UT, a two time loser, is considering stepping up to the plate for a third swing
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/system-exploring-development-bid-run-los-alamos-lab/xSKvO6a8ALwhPD3e3I3EEL/http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/system-exploring-development-bid-run-los-alamos-lab/xSKvO6a8ALwhPD3e3I3EEL/
44 comments:
Third times the charm!
Third times the charm!
August 25, 2017 at 7:50 AM
It could work, U Texas has the exact same interest in running the LANL that UC does which is research and excellence in science. This is a great sign for LANL that both UC and Texas could be putting in bids. Who knows maybe UTexas will push even harder for science. It also proves that that crazy trolls that have been repeatedly saying no one will bid for LANL are totally wrong. Maybe it will dawn on them that they have no idea what they are talking about.
"Excellence in science..."
You kill me!
"Excellence in science..."
You kill me!
August 25, 2017 at 5:19 PM
Just out of curiosity why else would U of Texas want a part of LANL? It seems like U of T has very strong science and engineering and they think this could benefit LANL and could be of benefit to U Texas in terms of graduate student placement, joint research programs on so on, all things LANL needs to continue to be successful. Seems like a no-brainier to me.
UC certainly had little interest or direct involvement in science at LANL or LLNL when they were the M&O. However, they gladly enjoyed all those inflated salaries leading to big contributions to the UCRS over the years -- that has gone away with the separation of the retirement system.
UC, at least at LLNL, was in a great position to expand and take advantage of the science opportunities -- proximity, a subset of UC Davis on site, etc. Has anyone done an analysis to see if there was indeed strong, sustained, and close partnerships in science? LBNL and UCB certainly set the standard in that regard -- interesting though that Congress forced the NNSA labs out of the UC model because of a continuing litany of problems yet allowed UC to continue to run LBNL.
It's not clear to me that classified mission labs like LANL and LLNL can be comparable in engagement with their university M&O parents to the (mostly) open science labs.
they gladly enjoyed all those inflated salaries leading to big contributions to the UCRS over the years
August 26, 2017 at 5:43 AM
Maybe at LLNL, certainly not at LANL !
Staff scientist salaries at LANL have been and typically remain 30-40% above the equivalent seniority faculty at UT -- partly because the labs are all hard sciences and engineering, and partly because they pay extra. LANL still pays post-docs more than most universities pay assistant professors.
Do a little digging in Glassdoor.com. IF you are the typical technical staff, you are doing well compared to academia.
It's not clear to me that classified mission labs like LANL and LLNL can be comparable in engagement with their university M&O parents to the (mostly) open science labs.
August 26, 2017 at 5:43 AM
Than why has it worked for 60 years and during the cold war? What changed?
Staff scientist salaries at LANL have been and typically remain 30-40% above the equivalent seniority faculty at UT --
August 26, 2017 at 11:12 AM
Try comparing a UC campus chancellor's salary with the preLANS director's salary.
Than why has it worked for 60 years and during the cold war? What changed?
August 26, 2017 at 11:50 AM
You are off a bit in your dates. It worked ok for the duration of the Cold War, when there was a set testing schedule, a nearly unlimited budget, and clear focus on the mission. That was about 50 years worth of UC passive involvement. They mostly had a hand's off approach to the relationship and the primary reason it worked had less to do with the UC involvement and more to to with the geopolitical climate of the Cold War and the role of the labs in that dynamic.
Post Cold War, the mission went adrift as it lost focus, budgets came and went but never maintained stability, politicians lost interest in the underlying foundations of the nuclear deterrent, the best military leaders gravitated to other specializations to advance in the career ranks, testing ceased at Nevada, production closed down Rocky Flats and moved to Los Alamos, and the final 10 years of UC engagement with LANL were not successful by any measure.
So, what changed? A lot changed is what happened and having a good run during the Cold War came to an end after 50 years when many things changed.
Than why has it worked for 60 years and during the cold war? What changed?
