This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
NNSA Pit Strategy Unlikely to Meet Production Deadline
New Study Finds NNSA Pit Strategy Unlikely to Meet Production Deadline, Lawmaker Says
It is all going to LANL, everyone knows this. What they do not know is what will this mean for the overall LANL mission. The rational thing to do and one that could actually meet the goal of 80 pits per year is to split the lab in a pit facility and a science lab. The science part of the lab will only create delays and potential problems. For example if there is a computer breach in the science part of the lab there will be a institution wide panic leading to all operations slowing done. It of course will work the other way was well where once there is one incident with the pit part the whole lab will have to put on stand down. It would sort of be like combing Intel and the mines the dig the rare earths together. If there is a mine safety issue than you do not stand down the software part of the company.
This is the problem with LANL is that it is a very rigid system without any robustness, if something goes wrong anywhere in the system the entire system reacts no matter how utterly irrational the the actions are. After the reaction, the blame is than put on something that had nothing to do with the original incident. In order for managers to be protected someone needs to be blamed and it is always scientists. So when a forklift drops a box in the pit production area cowboy scientists will be blamed. When an electrical problem occurs in Admin building scientists will be blamed.
Of course the other option is simply to make LANL only a pit production facility. In that case what happens when things still go wrong but there are no scientists left to blame?
"potentially achievable" is a euphemism for wishful thinking ! The denizens of the Forestall building must have inhaled too much of all that smoke that drifted into DC from the Northern California fires last year.
Will waste billions and billions and by 2030 we will have zero, zip, nada. Let’s look at realities. We hardly have enough money to fund one facility...two is impossible. Let’s retain a capability and if you are going to do that at LANL, then there needs to be some structural changes. This means separation from the science aspects of LANL, a reduction of missions at TA55 (ending Pu238). While MFFF may be a new building, we are billions and decades away with something that is flawed and will never be successful.
Let’s not forget that 2020 is an election and the state of Lyndsey Graham has a big red democratic bullseye on it! We need to take politics out of the equation if we want to be safe and secure as a nation.
" Let’s retain a capability and if you are going to do that at LANL, then there needs to be some structural changes. This means separation from the science aspects of LANL, "
Agreed by why not just move the science aspects of LANL elsewhere? That can be done anywhere, pit production on the other hand may only be feasible at LANL. Sorry but it is not going to happen at SRS, from what I can tell they don't even want it. New Mexico on the other hand would love pit production.
You seem to think that you have some part in these decisions. You don't. Neither do "we." You can pontificate all you want, but you must understand no one who is actually making decisions cares what you think. Get over yourself.
You seem to think that you have some part in these decisions. You don't. Neither do "we." You can pontificate all you want, but you must understand no one who is actually making decisions cares what you think. Get over yourself.
5/07/2019 5:15 PM
Wow, way to address the point the poster made. You have keen understanding of how to use logic to debate.
6:08 AM, you wont get rid of 238. One aspect of it is currently the #1 FY19 priority at the lab, according to the LANL director. Your comments tell me you don't understand the mission sets.
It's all in the attitude. I have no problem with someone arguing what LANL management or DOE/NNSA overseers should do, but to couch it as if he is involved in the process in any way is presumptuous and juvenile. There is no general public "we" when it comes to national security decisions. Elected representatives with appropriate clearances and similarly cleared government and contractor employees decide these things, not "we." WE live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
The state of South Carolina is VERY interested in additional mission at SRS. They have always been very aggressive in lobbying the DOE for more scope. Do not think for one second that a facility will not be funded whether you think it is a waste or not.
In the end South Carolina will get the jobs and the cash and New Mexico and Nevada will get the waste and the whiners. It is as certain as the sun coming up.
21 comments:
It is all going to LANL, everyone knows this. What they do not know is what will this mean for
the overall LANL mission. The rational thing to do and one that could actually meet the goal of 80 pits per year is to split the lab in a pit facility and a science lab. The science part of the lab will only create delays and potential problems. For example if there is a computer breach in the science part of the lab there will be a institution wide panic leading to all operations slowing done. It of course will work the other way was well where once there is one incident with the pit part the whole lab will have to put on stand down. It would sort of be like combing Intel and the mines the dig the rare earths together. If there is a mine safety issue than you do not stand down the software part of the company.
