Coordinates: 35°52′50″N 106°18′14″W

Project Y
The Los Alamos Laboratory, also known as Project Y,
was a secret laboratory established by the Manhattan Los Alamos Laboratory
Project and operated by the University of California
during World War II. Its mission was to design and build
the first atomic bombs. Robert Oppenheimer was its first
director, serving from 1943 to December 1945, when he
was succeeded by Norris Bradbury. In order to enable
scientists to freely discuss their work while preserving
security, the laboratory was located in a remote part of
New Mexico. The wartime laboratory occupied buildings
that had once been part of the Los Alamos Ranch School. Robert Oppenheimer (left), Leslie Groves
(center) and Robert Sproul (right) at the
The development effort initially concentrated on a gun- ceremony to present the Los Alamos
type fission weapon using plutonium called Thin Man. In Laboratory with the Army-Navy "E" Award at
April 1944, the Los Alamos Laboratory determined that the Fuller Lodge on 16 October 1945
the rate of spontaneous fission in plutonium bred in a
nuclear reactor was too great due to the presence of Established 1 January 1943
plutonium-240 and would cause a predetonation, a nuclear Research type Classified
chain reaction before the core was fully assembled.
Budget $57.88 million
Oppenheimer then reorganized the laboratory and
orchestrated an all-out and ultimately successful effort on Field of research Nuclear weapons
an alternative design proposed by John von Neumann, an Director Robert Oppenheimer
implosion-type nuclear weapon, which was called Fat Norris Bradbury
Man. A variant of the gun-type design known as Little
Location Los Alamos, New
Boy was developed using uranium-235.
Mexico, United
Chemists at the Los Alamos Laboratory developed States
methods of purifying uranium and plutonium, the latter a 35°52′50″N
metal that only existed in microscopic quantities when 106°18′14″W
Project Y began. Its metallurgists found that plutonium
Operating agency University of
had unexpected properties, but were nonetheless able to
cast it into metal spheres. The laboratory built the Water California
Boiler, an aqueous homogeneous reactor that was the third Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
reactor in the world to become operational. It also
researched the Super, a hydrogen bomb that would use a U.S. National Register of Historic Places
fission bomb to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction in U.S. National Historic Landmark District
deuterium and tritium.

The Fat Man design was tested in the Trinity nuclear test
in July 1945. Project Y personnel formed pit crews and
assembly teams for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and participated in the bombing as weaponeers
and observers. After the war ended, the laboratory
supported the Operation Crossroads nuclear tests at Bikini
Atoll. A new Z Division was created to control testing,
stockpiling and bomb assembly activities, which were
concentrated at Sandia Base. The Los Alamos Laboratory
became Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in 1947.

Contents
Origins
Nuclear fission and atomic bombs
Bomb design concepts
Bomb laboratory concept
Site selection
Construction
Organization
Military
Civilian
Gun-type weapon design
Research
Development
Plutonium
Implosion-type weapon design Location Central Ave., Los
Alamos, New Mexico
Little Boy
Coordinates 35°52′54″N
Water boiler
106°17′54″W
Super
Built 1943
Trinity
Architectural style Bungalow/Craftsman,
Project Alberta Modern Movement
Health and safety NRHP reference No. 66000893 (https://np
Security gallery.nps.gov/Asset
Post-war Detail/NRIS/6600089
3)[1]
Notes
Added to NRHP 15 October 1966
References

Origins

Nuclear fission and atomic bombs

The discovery of the neutron by James Chadwick in 1932,[2] followed by the discovery of nuclear fission
by chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938,[3][4] and its explanation (and naming) by physicists
Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch soon after,[5][6] opened up the possibility of a controlled nuclear chain
reaction using uranium. At the time, few scientists in the United States thought that an atomic bomb was
practical,[7] but the possibility that a German atomic bomb project would develop atomic weapons
concerned refugee scientists from Nazi Germany and other fascist countries, leading to the drafting of the
Einstein–Szilard letter to warn President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This prompted preliminary research in the
United States, beginning in late 1939.[8]

In nuclear fission, the atomic
nucleus of a heavy element splits
into two or more light ones when a
neutron is captured. If more neutrons
are emitted, a nuclear chain reaction
becomes possible.
government created a nuclear weapons project known as Tube Alloys.[12]
Progress was slow in the United States, but in Britain, Otto Frisch
and Rudolf Peierls, two refugee physicists from Germany at the
University of Birmingham, examined the theoretical issues
involved in developing, producing and using atomic bombs. They
considered what would happen to a sphere of pure uranium-235,
and found that not only could a chain reaction occur, but it might
require as little as 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of uranium-235 to unleash the
energy of hundreds of tons of TNT. Their superior, Mark Oliphant,
took the Frisch–Peierls memorandum to Sir Henry Tizard, the
chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Warfare
(CSSAW), who in turn passed it on to George Paget Thomson, to
whom the CSSAW had delegated responsibility for uranium
research.[9] CSSAW created the MAUD Committee to
investigate.[10] In its final report in July 1941, the MAUD
Committee concluded that an atomic bomb was not only feasible,
but might be produced as early as 1943.[11] In response, the British

There was still little urgency in the United States, which unlike Britain was not yet engaged in World War
II, so Oliphant flew there in late August 1941,[13] and spoke to American scientists including his friend
Ernest Lawrence at the University of California. He not only managed to convince them that an atomic
bomb was feasible, but inspired Lawrence to convert his 37-inch (94  cm) cyclotron into a giant mass
spectrometer for isotope separation,[14] a technique Oliphant had pioneered in 1934.[15] In turn, Lawrence
brought in his friend and colleague Robert Oppenheimer to double-check the physics of the MAUD
Committee report, which was discussed at a meeting at the General Electric Research Laboratory in
Schenectady, New York, on 21 October 1941.[16]

In December 1941, the S-1 Section of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) placed
Arthur H. Compton in charge of the design of the bomb.[17][18] He delegated the task of bomb design and
research into fast neutron calculations—the key to calculations of critical mass and weapon detonation—to
Gregory Breit, who was given the title of "Co-ordinator of Rapid Rupture", and Oppenheimer as an
assistant. But Breit disagreed with other scientists working at the Metallurgical Laboratory, particularly
Enrico Fermi, over the security arrangements,[19] and resigned on 18 May 1942.[20] Compton then
appointed Oppenheimer to replace him.[21] John H. Manley, a physicist at the Metallurgical Laboratory,
was assigned to assist Oppenheimer by contacting and coordinating experimental physics groups scattered
across the country.[20] Oppenheimer and Robert Serber of the University of Illinois examined the problems
of neutron diffusion—how neutrons moved in a nuclear chain reaction—and hydrodynamics—how the
explosion produced by a chain reaction might behave.[22]

Bomb design concepts

To review this work and the general theory of fission reactions, Oppenheimer and Fermi convened
meetings at the University of Chicago in June and at the University of California in Berkeley, in July with
theoretical physicists Hans Bethe, John Van Vleck, Edward Teller, Emil Konopinski, Robert Serber, Stan
Frankel, and Eldred C. Nelson, the latter three former students of Oppenheimer, and experimental
physicists Emilio Segrè, Felix Bloch, Franco Rasetti, John Manley, and Edwin McMillan. They tentatively
confirmed that a fission bomb was theoretically possible.[23]
There were still many unknown factors. The properties of pure uranium-
235 were relatively unknown; even more so those of plutonium, a chemical
element that had only recently been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and his
team in February 1941, but which was theoretically fissile. The scientists at
the Berkeley conference envisioned breeding plutonium in nuclear reactors
from uranium-238 atoms that absorbed neutrons from fissioning uranium-
235 atoms. At this point no reactor had been built, and only microscopic
quantities of plutonium were available that had been produced by
cyclotrons.[24]

There were many ways of arranging the fissile material into a critical mass.
The simplest was shooting a "cylindrical plug" into a sphere of "active In nuclear fusion, the nuclei
material" with a "tamper"—dense material that would focus neutrons of light elements are fused
inward and keep the reacting mass together to increase its efficiency.[25] to create a heavier element.
They also explored designs involving spheroids, a primitive form of
"implosion" suggested by Richard C. Tolman, and the possibility of
autocatalytic methods, which would increase the efficiency of the bomb as it exploded.[26]

Considering the idea of the fission bomb theoretically settled—at least until more experimental data was
available—the Berkeley conference then turned in a different direction. Edward Teller pushed for
discussion of a more powerful bomb: the "Super", usually referred to today as a "hydrogen bomb", which
would use the explosive force of a detonating fission bomb to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction between
deuterium and tritium.[27] Teller proposed scheme after scheme, but Bethe rejected each one. The fusion
idea was set aside to concentrate on producing fission bombs.[28] Teller also raised the speculative
possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of
nitrogen nuclei,[29] but Bethe calculated that this could not happen,[30] and a report co-authored with Teller
showed that "no self-propagating chain of nuclear reactions is likely to be started".[31]

Bomb laboratory concept

Oppenheimer's deft handling of the July conference impressed his colleagues; his insight and ability to
handle even the most difficult people came as a surprise even to those who knew him well.[32] In the wake
of the conference, Oppenheimer saw that while they had come to grips with the physics, considerable work
was still required on the engineering, chemistry, metallurgy and ordnance aspects of building an atomic
bomb. He became convinced that bomb design would require an environment where people could freely
discuss problems and thereby reduce wasteful duplication of effort. He reasoned that this could best be
reconciled with security by creating a central laboratory in an isolated location.[33][34]

Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves Jr. became director of the Manhattan Project on 23 September
1942.[35] He visited Berkeley to look at Lawrence's calutrons, and met with Oppenheimer, who gave him a
report on bomb design on 8 October.[36] Groves was interested in Oppenheimer's proposal to establish a
separate bomb design laboratory. When they met again in Chicago a week later, he invited Oppenheimer to
discuss the issue. Groves had to catch a train to New York, so he asked Oppenheimer to accompany him so
that they could continue the discussion. Groves, Oppenheimer, and Colonel James C. Marshall and
Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Nichols all squeezed into a single compartment where they talked about how a
bomb laboratory could be created, and how it would function.[33] Groves subsequently had Oppenheimer
come to Washington, D.C., where the matter was discussed with Vannevar Bush, the director of the
OSRD, and James B. Conant, the chairman of the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC). On 19
October, Groves approved the establishment of a bomb laboratory.[34]
While Oppenheimer seemed the logical person to direct the new laboratory, which became known as
Project Y, he had little administrative experience; Bush, Conant, Lawrence and Harold Urey all expressed
reservations about this.[37] Moreover, unlike his other project leaders—Lawrence at the Berkeley Radiation
Laboratory, Compton at the Metallurgical Project in Chicago, and Urey at the SAM Laboratories in New
York—Oppenheimer did not have a Nobel Prize, raising concerns that he might not have the prestige to
deal with distinguished scientists. There were also security concerns;[38] many of Oppenheimer's closest
associates were active members of the Communist Party, including his wife Kitty,[39] girlfriend Jean
Tatlock,[40] brother Frank, and Frank's wife Jackie.[41] In the end, Groves personally issued instructions to
clear Oppenheimer on 20 July 1943.[38]

Site selection
The idea of locating Project Y at the Metallurgical
Laboratory in Chicago, or the Clinton Engineer
Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was considered,
but in the end it was decided that a remote
location would be best.[42] A site in the vicinity of
Los Angeles was rejected on security grounds,
and one near Reno, Nevada as being too
inaccessible. On Oppenheimer's recommendation,
the search was narrowed to the vicinity of
Albuquerque, New Mexico, where Oppenheimer
owned a ranch in the Sangre de Cristo Range.[43]
The climate was mild, there were air and rail
connections to Albuquerque, it was sufficiently
distant from the West Coast of the United States
for a Japanese attack not to be an issue, and the
population density was low.[42]

In October 1942, Major John H. Dudley of the

Manhattan District (the military component of the
Manhattan Project) surveyed sites around Gallup,
Las Vegas, La Ventana, Jemez Springs, and
Otowi,[44] and recommended the one near Jemez
Springs.[42] On 16 November, Oppenheimer, Map of Los Alamos site, New Mexico, 1943–45
Groves, Dudley and others toured the site.
Oppenheimer feared that the high cliffs
surrounding the site would make people feel claustrophobic, while the engineers were concerned with the
possibility of flooding. The party then moved on to the Otowi site, the vicinity of the Los Alamos Ranch
School. Oppenheimer was impressed by and expressed a strong preference for the site, citing its natural
beauty and views of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, which, he hoped, would inspire those who would
work on the project.[45][46] The engineers were concerned about the poor access road, and whether the
water supply would be adequate, but otherwise felt that it was ideal.[47]