August 26, 2017 at 11:50 AM
You are off a bit in your dates. It worked ok for the duration of the Cold War, when there was a set testing schedule, a nearly unlimited budget, and clear focus on the mission. That was about 50 years worth of UC passive involvement. They mostly had a hand's off approach to the relationship and the primary reason it worked had less to do with the UC involvement and more to to with the geopolitical climate of the Cold War and the role of the labs in that dynamic.
Post Cold War, the mission went adrift as it lost focus, budgets came and went but never maintained stability, politicians lost interest in the underlying foundations of the nuclear deterrent, the best military leaders gravitated to other specializations to advance in the career ranks, testing ceased at Nevada, production closed down Rocky Flats and moved to Los Alamos, and the final 10 years of UC engagement with LANL were not successful by any measure.
So, what changed? A lot changed is what happened and having a good run during the Cold War came to an end after 50 years when many things changed.
August 27, 2017 at 5:11 AM
Production never "moved to Los Alamos" It probably never will, unless there is a drastic change in DOE/NNSA upper level management's resolve. As it stands, NNSA/DOE starves the program, then beats up on LANL for not getting it done.
"So, what changed? A lot changed is what happened and having a good run during the Cold War came to an end after 50 years when many things changed.
August 27, 2017 at 5:11 AM"
I partially agree with several points but several I do not. One is the idea that UC was passive this is simply not true. The second is the reason from decline in the labs the last 10 years before the contract change. I would claim that it had nothing to do with UC but everything to do with politics and money. Any issue that happened at LANL was blown through the roof for political gain. The WHL thing was not the problem of UC, but it offered the possibility to push for privatization because that is what corporations wanted at the time. This created a cascade effect where UC was in essence forced to hire Nanos. The clowns of Walp and Dorn had to be brought but even in these cases UC stood up in the end and fired these losers.
Now what I do agree with you is that after the cold war the people in DC forgot about the mission or simply did not take it seriously. They may have thought privatization was indeed bad for LANL but well with the risk since we will never need nukes again. Although you can blame UC I think the push for privation was the key and no matter who ran the lab in 1990s was going to be on a hit list. If it was U Texas and Lockheed the essentially the same outcome would have happened. One of the big giveaways that everyone seems to ignore is LLNL. If this whole thing had really only been about problems at LANL than only LANL would have been privatized, however as I contend it was always about money so the plan was always to get both LANL and LLNL. Anyone who knows anyone in DOE now knows they considered the whole thing a big mistake and many if not most of the DC actors who pushed so hard for privatization in the first place are now gone. The idea that everything
should be privatized is also losing popularity in the country since we have seen it fail in many cases such as private prisons, healthcare, military contractors and so on. I also disagree with you on the focus of the lab being on production. This is imply not true and if you work at the lab you would know that. Production is a part but as of right now a small part of what LANL does. If you take the mission of the lab seriously that going back only UC non-profit makes sense, however if some other non-profit entity makes a great bid it could work as well and having certain industrial partners would be good for production and other parts of the lab. Having a non-profit is the key to success. I would also add that whoever runs the labs should in no way "give" money to the town or the state, this is literally corruption like some kind of shakedown. LANL by its mere presence already provides plenty for the region. You never hear things like Argonne having to give "extra" money to Chicago.
Production never "moved to Los Alamos" It probably never will, unless there is a drastic change in DOE/NNSA upper level management's resolve. As it stands, NNSA/DOE starves the program, then beats up on LANL for not getting it done.
August 27, 2017 at 6:18 AM
LANL is the PA for War Reserve DCAs (detonator cable assembly), pits, and RTGs. These production mission moved to LANL from RFP, Mound, and Pinellas.
And exactly how many pits per year has LANL been producing? The mission may have moved, but production never "moved to Los Alamos."
LANL is the PA for War Reserve DCAs (detonator cable assembly), pits, and RTGs. These production mission moved to LANL from RFP, Mound, and Pinellas.
August 27, 2017 at 9:23 A
Again production is a small part of LANL and not the focus by any means. Why do you keep pushing this point, it is simply wrong.
