Saturday, August 19, 2017
WHY SHOULD THE NNSA LABS BE DIFFERENT?
DOE has stated in various public forums that they want to move from a for profit model to a service oriented model. The for profit model seems to have failed so it seems reasonable to move to a more service oriented model such as found in PNNL, ANL, NIST, Fermi Lab, LBL, SLAC, BNL, NRL, NREL and so on. Why should the NNSA labs be different?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Is this a joke?
NIST and NRL are not GOCO and the employees are GS compensated. DOE runs GOCO and the employees do not work for the government, instead they are very well compensated as contractors. It might be helpful for the curious to also compare the number of Nobel Prize winners and National Academy members from NIST and NRL to the NNSA labs.
The entire NWC has been GOCO since day one. This is not new....
Want lab management that is motivated by national service and not out of bounds salary packages? Move the NNSA labs to the GS schedule and be done with it.
Want world class science, evidenced by Nobel Prize and National Academy winners? It just might be a side benefit of that change.
Yes, the government scales attract talent, like teachers, right?
Want world class science, evidenced by Nobel Prize and National Academy winners? It just might be a side benefit of that change.
August 19, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Outstanding point.
Laughable. Name a Nobel prize winner that currently works at a weapons lab.
Laughable. Name a Nobel prize winner that currently works at a weapons lab.
August 19, 2017 at 5:22 PM
Since privatization? NONE.
Name a Nobel Prize winner that worked at any NNSA lab in the past 40 years.
Name a reason why anyone should care if there are Nobel prize winners working at weapons labs? It's not academia, and the work revolves around classified weapon science. Arguably, a Nobel prize winner would be out of place at a weapons lab, because he should be working somewhere else where his ideas can be nurtured and developed, and because he's obviously wasting taxpayer money by not working on bombs like he's supposed to. Bombs, guys, it's what we do. No one will get a Nobel prize for QU or designing some safety and surety enhancement.
UC is attempting to make a claim that science at LANL is important and that UC is the only one worthy of leading it.
This is really laughable, for LANL has not had a focus on science since Rocky Flats closed.
"Name a reason why anyone should care if there are Nobel prize winners working at weapons labs? It's not academia, and the work revolves around classified weapon science. Arguably, a Nobel prize winner would be out of place at a weapons lab, because he should be working somewhere else where his ideas can be nurtured and developed, and because he's obviously wasting taxpayer money by not working on bombs like he's supposed to. Bombs, guys, it's what we do. No one will get a Nobel prize for QU or designing some safety and surety enhancement.'
Complete and utter crap. We no longer test the weapons so in many ways we need more basic science than ever if you really want to understand all the process that are involved. I will now give you some examples of where great science could not only be relevant but vital to the labs mission. One thing right away is the heavy reliance on computer modeling but the reality is we do not have the true computing ability simulate these process so one could argue that LANL/LLNL/Sandia could lead some kind of revolution or great breakthrough in computing in order to fully model certain things, this of course would have great benefits to world in general, this is one of the reasons why the labs should be looking at quantum computing, alternative computing approaches and so on. (2) Since we no longer test we need to mimic extreme conditions but again many of these conditions are well beyond what is feasible current science and technology, however breakthroughs in new materials, new devices such as lasers, shock waves, electron beams and so on could lead the way to getting to these extremes and again would have huge impact elsewhere. (3) We really do not have a good understating of process that are far away equilibrium conditions and standard thermodynamics does not work in these regimes. This is a general open science question but is also at the heart many issues that lab deals with. Again the labs could lead the way in understanding these subjects and of course it would have huge benefits beyond the lab as well. (4) Due to the nature of safe guards and non-proliferation you sometimes have huge data sets so one needs new methods to deal with this, again breakthroughs in this area would vital to the mission and have huge impact outside the lab. I can keep going on but let me shift gears a bit to a few other reasons.
Another reason to have strong science at the labs is there are always advances occurring in the outside world so you need top people who are connected to the outside world of science to be able to bring these advances to the labs. If not you ware going to increasing stuck in the past and falling behind.