The United States Under Secretary of War, Robert P. Patterson, approved the acquisition of the site on 25
November 1942, authorizing $440,000 for the purchase of the site of 54,000 acres (22,000  ha), all but
8,900 acres (3,600  ha) of which were already owned by the Federal Government.[48] Secretary of
Agriculture Claude R. Wickard granted use of some 45,100 acres (18,300  ha) of United States Forest
Service land to the War Department "for so long as the military necessity continues".[49] The need for land
for a new road, and later for a right of way for a 25-mile (40 km) power line, eventually brought wartime
land purchases to 45,737 acres (18,509.1 ha), but only $414,971 was ultimately spent.[48] The big ticket
items were the school, which cost $350,000, and the Anchor Ranch, which cost $25,000.[50] Both hired
lawyers to negotiate deals with the government, but Hispanic homesteaders were paid as little as $7 an acre
(equivalent to $110 in 2021).[51] Grazing permits were withdrawn, and private land was purchased or
condemned under eminent domain using the authority of the Second War Powers Act.[52] Petitions of
condemnation were worded to cover all mineral, water, timber and other rights, so private individuals
would have no reason whatsoever to enter the area.[53] The site acquired an irregular shape due to abutting
the Bandelier National Monument and a Native American sacred burial ground.[52]

Construction
An important consideration in the acquisition of the site was the existence of the Los Alamos Ranch
School. This consisted of 54 buildings, of which 27 were houses, dormitories or other quarters providing
46,626 square feet (4,331.7 m2 ) of accommodation. The remaining buildings included a sawmill, ice house,
barns, carpentry shop, stables and garages, all totalling 29,560 square feet (2,746  m2 ). At the nearby
Anchor Ranch there were four houses and a barn.[54] Construction work was supervised by the
Albuquerque Engineer District until 15 March 1944, when the Manhattan Engineer District assumed
responsibility.[52] Willard C. Kruger and Associates of Santa Fe, New Mexico, was engaged as architect
and engineer. Black & Veatch was brought in for the design of utilities in December 1945. The former was
paid $743,706.68 and the latter $164,116 by the time the Manhattan Project ended at the end of 1946.[55]
The Albuquerque District supervised $9.3 million of construction at Los Alamos, and the Manhattan
District, another $30.4 million.[52] The initial work was contracted to the M. M. Sundt Company of
Tucson, Arizona, with work commenced in December 1942. Groves initially allocated $300,000 for
construction, three times Oppenheimer's estimate, with a planned completion date of 15 March 1943. It
soon became clear that the scope of Project Y was far greater than expected, and by the time Sundt finished
on 30 November 1943, over $7 million had been spent.[56] The Zia Company took over responsibility for
maintenance in April 1946.[57]

Oppenheimer initially estimated that the work could be performed

by 50 scientists and 50 technicians. Groves tripled this number to
300.[56] The actual population, including family members, was
about 3,500 by the end of 1943, 5,700 by the end of 1944, 8,200
by the end of 1945, and 10,000 by the close of 1946.[58] The most
desirable accommodation were the six existing log and stone
cottages that had once housed the headmaster and the Los Alamos
Ranch School faculty. They were the only dwellings at Los
Four-family apartment units at Los Alamos that had bathtubs, and became known as "Bathtub
Alamos Row".[56][59] Oppenheimer lived on Bathtub Row; his next-door
neighbor was Captain W. S. "Deak" Parsons, the head of the
Ordnance and Engineering Division.[60] Parsons' house was
slightly larger, because Parsons had two children and Oppenheimer, at that point, had only one.[61] After
Bathtub Row, the next most desirable accommodation was the apartments built by Sundt. A typical two-
storey building held four families. Each Sundt apartment had two or three bedrooms, a kitchen with a
cranky black coal stove, and a small bathroom. J. E. Morgan and Sons supplied 56 prefabricated dwellings
that became known as "Morganville". The Robert E. McKee Company built a part of the town known as
"McKeeville".[56] In June through October 1943, and again in June and July 1944, numbers outstripped
the available accommodation and personnel were temporarily lodged in Frijoles Canyon.[62] The houses at
CEW and HEW were basic but of a higher standard (as specified by Nichols) than the houses at Los
Alamos (as specified by Groves), but Nichols said to Los Alamos scientists that housing there was Groves'
problem not his.[63]
Rents were set based on the income of the occupant.[64] Transient visitors to Los Alamos were
accommodated in the Fuller Lodge, the Guest Cottage or the Big House, which had once been part of the
Los Alamos Ranch School.[65] A school was established in 1943, catering for both grade school and high
school, and 140 children were enrolled; 350 by 1946. Education was free, as was a nursery school for
working mothers.[66] With 18 grade-school teachers, 13 high-school teachers, and a superintendent, it
enjoyed an excellent teacher:pupil ratio.[67] Numerous technical buildings were constructed. Most were of
a semi-permanent type, using gypsum board. They were heated from a central heating plant. Initially this
was Boiler House No. 1, which had two coal-fired boilers. This was replaced by Boiler House No. 2,
which had six oil-fired boilers. In addition to the main site at Los Alamos, some 25 outlying sites were
developed for experimental work.[68]

The growth of the town outpaced the sewage system,[68] and by

late 1945 there were electrical outages. Lights had to be shut off
during the day, and between 7 and 10 pm. Water also ran short.
During the autumn of 1945, consumption was 585,000 US gallons
(2,210,000  l) per day, but the water supply could furnish only
475,000 US gallons (1,800,000 l). On 19 December, pipes that had
been laid above ground to save time in 1943 froze, cutting off the
supply completely. Residents had to draw water from 15 tanker
The Technical Area at Los Alamos.
trucks that carried 300,000 US gallons (1,100,000  l) per day.[69]
There was a perimeter fence around
Because its name was secret, Los Alamos was referred to as "Site
the entire site, but also an inner
Y"; to residents it was known as "The Hill".[70] Because they lived fence shown here around the
on Federal land, the state of New Mexico did not allow residents of
Technical Area.
Los Alamos to vote in elections, although it did require them to pay
state income taxes.[71][72] A drawn-out series of legal and
legislative battles lay ahead before the residents of Los Alamos became fully-fledged citizens of New
Mexico on 10 June 1949.[73] Birth certificates of babies born in Los Alamos during the war listed their
place of birth as PO Box 1663 in Santa Fe. All letters and packages came through that address.[74]

Initially Los Alamos was to have been a military laboratory with Oppenheimer and other researchers
commissioned into the Army. Oppenheimer went so far as to order himself a lieutenant colonel's uniform,
but two key physicists, Robert Bacher and Isidor Rabi, balked at the idea. Conant, Groves and
Oppenheimer then devised a compromise whereby the laboratory was operated by the University of
California.[75] Financial and procurement activities were the responsibility of the University of California
under a 1 January 1943 letter of intent from the OSRD. This was superseded by a formal contract with the
Manhattan District on 20 April 1943, which was backdated to 1 January. Financial operations were
directed by the resident business officer, J. A. D. Muncy.[76] The intent was that it would be militarized
when the time came to finally assemble the bomb, but by this time the Los Alamos Laboratory had grown
so large that this was considered both impractical and unnecessary,[37] as the anticipated difficulties
regarding civilians working on dangerous tasks had not occurred.[76]

Organization

Military

Colonel John M. Harman was the first post commander at Los Alamos. He joined the Santa Fe office as a
lieutenant colonel on 19 January 1943, and was promoted to colonel on 15 February.[77] Los Alamos
officially became a military establishment on 1 April 1943, and he moved to Los Alamos on 19
April.[77][78] He was succeeded by Lieutenant Colonel C. Whitney Ashbridge, a graduate of the Los
Alamos Ranch School,[79] in May 1943. In turn, Ashbridge was succeeded by Lieutenant Colonel Gerald
R. Tyler in October 1944,[77][80] Colonel Lyle E. Seaman in November 1945, and Colonel Herb C. Gee in
September 1946.[77] The post commander was answerable directly to Groves, and was responsible for the
township, government property and the military personnel.[81]

Four military units were assigned to the post. The MP Detachment,

The main gate at Los Alamos
4817th Service Command Unit, arrived from Fort Riley, Kansas, in
April 1943. Its initial strength was 7 officers and 196 enlisted men;
by December 1946 it had 9 officers and 486 men, and was
manning 44 guard posts 24 hours a day.[82] The Provisional
Engineer Detachment (PED), 4817th Service Command Unit, was
activated at Camp Claiborne, Louisiana, on 10 April 1943. These
men performed jobs around the post such as working in the boiler
plant, the motor pool and the mess halls. They also maintained the
buildings and roads. It reached a peak strength of 465 men, and
was disbanded on 1 July 1946.[83]

The 1st Provisional Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) Detachment was activated at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma, on 17 April 1943. Its initial strength was just one officer and seven auxiliaries. The WAAC
became the Women's Army Corps (WAC) on 24 August 1943, and the detachment became part of the
4817th Service Command Unit, with a strength of two officers and 43 enlisted women. They were sworn
into the United States Army by Ashbridge. It reached a peak strength of about 260 women in August 1945.
The WACs did a wider variety of jobs than the PED; some were cooks, drivers and telephone operators,
while others served as librarians, clerks and hospital technicians. Some performed highly specialized
scientific research inside the Technical Area.[83]

The Special Engineer Detachment (SED) was activated in October 1943 as part of the 9812th Technical
Service Unit. It was made up of men with technical skills or advanced education, and was mostly drawn
from the defunct Army Specialized Training Program.[83] War Department policy forbade giving
deferments from the draft to men under 22, so they were assigned to the SED.[84] It reached a peak strength
of 1,823 men in August 1945. SED personnel worked in all areas of the Los Alamos Laboratory.[83]

Civilian

As director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, Oppenheimer was no

longer answerable to Compton, but reported directly to Groves.[78]
He was responsible for the technical and scientific aspects of
Project Y.[81] He assembled the nucleus of his staff from the groups
that had been working for him on neutron calculations.[85] These
included his secretary, Priscilla Greene,[86] Serber and McMillan
from his own group, and Emilio Segrè and Joseph W. Kennedy's Passage between buildings A and B
groups from the University of California, J. H. Williams' group in the Technical Area
from the University of Minnesota, Joe McKibben's group from the
University of Wisconsin, Felix Bloch's group from Stanford
University and Marshall Holloway's from Purdue University. He also secured the services of Hans Bethe
and Robert Bacher from the Radiation Laboratory at MIT, Edward Teller, Robert F. Christy, Darol K.
Froman, Alvin C. Graves and John H. Manley and his group from the Manhattan Project's Metallurgical
Laboratory, and Robert R. Wilson and his group, which included Richard Feynman, that had been
performing Manhattan Project research at Princeton University. They brought with them a great deal of
valuable scientific equipment. Wilson's group dismantled the cyclotron at Harvard University and had it
shipped to Los Alamos; McKibben's brought two Van de Graaff generators from Wisconsin; and Manley's
brought the Cockcroft–Walton accelerator from the University of Illinois.[85]
Communications with the outside world went through a single Forest Service line until April 1943,[87]
when it was replaced by five Army telephone lines. This was increased to eight in March 1945.[88] There
were also three teletypewriters with encoding machines. The first was installed in March 1943, and two
more were added in May 1943. One was removed in November 1945.[88] There were telephones in the
offices, but none in private residences, as the Army regarded this as a security hazard. There were some
public phones in the township for emergencies. Since there was no way to prevent the lines being tapped,
classified information could not be discussed over the phone lines. Initially the phone lines were operable
only during business hours until enough WACs arrived to man the switchboard around the clock.[89]

Women at Los Alamos were encouraged to work, due to the

shortage of labor and security concerns over bringing in local
workers. About 60 wives of scientists were at work in Technical
Area by September 1943. About 200 of the 670 workers in the
laboratory, hospital and school were women in October 1944. Most
worked in administration, but many women such as Lilli
Hornig,[90] Jane Hamilton Hall,[91] and Peggy Titterton worked as
scientists and technicians.[92] Charlotte Serber headed the A-5
(Library) Group.[93] A large group of women worked on numerical
calculations in the T-5 (Computations) Group.[90] Dorothy
Isidor Isaac Rabi, Dorothy McKibbin,
McKibbin ran the Santa Fe office, which opened at 109 East
Robert Oppenheimer and Victor
Palace Avenue on 27 March 1943.[94]
Weisskopf at Oppenheimer's home in
Los Alamos in 1944
The Los Alamos Laboratory had a governing board, the members
of which were Oppenheimer, Bacher, Bethe, Kennedy, D. L.
Hughes (Personnel Director), D. P. Mitchell (Procurement Director)
and Deak Parsons. McMillan, George Kistiakowsky and Kenneth Bainbridge were later added.[95] The
laboratory was organized into five divisions: Administration (A), Theoretical (T) under Bethe,
Experimental Physics (P) under Bacher, Chemistry and Metallurgy (CM) under Kennedy, and Ordnance
and Engineering (E) under Parsons.[96][97] All the divisions expanded during 1943 and 1944, but T
Division, despite trebling in size, remained the smallest, while E Division grew to be the largest. Security
clearance was a problem. Scientists (including, at first, Oppenheimer) had to be given access to the
Technical Area without proper clearance. In the interest of efficiency, Groves approved an abbreviated
process by which Oppenheimer vouched for senior scientists, and three other employees were sufficient to
vouch for a junior scientist or technician.[98]

The Los Alamos Laboratory was reinforced by a British Mission under James Chadwick. The first to arrive
were Otto Frisch and Ernest Titterton; later arrivals included Niels Bohr and his son Aage Bohr, and Sir
Geoffrey Taylor, an expert on hydrodynamics who made a major contribution to the understanding of the
Rayleigh–Taylor instability.[99] This instability at the interface between two fluids of different densities
occurs when the lighter fluid is pushing the heavier,[100] and was vital to the interpretation of experiments
with explosives, predicting the effects of an explosion, the design of the neutron initiators, and the design of
the atomic bomb itself. Chadwick remained only for a few months; he was succeeded as head of the British
Mission by Rudolf Peierls. The original idea, favored by Groves, was that the British scientists would work
as a group under Chadwick, who would farm out work to them. This was soon discarded in favor of
having the British Mission fully integrated into the laboratory. They worked in most of its divisions, only
being excluded from plutonium chemistry and metallurgy.[101][99] With the passage of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1946, known as the McMahon Act, all British government employees had to leave. All had left by
the end of 1946, except for Titterton, who was granted a special dispensation, and remained until 12 April
1947. The British Mission ended when he departed.[102][103]

Gun-type weapon design

Research
Los Alamos Technical Area

Photograph of the Tech Area, Map of the Tech Area.

with the buildings marked. They
seem to be randomly scattered.
Ashley Pond and the Fuller
Lodge are in the background.

