Anonymous wants to know what you think:
NNSA Press Release
August 5, 2009
NNSA approves Livermore Valley Open Campus concept
Scientific collaboration key goal of more interactive approach
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Nuclear Security Administration today announced the first step toward the creation of the Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC), a joint venture between Sandia National Laboratories and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that will promote greater collaboration between the world-class scientists at the nuclear security labs and their partners in industry and academia.
The LVOC, which would create a shared space between the two adjacent labs, is in keeping with NNSA’s vision for increased scientific interaction and collaboration across the nuclear security enterprise. The proposal signed by NNSA Administrator Thomas D’Agostino and the Undersecretary for Science Steve Koonin, endorses the LVOC concept and moving forward on the conceptual development of design alternatives required to reconfigure the existing laboratories into a more open layout.
"A Livermore Valley Open Campus will maximize the return on our nation's investment in nuclear security," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "By leveraging the groundbreaking research of our nuclear security labs through private sector collaborations, we will bring breakthroughs to the market faster and find new solutions to the energy problem."
Open access to the LVOC by the international science community would directly support the advancement of Sandia’s Hub for Innovation in the Transportation Energy Community (HITEC), promote key LLNL programs such as the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and its High Density Energy research, increase the profile of NNSA in the region, expand the high-tech “footprint” of the Bay Area and establish the Livermore Valley as the high-tech anchor in the East Bay.
NNSA will now begin to gather information from the laboratories, work on a conceptual design for the layout of the proposed campus, and study any environmental, security and cost implications surrounding the concept.
http://nnsa.energy.gov/news/2476.htm
9 comments:
"NNSA will now begin to gather information from the laboratories, work on a conceptual design for the layout of the proposed campus, and study any environmental, security and cost implications surrounding the concept." How long do you think it will be before the next RIF and who do you think will be the first to go?
Ah, the greening of the DOE complex has begun. We will be open and friendly, kinder and gentler. It reminds me of Hazel O'leary. She was clueless.
We carve off an eastern chunk of the lab on Greenville Road and pull the fence line in. Does this campus get it's own utilities (Water, Gas, Electric, Sewer) or does it siphon off of the lab? If it uses the lab infrastructure what prevents nut cases from walking onto the open campus and sabotaging the lab by proxy? An example would be throwing a hazardous chemical into the sewer so that the lab gets blamed.
How much infrastructure support will be supplied by the lab and does it come out of the lab's budget without being supplemented by DOE/NNSA/Congress?
Chu does not feel our pain, neither did Hazel.
But it might require construction, and Bechtel must be jumping for joy - that's something they know how to do.
How much of the scientific staff will need to be laid off to pay for this Livermore Valley Open Campus idea?
You can probably guess that the cost for this will be coming straight from the LLNL operating budget if NNSA has anything to do with it. Plan on something like a new 15% overhead tax added to all existing projects.
The Open Campus is just an intellectual whorehouse. Outsiders will come in, use Lab staff "services", pay GM some nice bucks, then leave. The staff either cooperates with our esteemed pimp or bad things will happen.
"The Open Campus is just an intellectual whorehouse." - 5:23 PM
Yeah, but it makes LLNS top management and NNSA look good. That's all that is important.
...what prevents nut cases from walking onto the open campus...
I don't think we should interpret the word 'open' to mean no security. Just an easier environment to have outsiders (domestic & foreign) come to interact.
The Open Campus is just an intellectual whorehouse.
I don't get the brothel analogy. Places like ORNL are flourishing with outside engagement enabled in part by a mixed security environment. And this is a concept that the California delegation might actually get behind with some line item support.
No miracle, but a step in the right direction.
Tis true that all whores have customers, but not all people with customers are whores.
I don't understand why we would spend any of our own precious few remaining dollars on this "Field of Dreams" just to avoid having to go through the LLNL badging process.
This open campus is actually a great idea to get more work for others and get our operating costs down. Currently, we are the most expensive national lab to do business with by at least two fold.
Neko,
Let's assume that the buildings, maintenance of those new buildings, utilities, minimal security and the like are paid for by some other entity.
While you are working at the campus are you being paid by this outside entity. Would LANS/NNSA only be funding your benefits (sick leave, vacation, retirement)?
Does NNSA relax the rules so that the time you spend at the new campus exempts you from the myriad safety/security rules? Would you be exempt from ladder safety classes and the like? Those are the type of things that drive up the cost of doing business with the lab.
I just can't see anything that is near the influence of NNSA will be able to avoid the eventual insidious grasp of the hand of NNSA. And if Bechtel isn't getting a shiny nickle out of this, how far can it go?
Finally, since this will be so close to NIF, will the open campus have to buy a Personal Seat License ALA the Oakland Raiders just to enjoy the proximity of Dr. Moses.
Post a Comment