Four comments share the honors this week. The theme: Shut 'R Down. It will never happen, of course, but that doesn't seem to keep folks from talking about it.From the Study finds quake risk at Los Alamos post:
One:
I've been following this blog for a while and, although I believe that the lab employees are a group of highly educated, well paid individuals, I rarely see what I would call thoughtful discussions, perhaps related to the laboratory goals. It brings to mind some of the reports by Shockley, famous for his discovery of the transistor and infamous for his writings on heredity and race.
There was a period between fame and infamy where he wrote about the degeneration of the civil service labs and how to revive those labs.
While LANL is not a civil service laboratory, his comments ere relevant. My understanding is that LANL scientists are not, in general, funded through open competition, leaving the place nearly identical to the civil service but with, I understand, much higher salaries.
From most of the comments on the blog, a student might describe the place as dormant or, at the worst, degenerated. Do any of the contributors have a suggestion that could at least point to the direction of regeneration?
There was a period between fame and infamy where he wrote about the degeneration of the civil service labs and how to revive those labs.
While LANL is not a civil service laboratory, his comments ere relevant. My understanding is that LANL scientists are not, in general, funded through open competition, leaving the place nearly identical to the civil service but with, I understand, much higher salaries.
From most of the comments on the blog, a student might describe the place as dormant or, at the worst, degenerated. Do any of the contributors have a suggestion that could at least point to the direction of regeneration?
Two:
Yes indeed, 2:05. I've given the subject a great deal of thought, based in part on my 22 years of employment in that non-competitive, overly compensated environment you describe. Based also in part from my experiences working outside of LANL in truly competitive environments.
I believe that LANL is so damaged by 65 years of ingrained, incestuous relationships with DOE and a few other government funding agencies that it cannot be repaired, or "regenerated". LANL management after Harold Agnew has been generally atrocious, and shows every sign of remaining that way.
The new for-profit LANL contract so neatly prepared for us by DOE and the NNSA has, to no one's great surprise, accelerated the rate of decline in management and staff quality at Los Alamos.
The only solution that I believe has any chance of producing a respected DOE science laboratory in place of the current LANL is to shut Los Alamos down. Completely. And then start new somewhere else, paying careful attention to avoid all of the mistakes that current and past managers have made and continue to make. I won't point out what those mistakes are -- you can read all about them here on this blog and its predecessor blogs.
Three:I believe that LANL is so damaged by 65 years of ingrained, incestuous relationships with DOE and a few other government funding agencies that it cannot be repaired, or "regenerated". LANL management after Harold Agnew has been generally atrocious, and shows every sign of remaining that way.
The new for-profit LANL contract so neatly prepared for us by DOE and the NNSA has, to no one's great surprise, accelerated the rate of decline in management and staff quality at Los Alamos.
The only solution that I believe has any chance of producing a respected DOE science laboratory in place of the current LANL is to shut Los Alamos down. Completely. And then start new somewhere else, paying careful attention to avoid all of the mistakes that current and past managers have made and continue to make. I won't point out what those mistakes are -- you can read all about them here on this blog and its predecessor blogs.
To whoever wrote "The only solution that I believe has any chance of producing a respected DOE science laboratory in place of the current LANL is to shut Los Alamos down. Completely. And then start new somewhere else, paying careful attention to avoid all of the mistakes that current and past managers have made and continue to make."
You missed several minor points.
1) The land and buildings at LANL would cost many tens of billions to replace. Where would that money come from? No one would buy the existing LANL facilities in such a remote location (unlike Livermore).
2) Decommissioning LANL would cost many billions more.
3) How could it be possible for the same (mis)managers at NNSA who have made so many bad decisions (like hiring LANS) to create a new mistake-free organization, especially at a time when they would be building a new ~100 Billion dollar laboratory? That's nutty thinking.