August 27, 2017 at 9:23 A
Again production is a small part of LANL and not the focus by any means. Why do you keep pushing this point, it is simply wrong.
First off, this was my first comment ever on the blog (so don't lump me in with some fight you have with others), and I was merely stating the fact that LANL has a production mission.
As for the comment on budget, the LANL PA mission budget is a bit debatable depending on what one chooses to include, but $400-600M annually is a good starting point. And that does not include construction costs. That is similar to other Plant budgets. It is also a good chunk of the LANL total budget, especially if you add in associated construction costs.
Regarding 10:47 am and the number of pits per year, you know the answer on pits so don't be passive aggressive. DCAs are being produced at meaningful numbers and RTGs are about to be in large quantities of WR production. Pits are expected to ramp up, but obviously work remains there if that is to be realized.
August 27, 2017 at 12:50 PM
Finally someone who knows what they are talking about... Add in the construction costs ($100-$150M) and you see that production is almost 40% of the LANL annual budget ($2000M). Lump in testing in WFO and other areas and take out the $300+ in pure overheads and you start to see that LANL is no longer dominantly a science lab. It is more than half production.
Everyone knows that Weapons dollars and Infrastructure dollar are the two largest pots at LANL. Science hasn't been for years. Anyone who thinks otherwise is diluted.
Some of the posters are playing loose with the facts about how contracts are awarded by DOE. The selection is done strictly by the RFP, and any minor deviation from that is grounds for a protest, one that would be upheld if DOE was found to have not complied with their published rules. The art in the process is getting the RFP worded such that it is favorable to a given approach, and there clearly is little option for a successful bid that does not follow the guidelines. UC saw this last time around, and got in bed with Bechtel and others in order to meet the RFP requirements. This time around, it is too early to see what changes might be made from the draft RFP, but if the draft is close to the final version then there is a large negative associated with any of the current partners.
Some bidder needs to operate the production parts of the operation, which are the largest chunks of the budget. It might be nice to speculate that a not for profit or a university could do this, but in reality those missions are handled at other NNSA plants by industrial concerns.
Finally someone who knows what they are talking about... Add in the construction costs ($100-$150M) and you see that production is almost 40% of the LANL annual budget ($2000M). Lump in testing in WFO and other areas and take out the $300+ in pure overheads and you start to see that LANL is no longer dominantly a science lab. It is more than half production.
August 27, 2017 at 2:46 PM
The lab budget is 2.45 billion. Take 500 mill from the first production estimate and we will even add 125 for your construction cast for 625 mill, that is only 25% of LANL budget at best, it is probably less than that. You really have no idea what you are talking about and the lab is not half production and never will be. Again why are going on about this?
One suggestion I hear to split the labs where you have production type stuff for one part and
science work for the other. That sounds reasonable, sort of like Oak Ridge and Y12.
Everyone knows that Weapons dollars and Infrastructure dollar are the two largest pots at LANL. Science hasn't been for years. Anyone who thinks otherwise is diluted.
August 27, 2017 at 2:47 PM
Maybe I like to be diluted - 50/50 vodka and soda, with a little lime. Or 2 fingers of bourbon with a splash of ice water. Oh, you meant "deluded"?? Why didn't you say so??
August 27, 2017 at 2:46 PM
The lab budget is 2.45 billion. Take 500 mill from the first production estimate and we will even add 125 for your construction cast for 625 mill, that is only 25% of LANL budget at best, it is probably less than that. You really have no idea what you are talking about and the lab is not half production and never will be. Again why are going on about this?
One suggestion I hear to split the labs where you have production type stuff for one part and
science work for the other. That sounds reasonable, sort of like Oak Ridge and Y12.
You forgot the testing dollars.... Sloppy math for a scientist or engineer. If science I such a large part of the lab then why is OPS the biggest PAD? PADSTE is likely 3rd at best. Anybody want to post the real numbers so we can end this BS.
