Naval shipyard X-ray inspection inefficiency study

Yeah, of course. But with the laser, you have to cordon off the whole area, you have to automate it, because the laser goes so fast with this high power density that no human can control it. You can't have a torch and aim the laser by hand, plus you have the reflected light. If you go to General Motors with a laser, it'll be orange. Boeing, they might be using a laser, it'll be a locked-out area. And there are interlocks — no one can go in the area while the laser's on. You've seen the laboratories around here — flashing lights, laser on, do not enter the room. It's sort of like taking x-rays at the shipyard — you've got to have 15 people standing watch to make sure some rat doesn't run in there. Maybe not a rat, maybe an employee, but nonetheless.

The closing teaching beat. Around 1996–97, NAVSEA permitted UT (ultrasonic testing) as an alternative to radiography; commercial shipyards (Electric Boat, David Taylor, Bath, Ingalls) all converted within a year. Navy shipyards continued radiography, requiring ~30 guards per x-ray session at ~$2M/shift. A 2N student around 2003 studied why. Tom's framing: Navy shipyards exist to preserve civil service jobs, not to save money. Tied back to the Alvin overrun: "the Alvin was just a minor overrun compared to x-ray inspection in naval shipyards today."