Israel’s radar detected at least one of the missiles heading towards the Negev desert and triggered sirens in the area. IDF air defense crews were also involved. However, defensive measures have failed to stop the SA-5 missile. During a press conference in Tel Aviv, Defense Minister Benny Gantz admitted that the missile interception attempt “was unsuccessful” and that IDF is investigating the cause. In response to the other missile, Israel aimed to fire at a Syrian battery about 24 miles (40 km) from Damascus. Many Syrian soldiers were injured in the Israeli attack. Syria’s air defense forces intercepted “most of the enemy’s missiles”, a military spokesman said. Israel often uses its Iron Dome missile defense system to avoid the attacks by the Hamas Islamist movement. In February, Israel’s internal security agency arrested an Arab on charges of espionage and provided information on the country’s missile defense system to Hamas. Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. Photo: REUTERS The missile responses come amid constant tensions between the two countries. Israeli fighters routinely carry out airstrikes on Syrian territory, although IDF rarely comment on these operations. Earlier this month, four Syrian servicemen were injured in a missile attack believed to have originated from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Earth 300 is expected to launch in 2025. In particular, there are 22 laboratories on this ship. Scheduled to launch in 2025, this ship can accommodate 450 people. The Earth 300 ship was built by Aaron Olivera. This researcher expressed a desire to bring an inspiring object that will spur public interest in climate change. “The ship is designed to capture people’s attention, as well as their hearts and imagination. If we want to make big, bold changes, we need everyone’s help, ”Mr. Olivera emphasized. The Earth 300 ship will be nearly 300 meters long and have a 13-story “science ball”. Olivera wants to bring together a team of scientists working in many different fields. As a result, it helps to come up with new climate solutions with modern technology. Equipped with integrated sensors, artificial intelligence, robots, machine learning and real-time data processing, Earth 300 will also have the world’s first commercial quantum computer. With this technology, the ship can process huge amounts of data collected. The information collected by Earth 300 will be shared with other climate scientists, Olivera said. According to the researchers, Earth 300 will be zero emissions. Because, it is powered by the atomic energy from an onboard salt reactor. Described as an atomic battery pack, Earth 300 is based on the technology of TerraPower – the nuclear reactor design company founded by Bill Gates. “Currently, neither quantum computing nor molten salt reactors are installed on board. It will take an extremely high level of technicality to do that. Then we can talk about the fact that this ship will have no less than a million sensors. Basically, it will be built as a floating computer and that will be a challenge, ”said Olivera. Olivera and his team believe that radical thinking is essential to advancing research and concerns about climate change. “We live at a pivotal moment in human history and face the greatest challenge to civilization. But we also live at a time when we have access to talent, tools and technology to tackle any challenge. There’s no reason not to think big. We want to awaken the world and bring new awareness, ”Mr. Olivera emphasized.

According to the announcement, the test program for the Belgorod submarine and the Poseidon torpedo will be completed in September 2021. The ship is now fully equipped, and factory-grade testing has also been performed.

“The nuclear reactor has been started aboard the Belgorod. The mooring tests are underway. Then there will be factory and state tests. By September, the ship must be completed.” entire test cycle, “the Russian Navy said in a statement.

Super nuclear submarine Belgorod.

“Upon completion of testing and entry into service, the first Belgorod will be us on the Northern Fleet. Then the Pacific Ocean will be the next area for the Belgorod and the Poseidon nuclear torpedo to appear.” , the source added.

Under this plan, the Russian Navy will give priority to equipping a total of 32 nuclear torpedoes for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet. All of these weapons will be fired from the Khabarovsk-class Belgorod nuclear submarines.

The Belgorod submarines are capable of detecting sea and air targets at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, making them more likely than the Yasen and Borei-class ships.

Talking about the reasons for prioritizing Belgorod and Poseidon for the two regions above, especially the Arctic, the source said, stemming from the increased US operations in the Arctic, especially the move to bring the USS. Harry S. Truman at the end of 2018, dispatched planes to hunt underground and reinforce military bases in this area.

The US has decided to spend $ 1.3 billion to reopen Adak airport and deploy the P-8A. The small runway located on Adak Island in the Aleutian Islands chain is the westernmost airport that can accommodate passenger aircraft in the United States. This small airport currently welcomes 2 flights a week of Air Alaska.

Fully known as the Adak Naval Aviation Facility, this small airport has been commercially operated since the withdrawal of the US Navy in 1997. But due to the increasing activity of Russia and China in the Arctic, the US decided to increase the ability to patrol the North Pole.

“The airport has the fuel facilities that Air Alaska currently uses to fuel its aircraft. The airport also has defrosting facilities that we can use to wash P-8A aircraft with fresh water”, a representative of the US Navy said.

“Russian friends are starting five runways and 10,000 Spetsnaz soldiers (in the Arctic) for search and rescue operations. China has also increased its presence there,” he added. are there “.

In addition to airport renovation and P-8A, the US Department of Defense has also publicly sent the F-35 stealth fighter to Alaska. However, the US military admitted, to compete with Russia in the Arctic, such investment is not enough. To do that, the US needs to have a strong enough icebreaker fleet, but that is not possible for the US at the moment.

As the US currently has only two outdated icebreakers, the Pentagon still has to rely on them to carry out its missions. The US has ordered a new series of icebreakers, but this will take time and they will wait years to have these modern icebreakers.

Meanwhile, Russia has a powerful fleet of icebreakers. First of all, it must be remembered that Russia has a good tradition of arming icebreakers on its own. During the 30s of the last century, during the development of Project 51 Russia created icebreakers and equipped them with some 130 mm and 76 mm caliber cannons, as well as heavy machine guns. All of these warships participated in the military operations of the Great Patriotic War and survived.

These experiences were later used to design nuclear icebreakers. These new types of icebreakers can be equipped with a four-barrel 45 mm automatic gun, ammunition cellar and other equipment. All weapons and ammunition for Soviet nuclear-powered ships were carefully stored in ports.

The Arctic project’s icebreakers can carry two AK-726 twin-barreled 76 mm cannons and four AK-630 six-barrel 30 mm assault rifles. Along with that, the Russian Navy has also started the process of testing with the new generation nuclear-powered icebreaker Ivan Papanin equipped with cruise missiles.

Therefore, it can be said that the Russian icebreaker fleet is the most powerful in the world. So, competing with Russia in the Arctic is almost impossible for the US right now, especially when Russia retrofits Belgorod submarines and Poseidon nuclear torpedoes.