4) Who would sign up to work for NNSA at your proposed new site knowing that NNSA just might make the same (bad) decision to close this new site and destroy the lives and careers of everyone who works there? Do you think top-notch scientists, engineers, technicians, and managers are that stupid?
Get a firm grip on on your head... now... pull it out. Now get a grip on the real world dude.
2:25 PM is right, the way to start fixing LANL is for NNSA to fire LANS (Bechtel).
Four:You missed several minor points.
1) The land and buildings at LANL would cost many tens of billions to replace. Where would that money come from? No one would buy the existing LANL facilities in such a remote location (unlike Livermore).
2) Decommissioning LANL would cost many billions more.
3) How could it be possible for the same (mis)managers at NNSA who have made so many bad decisions (like hiring LANS) to create a new mistake-free organization, especially at a time when they would be building a new ~100 Billion dollar laboratory? That's nutty thinking.
4) Who would sign up to work for NNSA at your proposed new site knowing that NNSA just might make the same (bad) decision to close this new site and destroy the lives and careers of everyone who works there? Do you think top-notch scientists, engineers, technicians, and managers are that stupid?
Get a firm grip on on your head... now... pull it out. Now get a grip on the real world dude.
2:25 PM is right, the way to start fixing LANL is for NNSA to fire LANS (Bechtel).
6:27,
You really don't see the picture. I'll try to help you out:
1. NNSA is part of the problem. The suggestion was to replace the current LANL with a new DOE lab. NNSA would play no part.
2. LANL's current budget is about $2 billion per year. With that amount of funding, a pretty spiffy new DOE lab could be built. Staffing for the new lab would in no way resemble LANL's current management top-heavy, overhead-heavy work force.
3. Bulldoze what's left of the old LANL. If they can shut down RFP, they can shut down LANL.
4. ORNL, PNNL, and NREL are proof that it is possible for DOE to sponsor healthy, respected (at least as compared to LANL) science laboratories.
You really don't see the picture. I'll try to help you out:
1. NNSA is part of the problem. The suggestion was to replace the current LANL with a new DOE lab. NNSA would play no part.
2. LANL's current budget is about $2 billion per year. With that amount of funding, a pretty spiffy new DOE lab could be built. Staffing for the new lab would in no way resemble LANL's current management top-heavy, overhead-heavy work force.
3. Bulldoze what's left of the old LANL. If they can shut down RFP, they can shut down LANL.
4. ORNL, PNNL, and NREL are proof that it is possible for DOE to sponsor healthy, respected (at least as compared to LANL) science laboratories.
The obvious comment to make here is that NNSA (and DOE) do not want LANL to be a healthy science laboratory. They want it to be a plutonium fabrication plant to replace the production capabilities which were lost when the Rocky Flats Plant was closed.
ReplyDeleteOh, and of course the NNSA and DOE want their corporate friends (who will not be named, again, but at least one of which is a large construction company) to profit by this.
"1. NNSA is part of the problem. The suggestion was to replace the current LANL with a new DOE lab. NNSA would play no part."
ReplyDeleteThis is the key point.
"They want it to be a plutonium fabrication plant to replace the production capabilities which were lost when the Rocky Flats Plant was closed."
If this is the case they should just come out and say so and proceed to shut everything else down. It would be better to just get it done.
"If this is the case they should just come out and say so and proceed to shut everything else down."
ReplyDeleteWhat is the ambiguity? Their actions have loudly and clearly said this. Do you want a notarized memo?
Here, 7:33. This should help spell it out for you:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lasg.org/campaigns/PUPitProd.htm
Brilliant people managed by morons. A real scientific manager, like Harold Agnew or even Sig Hecker, would turn the place around in 6 months. Instead we'll have a steady troupe of Bechtel implants foisted upon us while they fill their pockets and drive the talent out. DOE missed their chance when they chose LANS over Paul Robinson. They repeat the same mistake daily.
