India Nuclear News And Discussion

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Nov 2009 20:22

So IOW, apart from the Fission bomb and the H bomb, the 3 sub kilotons tested the various fissile materials that will be generated in significant quantities by the 3 stage program.
Quite intelligent I would say.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Nov 2009 06:40

Areva's Reactors have a faulty design

French nuclear giant Areva’s Evolutionary Power Reactor or EPR (sometimes referred to as the European Pressurised Reactor), for which India has already placed two firm orders, has a faulty design and could post major safety problems, nuclear watchdog agencies in France, Britain and Finland warned earlier this week.

Areva said on Monday it was in talks to modify the design of the EPR plants before the end of the year . . .

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 07 Nov 2009 06:43

alexis wrote:Our first prototype AHWR reactor using Thorium will get commissioned in 2011. After that only we can be sure if the technology is viable and can be replicated to the extent envisioned by late Homi Bhabha.

Don't you mean 2021? How can it get comissioned in 2011 when construction won't start until 2012?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Nov 2009 08:06

vera_k wrote:
alexis wrote:Our first prototype AHWR reactor using Thorium will get commissioned in 2011. After that only we can be sure if the technology is viable and can be replicated to the extent envisioned by late Homi Bhabha.
Don't you mean 2021? How can it get comissioned in 2011 when construction won't start until 2012?

Alexis is correct. The AHWR will be built by 2011/2012.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Nov 2009 08:14

I suggest this excellent overview of what DAE is attempting to do.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 08 Nov 2009 03:49

SSridhar wrote:Alexis is correct. The AHWR will be built by 2011/2012.

Is there public confirmation of this? It would be an incredible feat if they can get it built in 3 years flat.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 08 Nov 2009 06:23

vera_k, see this.

Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Tuesday: “We have an AHWR project [which will be built in the 11th Plan period]. . . . The construction of the AHWR in the 11th Plan period (2007-2012) will signal the beginning of the third stage of the country’s nuclear power programme.

With no site allocated so far, 2012 may slip.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Nov 2009 10:01

K Sanathanan has been doing his bit in dropping the other shoe.

HT editorial page, Nov 11.

So unclear on nuclear front

He basically reiterates all the points and clarifies the pervious ones. Does not talk about the depth or the crater size, at least not yet.

Read it in the e-paper
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/default.aspx

Page 12 -- comments towards the bottom.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Nov 2009 10:37

Unlacing perhaps.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Nov 2009 11:31

ramana wrote:Unlacing perhaps.

Precisely the thought that came to my mind as well.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Nov 2009 22:49

NRao,
What new info is there in the above article?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Nov 2009 18:17

Russian Dy PM at Kudankulam

The negotiations on the third and fourth reactors in the plant were nearing completion and the first pour of concrete for the third reactor would begin next year, Sobyanin said. Discussions were also on for reactors number five, six, seven and eight in Kudankulam and if finalised the reactors would be installed at the rate of one per year, he said . . .

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 14 Nov 2009 06:20

UCIL smells uranium pit in Assam
http://telegraphindia.com/1091114/jsp/n ... 740090.jsp

This is the first time that there have been indications of uranium reserves in Assam, following detection of radioactive properties in the contents of the wells.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Nov 2009 09:35

ramana wrote:NRao,
What new info is there in the above article?

At least to my eyes, an open refutation that CORRTEX was under the control of DRDO. Also, a reiteration of the "acceptance" of S2 measurements but not S1 and that the story of faulty instrumentation was an after thought.

I have done my bit outside the forum to ask for S1 yield:crater:DOB:soil composition complete view of KS on the matter. Let us see.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Nov 2009 16:52

Stan_Savljevic wrote:UCIL smells uranium pit in Assam
http://telegraphindia.com/1091114/jsp/n ... 740090.jsp
This is the first time that there have been indications of uranium reserves in Assam, following detection of radioactive properties in the contents of the wells.