In 1943, development efforts were directed to a gun-type fission weapon using plutonium called Thin
Man.[104][105] The names for all three atomic bomb designs—Fat Man, Thin Man, and Little Boy—were
chosen by Serber based on their shapes. Thin Man was a long device, and its name came from the Dashiell
Hammett detective novel and series of movies of the same name. The Fat Man was round and fat, and was
named after Sydney Greenstreet's "Kasper Gutman" character in The Maltese Falcon. Little Boy came last,
and was named after Elisha Cook, Jr.'s character in the same film, as referred to by Humphrey Bogart.[106]

A series of conferences in April and May 1943 laid out the laboratory's plan for the rest of the year.
Oppenheimer estimated the critical mass of a uranium-235 gadget with a formula based on diffusion theory
derived at Berkeley by Stan Frankel and E. C. Nelson. This gave a value for a uranium-235 gadget with a
perfect tamper of 25  kg; but this was only an approximation. It was based on simplifying assumptions,
notably that all neutrons had the same speed, that all collisions were elastic, that they were scattered
isotropically, and that the mean free path of neutrons in the core and tamper were the same. Bethe's T
Division, particularly Serber's T-2 (Diffusion Theory) Group and Feynman's T-4 (Diffusion Problems)
Groups, would spend the next few months working on improved models.[107][108] Bethe and Feynman
also developed a formula for the efficiency of the reaction.[109]

No formula could be more accurate than the values put into it; the values for the cross sections were
dubious, and had not yet been determined for plutonium. Measurement of these values would be a priority,
but the laboratory possessed just 1 gram of uranium-235, and only a few micrograms of plutonium.[107]
This task fell to Bacher's P Division. Williams P-2 (Electrostatic Generator) Group carried out the first
experiment in July 1943, when it used the larger of the two Van de Graaff generators to measure the ratio of
the neutron per fission in plutonium against that of uranium-235.[110] This involved some negotiation with
the Metallurgical Laboratory to obtain 165 μg of plutonium, which was received at Los Alamos on 10 July
1943. Bacher was able to report that the number of neutrons per fission of plutonium-239 was 2.64 ± 0.2,
about 1.2 times as much as uranium-235.[111] Titterton and Boyce McDaniel of Wilson's P-1 (Cyclotron)
Group attempted to measure the time it took for prompt neutrons to be emitted from a uranium-235 nucleus
when it fissions.[112] They calculated that most were emitted in less than 1 nanosecond. Subsequent
experiments demonstrated that fission took less than a nanosecond too. Confirmation of the theorists'
contention that the number of neutrons emitted per fission was the same for both fast and slow neutrons
took longer, and was not completed until the autumn of 1944.[110]

John von Neumann visited the Los Alamos Laboratory in September 1943 and participated in discussions
of the damage that an atomic bomb would do. He explained that while the damage done by a small
explosion was proportional to the impulse (the average pressure of the explosion times its duration), the
damage from large explosions such as an atomic bomb would be determined by the peak pressure, which
depends on the cube root of its energy. Bethe then calculated that a 10 kilotonnes of TNT (42 TJ) explosion
would result in an overpressure of 0.1 standard atmospheres (10  kPa) at 3.5 kilometers (2.2  mi), and
therefore result in severe damage within that radius. Von Neumann also suggested that, because pressure
increases when shock waves bounce off solid objects, the damage could be increased if the bomb was
detonated at an altitude comparable to the damage radius, approximately 1 to 2 kilometers (3,300 to
6,600 ft).[109][113]

Development

Parsons was appointed the head of Ordnance and Engineering Division in June 1943 on the
recommendation of Bush and Conant.[114] To staff the division, Tolman, who acted as a coordinator of the
gun development effort, brought in John Streib, Charles Critchfield and Seth Neddermeyer from the
National Bureau of Standards.[115] The division was initially organized into five groups, with original
group leaders being McMillan of the E-1 (Proving Ground) Group, Kenneth Bainbridge of the E-2
(Instrumentation) Group, Robert Brode of the E-3 (Fuse Development) Group, Critchfield of the E-4
(Projectile, Target, and Source) Group and Neddermeyer of the E-5 (Implosion) Group. Two more groups
were added in the autumn of 1943, the E-7 (Delivery) Group under Norman Ramsey and the E-8 (Interior
Ballistics) Group under Joseph O. Hirschfelder.[114]

A proving ground was established at the Anchor Ranch. The gun

A row of Thin Man casings. Fat Man
casings are visible in the
background. The tow truck was used
by the 216th Army Air Forces Base
Unit to move them.
would be an unusual one, and it had to be designed in the absence
of crucial data about the critical mass. The design criteria were that
the gun would have a muzzle velocity of 3,000 feet per second
(910  m/s); that the tube would weigh only 1 short ton (0.91  t)
instead of the conventional 5 short tons (4.5 t) for a tube with that
energy; that, as a consequence it would be made of alloyed steel;
that it should have a maximum breech pressure of 75,000 pounds
per square inch (520,000  kPa); and that it should have three
independent primers. Because it would need to be fired only once,
the barrel could be made lighter than the conventional gun. Nor did
it require rifling or recoil mechanisms. Pressure curves were
computed under Hirschfelder's supervision at the Geophysical
Laboratory prior to his joining the Los Alamos Laboratory.[116]

While they waited for the guns to be fabricated by the Naval Gun Factory, various propellants were tested.
Hirschfelder sent John L. Magee to the Bureau of Mines' Experimental Mine at Bruceton, Pennsylvania to
test the propellant and ignition system.[117] Test firing was conducted at the Anchor Ranch with a 3-inch
(76  mm)/50 caliber gun. This allowed the fine-tuning of the testing instrumentation. The first two tubes
arrived at Los Alamos on 10 March 1944, and test firing began at the Anchor Ranch under the direction of
Thomas H. Olmstead, who had experience in such work at the Naval Proving Ground in Dahlgren,
Virginia. The primers were tested and found to work at pressures up to 80,000 pounds per square inch
(550,000 kPa). Brode's group investigated the fusing systems, testing radar altimeters, proximity fuses and
barometric altimeter fuses.[118]

Tests were conducted with a frequency modulated type radar altimeter known as AYD and a pulse type
known as 718. The AYD modifications were made by the Norden Laboratories Corporation under an
OSRD contract. When the manufacturer of 718, RCA, was contacted, it was learned that a new tail
warning radar, AN/APS-13, later nicknamed Archie, was just entering production, which could be adapted
for use as a radar altimeter. The third unit to be made was delivered to Los Alamos in April 1944. In May it
was tested by diving an AT-11. This was followed by full-scale drop testing in June and July. These were
very successful, whereas the AYD continued to suffer from problems. Archie was therefore adopted,
although the scarcity of units in August 1944 precluded wholescale destructive testing.[118] Testing of
Silverplate Boeing B-29 Superfortress aircraft with Thin Man bomb shapes was carried out at Muroc Army
Air Field in March and June 1944.[119]

Plutonium
At a meeting of the S-1 Executive Committee on 14 November 1942, Chadwick had expressed a fear that
the alpha particles emitted by plutonium could produce neutrons in light elements present as impurities,
which in turn would produce fission in the plutonium and cause a predetonation, a chain reaction before the
core was fully assembled. This had been considered by Oppenheimer and Seaborg the month before, and
the latter had calculated that neutron emitters like boron had to be restricted to one part in a hundred billion.
There was some doubt about whether a chemical process could be developed that could ensure this level of
purity, and Chadwick brought the matter to the S-1 Executive Committee's attention for it to be considered
further. Four days later, though, Lawrence, Oppenheimer, Compton and McMillan reported to Conant that
they had confidence that the exacting purity requirement could be met.[120]

Only microscopic quantities of plutonium were available until the

X-10 Graphite Reactor at the Clinton Engineer Works came online
on 4 November 1943,[121][122] but there were already some
worrying signs. When plutonium fluoride was produced at the
Metallurgical Laboratory, it was sometimes light colored, and
sometimes dark, although the chemical process was the same.
When they managed to reduce it to plutonium metal in November
1943, the density was measured at 15  g/cm3 , and a measurement
using X-ray scattering techniques pointed to a density of 13 g/cm3 .
This was bad; it had been assumed that its density was the same as
uranium, about 19  g/cm3 . If these figures were correct, far more
plutonium would be needed for a bomb. Kennedy disliked A ring of electrorefined plutonium. It
Seaborg's ambitious and attention-seeking manner, and with Arthur has a purity of 99.96%, weighs 5.3
Wahl had devised a procedure for plutonium purification kg, and is about 11 cm in diameter. It
independent of Seaborg's group. When they got hold of a sample in is enough plutonium for one bomb
February, this procedure was tested. That month the Metallurgical core. The ring shape helps with
Laboratory announced that it had determined that there were two criticality safety.
different fluorides: the light colored plutonium tetrafluoride (PuF4 )
and the dark plutonium trifluoride (PuF3 ). The chemists soon
discovered how to make them selectively, and the former turned out to be easier to reduce to metal.
Measurements in March 1944 indicated a density of between 19 and 20 g/cm3 .[123]

Eric Jette's CM-8 (Plutonium Metallurgy) Group began experimenting with plutonium metal after gram
quantities were received at the Los Alamos Laboratory in March 1944. By heating it, the metallurgists
discovered five temperatures between 137 and 580  °C (279 and 1,076  °F) at which it suddenly started
absorbing heat without increasing in temperature. This was a strong indication of multiple allotropes of
plutonium; but was initially considered too bizarre to be true. Further testing confirmed a state change
around 135  °C (275  °F); it entered the δ phase, with a density of 16  g/cm3 . Seaborg had claimed that
plutonium had a melting point of around 950 to 1,000 °C (1,740 to 1,830 °F), about that of uranium, but
the metallurgists at the Los Alamos Laboratory soon discovered that it melted at around 635 °C (1,175 °F).
The chemists then turned to techniques for removing light element impurities from the plutonium; but on 14
July 1944, Oppenheimer informed Kennedy that this would no longer be required.[124]
 The notion of spontaneous fission had been raised by Niels Bohr
and John Archibald Wheeler in their 1939 treatment of the
mechanism of nuclear fission.[126] The first attempt to discover
spontaneous fission in uranium was made by Willard Libby, but he
failed to detect it.[127] It had been observed in Britain by Frisch and
Titterton, and independently in the Soviet Union by Georgy
Flyorov and Konstantin Petrzhak in 1940; the latter are generally
credited with the discovery.[128][129] Compton had also heard from
the French physicist Pierre Auger that Frédéric Joliot-Curie had
Plutonium has six allotropes at
detected what might have been spontaneous fission in polonium. If
ambient pressure: alpha (α),
true, it might preclude the use of polonium in the neutron initiators;
beta (β), gamma (γ), delta (δ),
if true for plutonium, it might mean that the gun-type design would
delta prime (δ'), & epsilon (ε) [125]
not work. The consensus at the Los Alamos Laboratory was that it
was not true, and that Joliot-Curie's results had been distorted by
impurities.[130]