You forgot the testing dollars.... Sloppy math for a scientist or engineer. If science I such a large part of the lab then why is OPS the biggest PAD? PADSTE is likely 3rd at best. Anybody want to post the real numbers so we can end this BS.
August 27, 2017 at 6:44 PM
PADSTE is not the only directorate doing science and saying so kills your credibility yet again. You have divisions such as X, W and so on which are doing key science and technical work. I would also add the Global Security has a large amount of science. Again you simply showing you profound ignorance about what kind of work is done at LANL, why it is done at LANL, how it is done at LANL, and now even which directorates it is done in. Again I understand your loyalty to the realm of the dumb but could you try to show some sense of sentience? If you hit a dog in the nose enough times it gets it, but you, nope you just point the car ignorance at the wall of reason and floor it. The car is blasted to bits every time but you just keep coming back.
Maybe I have you all wrong. Remember that song by the Eurythmics, the lyrics are
"Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world
And the seven seas,
Everybody's looking for something.
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused."
Is that it? Is it that you want to be abused, is that your sweet dream? Oh man do I feel dumb, I should have realized this before. Hmm lets give it a test to see if you go away.
"Sloppy math for a scientist or engineer. If science I such a large part of the lab then why is OPS the biggest PAD? PADSTE is likely 3rd at best. Anybody want to post the real numbers so we can end this BS."
Oh yes, testing dollars, sorry I am very sloppy engineer, that would easily put
production at 90% of the lab budget and in no way could have been part of the original 500 million estimate that someone put forward. There is no science at LANL, and PADSTE is the the only science directorate because it has the word science it. You are right just as you have always been right so I am sure you will find the real numbers, give the proper interpretation of the numbers as well as a comparison. You have such great knowledge of the laboratory that you are undoubtedly a very prominent member of it so we must trust what you have to say.
Does anyone in Texas know how to think? That's intellect, not bullshit? The last 3 or 4 governors and Perot and LBJ make Governor Moonbean seem positively erudite. Running a lab requires someone eho can think.
If you are worried about science at LANL you had better get new PADSTE leadership. Look at the decline in office of science funding at LANL over the last 10 years.
Don't try to blame funding elsewhere for your decline. The office of science money comes from DOE not NNSA and is not subject to NNSA budget pressures.
Somehow you lost most of your funding from office of science at a time when other labs grew there funding.
If it was not for weapons and GS the Lab would be in desperate shape on budget.
Go self reflect on why your office of science funding has been lost. It had nothing to do with weapons or GS or production or construction.
If if was not for the LDRD funding generated by these other areas science would be in even worse shape.
Go look within PADSTE.
One suggestion I hear to split the labs where you have production type stuff for one part and
science work for the other. That sounds reasonable, sort of like Oak Ridge and Y12.
August 27, 2017 at 6:44 PM
"You hear" voices from where? Clearly not from DOE contracting, because the RFP is clear and production and science will remain together under one new contract.
Production never "moved to Los Alamos" It probably never will, unless there is a drastic change in DOE/NNSA upper level management's resolve. As it stands, NNSA/DOE starves the program, then beats up on LANL for not getting it done.
That is so true across much of DOE/NNSA. You give them an honest schedule and budget. Well that takes too long or costs too much. We will give you x $ and time y. Then we set back as DOE/NNSA and beat you up. It has been true with MOX, CMRR, HEU, NUMSUP, and the list goes on and on. It is a time honored tradition. Time to move the NNSA to the Pentagon and clean house of the DOE types there.
Pit production suffers because the funds have been split to cover other NNSA priorities.
PADSTE is not the only directorate doing science and saying so kills your credibility yet again. You have divisions such as X, W and so on which are doing key science and technical work. I would also add the Global Security has a large amount of science.
August 27, 2017 at 8:52 PM
A large amount of science??? So you want to split hairs and only in your direction? Do you deny that the majority of workers at the lab are not scientists or working on science? PADOPS (operations, biggest PAD), PADWP (production and some science, 2nd biggest), PADCAP (projects and maintenance, 3rd biggest), PADSTE (science, 4th), PADGS ("security" and some science, 5th). Now since you are all knowing, please provide the numbers of people in these PADs working on "science" oh oracle of all LANL....