The Hindu reports

“According to preliminary findings, the uranium reserves could be huge in this area,” another senior ONGC official said.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 14 Nov 2009 17:19

recently a paanwallah told me that our EAR is probably in the 200000 tonnes range.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 14 Nov 2009 17:54

Canadian PM to visit India next week,N-deal on agenda

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 15 Nov 2009 10:50

From The Hindu, Thursday, Nov 12, 2009, Article by Dr. K.S Parthasarathy (Raja Ramanna Fellow, Department of Atomic Energy):
Technologies to harvest uranium from sea

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 15 Nov 2009 20:12

RAPS-5 likely to be commissioned soon

The newly constructed Rajasthan Atomic Power Station's unit 5 (RAPS-5) of 220 MW located at Rawatbhata, which has come under the fold of international safeguards, is likely to be commissioned soon. The imported Uranium fuel from Russia has alread y been loaded on it under the supervision of IAEA inspectors, Atomic energy department sources said.

Following the notification of the Separation Plan of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month under which 14 nuclear plants will be under the umbrella of India Specific Safeguards Agreement (ISSA) of international atomic watchdog, RAPS-5 is the first indigenously built unit that has come under international safeguards, the sources said.

Notification of Separation Plan of the specified civilian plants and few scientific institutions to IAEA was some of the conditions to enable international civil nuclear co-operation. The procedures for criticality (chain reaction) of RAPS-5 will begin a nytime during the next seven days as the heavy water, as moderator and coolant, is being loaded on this Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) since yesterday, the sources said.

By the end of this year, the unit will be synchronised to the northern grid.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 16 Nov 2009 13:02

Obama administration seeks 'assurance' on non-proliferation from India

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 13:18

ONLY for archiving the links; X-post

NRao wrote:URL for the above posted article:
Santhanam :: Nov 15, 2009 :: To test or not to test

The article Santhanam, etc are rebutting:
Ramachandran :: Sept 25, 2009 :: Why there is no case for further nuclear tests

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 16 Nov 2009 13:22

vera_k wrote:Obama administration seeks 'assurance' on non-proliferation from India

metaphorically termed New Delhi's response as "India is not picking up the phone". In the absence of such an "assurance" letter from India, the PTI has been informed that the US department of energy would not be able to issue the mandatory license - called Part 810 (pronounced Part eight ten) - to American companies for doing any kind of civilian nuclear trade with the country.

We were just looking for NSG waiver, rights to import uranium and rights to do nuclear commerce with Russies and France

I am sure some babus are doing chai-biskoot on this.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 13:29

Anujan wrote:
vera_k wrote:Obama administration seeks 'assurance' on non-proliferation from India

metaphorically termed New Delhi's response as "India is not picking up the phone". In the absence of such an "assurance" letter from India, the PTI has been informed that the US department of energy would not be able to issue the mandatory license - called Part 810 (pronounced Part eight ten) - to American companies for doing any kind of civilian nuclear trade with the country.
We were just looking for NSG waiver, rights to import uranium and rights to do nuclear commerce with Russies and France I am sure some babus are doing chai-biskoot on this.

And if this happens for sure, I will take off my Pagdi to MMS and kiss his feet.

-----------

Added later, I was earlier informed that K Sanathanan would drop the other shoe when Obama moved to get India into shitty-bitty etc (and MMS was to acquiesce) it seems that gen was correct.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2009 23:43

ShauryaT wrote:
ramana wrote:NRao,
What new info is there in the above article?
At least to my eyes, an open refutation that CORRTEX was under the control of DRDO. Also, a reiteration of the "acceptance" of S2 measurements but not S1 and that the story of faulty instrumentation was an after thought.

I have done my bit outside the forum to ask for S1 yield:crater:DOB:soil composition complete view of KS on the matter. Let us see.

Any updates?

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 17 Nov 2009 22:55

Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than India: Report

What non sense is this ?? Is it true ? Our RM (AKA) is talking about building assymetric capabilities and our rougue neighbours already seems to have developed this !! What are we going to do ?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Nov 2009 23:16

Prabu wrote:Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than India: Report

What non sense is this ?? Is it true ? Our RM (AKA) is talking about building assymetric capabilities and our rougue neighbours already seems to have developed this !! What are we going to do ?

