Maintaining Nuclear Weapons Design Expertise
Maintaining Nuclear Weapons Design Expertise LA-UR-06-4129
Dr. Blake P. Wood Thermonuclear Applications Group, X-2 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM
Presented to the Project on Nuclear Issues Spring Conference Session Four: Realizing the Responsive Infrastructure June 15, 2006
Questions: • Why do we need nuclear weapons designers at all? Why can’t we just rebuild nuclear weapons to original specs? • What is the current level of expertise at the design labs? • What programs currently exist to train new designers? Are these programs adequate? • How will we know if we are doing an adequate job of training without nuclear testing?
Why can’t we just rebuild NWs to original specs? • Modern stockpile nuclear weapons are complicated: – They contain exotic and hazardous materials. – They were manufactured with high precision and tight tolerances. – They are highly optimized.
• We can’t rebuild them in the same fashion and condition: – Some original build methods were hazardous and no longer environmentally acceptable. – Specialized equipment and craftsman skills are no longer available. – Some materials and components are no longer available.
• We wouldn’t want to rebuild them in the same fashion and condition: – Need to incorporate improvements, both necessary and desired.
Why do we need nuclear weapons designers at all? • We need designers to evaluate changes due to: – Problems found with the original build (birth defects). – Problems developing over time (aging defects).
• We need designers to design: – Improvements to weapons (LEPs) – Replacement weapons (RRW) – New weapons – there may someday be a need for capabilities not presently in the stockpile. – Assessment of foreign weapon developments.
What is the current level of expertise at the design labs?
P: 19 S: 35 P: 3 S: 14
From: “Nuclear Weapon Designer Demographics and Utilization of ASC Codes”, by J. Bradley Beck, August 2005
P: 4 NEP S: 5 NEP 11 non-NEP
And how long might they be around?
From: “Nuclear Weapon Designer Demographics and Utilization of ASC Codes”, by J. Bradley Beck, August 2005
What programs exist to train new designers? • Formal training: LANL TITANS program – Three year program, now in fourth cycle: First year: nuclear weapons physics and engineering. Second year: write a rad/hydro and burn code, and model devices with a variety of production design codes. Third year: research and write a thesis. – 100 students sit through the first 6 months, 50 through the second 6 months, 25 through the second year, 12 complete a thesis.
Training programs, continued… • On the job training: – Enhanced Test Readiness Exercises Exercise Alpha in 2003 – 2004. Design an underground nuclear test of interest, reducing test posture from 36 to 18 months. Mentors and protégés work together in over 20 testing disciplines. Goals: determining long lead time items and issues, recording/recovering capabilities, training. Limited number of ETR exercises limits training opportunities. Exercise Beta halted due to lack of funding.
Nothing trains a designer like actually designing a test! You’ll never get adequate feedback on your work until someone else has to use your results to do their job.
Training programs, continued… • On the job training: – Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Design competition between Labs to replace SLBM and ICBM warheads. Work within constraints of size, weight, CG, yield, and features. Initial proposals completed 3/31/06. Currently, each Lab is peer-reviewing the other’s submission.
– Day-to-day work: Baselining Resolution of Significant Finding Investigations (SFI) Above Ground Experiments (AGEX)
– Mentoring Much knowledge is not written down. Not formalized uniformly.
How will we know if we’re doing an adequate job of training in the absence of nuclear testing? • Peer review and external review. • Robust understanding of old UGT results, particularly failures. • Test ourselves through AGEX and ICF experiments.
These will prepare us to design perturbations on existing, well tested designs. Special designs not well represented in the UGT history will require a nuclear test if we ever decide to field them.
Summary and Conclusions Why do we need designers at all? • • • •
Understand the effect of problems and evaluate solutions. Understand the effect of changes and improvements. Be prepared to field new designs. Assess capabilities of foreign designs.
What is the level of expertise? • Adequate, but NTS-experienced designers are retiring.
What training programs exist? Are they adequate? • Adequate, but mentoring is a problem. • Need more design exercises.