PADWP (production and some science, 2nd biggest)
Lots of science in that one.
PADSTE (science, 4th), PADGS ("security" and some science, 5th).
Again lots of science.
PADOPS (operations, biggest PAD)
Yes but the point of operations is so that science can be done.
PADCAP (projects and maintenance, 3rd biggest)
Again this is support of science and other work.
A better comparison would be to a university. What percent of all the staff
is involved directly with teaching and research compared to the staff that does maintenance, security, operations, services etc. In fact less than 35 percent would be directly in teaching and service so someone like you would say something incredibly ignorant like "Do you deny that the majority of workers at the university are not professors or teaching, therefore universities are not in the business of teaching or research". You are really clueless about LANL and LLNL. Both places are fundamentally science labs and that is why we need university partner to help manage them. In the case of LANL that would UC but without Bechtel.
You are really clueless about LANL and LLNL. Both places are fundamentally science labs and that is why we need university partner to help manage them.
.August 29, 2017 at 5:29 AM
LLNL is indeed fundamentally a science lab. However, if you think that LANL is that, you are not facing reality. It is fundamentally a factory, with a minor side business in lab.
No fair pullin' hair, ladies.
LLNL is indeed fundamentally a science lab. However, if you think that LANL is that, you are not facing reality. It is fundamentally a factory, with a minor side business in lab.
August 29, 2017 at 4:11 PM
Ok, than please explain how is it that LANL has twice as many scientific papers than LLLN from mid 2016-2017. It would appear that LANL is much are of a scientific laboratory than LLNL. Pesky facts sink you every time. When will you learn. LANL is the science lab of NNSA, always has been always will be.
From APS https://journals.aps.org/search type in affiliation from last year.
LANL 214 papers, LLNL 129 papers.
Dude!
No one said that there was NO science at LANL. Just face reality that science is no longer the primary driver for the existence of the contract. After Rocky Flats closed, life as you knew it in your sheltered lab existence changed.
"Just face reality that science is no longer the primary driver for the existence of the contract. After Rocky Flats closed, life as you knew it in your sheltered lab existence changed."
I think Rocky Flats closed in 1989 or something. The mission of LANL did not change in 1989. If you bothered to check you will find that LANL probably does more science now in 2017 than in 1990 since the lab is larger. This can also be checked by the number of postdocs which is now at an all time high at LANL. Your claim is just out and out biiiizzzzarrrre. I have seen some really crazy claims on the blog this is one is something special. Of the 3 NNSA labs LANL does the most science by far which is easily checked, the lab did not stop doing science 27 years ago so more nor did it reduce the amount of science it is doing.
And Dude, you claimed that LLNL is a science lab but LANL is just a factory. Again if that is true how is that LANL is producing twice as much science than LLNL, how is that LANL has more the twice the number of postdocs, and twice the number of students doing science, all of this is easy to check if you cared to try. Your assertion has just been proven completely false, like every other crazy ass thing you keep saying. What the hell is wrong with you?
As more and more people respond to the crazy asshole, more and more people know that he's nuts when he thinks he's responding to just one person.
That is so true across much of DOE/NNSA. You give them an honest schedule and budget. Well that takes too long or costs too much. We will give you x $ and time y.
August 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM
Right, it sure happened that way with the NIF. (rolls eyes)
Again if that is true how is that LANL is producing twice as much science than LLNL,.
August 29, 2017 at 9:33 PM
Dude is a fool. LANL has twice as many employees as LLNL. So double the employees, double the papers.... Doesn't change the fact that a majority of the budget at LANL is for weapons production and testing, not pure science.
and yes I work at LANL on the non-existent production side.