ReplyDeleteLANL will not be shut down, but not because of the science it does (if there is any being done these days); but because of the train loads of of money it fleeces from the taxpayer every year (tons of it). The military industrial complex is kept well fed by all that money, and it in turn keeps our our politicians well taken care off with countless perks (bribes) and generous campaign contributions (bribes) that serves to keep "our" elected representatives perpetually in their corner (back pocket). And so bridges keep falling and people keep dying for lack of health care. So what?! Who really gives a damn? Go back to grazing now sheeple!
ReplyDeleteBaaa...baaaaa....
8:16,
ReplyDeleteWell the "managed by morons" part is certainly correct, but the "brilliant people" they are mis-managing I'm not so sure about. I think this comment featured in an earlier COW is more accurate:
"The good ol' days. No questions asked back then. We got money by the tanker full, and we didn't have to account for none of it! White male butt-heads and cowboys in charge (as should be). No going-Rogue pussies tolerated in our midst (as should be). The cover of UC to give us an air of academic odeur. Placed on pedestals by everyone who knew better. Legends in our own minds of course. We were truly the best and brightest and damn well knew it! Boy oh boy, those WERE the good ol' days."
Maybe once there were a few brilliant people at Los Alamos, but the demographic has changed noticeably since the disastrous shutdown of 2004 and the subsequent take-over by NNSA and LANS. There has been a steady outflow of talent since then, and the new hires have been generally of the mediocre class.
To Anonymous at 8:16 AM.
ReplyDeleteActually it was LANL that missed the chance in 1985 by hiring Hecker and not Robinson as LANL Director. DOE did, most probably, have a hand in this decision. To what extent, we'll never know.
"My understanding is that LANL scientists are not, in general, funded through open competition.." (COW)
ReplyDeleteNot all the funding at LANL is funded through a non-competitive or a pseudo-competitive (insider) process. Some of us (a very few, and shrinking more each day) go outside of LANL and find people willing to plunk down large sums of money to fund various scientific projects.
LANS upper management likes to talk a lot about this very small slice of "diversified science" at LANL, but behind everyone's back they are doing their best to cut it off at the knees. After a while, you begin to question why anyone would want to work so hard to bring in outside funds when LANS persists in finding stupid ways to burn the money up, slow down projects and waste the funds on the lab's highly bloated bureaucracy.
Most of the good TSMs that I've seen leave, post-LANS, have been the staff who worked in the areas of diversified science. They have other options and I don't blame them for finally given up on LANL and getting out. For this particular group of scientists at LANL, LANS truly is the "shutdown crew".
"LANL's current budget is about $2 billion per year. With that amount of funding, a pretty spiffy new DOE lab could be built."
ReplyDeleteFor two billion dollars, and an org chart that wasn't stupid top-heavy like LANL's, and wasn't overburdened with a brain-dead overhead-friendly bureaucracy like LANS has created, somebody could build one hell of a research lab.
PBI's, kiss my ass.
Too bad nobody is interested.
Actually, until the early 90's there was real competition for funding for LANL's major programs. It was LANL vs LLNL for the next weapons program, and real jobs, and lots of them, were at stake each time a new military requirement was put up for bid. Not the academic standard of "competition" of course since all of the work was classified, but serious competition nontheless. Careers were won and lost, and so were jobs.
ReplyDeleteWell, 954, I guess that might be one limited perspective on the definition of the word "competition".
ReplyDeleteWhen there are only two players, the odds are pretty good. You should try it out in the real world where there is more than one competitor, and where many of them are heavy hitters.
That's a more realistic, although less comfortable definition for the word "competitive".
10:01 pm: "When there are only two players, the odds are pretty good.:
ReplyDeleteJust how many "competitors" do you think would have been appropriate for classified nuclear weapon programs during the cold war? Get a clue about history.
"Just how many "competitors" do you think would have been appropriate for classified nuclear weapon programs during the cold war? Get a clue about history."
ReplyDeleteGroves tried every single approach that even appeared feasible, and tried them at different locations in the country. I think that qualifies as lots of competitors during the Manhattan Project.