At the Los Alamos Laboratory, Emilio Segrè's P-5 (Radioactivity) Group set out to measure it in uranium-
234, −235 and −238, plutonium, polonium, protactinium and thorium.[131] They were not too worried
about the plutonium itself; their main concern was the issue Chadwick had raised about interaction with
light element impurities. Segrè and his group of young physicists set up their experiment in an old Forest
Service log cabin in Pajarito Canyon, about 14 miles (23 km) from the Technical Area, in order to minimize
background radiation emanating for other research at the Los Alamos Laboratory.[132]

By August 1943, they had good values for all the elements tested except for plutonium, which they were
unable to measure accurately enough because the only sample they had was five 20 μg samples created by
the 60-inch cyclotron at Berkeley.[133] They did observe that measurements taken at Los Alamos were
greater than those made at Berkeley, which they attributed to cosmic rays, which are more numerous at Los
Alamos, which is 7,300 feet (2,200  m) above sea level.[134] While their measurements indicated a
spontaneous fission rate of 40 fissions per gram per hour, which was high but acceptable, the error margin
was unacceptably large. In April 1944 they received a sample from the X-10 Graphite Reactor. Tests soon
indicated 180 fissions per gram per hour, which was unacceptably high. It fell to Bacher to inform
Compton, who was visibly shaken.[135] Suspicion fell on plutonium-240, an isotope that had not yet been
discovered, but whose existence had been suspected, it being simply created by a plutonium-239 nucleus
absorbing a neutron. What had not been suspected was its high spontaneous fission rate. Segrè's group
measured it at 1.6 million fissions per gram per hour, compared with just 40 per gram per hour for
plutonium-239. [136] This meant that reactor-bred plutonium was unsuitable for use in a gun-type weapon.
The plutonium-240 would start the chain reaction too quickly, causing a predetonation that would release
enough energy to disperse the critical mass before enough plutonium reacted. A faster gun was suggested
but found to be impractical. So too was the possibility of separating the isotopes, as plutonium-240 is even
harder to separate from plutonium-239 than uranium-235 from uranium-238.[137]

Implosion-type weapon design

Work on an alternative method of bomb design, known as implosion, had begun by Neddermeyer's E-5
(Implosion) group. Serber and Tolman had conceived implosion during the April 1943 conferences as a
means of assembling pieces of fissionable material together to form a critical mass. Neddermeyer took a
different tack, attempting to crush a hollow cylinder into a solid bar.[138] The idea was to use explosives to
crush a subcritical amount of fissile material into a smaller and denser form. When the fissile atoms are
packed closer together, the rate of neutron capture increases, and they form a critical mass. The metal needs
to travel only a very short distance, so the critical mass is assembled in much less time than it would take
with the gun method.[139] At the time, the idea of using explosives
in this manner was quite novel. To facilitate the work, a small plant
was established at the Anchor Ranch for casting explosive
shapes.[138]

Throughout 1943, implosion was considered a backup project in

case the gun-type proved impractical for some reason.[140]
Theoretical physicists like Bethe, Oppenheimer and Teller were
intrigued by the idea of a design of an atomic bomb that made more
efficient use of fissile material, and permitted the use of material of
lower purity. These were advantages of particular attraction to
Groves. But while Neddermeyer's 1943 and early 1944
investigations into implosion showed promise, it was clear that the Explosive lenses are used to
problem would be much more difficult from a theoretical and compress a fissile core inside an
engineering perspective than the gun design. In July 1943, implosion-type nuclear weapon.
Oppenheimer wrote to John von Neumann, asking for his help, and
suggesting that he visit Los Alamos where he could get "a better
idea of this somewhat Buck Rogers project".[141]

At the time, von Neumann was working for the Navy Bureau of Ordnance, Princeton University, the
Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground and the NDRC. Oppenheimer, Groves and Parsons appealed to Tolman
and Rear Admiral William R. Purnell to release von Neumann. He visited Los Alamos from 20 September
to 4 October 1943. Drawing on his recent work with blast waves and shaped charges used in armor-
piercing shells, he suggested using a high-explosive shaped charge to implode a spherical core. A meeting
of the Governing Board on 23 September resolved to approach George Kistiakowsky, a renowned expert
on explosives then working for OSRD, to join the Los Alamos Laboratory.[142] Although reluctant, he did
so in November. He became a full-time staff member on 16 February 1944, becoming Parsons' deputy for
implosion; McMillan became his deputy for the gun-type. The maximum size of the bomb was determined
at this time from the size of the 5-by-12-foot (1.5 by 3.7 m) bomb bay of the B-29.[143]

By July 1944, Oppenheimer had concluded that plutonium could not be used in a gun design, and opted for
implosion. The accelerated effort on an implosion design, codenamed Fat Man, began in August 1944
when Oppenheimer implemented a sweeping reorganization of the Los Alamos laboratory to focus on
implosion.[144] Two new groups were created at Los Alamos to develop the implosion weapon, X (for
explosives) Division headed by Kistiakowsky and G (for gadget) Division under Robert Bacher.[145][146]
Although Teller was head of the T-1 (Implosion and Super) Group, Bethe considered that Teller was
spending too much time on the Super, which had been given a low priority by Bethe and Oppenheimer. In
June 1944, Oppenheimer created a dedicated Super Group under Teller, who was made directly responsible
to Oppenheimer, and Peierls became head of the T-1 (Implosion) Group.[147][148] In September, Teller's
group became the F-1 (Super and General Theory) Group, part of the Enrico Fermi's new F (Fermi)
Division.[149]

The new design that von Neumann and T Division, most notably Rudolf Peierls, devised used explosive
lenses to focus the explosion onto a spherical shape using a combination of both slow and fast high
explosives.[150] A visit by Sir Geoffrey Taylor in May 1944 raised questions about the stability of the
interface between the core and the depleted uranium tamper. As a result, the design was made more
conservative. The ultimate expression of this was the adoption of Christy's proposal that the core be solid
instead of hollow.[151] The design of lenses that detonated with the proper shape and velocity turned out to
be slow, difficult and frustrating.[150] Various explosives were tested before settling on composition B as
the fast explosive and baratol as the slow explosive.[152] The final design resembled a soccer ball, with 20
hexagonal and 12 pentagonal lenses, each weighing about 80 pounds (36 kg). Getting the detonation just
right required fast, reliable and safe electrical detonators, of which there were two for each lens for
 reliability.[153][154] It was therefore decided to use exploding-
bridgewire detonators, a new invention developed at Los Alamos by a
group led by Luis Alvarez. A contract for their manufacture was given
to Raytheon.[155]

To study the behavior of converging shock waves, Robert Serber

An implosion-type nuclear bomb.
In the center is the neutron
initiator (red). It is surrounded by
the plutonium hemispheres.
There is a small air gap (white,
not in the original Fat Man
design) and then the uranium
tamper. Around that is the
aluminium pusher (purple). This is
encased in the explosive lenses
(gold). Colors are the same as in
the diagram opposite.
devised the RaLa Experiment, which used the short-lived radioisotope
lanthanum-140, a potent source of gamma radiation. The gamma ray
source was placed in the center of a metal sphere surrounded by the
explosive lenses, which in turn were inside in an ionization chamber.
This allowed the taking of an X-ray movie of the implosion. The
lenses were designed primarily using this series of tests.[156] In his
history of the Los Alamos project, David Hawkins wrote: "RaLa
became the most important single experiment affecting the final bomb
design".[157]
Within the explosives was the 4.5-inch (110  mm) thick aluminum
pusher, which provided a smooth transition from the relatively low
density explosive to the next layer, the 3-inch (76 mm) thick tamper of
natural uranium. Its main job was to hold the critical mass together as
long as possible, but it would also reflect neutrons back into the core.
Some part of it might fission as well. To prevent predetonation by an
external neutron, the tamper was coated in a thin layer of boron.[153]

A polonium-beryllium
modulated neutron initiator, known as an "urchin" because its
shape resembled a sea urchin,[158] was developed to start the chain
reaction at precisely the right moment.[159] This work with the
chemistry and metallurgy of radioactive polonium was directed by
Charles Allen Thomas of the Monsanto Company and became
known as the Dayton Project.[160] Testing required up to 500
curies per month of polonium, which Monsanto was able to
deliver.[161] The whole assembly was encased in a duralumin
bomb casing to protect it from bullets and flak.[153] Norris Bradbury, group leader for
bomb assembly, stands next to the
The ultimate task of the metallurgists was to determine how to cast
partially assembled Gadget atop the
plutonium into a sphere. The brittle α phase that exists at room
Trinity test tower. Later, he became
temperature changes to the plastic β phase at higher temperatures.
the director of Los Alamos vice
Attention then shifted to the even more malleable δ phase that Oppenheimer.
normally exists in the 300 to 450 °C (572 to 842 °F) range. It was
found that this was stable at room temperature when alloyed with
aluminum, but aluminum emits neutrons when bombarded with alpha particles, which would exacerbate
the pre-ignition problem. The metallurgists then hit upon a plutonium–gallium alloy, which stabilized the δ
phase and could be hot pressed into the desired spherical shape. As plutonium was found to corrode
readily, the sphere was coated with nickel.[162]

The work proved dangerous. By the end of the war, half the experienced chemists and metallurgists had to
be removed from work with plutonium when unacceptably high levels of the element appeared in their
urine.[163] A minor fire at Los Alamos in January 1945 led to a fear that a fire in the plutonium laboratory
might contaminate the whole town, and Groves authorized the construction of a new facility for plutonium
chemistry and metallurgy, which became known as the DP-site.[164] The hemispheres for the first
plutonium pit (or core) were produced and delivered on 2 July 1945. Three more hemispheres followed on
23 July and were delivered three days later.[165]

Little Boy
Following Oppenheimer's reorganization of the Los Alamos Laboratory in July 1944, the work on the
uranium gun-type weapon was concentrated in Francis Birch's O-1 (Gun) Group.[166][167] The concept
was pursued so that in case of a failure to develop an implosion bomb, at least the enriched uranium could
be used.[168] Henceforth the gun-type had to work with enriched uranium only, and this allowed the Thin
Man design to be greatly simplified. A high-velocity gun was no longer required, and a simpler weapon
could be substituted, one short enough to fit into a B-29 bomb bay. The new design was called Little
Boy.[169]

After repeated slippages, the first shipment of slightly enriched

uranium (13 to 15 percent uranium-235) arrived from Oak Ridge in
March 1944. Shipments of highly enriched uranium commenced in
June 1944. Criticality experiments and the Water Boiler had
priority, so the metallurgists did not receive any until August 1944.
[170][171] In the meantime, the CM Division experimented with

uranium hydride.[172] This was considered by T Division as a

A Little Boy unit on Tinian connected
to test equipment, possibly to test or
charge components within the device
prospective active material. The idea was that the hydrogen's ability
as a neutron moderator would compensate for the loss of efficiency,
but, as Bethe later recalled, its efficiency was "negligible or less, as
Feynman would say", and the idea was dropped by August
1944.[173]

Frank Spedding's Ames Project had developed the Ames process, a

method of producing uranium metal on an industrial scale, but Cyril Stanley Smith,[174] the CM Division's
associate leader in charge of metallurgy,[175] was concerned about using it with highly enriched uranium
due to the danger of forming a critical mass. Highly enriched uranium was also far more valuable than
natural uranium, and he wanted to avoid the loss of even a milligram. He recruited Richard D. Baker, a
chemist who had worked with Spedding, and together they adapted the Ames Process for use at the Los
Alamos laboratory.[174] In February Baker and his group made twenty 360 gram reductions and twenty-
seven 500 gram reductions with highly enriched uranium tetrafluoride.[176]

Two types of gun design were produced: Type A was of high alloy steel, and Type B of more ordinary
steel. Type B was chosen for production because it was lighter. The primers and propellant were the same
as those previously chosen for Thin Man.[177] Scale test firing of the hollow projectile and target insert was
conducted with the 3-inch/50 caliber gun and a 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano cannon. Starting in December,
test firing was done full-scale. Amazingly, the first test case produced turned out to be the best ever made. It
was used in four test firings at the Anchor Ranch, and ultimately in the Little Boy used in the bombing of
Hiroshima. The design specifications were completed in February 1945, and contracts were let to build the
components. Three different plants were used so that no one would have a copy of the complete design.
The gun and breech were made by the Naval Gun Factory in Washington, D.C.; the target, case and some
other components were by the Naval Ordnance Plant in Center Line, Michigan; and the tail fairing and
mounting brackets by the Expert Tool and Die Company in Detroit, Michigan.[178][177]