"Dude is a fool. LANL has twice as many employees as LLNL. So double the employees, double the papers.... Doesn't change the fact that a majority of the budget at LANL is for weapons production and testing, not pure science.
and yes I work at LANL on the non-existent production side."
Look you said LLNL was fundamentally a science lab. Ok lets go with that than making LLNL twice the size means it would have twice the papers. You than said LANL is fundamentally factory yet with your own logic it produces the exact same amount science per person as LLNL. Now if LANL is fundamentally a factory how does it have the same rate of science per person as a place that is fundamentally a science lab. That would suggest that LANL is also fundamentally a science lab. See how this works. In short you have no idea what you are talking. I doubt you work at LANL or you would not make such crazy claims. I suppose it is possible that you do work in the production are of the lab and that is all you know, well all I can tell you is that you need to get out and find out what most of the rest of the lab is doing.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
You may not understand this so let us simplify.
There are more things at LANL,
than you are aware of in your hidden corner of the lab.
"well all I can tell you is that you need to get out and find out what most of the rest of the lab is doing"
Most of the rest of the lab is living on overhead according to the pie charts published awhile back.
mic drop
Most of the rest of the lab is living on overhead according to the pie charts published awhile back.
mic drop
August 31, 2017 at 2:21 PM
So you are saying it is not production factory. Glad that you can admit that now. By the way I don't disagree that it may be an "overhead " lab but that is a different discussion for a different day.
Most of the rest of the lab is living on overhead according to the pie charts published awhile back.
mic drop
August 31, 2017 at 2:21 PM
So you are saying it is not production factory. Glad that you can admit that now. By the way I don't disagree that it may be an "overhead " lab but that is a different discussion for a different day.
August 31, 2017 at 9:21 PM
Hey, 2:21 PM here and have no idea what you think, but all that was pointed out was the overhead. It has been going out and up for the past six years, maybe even for the past twelve years. Whatever personal issue you have with some other post about production is unimportant to this point.
Hey, 2:21 PM here and have no idea what you think, but all that was pointed out was the overhead. It has been going out and up for the past six years, maybe even for the past twelve years. Whatever personal issue you have with some other post about production is unimportant to this point.
September 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM
Well it is a different day. One question is why has overhead been going up, is it just some natural process of certain systems, something like you have to actively fight it or it grows. I saw a chart of non-technical staff to technical staff some years back showing a slow increase before LANS, a big jump at LANS and than a more rapid increase. I think it was 19% a few years ago but is even smaller now at 17% or less. Who are these people and what do they do. By the way I have no problem with production since it is something that must be done and LANL is one of the few places it currently can be done, however it is clear that the new hires are not in production either.
McMillian says we have hired 1200 people in one year alone and will hire another 1000 before the contract change. However an odd thing is that lab does not even seem that full, if you go by certain admin buildings, or offices they are empty more than half the time. I know several secretaries that seem to only be around 1/3 of the time, show up 10, have 1.5 hour lunch, leave at 3:50pm, never shows up to work on Fri and is gone every other Wed, and usually one other other random day but all these people work full time. Also if something goes wrong and you need computer support, or some other kind of issue that needs to be addressed you rapidly find that at least half the people you need to help are not around. Also anyone can verify that at around 4pm there is a line of cars leaving the lab and Fridays are always far less than half full. What is odd is that if everyone is on 9-80, that you would expect 6pm is when everyone would leave, however the lab is almost completely empty by than. In fact Tues is the fullest day at the labs if you look at the parking lots. This would fit into the picture that LANL is an "overhead" lab.
The lab also had more students than it has ever had the last two years, however a good chunk of these students are not STEM but admin students. Now the STEM students are generally working hard on their projects but the admin students simply have nothing to do at all. If you go by their offices it is a big party, talking all day, playing board games, complaining they have nothing to do, or making fun of geeky STEM students. What possible value does any of this have? If NNSA really wants to save money there is plenty to to cut at LANL.
Some speculation is that it has been knows for almost 3 years that LANS is out so people are not showing up. Any thoughts on this?
So sad!
Post a Comment