This comes from a glorious line of "Bakistan has 400% more accurate Mijjiles onleee". After demonstrating the sophistication of A-III and the ding dong under the peeling green paint, it became too embarrassing to repeat that statement. This is a new psy-ops -- "Bakistan has 400% more warheads onlee"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2009 23:25

Prabu wrote:Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than India: Report

What non sense is this ?? Is it true ? Our RM (AKA) is talking about building assymetric capabilities and our rougue neighbours already seems to have developed this !! What are we going to do ?

If those numbers are true, its the West that has to worry about TSP.
TSP does not need so many to threaten India with.

So better get those teams ready for the fall of Islamabad.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Nov 2009 23:34

ramanna:

x-post the update from deterrence thread.

sivab wrote:Talking of dishonesty ...

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091115/edit.htm#1

K. Santhanam and Ashok Parthasarathi wrote:
The writer then moves to our statement that had TN test really worked, the 120-meter deep shaft at the bottom of which the TN device was emplaced
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... Pb0=&type=

V Sudarshan wrote:
The shaft ran more than a 120 metres into the ground. At the bottom it veered slightly to the left, making an ‘L’. After the turn it ran for a further five metres, called an adit.

V Sudarshan is the Executive Editor of ‘The New Indian Express’

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Nov 2009 02:56

I think that is psy ops too.

A case in point [and an important pointer to people who write on BRF - what is written on BRF is read far and wide]
This was written in the Nuclear Threat From Pakistan : Boom or Bluff ? dhaga

19. Today every time the US refers to the terrorists using a "Dirty" radiological weapon on Continental United States - they are probably referring to Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons - Since their performances put them in the category of dirty radiological weapons which will not generate a nuclear reaction when they go off, instead distribute the radioactive waste over a few hundred meters.

(So if you happen to be hit on the head by a Pakistani nuclear bomb, you are likely to die of Thyroid Cancer several years later - It is a ruthless killer alright. )

At least since this was written, I have never heard that line about Terrorists gaining control of or exploding a dirty nuclear device in the US, anywhere in the media.
Goes to show, that this is psyops directed towards the pakistani domestic gentry to offset newsreports which suggest nook noodity and capitulation of pakistan's bum program. Massa has the triggers of the dirty N devices under possession too.

1. It seems the designs that the pakistanis got from the Chinese didn't explode at all
2. They had to get actual chinese devices to test at chagai
3. Massa PAL-ed the remaining pakistan built nukes, at least until they could decide what to do with them, before the GWOT got underway - the result of the Amritraj-Mushy tango.
4. The chinese took away their maal - I don't think they ever gave any readymade maal to begin with, just the ones for testing.
5. The latest was that even the enriched Uranium was being taken back to the US to be put to good use.
6. Seymore Hersh's statements although reflective of the truth have loopholes in them. Nevertheless to suggest massa's role when there is a broken arrow in pakistan is highly embarrassing for the pakistanis. If massa is so worried about they have to have a team on 24x7 standby, why have them at Andrews AFB, why not in Pakistan itself or Qatar hain ji?

India gets to play a role in the game by claiming that pakistan has more number of bums etc.

JMT

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 18 Nov 2009 02:59

Prabu wrote:Canadian PM to visit India next week,N-deal on agenda

I notice we don't have an "India & Canada" thread but perhaps we ought to have an "India & Miscellaneous Countries Relations" thread at least. Canada after all has been a full-fledged G7 member in the past.

If there can be a thread for India and Australia, I think Canada deserves similar importance.

Anyway, it looks like India and Canada may come through on signing a nuclear deal, and after all Canada's CANDU reactors are the base for much of what India has accomplished. So it's natural that Canadian nuclear technology would be useful for India to buy in the future.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Nov 2009 03:03

But why?
All our domestically built PWR's are candu's.
What further do the canadians have to offer? Their N plants are likely to be expensive, their own N industry is dying a slow death because of lack of funding and support. N plant components and other ancillary products they manufacture might be of interest as an alternative source to the French and the Russians.