The world is always changing and there are many unknown unknowns, you need to keep the labs at the very highest level of scientific capabilities in case some entirely new challenge related to WMD arises. You may not have time to assemble a new Manhattan project level of people.
You have a much more credible deterrent if you can credibly say you have potential Nobel prize level science at your labs.
Bechtel is simply is not suited to these aspects of the lab. Maybe some other aspects but not the science base and this is way it is critical to have UC or some other equivalent academic based entity involved. In any case many people in DOE understand these points.
By the way you are just being a proactive troll or do you have that little understanding of things? I mean come on you would have to lawful ignorant to say such stuff and I just cannot believe anyone working at the labs could be that stupid.
'UC is attempting to make a claim that science at LANL is important and that UC is the only one worthy of leading it.
This is really laughable, for LANL has not had a focus on science since Rocky Flats closed
"for LANL has not had a focus on science since Rocky Flats closed"
Ok this has got to be troll. This just utterly untrue and a dumb. LANL IS a science lab, no science there is no LANL. No one debates that.
I am not sure what your game is but you seem to really hate UC. Again is this because you got fired per-contract change? I notice that you always avoid this point. Come one let us know what happened to you, why are so so utterly fd up? Come on, you are angry, bitter and obsessed, but consider the blog your confessional, just what did UC do to you, you might feel better if you tell us.
Every year members are elected to the National Academy for work in national security....just not from the NNSA labs. In order to reach this distinction, one must actually do work that has scientific impact and that has been missing for the last 30 years.
Every year members are elected to the National Academy for work in national security....just not from the NNSA labs. In order to reach this distinction, one must actually do work that has scientific impact and that has been missing for the last 30 years.
August 20, 2017 at 5:06 PM
This could mean we should increase the quality of scinece at the NNSA labs. To be fair though there has been a number LANL people who have become National Academy Members but have left the lab.
Barbara Jacak
George Zweig
Wick Haxton
Thomas Meyer
William Press
Hans Frauenfelder
David Pines
I think that there are many others as well. I would also add that there a several people at LANL who are easily at the level to become members of the NAS. If you know anything about LANL you would know this.
You have a much more credible deterrent if you can credibly say you have potential Nobel prize level science at your labs.
August 20, 2017 at 1:30 PM
Oh that's priceless, tuxedo-wearing Nobel Laureates as deterrents to North Korea and China! You gave me the laugh of the day, though amazingly I think you might be serious.
All the things you mention are important and should be done somewhere, but not necessarily at a nuclear weapons lab. In fact, almost exclusively, revolutionary advances are *not* made at nuclear weapons labs, and never have been. Get with the program, we are stockpile stewards closer to engineering than to cutting-edge theoretical physics, and if your ego cannot handle that then it might be time to go elsewhere, maybe academia. Weapons are why we were founded and why we still exist, quite comfortably I might add and at taxpayer expense. The least we can do is take our jobs seriously.
"In fact, almost exclusively, revolutionary advances are *not* made at nuclear weapons labs, and never have been. "
What!? you are just hopelessly clueless. To make such an incredibly dumb statement kills you credibility right on the spot. Do we have to go through the list again? We have done this every 6 months for 5 years now. What is you major malfunction?
" Get with the program, we are stockpile stewards closer to engineering than to cutting-edge theoretical physics, and if your ego cannot handle that then it might be time to go elsewhere, maybe academia. "
Than how come we had such great science at the labs all these years including research on at least 2 noble prizes. I guess during the cold war when the determent mattered we needed great science.
"Weapons are why we were founded and why we still exist, quite comfortably I might add and at taxpayer expense. The least we can do is take our jobs seriously."
Again during the cold war when one could argue that the job of the labs was even more important we had great science. What has changed now that we should not have science and in order to take the job seriously we must have great science.
You are so utterly off on your assessment that I again have to ask who are you? I simply cannot imagine a single person at LLNL or LANL who would say such a thing. Did you ever work any of the labs, you seem totally ignorant of the stockpile, what goes in to maintaining the stockpile, or even why we have a stockpile. "Get with the program?" What the hell do you know about the program? You don't know a effing thing.