"Algae kills dinosaurs"
ReplyDeleteOh, good. It is not a story about renewable energy and LANL. It's about real dinosaurs after the comet strike 65,000,000 BP.
Build a spiffy lab for $2B? Look at the cost to build the CMR replacement. You might get one single plutonium research building built for $2B. Maybe. But then there wouldn't be any money left over to do anything else.
ReplyDeleteAny idea what it would cost to replace TA-55? Do you have any idea what it would cost to do the siting, design, permits, environmental impact statements, safety basis, safety reviews, etc? It would cost $2B before you put the first shovel into the ground.
You failed on the first attempt to pull your head out. It's still impacted. Try again.
"The obvious comment to make here is that NNSA (and DOE) do not want LANL to be a healthy science laboratory. "
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah. NNSA is a military organization at this point. Generally, the military doesn't much enjoy supporting scientists. Just look at the DoD labs -- they're all just glorified contract managers.
The NNSA plan, as explained to me by an NNSA guy, is for the labs to transition from being "NNSA labs that sometimes do work for others" to being "work for others lab that sometimes do NNSA work". Why? Because it will reduce the costs of the labs to NNSA, allowing them to continue to divert money to the production plants.
As you may have guessed, there is little love lost between the NNSA and its civilian scientists. Which might explain why the scientists are leaving, and the NNSA is working so hard to make them leave. It's a win-win from the NNSA point of view.
I wonder if Domenici has a clue of the scale of this disaster he created?
7:39,
ReplyDeleteListen, jerk. People have been pounding Plutonium into pits for 64 years now. It's not science any more, it's cookbook metallurgy.
You can keep your fucking plutonium foundry operations if you like; you're welcome to them. Call it the NNSA Plutonium Plant. Don't call it a national lab -- it's not.
What was proposed was to start over with a real DOE science lab to replace the multidisciplinary science research capabilities that LANL once had. What was proposed is entirely feasible using just one year's worth of LANL's current budget. That must scare you, which explains why you are being such a prick. Or maybe you're just a prick all of the time.
@11:01
ReplyDeleteYou just want a $2B playground. Good luck with that.
11:22, I would like to see my tax dollars being spent productively, on good science. As compared to how they are being spent now, lining the coffers of a hugely inefficient corporate consortium. It's you corporate boys who have the $2 billion playground now. I want to take it away from you.
ReplyDeleteHey 11:01,
ReplyDeleteI don't need your new shiny lab at all, I can do multidisiplinary research in my garage. I'm just about to give a speech on how I plan to make both cold fusion and time-travel work next year. I don't have any real details yet, and I've made absolutely no progress, but I plan to fund the work with the money I get from winning the next Nobel Prize in Physics. After that, I plan to give some speeches on how I'm going to develop the fountain-of-youth. I plan to fund that research with the money I get from winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
Too bad they don't have a Nobel Prize in Bullshit, 'cause you would surely win.
11:01 am: "Listen, jerk. People have been pounding Plutonium into pits for 64 years now. It's not science any more, it's cookbook metallurgy."
ReplyDeleteWhat bullshit. You obviously know nothing about modern pit manufacturing, including the issues of cast vs wrought, impurities, materials compatibility, and a host of other issues that would be classified to even mention. These days, no one would request, let alone accept, a Rocky Flats-type pit. We just can't build them poorly enough to match those old specs! Nor would we be allowed to under current safety and environmental laws.
"a Rocky Flats-type pit" = works
ReplyDeletea LANL-type pit = lots of excuses about why it hasn't been made, plus a plea for unrestricted "sandbox" money
1:13,
ReplyDeleteMay I ask, could you please contact the Venezuelan embassy ASAP. We are very interested in your ideas on Cold Fusion and Time Travel, to support our non-interest in the pursuit of nuclear technology.
"These days, no one would request, let alone accept, a Rocky Flats-type pit."
