Evaluation of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties Methodology for Assessing and Certifying the Reliability of the Nuclear Stockpile (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 QMU and the RRW Program
5 QMU and the RRW Program
Pages 43-48
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 43... ...
nuclear tests provides an extensive database. Only a small fraction of the test archive is directly relevant to a particular warhead design, but the whole set has informed the design labs' understanding of the physics involved. Further, that small fraction provides established reference points for performance (including tests with unexpected or even no nuclear yield)
|
From page 44... ...
Also relevant to the RRW program is legislation passed by Congress that directed NNSA to begin a new Science Campaign called Advanced Certification, saying that "[Congress] believes the recent findings of the JASON group revealed significant systemic gaps in NNSA's stockpile certification process." The findings referred to are in a JASON report on the RRW. In the legislation, NNSA is directed to report to Congress on Advanced Certification within six months of enactment; at this writing, the mandated report has not yet been issued.
|
From page 45... ...
Any certifiable RRW weapons design will have to be "close" to the archival underground nuclear test base, while meeting reasonable criteria for adequate margin. The design and certification of new nuclear weapons that are sufficiently "close" to particular legacy designs could, in principle, be accomplished without nuclear tests, based on the existing nuclear test archive, on new experiments with no nuclear yield, and on modeling and U.S.
|
From page 46... ...
The design and certification of new nuclear weapons that are sufficiently "close" to particular legacy designs could, in principle, be accomplished without nuclear tests, based on the existing nuclear test archive, on new experiments with no nuclear yield, and on modeling and simulation tools supported by a more mature QMU methodology. It must be noted, however, that there is no commonly accepted quantification of closeness in the laboratories.
|
From page 47... ...
A higher level of peer review, documentation, and experimentation without nuclear testing are essential to a credible RRW certification process. For credible certification, the labs need to document the design and its analysis thoroughly and transparently, via QMU methodology, so that outside experts can independently judge its correctness and evaluate its credibility.
|
From page 48... ...
The laboratories have long practoied lab-vs.-lab review of designs. The committee suggests a stronger and more independent review process than that used for previous nuclear weapons, by engaging experts not directly involved in the project -- that is, it remains lab vs.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.