"Oh that's priceless, tuxedo-wearing Nobel Laureates as deterrents to North Korea and China! You gave me the laugh of the day, though amazingly I think you might be serious."
Yes I am serious. At best you may have point with NK since they are rather irrational but as for China, Russia and anybody else this is a deadly serious issue. I doubt you work at the labs or ever have because you sure as hell do not take what the labs do seriously.
"No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users."
August 20, 2017 at 6:13 PM
The obvious heat of your tirade, combined with your spelling and grammar mistakes, means you need to calm down and think before you post. No one respects a hothead, and no one will tolerate the personal attacks you so freely toss around. Get calm, get respectful, and get a clue about reasoned discourse.
Fine,
"In fact, almost exclusively, revolutionary advances are *not* made at nuclear weapons labs, and never have been. "
I am rather confused by this statement and it does not seem to come from an informed viewpoint which cast some doubt on any other points you have. If you would like you could look over the many previous post on this and the old LANL blog which have addressed the in full. I would almost think that you may be saying something you know is not correct but I have no idea what that would would be your motive so we will take you at your word.
" Get with the program, we are stockpile stewards closer to engineering than to cutting-edge theoretical physics, and if your ego cannot handle that then it might be time to go elsewhere, maybe academia. "
This is contradiction with how the labs have functioned since their inception. In fact at least 2 noble prizes where awarded for work don at the labs.
"Weapons are why we were founded and why we still exist, quite comfortably I might add and at taxpayer expense. The least we can do is take our jobs seriously."
Again during the cold war when one could argue that the job of the labs was even more important and during this period
the labs had great science. In light of the test ban one could argue that that we need even
more science and in order ensure that we do not need to test in order to ensure the detterent.
You viewpoint may indicate that you unfamiliar with the work done at LANL or the NNSA labs and what is needed to successfully carry out this work. "Get with the program" That is ok, we are all entitled to opinions however it would seem that you need a more informed opinion to understand what the programs are and what is needed for them to succeed.
"Oh that's priceless, tuxedo-wearing Nobel Laureates as deterrents to North Korea and China! You gave me the laugh of the day, though amazingly I think you might be serious."
Indeed I am serious. China, Russia and others would indeed also take seriously the quality of scientific workforce at the labs, since people who have won a Nobel prize, or who have done work or are capable of doing work that could lead to a Nobel prize are not merely tuxedo-wearing suits but have the capabiity do the very best work to ensure that deterrent will work. This is essential for the mission and taken very seriously by the people who actually work at the laboratories. Perhaps if you had worked at the laboratories or more familiar with the work done at them or how the deterrent works you have a different opinion. There are many good resources on the internet about how the deterrent works, how much science has been developed to make the weapons and maintain them, and all the additional issues that need to addressed in the stockpile. You do seem very interested so I urge you to look these things up or perhaps find someone who has worked in the complex I think you will find it very informative and enjoyable to learn these things.
This could mean we should increase the quality of scinece at the NNSA labs. To be fair though there has been a number LANL people who have become National Academy Members but have left the lab.
Barbara Jacak
George Zweig
Wick Haxton
Thomas Meyer
William Press
Hans Frauenfelder
David Pines
I think that there are many others as well.
August 20, 2017 at 5:37 PM
Well, let's agree that the quality of scinece (sic) should be increased at the NNSA labs. We should also agree that the quality of science in those locations has taken a significant dive in the past 25 years.
If you worked at one of these locations, you would know that many of the names on your list did not earn NAS based on work that they did while at a NNSA lab.
"Well, let's agree that the quality of scinece (sic) should be increased at the NNSA labs. We should also agree that the quality of science in those locations has taken a significant dive in the past 25 years."
I would say 17 years at best but more like 12-10. I am not sure how you get 25 years. 1990's the labs had some very strong work, heck even the early 2000s it was very strong. I would say the decline started with WHL (2000) and than really got going after the contract change in 2006.
Rocky Flats closed 25 years ago, and the move of the production mission to a lab location started the change. A benchmark decision that insured that in the future LANL would not be operated by a university.
The tipping point for LANL was when Hecker was replaced by Browne.
