This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
The central matter facing UC as they search for the next Director is should LLNL be uniquely focused on weapons work, or expanding its sponsor suite. This question has been danced around since the transition, but still remains an open subject. In the last six years, between the two facilities, six leaders have been tasked with program funding diversification in an effort to migrate towards a multi-sponsor lab (LLNL: Doesburg, Albright, Warner; LANL: Beason, Reese, Wallace). Internally some have regarded this as a fool’s errand, while others have watched SNL benefit from non-weapons programmatic projects. In its typical schizophrenic fashion, NNSA has sent mixed signals on how these efforts are viewed – derisively calling them work for “others” and simultaneously making a big deal out of the cooperation agreement that was signed with DOD, DHS, and IC. The multiple attempts by multiple lab leaders to move the needle on WFO funding have led to very limited success, and in most cases have actually decreased external support. As the next Director is selected, it is worth a critical examination of why WFO only increased under one of the above six leaders. Perhaps the enterprise is not ready for diversification, and should uniquely focus on weapons work. From all accounts, this is clearly the path that LANL has taken most recently, and maybe LLNL should follow that lead as well.
While this is an excellent idea to put the focus on weapons work, there is a big problem: LLNL has over the past decade doubled and tripled-down on NIF and LIFE which do little or nothing to support the weapons program. They have gutted non-NIF weapons work. So funnily enough LLNL is both less diversified, and less weapons program relevant, simultaneously.
NIF supporters would argue that NIF is a core capability for stockpile stewardship. This is only wishful thinking. LLNL would love for an asteroid come down and obliterate Sandia's Z machine. Again, more wishful thinking.
LLNL needs a big technical victory, not more problems, like the Ta phase transition debacle or the deuterium EoS scandal. But the problem is that they needed a track record of victories, not these pathetic stunts as was demonstrated by claiming "scientific break even" with 14kJ to the BBC. LLNL's problem is exacerbated by the fact that they are operating in a "scientific failure mode" where all the engineering successes are nullified by their scientific failures.
Returning to a weapons focused missions means realizing NIF for what it is -a renewable energy experiment - and focusing on activities that add value to stockpile stewardship. But I would bet Money that this isn't going to happen. Doubling down on a clearly losing bet, and then further doubling down, prolonging the agony, is like the gambling addict who has maxed out his credit cards and put his house and reputation all on the line. Failure is not an option for such people, even when success is impossible or unlikely. They become more and more desperate, willing to do and say anything. They begin to pose a risk to the sponsor because you can not trust the work they produce, because they have such a strong incentive to, and history of fabrication and deception.
So all of this begs the question of what must go through the minds of LLNL and NIF management. Are they living in a fantasy world? Or do they knowingly accept the fact that what they say or do has no relationship to reality? Maybe they are just holding out hope for that asteroid to land on Sandia's Z machine. The NIF would undeniably be the only show in town, muting all of its own scientific and programmatic "problems." After all, Sandia and its "good science" is the enemy - Tom Hunter and Paul Hommert the Kim Jong Ill and Kim Jong Un of New Mexico. How dare the Z scientists take the high road and focus on scientific excellence. Who do they think they are anyways? How dare they!!!
3 comments:
The central matter facing UC as they search for the next Director is should LLNL be uniquely focused on weapons work, or expanding its sponsor suite. This question has been danced around since the transition, but still remains an open subject. In the last six years, between the two facilities, six leaders have been tasked with program funding diversification in an effort to migrate towards a multi-sponsor lab (LLNL: Doesburg, Albright, Warner; LANL: Beason, Reese, Wallace). Internally some have regarded this as a fool’s errand, while others have watched SNL benefit from non-weapons programmatic projects. In its typical schizophrenic fashion, NNSA has sent mixed signals on how these efforts are viewed – derisively calling them work for “others” and simultaneously making a big deal out of the cooperation agreement that was signed with DOD, DHS, and IC. The multiple attempts by multiple lab leaders to move the needle on WFO funding have led to very limited success, and in most cases have actually decreased external support. As the next Director is selected, it is worth a critical examination of why WFO only increased under one of the above six leaders. Perhaps the enterprise is not ready for diversification, and should uniquely focus on weapons work. From all accounts, this is clearly the path that LANL has taken most recently, and maybe LLNL should follow that lead as well.
While this is an excellent idea to put the focus on weapons work, there is a big problem: LLNL has over the past decade doubled and tripled-down on NIF and LIFE which do little or nothing to support the weapons program. They have gutted non-NIF weapons work. So funnily enough LLNL is both less diversified, and less weapons program relevant, simultaneously.
NIF supporters would argue that NIF is a core capability for stockpile stewardship. This is only wishful thinking. LLNL would love for an asteroid come down and obliterate Sandia's Z machine. Again, more wishful thinking.
LLNL needs a big technical victory, not more problems, like the Ta phase transition debacle or the deuterium EoS scandal. But the problem is that they needed a track record of victories, not these pathetic stunts as was demonstrated by claiming "scientific break even" with 14kJ to the BBC. LLNL's problem is exacerbated by the fact that they are operating in a "scientific failure mode" where all the engineering successes are nullified by their scientific failures.
Returning to a weapons focused missions means realizing NIF for what it is -a renewable energy experiment - and focusing on activities that add value to stockpile stewardship. But I would bet Money that this isn't going to happen. Doubling down on a clearly losing bet, and then further doubling down, prolonging the agony, is like the gambling addict who has maxed out his credit cards and put his house and reputation all on the line. Failure is not an option for such people, even when success is impossible or unlikely. They become more and more desperate, willing to do and say anything. They begin to pose a risk to the sponsor because you can not trust the work they produce, because they have such a strong incentive to, and history of fabrication and deception.
So all of this begs the question of what must go through the minds of LLNL and NIF management. Are they living in a fantasy world? Or do they knowingly accept the fact that what they say or do has no relationship to reality? Maybe they are just holding out hope for that asteroid to land on Sandia's Z machine. The NIF would undeniably be the only show in town, muting all of its own scientific and programmatic "problems." After all, Sandia and its "good science" is the enemy - Tom Hunter and Paul Hommert the Kim Jong Ill and Kim Jong Un of New Mexico. How dare the Z scientists take the high road and focus on scientific excellence. Who do they think they are anyways? How dare they!!!
If an asteroid came down and obliterated Z, it would be a godsend for Sandia. NNSA would step in to fund an even BIGGER Z machine. C'mon asteroids!!!!
Post a Comment