Birch's tidy schedule was disrupted in December by Groves, who ordered Oppenheimer to give priority to
the gun-type over implosion, so that the weapon would be ready by 1 July 1945.[179] The bomb, except for
the uranium payload, was ready at the beginning of May 1945.[180] The uranium-235 projectile was
completed on 15 June, and the target on 24 July.[181] The target and bomb pre-assemblies (partly
assembled bombs without the fissile components) left Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, California, on 16 July
aboard the cruiser USS  Indianapolis, arriving 26 July.[182] The target inserts followed by air on 30
July.[181]

Although all of its components had been tested in target and drop tests,[181] no full test of a gun-type
nuclear weapon occurred before Hiroshima. There were several reasons for not testing a Little Boy type of
device. Primarily, there was insufficient uranium-235.[183] Additionally, the weapon design was simple
enough that it was only deemed necessary to do laboratory tests with the gun-type assembly. Unlike the
implosion design, which required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive charges, the gun-type
design was considered almost certain to work.[184] Thirty-two drop tests were conducted at Wendover, and
only once did the bomb fail to fire. One last-minute modification was made, to allow the powder bags of
propellant that fired the gun to be loaded in the bomb bay.[177]

The danger of accidental detonation made safety a concern. Little Boy incorporated basic safety
mechanisms, but an accidental detonation could still occur. Tests were conducted to see whether a crash
could drive the hollow "bullet" onto the "target" cylinder resulting in a massive release of radiation, or
possibly nuclear detonation. These showed that this required an impact of 500 times that of gravity, which
made it highly unlikely.[185] There was still concern that a crash and a fire could trigger the explosives.[186]
If immersed in water, the uranium halves were subject to a neutron moderator effect. While this would not
have caused an explosion, it could have created widespread radioactive contamination. For this reason,
pilots were advised to crash on land rather than at sea.[185]

Water boiler
The Water Boiler was an aqueous homogeneous reactor, a type of
nuclear reactor in which the nuclear fuel in the form of soluble
uranium sulfate is dissolved in water.[187][188] Uranium sulfate was
chosen instead of uranium nitrate because sulfur's neutron capture
cross section is less than that of nitrogen.[189] The project was
proposed by Bacher in April 1943 as part of an ongoing program
of measuring critical masses in chain-reacting systems. He saw it
also as a means of testing various materials in critical mass systems.
T Division were opposed to the project, which was seen as a
distraction from studies related to the form of chain reactions found
in an atomic bomb, but Bacher prevailed on this point.[190]
Calculations related to the Water Boiler did take up an inordinate
amount of T Division's time in 1943.[188] The reactor theory
developed by Fermi did not apply to the Water Boiler.[191]

Little was known about building reactors in 1943. A group was Water Boiler
created in Bacher's P Division, the P-7 (Water Boiler) Group, under
the leadership of Donald Kerst,[192] that included Charles P. Baker,
Gerhart Friedlander, Lindsay Helmholz, Marshall Holloway and Raemer Schreiber. Robert F. Christy from
the T-1 Group provided support with the theoretical calculations, in particular, a calculation of the critical
mass. He calculated that 600 grams of uranium-235 would form a critical mass in a tamper of infinite size.
Initially it was planned to operate the Water Boiler at 10 kW, but Fermi and Samuel K. Allison visited in
September 1943, and went over the proposed design. They pointed out the danger of decomposition of the
uranium salt, and recommended heavier shielding. It was also noted that radioactive fission products would
be created that would have to be chemically removed. As a consequence, it was decided that the Water
Boiler would only run at 1 kW until more operating experience had been accumulated, and features needed
for high power operation were shelved for the time being.[190]

Christy also calculated the area that would become contaminated if an accidental explosion occurred. A site
in Los Alamos Canyon was selected that was a safe distance from the township and downstream from the
water supply. Known as Omega, it was approved by the Governing Board on 19 August 1943. The Water
Boiler was not simple to construct. The two halves of the 12.0625-inch (306.39 mm) stainless steel sphere
that was the boiler had to be arc welded because solder would be corroded by the uranium salt. The CM-7
(Miscellaneous Metallurgy) Group produced beryllia bricks for the Water Boiler's tamper in December
1943 and January 1944. They were hot pressed in graphite at 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) at 100 pounds per square
inch (690  kPa) for 5 to 20 minutes. Some 53 bricks were made, shaped to fit around the boiler. The
building at Omega Site was ready, if incomplete, by 1 February 1944, and the Water Boiler was fully
assembled by 1 April. Sufficient enriched uranium had arrived by May to start it up, and it went critical on
9 May 1944.[190][193] It was only the third reactor in the world to do so, the first two being the Chicago
Pile-1 reactor at the Metallurgical Laboratory and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at the Clinton Engineer
Works.[187] Improved cross-section measurements allowed Christy to refine his criticality estimate to 575
grams. In fact, only 565 grams were required. The accuracy of his prediction surprised Christy more than
anyone.[190]

In September 1944, the P-7 (Water Boiler) Group became the F-2 (Water Boiler) Group, part of Fermi's F
Division.[194] On completion of the planned series of experiments in June 1944, it was decided to rebuild it
as a more powerful reactor. The original goal of 10  kW power was discarded in favor of 5  kW, which
would keep the cooling requirements simple. It was estimated that it would have a neutron flux of 5 x 1010
neutrons per square centimeter per second. Water cooling was installed, along with additional control rods.
This time uranium nitrate was used instead of uranium sulfate because the former could more easily be
decontaminated. The tamper of beryllia bricks was surrounded with graphite blocks, as beryllia was hard to
procure, and to avoid the (γ, n) reaction in the beryllium,[195] in which gamma rays produced by the
reactor-generated neutrons:[196]

9
4Be + γ → 84Be + n - 1.66 MeV

The reactor commenced operation in December 1944.[195]

Super
From the first, research into the Super was directed by Teller, who was its most enthusiastic proponent.
Although this work was always considered secondary to the objective of developing a fission bomb, the
prospect of creating more powerful bombs was sufficient to keep it going. The Berkeley summer
conference had convinced Teller that the Super was technologically feasible. An important contribution
was made by Emil Konopinski, who suggested that deuterium could more easily be ignited if it was mixed
with tritium. Bethe noted that a tritium-deuterium (T-D) reaction releases five times as much energy as a
deuterium-deuterium (D-D) reaction. This was not immediately followed up, because tritium was hard to
obtain, and there were hopes that deuterium could be easily ignited by a fission bomb, but the cross sections
of T-D and D-D were measured by Manley's group in Chicago and Holloway's at Purdue.[197]

By September 1943, the values of the D-D and T-D had been revised upwards, raising hopes that a fusion
reaction could be started at lower temperatures. Teller was sufficiently optimistic about the Super, and
sufficiently concerned about reports that the Germans were interested in deuterium, to ask the Governing
Board to raise its priority. The board agreed to some extent, but ruled that only one person could be spared
to work on it full-time. Oppenheimer designated Konopinski, who would spend the rest of the war working
 on it. Nonetheless, in February 1944, Teller added Stanislaw Ulam,
Jane Roberg, Geoffrey Chew, and Harold and Mary Argo to his T-
1 Group. Ulam calculated the inverse Compton cooling, while
Roberg worked out the ignition temperature of T-D
mixtures.[197][198] Maria Goeppert joined the group in February
1945.[199]

Teller argued for an increase in resources for Super research on the

basis that it appeared to be far more difficult than anticipated. The
The April 1946 colloquium on the board declined to do so, on the grounds that it was unlikely to bear
Super. In the front row are (left to fruit before the war ended, but did not cut it entirely. Indeed,
right) Norris Bradbury, John Manley, Oppenheimer asked Groves to breed some tritium from deuterium
Enrico Fermi and J. M. B. Kellogg. in the X-10 Graphite Reactor. For some months Teller and Bethe
Robert Oppenheimer, in dark coat, is argued about the priority of the Super research. In June 1944,
behind Manley; to Oppenheimer's left Oppenheimer removed Teller and his Super Group from Bethe's T
is Richard Feynman. The Army Division and placed it directly under himself. In September, it
officer on the left is Colonel Oliver became the F-1 (Super) Group in Fermi' s F Division.[197][198]
Haywood. Over the following months, Super research continued unabated. It
was calculated that burning 1 cubic meter (35  cu  ft) of liquid
deuterium would release the energy of 1 megatonne of TNT
(4.2 PJ), enough to devastate 1,000 square miles (2,600 km2 ).[200] The Super Group was transferred back
to T Division on 14 November 1945.[201]

A colloquium on the Super was held at the Los Alamos Laboratory in April 1946 to review the work done
during the war. Teller gave an outline of his "Classic Super" concept, and Nicholas Metropolis and
Anthony L. Turkevich presented the results of calculations that had been made concerning thermonuclear
reactions. The final report on the Super, issued in June and prepared by Teller and his group, remained
upbeat about the prospect of the Super being successfully developed, although that impression was not
universal among those present at the colloquium.[202] Work had to be curtailed in June 1946 due to the loss
of staff.[203] By 1950, calculations would show that the Classic Super would not work; that it would not
only be unable to sustain thermonuclear burning in the deuterium fuel, but would be unable to ignite it in
the first place.[202]

Trinity
Because of the complexity of an implosion-style weapon, it was decided that, despite the waste of fissile
material, an initial test would be required. Groves approved the test, subject to the active material being
recovered. Consideration was therefore given to a controlled fizzle, but Oppenheimer opted instead for a
full-scale nuclear test, codenamed "Trinity".[204] In March 1944, responsibility for planning the test was
assigned to Kenneth Bainbridge, a professor of physics at Harvard, working under Kistiakowsky.
Bainbridge selected the bombing range near Alamogordo Army Airfield as the site for the test.[205]
Bainbridge worked with Captain Samuel P. Davalos on the construction of the Trinity Base Camp and its
facilities, which included barracks, warehouses, workshops, an explosive magazine and a commissary.[206]

Groves did not relish the prospect of explaining the loss of a billion dollars worth of plutonium to a Senate
committee, so a cylindrical containment vessel codenamed "Jumbo" was constructed to recover the active
material in the event of a failure. Measuring 25 feet (7.6 m) long and 12 feet (3.7 m) wide, it was fabricated
at great expense from 214 long tons (217 t) of iron and steel by Babcock & Wilcox in Barberton, Ohio.
Brought in a special railroad car to a siding in Pope, New Mexico, it was transported the last 25 miles
(40  km) to the test site on a trailer pulled by two tractors.[207] By the time it arrived, confidence in the
implosion method was high enough, and the availability of plutonium was sufficient, that Oppenheimer
decided not to use it. Instead, it was placed atop a steel tower 800
yards (730  m) from the weapon as a rough measure of how
powerful the explosion would be. In the end, Jumbo survived,
although its tower did not, adding credence to the belief that Jumbo
would have successfully contained a fizzled explosion.[208][209]

A pre-test explosion was

conducted on 7 May 1945
to calibrate the instruments.
A wooden test platform
was erected 800 yards Herbert Lehr and Harry Daghlian
(730 m) from Ground Zero loading the assembled tamper plug
and piled with 108 short containing the plutonium pit and
tons (98  t) of TNT spiked initiator into a sedan for transport
with nuclear fission from the McDonald Ranch House to
the Trinity shot tower
products in the form of an
The explosives of "the gadget" were irradiated uranium slug
raised to the top of the tower for the from the Hanford Site,
final assembly.
which was dissolved and poured into tubing inside the explosive.
This explosion was observed by Oppenheimer and Groves's new
deputy commander, Brigadier General Thomas Farrell. The pre-test
produced data that proved vital for the Trinity test.[209][210]

For the actual test, the device, nicknamed "the gadget", was hoisted to the top of a 100-foot (30 m) steel
tower, as detonation at that height would give a better indication of how the weapon would behave when
dropped from a bomber. Detonation in the air maximized the energy applied directly to the target, and
generated less nuclear fallout. The gadget was assembled under the supervision of Norris Bradbury at the
nearby McDonald Ranch House on 13 July, and precariously winched up the tower the following day.[211]
Observers included Bush, Chadwick, Conant, Farrell, Fermi, Groves, Lawrence, Oppenheimer and
Tolman. At 05:30 on 16 July 1945 the gadget exploded with an energy equivalent of around 20 kilotons of
TNT, leaving a crater of Trinitite (radioactive glass) in the desert 250 feet (76 m) wide. The shock wave
was felt over 100 miles (160 km) away, and the mushroom cloud reached 7.5 miles (12.1 km) in height. It
was heard as far away as El Paso, Texas, so Groves issued a cover story about an ammunition magazine
explosion at Alamogordo Field.[212][213]