Nice to hear that the old design of the 220MW RAPS-5 is being opened for IAEA to look around, while the newer 550MW and 700MW are not yet opened.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Nov 2009 03:19

Gagan wrote:But why?
All our domestically built PWR's are candu's.
What further do the canadians have to offer? Their N plants are likely to be expensive, their own N industry is dying a slow death because of lack of funding and support. N plant components and other ancillary products they manufacture might be of interest as an alternative source to the French and the Russians.

Nice to hear that the old design of the 220MW RAPS-5 is being opened for IAEA to look around, while the newer 550MW and 700MW are not yet opened.

Its the otherway around. India has made many advances in the CANDU reactor and the Canadians by bandwagonning on the NSG lost out many opportunities in particiapting in Indian growth.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Nov 2009 03:25

Pokharan S-1 TN shaft depth was 120m only. Now that should have left a crater if the yield was 45 Kt.
To test or not to test

The writer then moves to our statement that had TN test really worked, the 120-meter deep shaft at the bottom of which the TN device was emplaced, would have been totally destroyed and its deepest portions even vapourised. There would, in addition, have been enormous surface damage to even massive 2-tonne and 8-meter high tripod “A-frame” astride the shaft’s mouth. This “A-Frame” has a complex set of winches and pullies connected at their bottom to a lift-like “container” to lower and raise personnel, equipment and materials to and from the bottom of the shaft when the TN device is being assembled would have been shattered.

Based on 25 metre diameter crater formed by 20-25 kt “pure” A-bomb (which BARC rates at only 15 kt yield), the DRDO calculated a 60-70 meter diameter crater should have been formed by the latter fully confirmed by the ARC. Thus, one needs a cogent response from Mr Ramachandran why and how such a phenomenon is supposed to have occurred.

The super hi-tech ARC, independent of both BARC and DRDO with a 365 x 24 x 7 operated very large seismic array, 10-15 per cent more sensitive and accurate than DRDO’s, measured all the seismic signals from all P-2 tests. Their calculations, far more sophisticated than BARC’s, indicated a TN device yield at only 20 kt max.

Mr Ramachandran then moves to the article by former DRDO chief and strategic affairs analyst, V.S. Arunachalam and K. Subramanian, respectively (The Hindu, September 21). They say, even a 25 kt A-bomb’s damage on enemy city targets with large populations would be ‘unacceptable’ to any adversary and so such A- bombs would be enough for us to deter even China having 200 deployed H- bombs of 3.3-5 megatons yields each.

Surprisingly, though they argued for decades that H-bombs were central to our Credible Minimum Deterrent (CMD), they suddenly say A-bombs (which cannot yield more than 80 kt max) are enough. Why? Sour grapes following the TN device failure and no weaponisation for the last 11 years! China would be totally undeterred by our piffling A-bomb “arsenal” of yields.

Read in full.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 18 Nov 2009 03:29

Basically the Vajpayee and MMS combine has screwed with India

Gurus,
Any perspective on why these keedas are coming out now. I've read through the thread (before Ramana asks me to) and palle nahin pad raha. Too much confluence of events happening

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 18 Nov 2009 19:25

Gagan wrote:Pokharan S-1 TN shaft depth was 120m only. Now that should have left a crater if the yield was 45 Kt.
To test or not to test
The writer then moves to our statement that had TN test really worked, the 120-meter deep shaft at the bottom of which the TN device was emplaced, would have been totally destroyed and its deepest portions even vapourised. There would, in addition, have been enormous surface damage to even massive 2-tonne and 8-meter high tripod “A-frame” astride the shaft’s mouth. This “A-Frame” has a complex set of winches and pullies connected at their bottom to a lift-like “container” to lower and raise personnel, equipment and materials to and from the bottom of the shaft when the TN device is being assembled would have been shattered.

Based on 25 metre diameter crater formed by 20-25 kt “pure” A-bomb (which BARC rates at only 15 kt yield), the DRDO calculated a 60-70 meter diameter crater should have been formed by the latter fully confirmed by the ARC. Thus, one needs a cogent response from Mr Ramachandran why and how such a phenomenon is supposed to have occurred.

