Thursday, December 5, 2013
UC begins search for new LLNL Director
As agreed among the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) partners, the University of California (UC) is responsible for leading the search for the next LLNL Director. Today, UC Regent and Chairman of the LLNS Board of Governors Norman Pattiz announced the commencement of the LLNL Director search process.
In a letter to employees requesting nominations for and asking for comments on the position, Pattiz indicated: "The University's search process will be similar in scope and breadth to those of prior Director searches for all three UC-affiliated labs -- Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos (LANL) and Lawrence Berkeley (LBNL) national laboratories. The process includes use of a Search Committee and a Screening Task Force, both of which include LLNL colleagues." In addition, an executive search firm has been hired.
A number of actions have been accomplished or are in the planning stages:
- Chairman Pattiz and UC President Janet Napolitano have approved the Search Committee as directed by UC Regents policy.
- The position has been posted on LLNL and UC jobs websites and will be listed on LANL, LBNL, other national lab, and LLC partner jobs websites. The job posting is also being advertised nationally on respected science, higher education, social media, and diversity outreach websites.
- The Search Committee will be at LLNL in January for "Lab Day" to hear from employees, management and the Livermore Field Office manager. The Committee will use input from Lab Day to further develop selection criteria to be used to assess the candidates during the search process to determine the best individual for the position.
- Letters requesting nominations are being sent to senior leaders in Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, and Department of Defense, national laboratory directors; past LLNL, LANL and LBNL directors; the LLNS Board of Governors; UC leadership; appropriate federal, state and local elected officials, and selected research university presidents.
- The Screening Task Force has been formed to assist the Search Committee. It is chaired by Professor Marvin Adams, Texas A&M University, and will consist of a cross-section of LLNL employees, representatives from LANL and LBNL, and noted scientists and administrators who are knowledgeable about LLNL, its scientific work and its role as a DOE/NNSA national laboratory, and who are informed about the relevant LLNL scientific areas.
- A moderated questions and answers forum has been posted.
In his letter to employees, Pattiz stated: "LLNL has a stellar record of outstanding science, engineering and technology in support of the nation, and the selection of a visionary leader is critical to the Laboratory's continued success. I can assure you that the selection of your next leader is a responsibility that all of us involved in the search process take very seriously. Collectively, we will have an impressive group of individuals providing advice and counsel, and I am confident that we will have an exceptional outcome."
To be given full consideration, nominations and applications for the LLNL Director should be submitted no later than January 31, 2014 in accordance with the nominations & applications instructions provided.
https://www.llnl.gov/director-search/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Bruce all the way... though he deserves a better job than being the captain of a sinking ship.
Is that Bruce G, most most notable for the quote "he who has the gold makes the rules at LLNL"? Hell, why not invite Tomas to apply too.
Bruce >>>> Tomas
Goethe said "What does not kill me, makes me stronger" whereas Tomas said "what does not kill me, makes me fat."
Goethe ~= Bruce >> Tomas.
Exceptional defined as Albright and Anastasio - I think NOT! So why should this process be any different. Hell why not bring back the entire transition team for a real bunch of losers!
If Bruce = Bruce W., I think not. This position needs someone more visionary even if he (it will be a he, I cannot think of a single she who would be a good match) is not as capable, because he can delegate to people like Bruce to get things done. I cannot think of a single person at LLNL who would be good fit, so almost certainly the winner will be from outside.
Tomas says:
Lo que no mata, engorda.
Don't give a freaking damn about what Tomas says. His admiring thousands ignore his ignorance and stupidity and just admire his accent (and maybe his penis).
Not Bruce W, but Bruce G. Bruce G is no dummy though. He will know when to jump ship before it starts taking on water.
Bring Sig Hecker to the helm, after all he's close by at the Hoover Institute at Stanford.
Heck, throw Goldstein and Schwartz into ring for director.
Goldstein and Schwartz in the ring? I already know the results. Schwartz beats Goldstein. Yeah !!! bravo...OOppps, Glenn Fox beats Golstein and Schwartz to it.
We all know that Goodwin is the best and most qualified candidate for the job. No one else even comes close. Only thing is that I feel bad for the poor bastard for inheriting a lab in such shambles. WCI that is essentially a matrix to NIF and not the other way around. Atleast the job pays well, and he can jump ship whenever the shite hits the fan.
Best within the lab perhaps, but inadequate for the challenge. It will have to be someone from the outside. And, no-doubt, LLNS would prefer someone from the outside who is not part of the old-school lab culture that is now a dinosaur. Look for a CEO type from the defense contracting industry.
I agree with "December 9, 2013 at 6:56 AM"
I hope UC picks an outsider (and not from another NNSA lab), who is a scientist (not an engineer) with experience overseeing large scientific institutions and/or federally funded research and development centers.