Project Alberta
Project Alberta, also known as Project A, was formed in March 1945, absorbing existing groups of
Parsons's O Division that were working on bomb preparation and delivery. These included Ramsey's O-2
(Delivery) Group, Birch's O-1 (Gun) Group, Bainbridge's X-2 (Development, Engineering, and Tests)
Group, Brode's O-3 (Fuse Development) Group and George Galloway's O-4 (Engineering)
Group.[214][215] Its role was to support the bomb delivery effort. Parsons became the head of Project
Alberta, with Ramsey as his scientific and technical deputy, and Ashworth as his operations officer and
military alternate.[216] In all, Project Alberta consisted of 51 Army, Navy and civilian personnel.[217] The
1st Technical Service Detachment, to which the personnel of Project Alberta were administratively
assigned, was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Peer de Silva,[218] and provided security and housing
services on Tinian.[219] There were two bomb assembly teams, a Fat Man Assembly Team under
Commander Norris Bradbury and Roger Warner, and a Little Boy Assembly Team under Birch. Philip
Morrison was the head of the Pit Crew, Bernard Waldman and Luis Alvarez led the Aerial Observation
Team,[216][215] and Sheldon Dike was in charge of the Aircraft Ordnance Team.[219] Physicists Robert
Serber and William Penney, and US Army Captain James F. Nolan, a medical expert, were special
consultants.[220] All members of Project Alberta had volunteered for the mission.[221]

Project Alberta proceeded with the plan to have the Little Boy
ready by 1 August, and the first Fat Man ready for use as soon as
possible after that.[222] In the meantime, a series of twelve combat
missions were flown between 20 and 29 July against targets in
Japan using high-explosive pumpkin bombs, versions of the Fat
Man with the explosives, but not the fissile core.[223] Project
Alberta's Sheldon Dike and Milo Bolstead flew on some of these
missions, as did the British observer Group Captain Leonard
Cheshire.[224] Four Little Boy pre-assemblies, L-1, L-2, L-5 and L-
6 were expended in test drops.[225][226] The Little Boy team had
Deak Parsons (right) supervises
the live bomb completely assembled and ready for use on 31
loading the Little Boy bomb into the
July.[227] The final item of preparation for the operation came on
B-29 Enola Gay. Norman Ramsey is
29 July 1945. Orders for the attack were issued to General Carl
on his left, with his back to the
Spaatz on 25 July under the signature of General Thomas T. camera.
Handy, the acting Chief of Staff of the United States Army, since
General of the Army George C. Marshall was at the Potsdam
Conference with President Harry S. Truman.[228] The order designated four targets: Hiroshima, Kokura,
Niigata, and Nagasaki, and ordered the attack to be made "as soon as weather will permit after about 3
August".[229]

Assembly of a Fat Man unit was a complex operation involving personnel from the High Explosive, Pit,
Fusing and Firing teams. To prevent the assembly building from becoming overcrowded and thereby
causing an accident, Parsons limited the numbers allowed inside at any time. Personnel waiting to perform
a specific task had to wait their turn outside the building. The first Fat Man pre-assembly, known as F13,
was assembled by 31 July, and expended in a drop test the next day. This was followed by F18 on 4
August, which was dropped the next day.[230] Three sets of Fat Man pre-assemblies, designated F31, F32,
and F33, arrived on B-29s of the 509th Composite Group and 216th Army Air Forces Base Unit on 2
August. On inspection, the high explosive blocks of F32 were found to be badly cracked and
unserviceable. The other two were assembled, with F33 earmarked for a rehearsal and F31 for operational
use.[231]

Parsons, as the weaponeer, was in command of the Hiroshima

mission. With Second Lieutenant Morris R. Jeppson of the 1st
Ordnance Squadron, he inserted the Little Boy's powder bags in
the Enola Gay's bomb bay in flight. Before climbing to altitude on
approach to the target, Jeppson switched the three safety plugs
between the electrical connectors of the internal battery and the
firing mechanism from green to red. The bomb was then fully
armed. Jeppson monitored its circuits.[232] Four other members of
Project Alberta flew on the Hiroshima mission. Luis Alvarez,
Harold Agnew and Lawrence H. Johnston were on the instrument
Fat Man bomb, with liquid asphalt
plane The Great Artiste. They dropped "Bangometer" canisters to
sealant sprayed on the casing's
measure the force of the blast, but this was not used to calculate the
seams, is readied on Tinian.
yield at the time.[233] Bernard Waldman was the camera operator
on the observation aircraft. He was equipped with a special high-
speed Fastax movie camera with six seconds of film in order to record the blast. Unfortunately, Waldman
forgot to open the camera shutter, and no film was exposed.[234][235] Other members of the team flew to
Iwo Jima in case Enola Gay was forced to land there, but this was not required.[236]

Purnell, Parsons, Paul Tibbets, Spaatz and Curtis LeMay met on Guam on 7 August, the day after the
Hiroshima attack, to discuss what should be done next. Parsons said that Project Alberta would have a Fat
Man bomb ready by 11 August, as originally planned, but Tibbets pointed to weather reports indicating
poor flying conditions on that day due to a storm, and asked if it could be readied by 9 August. Parsons
agreed to do so.[237] For this mission, Ashworth was the weaponeer, with Lieutenant Philip M. Barnes, of
the 1st Ordnance Squadron as assistant weaponeer on the B-29 Bockscar. Walter Goodman and Lawrence
H. Johnston were on board the instrumentation aircraft, The Great Artiste. Leonard Cheshire and William
Penney were on the observation plane Big Stink.[238] Robert Serber was supposed to be on board but was
left behind by the aircraft commander because he had forgotten his parachute.[239]

Health and safety

A medical program was established at Los Alamos under Captain
James F. Nolan of the United States Army Medical Corps.[240][241]
Initially, a small five-bed infirmary was established for civilians,
and a three-bed infirmary for military personnel. More serious cases
were handled by the Army's Bruns General Hospital in Santa Fe,
but this was soon regarded as unsatisfactory due to the loss of time
due to the long trip, and security risks. Nolan recommended that the
infirmaries be consolidated and expanded into a 60-bed hospital. A
54-bed hospital was opened in 1944, staffed by Army personnel. A
dentist arrived in March 1944.[242] A Veterinary Corps officer, Remote handling of a kilocurie
Captain J. Stevenson, had already been assigned to look after the source of radiolanthanum for a RaLa
Experiment at Los Alamos
guard dogs.[240]

Laboratory facilities for medical research were limited, but some

research was conducted into the effects of radiation, and the absorption and toxic effects of metals,
particularly plutonium and beryllium, mainly as a result of accidents.[243] The Health Group began
conducting urine tests of laboratory workers in early 1945, and many of these revealed dangerous levels of
plutonium.[244] Work on the Water Boiler also occasionally exposed workers to dangerous fission
products.[245] There were 24 fatal accidents at Los Alamos between its opening in 1943 and September
1946. Most involved construction workers. Four scientists died, including Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin
in criticality accidents involving the demon core.[246]

Security
On 10 March 1945, a Japanese fire balloon struck a power line, and the resulting power surge caused the
Manhattan Project's reactors at the Hanford site to be temporarily shut down.[247] This generated great
concern at Los Alamos that the site might come under attack. One night found everyone staring at a strange
light in the sky. Oppenheimer later recalled this demonstrated that "even a group of scientists is not proof
against the errors of suggestion and hysteria".[248]

With so many people involved, security was a difficult task. A special Counter Intelligence Corps
detachment was formed to handle the Manhattan Project's security issues.[249] By 1943, it was clear that
the Soviet Union was attempting to penetrate the project.[250] The most successful Soviet spy was Klaus
Fuchs of the British Mission.[251] The 1950 revelation of his espionage activities damaged the United
States' nuclear cooperation with Britain and Canada.[252] Subsequently, other instances of espionage were
uncovered, leading to the arrest of Harry Gold, David Greenglass and Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.[253]
Other spies like Theodore Hall remained unknown for decades.[254]

Post-war
After the war ended on 14 August 1945, Oppenheimer informed Groves of his intention to resign as
director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, but agreed to remain until a suitable replacement could be found.
Groves wanted someone with both a solid academic background and a high standing within the project.
Oppenheimer recommended Norris Bradbury. This was agreeable to Groves, who liked the fact that as a
naval officer Bradbury was both a military man and a scientist. Bradbury accepted the offer on a six-month
trial basis. Groves announced this at a meeting of division leaders on 18 September.[255] Parsons arranged
for Bradbury to be quickly discharged from the Navy,[256] which awarded him the Legion of Merit for his
wartime services.[257] He remained in the Naval Reserve, though, ultimately retiring in 1961 with the rank
of captain.[258] On 16 October 1945, there was a ceremony at Los Alamos at which Groves presented the
laboratory with the Army-Navy "E" Award, and presented Oppenheimer with a certificate of appreciation.
Bradbury became the laboratory's second director the following day.[259][260]

The first months of Bradbury's directorship were particularly trying.

He had hoped that Atomic Energy Act of 1946 would be quickly
passed by Congress and the wartime Manhattan Project would be
superseded by a new, permanent organization. It soon became clear
that this would take more than six months. President Harry S.
Truman did not sign the act creating the Atomic Energy
Commission into law until 1 August 1946, and it did not become
active until 1 January 1947. In the meantime, Groves' legal
authority to act was limited.[261]

Bradbury (left) examines plans for Most of the scientists at Los Alamos were eager to return to their
new laboratory sites and permanent laboratories and universities, and by February 1946 all of the
housing with Leslie Groves of the wartime division heads had left, but a talented core remained. Darol
Armed Forces Special Weapons Froman became head of Robert Bacher's G division, now renamed
Project (center) and Eric Jette (right)M Division. Eric Jette became responsible for Chemistry and
in April 1947; Colonel Lyle E. Metallurgy, John H. Manley for Physics, George Placzek for
Seeman stands behind Bradbury, Theory, Max Roy for Explosives, and Roger Wagner for
second from the left.
Ordnance.[259] Z Division was created in July 1945 to control
testing, stock piling, and bomb assembly activities. It was named
after Jerrold R. Zacharias, its leader until 17 October 1945, when
he returned to MIT, and was succeeded by Roger S. Warner. It moved to Sandia Base between March and
July 1946, except for its Z-4 (Mechanical Engineering) Group, which followed in February 1947.[262]

The number of personnel at the Los Alamos Laboratory plummeted from its wartime peak of over 3,000 to
around 1,000, but many were still living in substandard temporary wartime accommodation.[261] Despite
the reduced staff, Bradbury still had to provide support for Operation Crossroads, the nuclear tests in the
Pacific.[263] Ralph A. Sawyer was appointed the Technical Director with Marshall Holloway from B
Division and Roger Warner from Z Division as associate directors. Two ships were assigned for Los
Alamos Laboratory personnel, the USS Cumberland Sound and Albemarle. Operation Crossroads cost the
Los Alamos Laboratory over one million dollars, and the services of 150 personnel (about one-eighth of its
staff) for nine months.[264] As the United States had only about ten atomic bombs in mid-1946 about one
fifth of the stockpile was expended.[265]
The Los Alamos Laboratory became the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in January 1947.[266] The
contract with the University of California that had been negotiated in 1943 allowed the University to
terminate it three months after the end of hostilities, and it served notice. There were concerns about the
university operating a laboratory outside the state of California. The university was persuaded to rescind its
notice,[267] and the operating contract was extended until July 1948.[268] Bradbury would remain director
until 1970.[269] The total cost of Project Y up to the end of 1946 was $57.88 million (equivalent to $800
million in 2021).[65]