How will we know if we are doing it right? • Perturbations on existing designs – okay. • Unusual designs – not without testing.
Dr. Blake P. Wood Thermonuclear Applications Group, X-2 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM
Presented to the Project on Nuclear Issues Spring Conference Session Four: Realizing the Responsive Infrastructure June 15, 2006
Questions: • Why do we need nuclear weapons designers at all? Why can’t we just rebuild nuclear weapons to original specs? • What is the current level of expertise at the design labs? • What programs currently exist to train new designers? Are these programs adequate? • How will we know if we are doing an adequate job of training without nuclear testing?
Why can’t we just rebuild NWs to original specs? • Modern stockpile nuclear weapons are complicated: – They contain exotic and hazardous materials. – They were manufactured with high precision and tight tolerances. – They are highly optimized.
• We can’t rebuild them in the same fashion and condition: – Some original build methods were hazardous and no longer environmentally acceptable. – Specialized equipment and craftsman skills are no longer available. – Some materials and components are no longer available.
• We wouldn’t want to rebuild them in the same fashion and condition: – Need to incorporate improvements, both necessary and desired.
Why do we need nuclear weapons designers at all? • We need designers to evaluate changes due to: – Problems found with the original build (birth defects). – Problems developing over time (aging defects).
• We need designers to design: – Improvements to weapons (LEPs) – Replacement weapons (RRW) – New weapons – there may someday be a need for capabilities not presently in the stockpile. – Assessment of foreign weapon developments.
What is the current level of expertise at the design labs?
P: 19 S: 35 P: 3 S: 14
From: “Nuclear Weapon Designer Demographics and Utilization of ASC Codes”, by J. Bradley Beck, August 2005
P: 4 NEP S: 5 NEP 11 non-NEP
And how long might they be around?
From: “Nuclear Weapon Designer Demographics and Utilization of ASC Codes”, by J. Bradley Beck, August 2005
What programs exist to train new designers? • Formal training: LANL TITANS program – Three year program, now in fourth cycle: First year: nuclear weapons physics and engineering. Second year: write a rad/hydro and burn code, and model devices with a variety of production design codes. Third year: research and write a thesis. – 100 students sit through the first 6 months, 50 through the second 6 months, 25 through the second year, 12 complete a thesis.
Training programs, continued… • On the job training: – Enhanced Test Readiness Exercises Exercise Alpha in 2003 – 2004. Design an underground nuclear test of interest, reducing test posture from 36 to 18 months. Mentors and protégés work together in over 20 testing disciplines. Goals: determining long lead time items and issues, recording/recovering capabilities, training. Limited number of ETR exercises limits training opportunities. Exercise Beta halted due to lack of funding.
Nothing trains a designer like actually designing a test! You’ll never get adequate feedback on your work until someone else has to use your results to do their job.
Training programs, continued… • On the job training: – Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Design competition between Labs to replace SLBM and ICBM warheads. Work within constraints of size, weight, CG, yield, and features. Initial proposals completed 3/31/06. Currently, each Lab is peer-reviewing the other’s submission.
– Day-to-day work: Baselining Resolution of Significant Finding Investigations (SFI) Above Ground Experiments (AGEX)
– Mentoring Much knowledge is not written down. Not formalized uniformly.
How will we know if we’re doing an adequate job of training in the absence of nuclear testing? • Peer review and external review. • Robust understanding of old UGT results, particularly failures. • Test ourselves through AGEX and ICF experiments.
These will prepare us to design perturbations on existing, well tested designs. Special designs not well represented in the UGT history will require a nuclear test if we ever decide to field them.
Summary and Conclusions Why do we need designers at all? • • • •
Understand the effect of problems and evaluate solutions. Understand the effect of changes and improvements. Be prepared to field new designs. Assess capabilities of foreign designs.
What is the level of expertise? • Adequate, but NTS-experienced designers are retiring.
What training programs exist? Are they adequate? • Adequate, but mentoring is a problem. • Need more design exercises.
How will we know if we are doing it right? • Perturbations on existing designs – okay. • Unusual designs – not without testing.
