NIF (National Ignition Facility) reports, comments

[Richard Hull]

I have posted in the LINKS forum all the data needed for you to access all the reports related to this debacle. There is new stuff, too.

NOTE I made a mistake in the URL originally and it is now corrected in the LINKS forum. (works OK)

It seems that every one involved with the money has crabbed and derided the GAO for their efforts. A letter from DOE responding to the report, soundly scolds the GAO for being so critical. DOE just let the Egg Heads have the money and administer things as super collegians with an unlimited purse. Not smart!

In the main report, the GAO was appalled at the mismanagement and money handling. They were constantly going from amazement to amazement in the report which even a non-business type could see as major bungling.

One of the major goals of the NIF is to attract new weapons scientists to the nuclear stockpile stewardship program. In fact, it has done the opposite! Like Rats from a sinking ship, many scientists have bailed long ago. This is the result of two things. First, they sniffed out a possible end to NIF due to a litany of embarassing revelations before and just after the GAO's report of August 2000. They felt that a California un-employment check might be just around the corner. Second, some did not want their careers tainted with the smell of NIF "doody". This doesn't include those scientists and academicians who left in utter disgrace just prior to being handed pink slips for mis-managment or report falsifications.

The newer Warner report of June 2001 sort of recaps the problems and adds suggested workarounds while pointing out that the NIF thing is still a big mess at its best!

Crippled and bleeding profusely, the NIF appears limping towards a 4 year off-target completion date. Any money down on their making it?

Sad to see so much incompetence at the highest levels of government and academia. Could you or I have done better, you ask? The answer is a resounding, Yes!! We could have seen that it could not be done for the money or in the time frame specified and declined the offer.

For bureaucrats and academicians, the future employment possibilities outweighed the facts that the goal was impossible at the outset. Instead, given impossibilities, they said, "yeah, we can do that"...." no problem".

Richard Hull

[guest]

humm...
big science botches another project
To think they defunded the supercollider in Texas for this
Gold Plated Turkey!

The big problem when you drag security issues into a research project is that little research happens
but politics, money, and waste of resources and engineering
talent does.

Larry Leins
physics teacher