Notes
1. "National Register Information System" (https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP). National Register
of Historic Places. National Park Service. 9 July 2010.
2. Compton 1956, p. 14.
3. Rhodes 1986, pp. 251–254.
4. Hahn, O.; Strassmann, F. (1939). "Über den Nachweis und das Verhalten der bei der
Bestrahlung des Urans mittels Neutronen entstehenden Erdalkalimetalle" [On the detection
and characteristics of the alkaline earth metals formed by irradiation of uranium with
neutrons]. Die Naturwissenschaften. 27 (1): 11–15. Bibcode:1939NW.....27...11H (https://ui.a
dsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939NW.....27...11H). doi:10.1007/BF01488241 (https://doi.org/10.10
07%2FBF01488241). S2CID 5920336 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5920336).
5. Rhodes 1986, pp. 256–263.
6. Meitner, Lise; Frisch, O. R. (1939). "Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: a New Type of
Nuclear Reaction" (http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-back/meitner/index.html). Nature.
143 (3615): 239–240. Bibcode:1939Natur.143..239M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/193
9Natur.143..239M). doi:10.1038/143239a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F143239a0).
S2CID 4113262 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4113262).
7. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, p. 29.
8. Jones 1985, p. 12.
9. Gowing 1964, pp. 39–43, 407.
10. Gowing 1964, pp. 43–45.
11. Gowing 1964, p. 78.
12. Gowing 1964, pp. 107–109.
13. Rhodes 1986, p. 372.
14. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 43–44.
15. Oliphant, M. L. E.; Shire, E. S.; Crowther, B. M. (15 October 1934). "Separation of the
Isotopes of Lithium and Some Nuclear Transformations Observed with Them" (https://doi.or
g/10.1098%2Frspa.1934.0197). Proceedings of the Royal Society. 146 (859): 922–929.
Bibcode:1934RSPSA.146..922O (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1934RSPSA.146..922
O). doi:10.1098/rspa.1934.0197 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspa.1934.0197).
16. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 46–47.
17. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 50–51.
18. Compton 1956, p. 86.
19. Monk 2012, pp. 312–315.
20. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, p. 103.
21. Compton 1956, pp. 125–127.
22. Monk 2012, pp. 315–316.
23. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 42–44.
24. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 33–35.
25. Serber & Rhodes 1992, p. 21.
26. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 54–56.
27. Rhodes 1986, p. 417.
28. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 44–45.
29. Bethe 1991, p. 30.
30. Rhodes 1986, p. 419.
31. Konopinski, E. J; Marvin, C.; Teller, Edward (1946). "Ignition of the Atmosphere with Nuclear
Bombs" (https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00329010.pdf) (PDF). Los Alamos
National Laboratory. Retrieved 23 November 2008.
32. Monk 2012, p. 321.
33. Monk 2012, p. 325.
34. Jones 1985, pp. 82–83.
35. Jones 1985, p. 77.
36. Groves 1962, pp. 60–61.
37. Jones 1985, p. 87.
38. Groves 1962, pp. 61–63.
39. "FBI file: Katherine Oppenheimer" (https://vault.fbi.gov/Katherine%20Oppenheimer/Katherin
e%20Oppenheimer%20Part%201%20of%201) (PDF). Federal Bureau of Investigation. 23
May 1944. p. 2. Retrieved 16 December 2013.
40. Monk 2012, pp. 234–236.
41. "The Brothers" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071121210619/http://www.time.com/time/mag
azine/article/0,9171,800436,00.html). Time. 27 June 1949. Archived from the original (http://
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,800436,00.html) on 21 November 2007.
Retrieved 22 May 2008.
42. Jones 1985, pp. 83–84.
43. Groves 1962, pp. 64–65.
44. Truslow 1973, p. 2.
45. Fine & Remington 1972, pp. 664–665.
46. "50th Anniversary Article: Oppenheimer's Better Idea: Ranch School Becomes Arsenal of
Democracy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110420213027/http://www.lanl.gov/history/road/
school-arsenal.shtml). Los Alamos National Laboratory. Archived from the original (http://ww
w.lanl.gov/history/road/school-arsenal.shtml) on 20 April 2011. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
47. Groves 1962, pp. 66–67.
48. Jones 1985, pp. 328–331.
49. "Secretary of Agriculture granting use of land for Demolition Range" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20110420213401/http://www.lanl.gov/history/road/pdf/4-8-43.pdf) (PDF). Los Alamos
National Laboratory. 8 April 1943. Archived from the original (http://www.lanl.gov/history/roa
d/pdf/4-8-43.pdf) (PDF) on 20 April 2011. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
50. Manhattan District 1947a, p. 3.6.
51. Yardley, Jim (27 August 2001). "Land for Los Alamos Lab Taken Unfairly, Heirs Say" (https://
www.nytimes.com/2001/08/27/national/27LAND.html). The New York Times. Retrieved
25 August 2016.
52. Manhattan District 1947a, p. S3.
53. Manhattan District 1947a, p. 3.3.
54. Manhattan District 1947a, p. 2.7.
55. Manhattan District 1947a, p. s4.
56. Hunner 2004, pp. 31–32.
57. Manhattan District 1947a, pp. S5–S6.
58. Manhattan District 1947a, p. S19.
59. Monk 2012, p. 339.
60. Hunner 2004, p. 193.
61. Christman 1998, p. 118.
62. Jones 1985, p. 469.
63. Nichols 1987, pp. 59, 175.
64. Manhattan District 1947a, p. S9.
65. Manhattan District 1947a, p. S8.
66. Manhattan District 1947a, p. S16.
67. Manhattan District 1947a, pp. 6.65–6.66.
68. Manhattan District 1947a, pp. S6–S8.
69. Hunner 2004, pp. 92–94.
70. Hunner 2004, p. 29.
71. Jones 1985, pp. 474–475.
72. Chambers 1999, pp. 4–7.
73. Chambers 1999, pp. 41–49.
74. Hunner 2004, pp. 40–41.
75. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 230–232.
76. Hawkins 1961, p. 5.
77. Manhattan District 1947a, pp. 7.1–7.2.
78. Jones 1985, p. 86.
79. Hunner 2004, p. 16.
80. Hunner 2004, p. 50.
81. Groves 1962, pp. 153–154.
82. Manhattan District 1947a, pp. 6.33–6.34.
83. Manhattan District 1947a, pp. 7.2–7.5.
84. Hawkins 1961, p. 43.
85. Hawkins 1961, pp. 5–6.
86. Conant 2005, p. 23.
87. Groves 1962, p. 153.
88. Manhattan District 1947a, pp. 5.23–5.24.
89. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 109.
90. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 99–100.
91. Howes & Herzenberg 1999, pp. 43–45.
92. "Obituary: Lady Titterton, 1921–1995" (http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article130565761).
Canberra Times. National Library of Australia. 23 October 1995. p. 2. Retrieved
21 December 2014.
93. Hawkins 1961, p. 180.
94. Steeper 2003, pp. 1–3.
95. Hawkins 1961, pp. 32, 36.
96. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 92.
 97. Hawkins 1961, pp. 84, 101, 124, 148.
98. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 93–94.
99. Hawkins 1961, pp. 27–30.
100. Sharp, D.H. (1984). "An Overview of Rayleigh-Taylor Instability" (https://digital.library.unt.ed
u/ark:/67531/metadc1104671/). Physica D. 12 (1–3): 3–18. Bibcode:1984PhyD...12....3S (htt
ps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PhyD...12....3S). doi:10.1016/0167-2789(84)90510-4 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1016%2F0167-2789%2884%2990510-4).
101. Szasz 1992, pp. 18–19.
102. Szasz 1992, pp. 46–49.
103. Truslow & Smith 1961, p. 3.
104. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 111–114.
105. Hawkins 1961, pp. 74–75.
106. Serber & Crease 1998, p. 104.
107. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 75–78.
108. Hawkins 1961, pp. 85–88.
109. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 183–184.
110. Hawkins 1961, pp. 103–104.
111. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 78–80.
112. "Ernest William Titterton 1916–1990" (http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/aasmemoirs/
titterto.htm). Australian Academy of Science. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
113. Hawkins 1961, pp. 98–99.
114. Hawkins 1961, pp. 124–125.
115. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 82–85.
116. Hawkins 1961, pp. 127–128.
117. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 114–115.
118. Hawkins 1961, pp. 129–134.
119. Ramsey 2012, pp. 344–345.
120. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, p. 109.
121. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, p. 211.
122. Baker, Hecker & Harbur 1983, p. 141.
123. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 220–221.
124. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 223–227.
125. Baker, Hecker & Harbur 1983, p. 146.
126. Bohr, Niels; Wheeler, John Archibald (September 1939). "The Mechanism of Nuclear
Fission" (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.56.426). Physical Review. American Physical
Society. 56 (5): 426–450. Bibcode:1939PhRv...56..426B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1
939PhRv...56..426B). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.56.426 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.56.
426).
127. Libby, W. F. (1939). "Stability of Uranium and Thorium for Natural Fission". Physical Review.
55 (12): 1269. Bibcode:1939PhRv...55.1269L (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939PhR
v...55.1269L). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.55.1269 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.55.1269).
128. Frisch 1979, p. 129.
129. Scharff-Goldhaber, G.; Klaiber, G. S. (1946). "Spontaneous Emission of Neutrons from
Uranium". Physical Review. 70 (3–4): 229. Bibcode:1946PhRv...70..229S (https://ui.adsabs.
harvard.edu/abs/1946PhRv...70..229S). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.70.229.2 (https://doi.org/10.11
03%2FPhysRev.70.229.2).
130. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 250–251.
131. Segrè, Emilio (1952). "Spontaneous Fission". Physical Review. 86 (1): 21–28.
Bibcode:1952PhRv...86...21S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952PhRv...86...21S).
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.86.21 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.86.21). "The number of
neutrons emitted per spontaneous fission of uranium-238 has also been measured and
found to be 2.2±0.3."
132. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 229–233.
133. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 233–237.
134. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, p. 241.
135. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 233–239.
136. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 243–245.
137. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 242–244.
138. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 86–90.
139. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 312–313.
140. Hawkins 1961, p. 74.
141. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 129–130.
142. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 130–133.
143. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 137–139.
144. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 245–248.
145. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, p. 311.
146. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 245.
147. Hawkins 1961, p. 84.
148. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 162.
149. Hawkins 1961, pp. 214–215.
150. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 294–296.
151. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 161, 270–271, 307–308.
152. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 299.
153. Hansen (1995b), p. V-123.
154. Rhodes 1995, p. 195.
155. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 301–307.
156. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 148–154.
157. Hawkins 1961, p. 203.
158. Hansen 1995a, p. I-298.
159. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, p. 235.
160. Gilbert 1969, pp. 3–4.
161. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 308–310.
162. Baker, Hecker & Harbur 1983, pp. 144–145.
163. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 288.
164. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 290.
165. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 330–331.
166. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 250.
167. Hawkins 1961, p. 221.
168. Hawkins 1961, p. 223.
169. Rhodes 1986, p. 541.
170. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 218–219.
171. Jones 1985, p. 143.
172. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 210–211.
173. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 181.
174. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 210–213.
175. Hawkins 1961, p. 148.
176. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 252.
177. Hawkins 1961, pp. 224–225.
178. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 257.
179. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 255–256.
180. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 262.
181. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 265.
182. Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 30.
183. Hansen 1995b, pp. 111–112.
184. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 293.
185. Hansen 1995b, p. 113.
186. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 333.
187. Bunker 1983, pp. 124–125.
188. Hawkins 1961, pp. 116–120.
189. Hawkins 1961, pp. 165–166.
190. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 199–203.
191. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 88.
192. Hawkins 1961, p. 101.
193. Hawkins 1961, pp. 162–163.
194. Hawkins 1961, p. 213.
195. Hawkins 1961, pp. 218–219.
196. "Neutron Sources" (https://web.archive.org/web/20161112141937/http://www.nuclear-power.
net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/neutron/ne
utron-sources/). Nuclear Power. Archived from the original (http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuc
lear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/neutron/neutron-so
urces/) on 12 November 2016. Retrieved 12 November 2016.
197. Hawkins 1961, pp. 95–98.
198. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 203–204.
199. Dash 1973, pp. 296–299.
200. Hawkins 1961, pp. 214–216.
201. Truslow & Smith 1961, p. 60.
202. "American Experience . Race for the Superbomb . Super Conference" (https://www.pbs.org/
wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX71.html). PBS. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
203. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 631–632.
204. Jones 1985, p. 465.
205. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 318–319.
206. Jones 1985, pp. 478–481.
207. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 174–175.
208. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 365–367.
209. Jones 1985, p. 512.
210. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 360–362.
211. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 367–370.
212. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 372–374.
213. Jones 1985, pp. 514–517.
214. Ramsey 2012, p. 340.
215. "The Manhattan Project" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140204013045/http://physicsnow.or
g/history/acap/institutions/manhattan.jsp). Array of Contemporary American Physicists.
Archived from the original (http://physicsnow.org/history/acap/institutions/manhattan.jsp) on
4 February 2014. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
216. Ramsey 2012, p. 346.
217. Campbell 2005, p. 143.
218. Campbell 2005, p. 156.
219. Hawkins 1961, p. 286.
220. Campbell 2005, p. 157.
221. Russ 1990, p. 30.
222. Russ 1990, p. 52.
223. Campbell 2005, p. 27.
224. Campbell 2005, p. 50.
225. Campbell 2005, pp. 46, 80.
226. Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 100–101.
227. Russ 1990, p. 55.
228. Rhodes 1986, p. 691.
229. Campbell 2005, p. 41.
230. Russ 1990, pp. 56–57.
231. Campbell 2005, pp. 38–40.
232. Coster-Mullen 2012, pp. 34–35.
233. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 393.
234. McLellan, Dennis. "George Marquardt, U.S. war pilot over Hiroshima, dies at 84" (http://com
munity.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030824&slug=marquardtobit24). The
Seattle Times. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
235. Alvarez & Trower 1987, p. 66.
236. Russ 1990, p. 60.
237. Russ 1990, pp. 64–65.
238. Laurence, William L. "Eyewitness Account of Atomic Bomb Over Nagasaki" (http://www.ato
micarchive.com/Docs/Hiroshima/Nagasaki.shtml). National Science Digital Library.
Retrieved 18 March 2013.
239. "The Story of Nagasaki" (http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/history/nagasaki/page3.ht
ml). National Science Digital Library. Retrieved 28 March 2013.
240. Warren 1966, p. 879.
241. "James F. Nolan" (https://web.archive.org/web/20161114165520/http://www.atomicheritage.
org/profile/james-f-nolan). Atomic Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original (http://ww
w.atomicheritage.org/profile/james-f-nolan) on 14 November 2016. Retrieved 14 November
2016.
242. Jones 1985, pp. 424–426.
243. Warren 1966, p. 881.
244. Hacker 1987, pp. 68–69.
245. Hacker 1987, p. 71.
246. Wellenstein, Alex (15 February 2015). "How to die at Los Alamos" (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20161115015521/http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/02/13/how-to-die-at-los-alamos/).
Restricted Data. Archived from the original (http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/02/13/how-t
o-die-at-los-alamos/) on 15 November 2016. Retrieved 10 January 2017.
247. Jones 1985, p. 267.
248. Conant 2005, p. 253.
249. Jones 1985, pp. 258–260.
250. Jones 1985, pp. 261–265.
251. Groves 1962, pp. 142–145.
252. Hewlett & Duncan 1969, pp. 312–314.
253. Hewlett & Duncan 1969, p. 472.
254. Broad, William J. (12 November 2007). "A Spy's Path: Iowa to A-Bomb to Kremlin Honor" (ht
tps://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12koval.html). The New York Times. pp. 1–2.
Retrieved 2 July 2011.
255. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 625–626.
256. Ebinger 2006, pp. 82–83.
257. Agnew & Schreiber 1998, p. 9.
258. Ebinger 2006, p. 98.
259. Hoddeson et al. 1993, pp. 398–402.
260. Agnew & Schreiber 1998, p. 4.
261. Agnew & Schreiber 1998, p. 5.
262. Truslow & Smith 1961, pp. 95–96.
263. Agnew & Schreiber 1998, p. 6.
264. Truslow & Smith 1961, p. 22–23.
265. Wellerstein, Alex (25 July 2016). "Operation Crossroads at 70" (http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.co
m/2016/07/25/operation-crossroads-70/). Retrieved 27 August 2016.
266. Truslow & Smith 1961, p. v.
267. Ebinger 2006, pp. 89–90.
268. Hewlett & Duncan 1969, p. 43.
269. Agnew & Schreiber 1998, p. 3.