The tipping point for LANL was when Hecker was replaced by Browne.
Browne was railroaded, and stabbed in the back by some lusting after his position.
So what, the government will pay $300M for each pit that is produced? I think not. The problem with the labs mentioned, aside from there being too many is that one has to wonder what service they provide the government that cannot be produced cheaper by a for profit company...
"the government that cannot be produced cheaper by a for profit company...
August 21, 2017 at 6:11 PM"
Last time I checked we just ran that experiment and it failed miserably. It would seem that for for-profit entities simply cannot manage long term science labs. It sort of makes sense if you think about which I encourage you to do.
August 21, 2017 at 8:29 PM
Check again and see that UC ran the LLC that was in charge of pit non-production for the past decade. Sure the word "laboratory" is in the title of the facility, but it is needed by the country as an operational weapons manufacturing plant.
, but it is needed by the country as an operational weapons manufacturing plant.
August 22, 2017 at 7:25 AM
Not! Savannah River could do the job.
Not! Savannah River could do the job.
August 22, 2017 at 1:47 PM
So, now you are the Administrator of the NNSA and have made this decree? Just what universe is this made up stuff real?
Not! Savannah River could do the job.
August 22, 2017 at 1:47 PM
For many reasons this would not work but don't let a good delusion stop you. Sigh, why do we have such rabid pedal to metal drivers of the dumb ass ultra express on this blog?
SRS could do it and has been on the list to do it in the past so don't let your "LANL is the greatest" mentality sucker you into thinking otherwise. The difference between LANL and SRS is
1) it is a production facility
2) the community supports SRS
3) the production workers are higher skilled because again they are a production facility.
I would like to hear why you think they couldn't do it considering the fact that when MPF was on the table, SRS was a leading contender. If you don't know what MPF is then you really don't know what you are talking about.
I would like to hear why you think they couldn't do it considering the fact that when MPF was on the table, SRS was a leading contender. If you don't know what MPF is then you really don't know what you are talking about.
Once again it is you that don't know what you are talking about, Savannah River was
for time considered a candidate but for several reasons that option was dropped and if you don't know why than it proves you really don't know what you are talking about. I suspect that you have been out of the complex for 15 years and your exit may have had something to do with your job performance. Maybe not knowing what you are talking about had something to do with you your exit. Just something for you to think about.
^^^That crazy poster, probably Mr. Prove It. The sad old man who lives his life to type attacks on people he doesn't know, safe behind his keyboard, where everyone who disagrees with him must be stupid, fake, and/or a bitter fired ex-employee. Is this the sort of inbred psychopath that LANL commonly produces, or is he an outlier even there?
"Is this the sort of inbred psychopath that LANL commonly produces, or is he an outlier even there?
August 23, 2017 at 4:53 PM"
This statement says way more about you than anyone who works at LANL. At least you are starting to come clean about what you really think of LANL.
DOE labs shouldn't be involved in fundamental science?
That's funny, since LLNL was founded by Teller, who strongly believed that a strong fundamental research component was essential to the vitality of the lab.
Why? Good scientists want to work on real scientific problems, not figure out the reason why some piece of plastic is degrading inside a bomb. At the same time, they must be expected to work on practical problems of importance to the mission. As in any labor market, if you want top quality staff, you need to do what you need to do to attract them. That means having some fraction of their time devoted to good, original science.
The alternative is to hire people with no ambition, content to work on whatever is handed to them, in exchange for a paycheck.
Sorry, you don't want C students in charge of nuclear weapons.
August 23, 2017 at 7:08 AM
Once again it is you that don't know what you are talking about, Savannah River was
for time considered a candidate but for several reasons that option was dropped and if you don't know why than it proves you really don't know what you are talking about. I suspect that you have been out of the complex for 15 years and your exit may have had something to do with your job performance. Maybe not knowing what you are talking about had something to do with you your exit. Just something for you to think about.
Still in (25 yrs OPS) and know very well what the capabilities are across the complex. It is you hiding behind a half answer that knows nothing. Keep your delusion that LANL can't lose mission. Believe me, they can. It is already being talked about.
Post a Comment