Skip to main content

Spin off pit production?

Now that NNSA is officially working on an RFP for the rebidding of the LANL contract, is this an opportunity to restructure and break it into two completely separate M&O contracts - one for the research/science work and one for pit production. 

This has been done before when LANL's Z Division was separated from the lab and became Sandia National Lab. I think a strong case could be made to merge a separate pit production M&O contract with the recently merged Y-12/Pamtex contract.

Comments

Anonymous said…
NK will bid.
Anonymous said…


Breaking off LANL into two parts is the smartest thing to do...therefore it will not happen. It just makes to much sense and would benefit the nation however no one is interested in this now.
Anonymous said…
The ultra high taxes on projects at LANL help fund LDRD research. All projects must pay into the LDRD tax structure whether they are involved with science or not. Therefore, If there was to be a breakup it would result in a sudden drop in money for internally funded research projects associated with the peer reviewed LDRD. system

Perhaps NNSA would like to see this as a cost saving measure but there are plenty of research staff at LANL who would not be happy seeing their nice stable funding sources go away. They would be out of a job. The politicians in New Mexico would also complain and try to stop it.
Anonymous said…
"The ultra high taxes on projects at LANL help fund LDRD research. All projects must pay into the LDRD tax structure whether they are involved with science or not. Therefore, If there was to be a breakup it would result in a sudden drop in money for internally funded research projects associated with the peer reviewed LDRD. system "

I have heard this argument but I think for what is at stake the loss of some LDRD would be worth it. In any case LDRD is also taxed, even though it is a tax. If the lab is split than perhaps the tax on the LDRD would go down. I know that about 20 years a single ER project could fund 2 staff plus a bit more, today with the increase in the taxes on LDRD the same project funds less than one staff member, so that the LDRD budget has already been effectively cut in half. This same time frame also correlated with the drop in the fraction of Phds of the workforce from 40% to less than 19%.

Anonymous said…
Being dems, the NM delegation can complain until they turn blue in the face
but they are powerless to stop (or start) anything.
Anonymous said…
The purpose of LDRD is to train and retain qualified stockpile stewardship scientific staff. Lower LDRD, fewer qualified scientific staff for the long -term mission.
Anonymous said…
Re: 12:27 July 8, 2017
The real purpose of LDRD is to provide a funding source for a white-collar WPA program. It is a welfare program. Contributions by LDRD to the weapons program have been, in the past, negligible; and very few scientists move on to the weapons program. Monies would better be spent on research that is applicable to weapon specific needs such as materials, engineering technology, manufacturing, safety, and life extensions.
Anonymous said…
Production at LANL is the failure. Move it to Savannah River.
Anonymous said…
Making good Pu pits is a easy as making a toilet float. Following conflicting directives is impossible.
Anonymous said…
You very obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Even if you did, you wouldn't be able to discuss it here anyway. Go troll elsewhere.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

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...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...