References
Agnew, Harold; Schreiber, Raemer E. (1998). Norris E. Bradbury 1909–1996: A
Biographical Memoir (http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-p
dfs/bradbury-ne.pdf) (PDF). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. OCLC 79388516
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/79388516). Retrieved 6 April 2013.
Alvarez, Luis W.; Trower, W. Peter (1987). Discovering Alvarez: Selected Works of Luis W.
Alvarez, with Commentary by his Students and Colleagues (https://archive.org/details/discov
eringalvar0000alva). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-81304-2.
OCLC 15791693 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/15791693).
Baker, Richard D.; Hecker, Siegfried S.; Harbur, Delbert R. (1983). "Plutonium: A Wartime
Nightmare but a Metallurgist's Dream" (http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?07-16.pdf) (PDF).
Los Alamos Science. Los Alamos National Laboratory (Winter/Spring): 142–151. Retrieved
22 November 2010.
Compton, Arthur (1956). Atomic Quest (https://archive.org/details/atomicquestperso0000com
p). New York: Oxford University Press. OCLC 173307 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/17330
7).
Bethe, Hans A. (1991). The Road from Los Alamos (https://archive.org/details/roadfromlosal
amo00beth). New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74012-2. OCLC 22661282 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/22661282).
Bunker, Merle E. (Winter–Spring 1983). "Early Reactors From Fermi's Water Boiler to Novel
Power Prototypes" (https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00416628.pdf) (PDF). Los
Alamos Science. Los Alamos National Laboratory: 124–131. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
Campbell, Richard H. (2005). The Silverplate Bombers: A History and Registry of the Enola
Gay and Other B-29s Configured to Carry Atomic Bombs. Jefferson, North Carolina:
McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2139-8. OCLC 58554961 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/oclc/58554961).
Chambers, Marjorie Bell (1999). The Battle for Civil Rights, or, How Los Alamos Became a
County. Los Alamos story. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos Historical Society.
ISBN 978-0-941232-23-4. OCLC 41185070 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41185070).
Christman, Albert B. (1998). Target Hiroshima: Deak Parsons and the Creation of the Atomic
Bomb. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-120-2.
OCLC 38257982 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38257982).
Conant, Jennet (2005). 109 East Palace: Robert Oppenheimer and the Secret City of Los
Alamos (https://archive.org/details/109eastpalacerob00cona). New York: Simon & Schuster.
ISBN 978-0-7432-5007-8.
Coster-Mullen, John (2012). Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat
Man. Waukesha, Wisconsin: J. Coster-Mullen. OCLC 298514167 (https://www.worldcat.org/
oclc/298514167).
Dash, Joan (1973). A life of One's Own: Three Gifted Women and the Men they Married (http
s://archive.org/details/lifeofonesownthr0000dash). New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-
06-010949-3. OCLC 606211 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/606211).
Ebinger, Virginia Nylander (2006). Norris E. Bradbury 1909–1997. Los Alamos, New
Mexico: Los Alamos Historical Society. ISBN 978-0-941232-34-0. OCLC 62408863 (https://
www.worldcat.org/oclc/62408863).
Fine, Lenore; Remington, Jesse A. (1972). The Corps of Engineers: Construction in the
United States (http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/010/10-5/CMH_Pub_10-5.pdf) (PDF).
Washington, D.C.: United States Army Center of Military History. OCLC 834187 (https://www.
worldcat.org/oclc/834187). Retrieved 25 August 2013.
Frisch, Otto Robert (1979). What Little I Remember (https://archive.org/details/whatlittleireme
m0000fris). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-28010-5.
OCLC 4114334 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4114334).
Gilbert, Keith V. (1969). History of the Dayton Project (https://web.archive.org/web/20190412
054801/https://www.eecap.org/PDF_Files/Ohio/Dayton_Project/History/HISTORY_OF_THE
_DAYTON_PROJECT.pdf) (PDF). Miamisburg, Ohio: Mound Laboratory, Atomic Energy
Commission. OCLC 650540359 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/650540359). Archived from
the original (http://www.eecap.org/PDF_Files/Ohio/Dayton_Project/History/HISTORY_OF_T
HE_DAYTON_PROJECT.pdf) (PDF) on 12 April 2019. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
Gowing, Margaret (1964). Britain and Atomic Energy, 1935–1945. London: Macmillan
Publishing. OCLC 3195209 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/3195209).
Groves, Leslie (1962). Now it Can be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project (https://archiv
e.org/details/nowitcanbetolds00grov). New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-306-70738-4.
OCLC 537684 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/537684).
Hacker, Barton C. (1987). The Dragon's Tail: Radiation Safety in the Manhattan Project,
1942–1946 (https://archive.org/details/dragonstailradia0000hack). University of California
Press. ISBN 978-0-520-05852-1. OCLC 13794117 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1379411
7).
Hansen, Chuck (1995a). Volume I: The Development of US Nuclear Weapons. Swords of
Armageddon: US Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945. Sunnyvale, California:
Chukelea Publications. ISBN 978-0-9791915-1-0. OCLC 231585284 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/231585284).
Hansen, Chuck (1995b). Volume V: US Nuclear Weapons Histories. Swords of
Armageddon: US Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945. Sunnyvale, California:
Chukelea Publications. ISBN 978-0-9791915-0-3. OCLC 231585284 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/231585284).
Hawkins, David (1961). Manhattan District history, Project Y, the Los Alamos Project –
Volume I: Inception until August 1945
(https://archive.org/details/projectylosalamo0002unse). Los Angeles: Tomash Publishers.
ISBN 978-0-938228-08-0. LAMS-2532. Retrieved 20 February 2014.
Hewlett, Richard G.; Anderson, Oscar E. (1962). The New World, 1939–1946 (https://www.g
overnmentattic.org/5docs/TheNewWorld1939-1946.pdf) (PDF). University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0-520-07186-5. OCLC 637004643 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/oclc/637004643). Retrieved 26 March 2013.
Hewlett, Richard G.; Duncan, Francis (1969). Atomic Shield, 1947–1952 (http://energy.gov/si
tes/prod/files/2013/04/f0/Hewlett%20and%20Duncan%20-%20Atomic%20Shield%20%28co
mplete%29.pdf) (PDF). A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0-520-07187-2.
OCLC 3717478 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/3717478). Retrieved 13 December 2016.
Hoddeson, Lillian; Henriksen, Paul W.; Meade, Roger A.; Westfall, Catherine L. (1993).
Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos During the Oppenheimer Years,
1943–1945 (https://archive.org/details/criticalassembly0000unse). New York: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-44132-2. OCLC 26764320 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/
26764320).
Howes, Ruth H.; Herzenberg, Caroline L. (1999). Their Day in the Sun: Women of the
Manhattan Project. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-56639-719-3.
OCLC 49569088 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49569088).
Hunner, Jon (2004). Inventing Los Alamos: The Growth of an Atomic Community. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-3891-6. OCLC 154690200 (https://www.wo
rldcat.org/oclc/154690200).
Jones, Vincent (1985). Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb (https://history.army.mil/h
tml/books/011/11-10/CMH_Pub_11-10.pdf) (PDF). Washington, D.C.: United States Army
Center of Military History. OCLC 10913875 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/10913875).
Retrieved 25 August 2013.
Manhattan District (1947a). Manhattan District History, Book VIII, Volume 1 – Los Alamos
Project – General (https://www.osti.gov/includes/opennet/includes/MED_scans/Book%20VII
I%20-%20%20Volume%201%20-%20Los%20Alamos%20Project%20(Y)%20-%20General.
pdf) (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Manhattan District. Retrieved 7 March 2017.
Monk, Ray (2012). Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center. New York; Toronto:
Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-50407-2.
Nichols, Kenneth David (1987). The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America's
Nuclear Policies Were Made. New York: William Morrow and Company. ISBN 978-0-688-
06910-0. OCLC 15223648 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/15223648).
 Ramsey, N. F. (2012). "History of Project A". In Coster-Mullen, John (ed.). Atom Bombs: The
Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man. United States: J. Coster-Mullen.
OCLC 298514167 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/298514167).
Rhodes, Richard (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.
ISBN 978-0-671-44133-3. OCLC 13793436 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/13793436).
Rhodes, Richard (1995). Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (https://archive.org/d
etails/darksunmakingofh00rhod). New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-80400-2.
Russ, Harlow W. (1990). Project Alberta: The Preparation of Atomic Bombs For Use in
World War II. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Exceptional Books. ISBN 978-0-944482-01-8.
OCLC 24429257 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/24429257).
Serber, Robert; Rhodes, Richard (1992). The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How
to Build an Atomic Bomb. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-07576-4.
OCLC 23693470 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/23693470).
Serber, Robert; Crease, Robert P. (1998). Peace & War: Reminiscences of a Life on the
Frontiers of Science (https://archive.org/details/peacewarreminisc00serb). New York:
Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-10546-0. OCLC 37631186 (https://www.worldc
at.org/oclc/37631186).
Steeper, Nancy Cook (2003). Gatekeeper to Los Alamos: Dorothy Scarritt McKibbin. Los
Alamos: Alamos Historical Society. ISBN 978-0-941232-30-2. OCLC 57475908 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/57475908).
Szasz, Ferenc Morton (1992). British Scientists and the Manhattan Project: the Los Alamos
Years. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-06167-8. OCLC 23901666 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/23901666).
Truslow, Edith C. (1973). Manhattan District History – Nonscientific aspects of Los Alamos
Project Y 1942 though 1946 (https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/publica
tions/LANLMDHNonscientificAspects.pdf) (PDF). Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos
National Laboratory. LA-5200. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
Truslow, Edith C.; Smith, Ralph Carlisle (1961). Manhattan District History, Project Y, the Los
Alamos Project – Volume II: August 1945 though December 1946 (https://archive.org/details/
projectylosalamo0002unse). Los Angeles: Tomash Publishers. ISBN 978-0-938228-08-0.
LAMS-2532. Retrieved 20 February 2014.
Warren, Stafford L. (1966). "The Role of Radiology in the Development of the Atomic Bomb".
In Ahnfeldt, Arnold Lorentz (ed.). Radiology in World War II. Washington, D.C.: Office of the
Surgeon General, Department of the Army. OCLC 630225 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/63
0225).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Y&oldid=1095464719"

This page was last edited on 28 June 2022, at 14:36 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.