This is the problem with LANL is that it is a very rigid system without any robustness, if something goes wrong anywhere in the system the entire system reacts no matter how utterly irrational the the actions are. After the reaction, the blame is than put on something that had nothing to do with the original incident. In order for managers to be protected someone needs to be blamed and it is always scientists. So when a forklift drops a box in the pit production
area cowboy scientists will be blamed. When an electrical problem occurs in Admin building scientists will be blamed.
Of course the other option is simply to make LANL only a pit production facility. In that case what happens when things still go wrong but there are no scientists left to blame?
"potentially achievable" is a euphemism for wishful thinking ! The denizens of the Forestall building must have inhaled too much of all that smoke that drifted into DC from the Northern California fires last year.
I wouldn’t assume that SRS won’t get the scope. Stranger things have happened in the DOE.
Will waste billions and billions and by 2030 we will have zero, zip, nada. Let’s look at realities. We hardly have enough money to fund one facility...two is impossible. Let’s retain a capability and if you are going to do that at LANL, then there needs to be some structural changes. This means separation from the science aspects of LANL, a reduction of missions at TA55 (ending Pu238). While MFFF may be a new building, we are billions and decades away with something that is flawed and will never be successful.
Let’s not forget that 2020 is an election and the state of Lyndsey Graham has a big red democratic bullseye on it! We need to take politics out of the equation if we want to be safe and secure as a nation.
" Let’s retain a capability and if you are going to do that at LANL, then there needs to be some structural changes. This means separation from the science aspects of LANL, "
Agreed by why not just move the science aspects of LANL elsewhere? That can be done anywhere,
pit production on the other hand may only be feasible at LANL. Sorry but it is not going to happen at SRS, from what I can tell they don't even want it. New Mexico on the other hand would love pit production.
"We...", "Let's...", "...we are...", "Let's..", "We need..."
You seem to think that you have some part in these decisions. You don't. Neither do "we." You can pontificate all you want, but you must understand no one who is actually making decisions cares what you think. Get over yourself.
You seem to think that you have some part in these decisions. You don't. Neither do "we." You can pontificate all you want, but you must understand no one who is actually making decisions cares what you think. Get over yourself.
5/07/2019 5:15 PM
Wow, way to address the point the poster made. You have keen understanding of how to use logic to debate.
6:08 AM, you wont get rid of 238. One aspect of it is currently the #1 FY19 priority at the lab, according to the LANL director. Your comments tell me you don't understand the mission sets.
5/07/2019 10:04 PM
It's all in the attitude. I have no problem with someone arguing what LANL management or DOE/NNSA overseers should do, but to couch it as if he is involved in the process in any way is presumptuous and juvenile. There is no general public "we" when it comes to national security decisions. Elected representatives with appropriate clearances and similarly cleared government and contractor employees decide these things, not "we." WE live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
The state of South Carolina is VERY interested in additional mission at SRS. They have always been very aggressive in lobbying the DOE for more scope. Do not think for one second that a facility will not be funded whether you think it is a waste or not.
"The state of South Carolina is VERY interested in additional mission at SRS."
That depends on your definition of "very" and "interested" not to mention SRS "mission".
I'm guessing the State of South Carolina can speak for itself.
Their senator speaks for them all the time and the money keeps flowing. Keep up.
I was just questioning 5/15/2019 8:11 AM's equivocation on the issue. Try to keep up.
8:11am at least has basis for their assertion. You are just trolling them.
"The state of South Carolina is VERY interested in additional mission at SRS."
Just so long as it doesn't involve plutonium. Our wonderful Senator Lindsay Graham will send that nasty stuff to Nevada or New Mexico.
Graham is just saying that as a bargaining chip. He knows no other state wants it and that gives him leverage.
Watching Lindsay go up against the milquetoast senators from New Mexico and Nevada is hilarious.
In the end South Carolina will get the jobs and the cash and New Mexico and Nevada will get the waste and the whiners. It is as certain as the sun coming up.
^^^^^^^^
It is as certain as the sun coming up.
5/27/2019 5:26 PM
Dude, we now know that it is the earth's rotation !
Post a Comment