I'd hope they look at some of the senior leaders from non-NNSA labs, including those of DOE, NASA and DOD.
I agree with "December 9, 2013 at 6:56 AM"
I hope UC picks an outsider (and not from another NNSA lab), who is a scientist (not an engineer) with experience overseeing large scientific institutions and/or federally funded research and development centers.
December 9, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Geez, didn't you get enough of Parney?
Don't work up a sweat thinking about it. The powers that be at the LLC have already ordered the letters "B.K. #1" to be painted on a prime parking spot at LLNL.
The hardest part of this performance piece will be keeping a straight face and announcing that they "made a serious search" for the best candidate.
I seriously doubt Bruce Goodwin is interested in the job. He was a candidate last time, and was not selected. (The DC folks didn't want a 'weaponeer') He is most certainly qualified, but I feel like he isn't going to hang around much longer. The ship is 'listing' and taking on water. Mr. Knapp will likely be selected. All government facilities are in a pickle with the rampant dysfunction in Washington. Who knows what the future holds? Not looking too good....
Just when you think it couldn't possibly get any worse, it will.
My vote (guess) is that Ray Juzaitus will be the next director. Been around the horn twice, got lots of "experience", never had an original thought and those he had were stolen from underlings. He is an excellent BSer and has had the right tickets in the weapons community.
Lets hear it for Ray J Ray J hey hey............
The ship may be listing but it's in very shallow waters so it won't technically "sink." That is considered a success for the lab! Who wouldn't want to be the captain of a permanently grounded sea vessel that has "humidity problems" on all the lower decks? All you have to do is close your eyes and imagine that the ship is steaming across deep blue expanses. All those problems? Mere details. So long as the money rolls in, there is no problem.
LLNL had defined the term "scientific sinking" which is not to be confused with the word "sinking." "Scientific sinking" has been defined by llnl to mean a ship that is fully submerged under water at depths atleast ten times the maximum height of a ship defined as the difference between the highest vertical position on a ship to the lowest point of a ship. As such, LLNL has been able to achieve what all maritime fleets have sought out over the past two millennia - the "unsinkable ship." By using very tall thin vertical masts several hundred miles in length, and attached to the ship, it is able to achieve scientific unsinkability. This is the holy grail for all naval powers. The lab has put out press reports on this great accomplishment, and this story has even been picked up by the BBC. Also a press release is being planned to announce the plans for preparing and submitting a PRL regarding this amazing feat. Just the mere suggestion of the work involving a PRL submission is a victory in itself, and so the act if actually submitting it may detract from the accomplishment. As such, the submission will not actually occur, but the public will be reminded continuously regarding the suggestions of a submission to impress upon them the magnitude of this great accomplishment.
Dec 11, 12:37pm - Kudos for a great posting. I like the "scinetifically unsinkable" ship concept.
However, regardless of how small a step you think "scientific breakeven" is (as defined by energy into the fuel - energy out of the fuel) - no other facility has been able to do it yet. Not ANY of the many MFE attempts, nor LLE, nor Z, nor any of the earlier LANL machines. Just sayin.
A working weapon gets energy out greater than in. You could take a capsule of DT and compress it by various means and get more energy out than in when you start getting reactions. But your neutron yields are so piss poor. It's a non-accomplishment to claim scientific break even when you are not getting significant alpha heating. It's understandable that LLNL needs to report these incremental advances. The budget sharks are circling over the smell of blood after the recent fiascos. The performance metrics are laughable though, leading me to suspect that NIF is just "making shite up" to give people a false sense that they are closer to ignition than they actually are. In fact it looks like your neutron yields are going down with your attempts to get better compression? We need better, measurable and meaningful metrics.
You claim that "You could take a capsule of DT and compress it by various means and get more energy out than in when you start getting reactions". You are simply wrong.
I repeat the actual data: it has not been done anywhere before, except for the case of a weapon.
Neutron yields are also higher than produced by any other device, except for actual weapons. So, you say they're piss-poor, but theyre still better than anywhere else.
Propose any reasonable metric you like, and the answer will be the same.
Note that I am NOT arguing that this is great progress, though I think it is. I am only arguing that this is better than any other effort, anywhere, any time. So it's not insignificant.
Not insignificant, but not very important either, because it does not scale and can not scale to ignition. So it is a nice result and shows that, yes, alphas stop the way they are expected to based on a large amount of past other data. But it is a minor result, not even meeting the goal of the original 2012 DOE milestone that was intended to mean significant alpha heating in an "ignitable" target. The proper perspective is missing from lab pronouncements.
Post a Comment