Skip to main content

LANL behind on NUC bomb cores

Image
By

 GAO: Lab faces four-year delay, cost growth for making nuclear bomb cores


https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/gao-lab-faces-four-year-delay-cost-growth-for-making-nuclear-bomb-cores/article_92f2ad84-3dd4-11ee-b677-b76ab4ca1b91.html

Federal officials estimate Los Alamos National Laboratory won’t produce 30 nuclear bomb cores until 2030 — four years after the legally required deadline.

The additional time needed to produce 30 bowling-ball-sized warhead triggers, known as pits, will cost the lab significantly more than originally estimated, a government watchdog said in a newly released report.


I am shocked, shocked.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Meanwhile, the emperor has no clothes. This exact story has repeated itself at least a dozen times in my lifetime. The ability to use plutonium for anything is a complete joke in these United States. Among the factors contributing to this extremely negative outcome is the DNFSB.
8/24/2023 6:00 PM
Anonymous said…
Back in the Trump years another government body did a report on how to reform the dysfunctional culture within DNFSB:

https://napawash.org/academy-studies/defense-nuclear-facilities-safety-board-organizational-assessment

https://napawash.org/academy-studies/defense-nuclear-facilities-safety-board-phase-ii

The whole story behind this isn't entirely clear, but it also seems he tried to limit their oversight powers, and there was even an attempt to abolish it entirely:

https://www.propublica.org/article/nuclear-safety-board-information-access-trump-administration

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2019-02-27/controversy-over-nuclear-safety-board-scope-size

This was not the first time a critical change to the board’s structure had been proposed. The board’s previous chairman, Sean Sullivan, had proposed abolishing the DNFSB completely, in early 2018. This was rejected by the board and led to Sullivan’s resignation, leaving the normally five-person board down a member for most of the year.

Right now the five member board is missing two members for some reason:

https://www.dnfsb.gov/about/board-members

It sounds like one criticism of this board (I think noted in the report) is that their judgements related to what is safe and what is not, are somewhat arbitrary, and subjective.
8/26/2023 5:51 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

Rumor corner

By scooby
LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
92 comments
Read more