The super hi-tech ARC, independent of both BARC and DRDO with a 365 x 24 x 7 operated very large seismic array, 10-15 per cent more sensitive and accurate than DRDO’s, measured all the seismic signals from all P-2 tests. Their calculations, far more sophisticated than BARC’s, indicated a TN device yield at only 20 kt max.

Mr Ramachandran then moves to the article by former DRDO chief and strategic affairs analyst, V.S. Arunachalam and K. Subramanian, respectively (The Hindu, September 21). They say, even a 25 kt A-bomb’s damage on enemy city targets with large populations would be ‘unacceptable’ to any adversary and so such A- bombs would be enough for us to deter even China having 200 deployed H- bombs of 3.3-5 megatons yields each.

Surprisingly, though they argued for decades that H-bombs were central to our Credible Minimum Deterrent (CMD), they suddenly say A-bombs (which cannot yield more than 80 kt max) are enough. Why? Sour grapes following the TN device failure and no weaponisation for the last 11 years! China would be totally undeterred by our piffling A-bomb “arsenal” of yields.
Read in full.

The TN device failed, that seems to be very clear. But my understanding is that India has all the components to make that device, but has not been able to develop it, becasue of restrictions to testing. Is it likely that the H-bomb is ready, and the scientists eager to test it?
The article further states that the max size of a A-wepon is 80 kt. is this true? How much would such a bomb weight? Would it be possible to pack sveral warhead in a single misslie?
Can you really call a 50-80 kt device a "puf". Is that not at least 2-3 times stronger then the Hiroshima bombs?

I have tried to serch for the answers, but there seems to be a lot of confusion. Anyone care to enlighten.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 18 Nov 2009 20:22

But why?
All our domestically built PWR's are candu's.
What further do the canadians have to offer? Their N plants are likely to be expensive, their own N industry is dying a slow death because of lack of funding and support. N plant components and other ancillary products they manufacture might be of interest as an alternative source to the French and the Russians.

Nice to hear that the old design of the 220MW RAPS-5 is being opened for IAEA to look around, while the newer 550MW and 700MW are not yet opened.

They have some of the world's best Uranium mines. They will allow us to stockpile.

They are pioneering the use of Slightly enriched uranium ( SEU) in PHWRs. Their CANDU- 9 is a case in point.

We can work on things like DUPIC with them.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 18 Nov 2009 20:45

Prabu wrote:Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than India: Report

What non sense is this ?? Is it true ? Our RM (AKA) is talking about building assymetric capabilities and our rougue neighbours already seems to have developed this !! What are we going to do ?

From a layman PoV, look at the size of Pakistan and India. So it is ok if they have more then us, anyways we will need less for them. Let Pakistan fall under the number game, as it is not so easy to manage these monsters.

On the other side, we should be looking at the China but again we should not fall under the number game, .... so lets keep a balance.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 18 Nov 2009 21:33

..Can you really call a 50-80 kt device a "puf". .....I have tried to serch for the answers, but there seems to be a lot of confusion. Anyone care to enlighten.
.

As I said in the other thread, the statements in the article above, namely:

they suddenly say A-bombs (which cannot yield more than 80 kt max) are enough. Why? Sour grapes following ....

.... specially coming out from a scientist are most curious, and try as much benefit of doubt I like to give, are frankly reduces their credibility.

Please notice that 80kt is a number which is equivalent to energy of less than 5 Kilo of Uranium (or Pu) fissioning. not to mention that devices like MK18 (pure fission) which has been tested with yield about 500Kt , I cannot figure out where 80kt figure comes from.

As far as any new academic/scientific/technical information is concerned, I sadly could not see any thing there...

Just my thought.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Nov 2009 22:03

Have you considered the efficiency of a pure fission weapon and how big the conventional part has to be to realise it (80kt)?

I dont know just asking.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Nov 2009 00:03

It seems, we have two threads to discuss some of the latest information from Santhanam. Can we do this in one thread please? I thought this one was reserved for non controversies only.