The difference in performance between LANL and LLNL is due entirely to the organizational design and performance of their engineering disciplines. LLNL engineering is strong, active, and self-sustaining. LANL Engineering is haphazard, marginalized and and dependent on individuals.
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
I am proud of LLNL Engineering, but even if I had great knowledge of LANL Engineering I would not ascribe differences between two complex organizations like national labs to any one thing.
LLNL often feels an existential threat, so perhaps it goes to the line attributed to Samuel Johnson:
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
"He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother" -The Hollies