Sandia contract extended for two years
http://www.abqjournal.com/370441/news/contract-for-sandia-labs-extended-2-years.html
http://www.abqjournal.com/370441/news/contract-for-sandia-labs-extended-2-years.html
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
However, the fact that LANS got an abysmal management rating of only 49% for the last fiscal year and did not get what is usually a regular contract extension added on for another year tells you that LANS may not be long for this world.
It doesn't help that McMillan seems OK with keeping the prime function at his lab, TA-55 pit production and plutonium work, in mothballs for over 10 months now. The TA-55 work, along with the jobs, will soon be moving out to another more productive lab, most likely Savannah River.
Los Alamos has become by far the most expensive lab in the NNSA complex. Costs are out of control. That may soon be rectified.
March 21, 2014 at 11:05 PM
Incorrect, and (apparently intentionally) misleading. Here are the real scores:
"The lab received scores of 95 percent in Science, Technology and Engineering, 91 percent in broader national security mission, 90 percent in contract leadership, 87 percent in nuclear weapons mission and 49 percent in operations and management" - Los Alamos Monitor, 2/15/14.
You don't help your argument when you misstate facts that are so easily checked.
"This message brought to you from your friends in the LANS corporate communications office."
"Your overhead dollars hard at work, blogging for a positive image of LANS."
March 23, 2014 at 10:44 AM
You know this blog is doomed when people start complaining about factual material being posted. Sorry to upset your fantasy world of victimism.
March 21, 2014 at 11:05 PM
This is what we hear from WFO sponsors every day and LANL management keeps making it more expensive to to the work. The projects are going to SNL and other labs and not to LANL. WFO has heavily declined at LANL over the last few years and does not show any sign of picking back up.
The mission seems to be: Keeping management fat and happy while the scientific capabilities slowly erode away. Really, in all truth, that's the current (unspoken) LANS mission for LANL.
The mission seems to be: Keeping management fat and happy while the scientific capabilities slowly erode away.
March 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM
Mcmillan has no interest in keeping WFO at LANL - he has his orders from the LANS board.
Since the "scientific capabilities" are all that got LANS better than a 50% grade overall in the fy2013 NNSA ratings, I assume that LANS will try to keep them up rather than lose the contract next year.
March 23, 2014 at 8:47 PM
Oppenheimer
Bradbury
Agnew
Kerr (an anomaly)
Hecker
Browne
Nanos (the beginning of the end)
Kuckuck (a caretaker)
Anastasio
McMillan
The trend is downward, and severely, embarrassingly so. I arrived at LANL under Agnew, whom employees treated like a god. I left under Anastasio. I knew and worked closely with Hecker and Browne. I avoided Nanos and dealt with Cobb. I was acquainted with Anastasio and met McMillan in the course of my work. After John Browne, I was never proud of working for a LANL director. Just my 30 years at lANL.
March 23, 2014 at 10:12 PM"
I am not disagreeing with you but Anastasio and McMillan at least have some scientific credibility. Nanos had none, absolutely none. I have dealt with all three myself and Nanos was something else. He just came across as a treacherous slimy character from a bad true crime TV show that gets canceled after the first few episodes. Nanos literally radiated insecurity, fear, and confusion. He is extremely uncomfortable around scientists and engineers. Strangely after a meeting he had with a number of younger scientists a few of us almost felt sorry for him. The sense was that a series of extraordinary circumstances must came together to allow someone like him to rise to the post of a LANL Director. It was clear even to him that he should never have gotten that far. It was sad seeing him during that meeting with his nervous darting eyes, beads of sweat rolling down his brow as he rattled off totally bizarre and utterly unbelievable excuses. After the meeting an older gentlemen suggested that we should watch the Cain Mutiny staring Humphrey Bogart. A few of us did and although it is a bit dated it is a great film. Of course we figured out the scene that the person was talking about. The main character in movie, Commander Queeg had more dignity and honesty than Pete Nanos. Queeg believed his own lies, while it was obvious that Nanos knew what the real truth was.
It was latter explained to me that Nanos was never allowed to have a command of vessel during his tenure as a naval officer. This was very telling and gave us some comfort that that military has an idea of what leadership is about. Of course at the same time it also told us what the outside world thought of LANL.
March 23, 2014 at 11:03 PM
Despite some attempts, the absolute ordering of Lab Directors is not a quantitative exercise and, like historical sports teams comparisons and annual college rankings, is heavily influenced by the relative strength of the competition. With comparable experience to 10:12 PM, I would not strongly disagree, but would offer that Directors could be grouped into those that were among the best and those that were among the worst from Agnew to McMillan.
Agnew and Hecker are often mentioned as having stood above the rest, and rightly so. Anastasio came to LANL at a time when many in Congress were prepared to close the Lab, and had to deal with the Quintana issue early on. History will determine the outcome, but his leadership kept the doors open.
While few will argue that McMillan and Nanos belong at the bottom, Browne permitted the situation to get to the point for Nanos to be appointed. Had he been more diligent in his role, especially in the later years, much of what followed could have been avoided.
You are correct about Anastasio, he has a fair bit of scientific credibility. Sadly, that is not the case for McMillan.
The man obviously has taste and the wallet to afford his well tailored choice in clothes. He stays focused on the important things in life.