ReplyDeleteI'll take one every day of the week and twice on Sundays. When you get around to testing one of these spiffy new overwrought LANL pits let me know. Until then please keep them in the lab and out of the stockpile.
When you get around to testing one of these spiffy new overwrought LANL pits let me know. Until then please keep them in the lab and out of the stockpile.
ReplyDelete10/30/09 8:11 PM
Yeah, until the stockpile pits rot, which is obviously what you want. Wait, are you saying you support nuclear testing?? Nah, I didn't think so.
Think again. That's exactly what I meant. What I don't want is to trust certification letters from an institution that can't tell the truth about things far less important.
ReplyDeleteSurprised?
"There has been a steady outflow of talent since then, and the new hires have been generally of the mediocre class." - 9:50 AM
ReplyDeleteLANS has been running off most of the remaining scientists of high caliber. As far as I've been able to decipher, that seems to be the LANS game plan, and I don't say that in jest! The next few years at LANL should be interesting. I wouldn't be at all surprised if LANS decided to start using a sequence of targeted RIFs to cull the scientific herd at LANL.
LANS wants lower salaried workers who have little benefits and put compliance above all else. That's exactly what they're getting with most of the recent new hires.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-radiation-newmexico1-2009nov01,0,6423820.story
ReplyDelete"If it wasn't for bad luck, wouldn't have no luck at all."
1:43 PM: "LANS wants lower salaried workers who have little benefits and put compliance above all else. That's exactly what they're getting with most of the recent new hires."
ReplyDeleteIt's called "Bechtel-ization".
Love it, learn it, live it... or leave it.
10/30/09 11:18 PM, FY, Really???, you are an ironic man of ≈46 years, with little or few natural instincts, little or no support for the US nuclear deterrence, and no support for US national security in general.
ReplyDeleteYou can prove me wrong, "Facta Non Verba" (Actions, Not Words), with these posts on your blog, and your assistant´s??? blog:
1. "U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting it Right," A White Paper By: The New Deterrent Working Group, Foreword By: R. James Woolsey, July 2009, at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/center%publication%20pdfs/NDWG-%20Getting%20It%20Right.pdf.
2. "On Eve of Obama´s Moscow Summit, Experts Warn of Growing Risks to US Nuclear Deterrent," at http://www.youtube.com/user/securefreedom#p/u/54/5P4ZpTnbTQM. (My remark: This important seminar is held in conjunction with the release of the previous mentioned US nuclear weapons report in section 1., and shortly before Pres. Obama departed to the Moscow Summit in July 2009, and later arrived at the White House with a bad treaty for US.)
(Both the report, and the seminar outlines a strong support for the US nuclear deterrence, in its support of nuclear testing, nuclear weapons modernization, new delivery systems, and new nuclear weapons systems, with low yield, high precision, low radiation, and the RNEP.)
3. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in his op-ed, WSJ, October 21, 2009, "Why We Need to Test Nuclear Weapons." (I agree in his arguments for US nuclear testing, as well as, that US shouldn´t ratify the CTBT.)
4. Dr. James Carafano of Heritage Foundation in his, "National Security: Not a Good Argument for Global Warming Legislation," Testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, United States Senate, October 28, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst/102709a.cfm. (I agree in Dr. Carafano´s paper that global warming legislation shouldn´t be folded into national security, with most likely, further bad economic and technical consequences for the US nuclear deterrence, as well as, the Cap and Trade Energy tax is redistribution of wealth gloobally, and an attack on US sovereignty and its economy, and should therefore be rejected.)
5. FY, write your own white paper in defense of US nuclear deterrence, that you post on your blog.
6. FY, testify in Congress in defense of US nuclear deterrence, and/or establish an alliance between your blog, and NNSA, US Armed Forces, Heritage Foundation, AEI, and Center for Security Policy.
Shoot in the right direction bud. I meant what I said.
ReplyDelete"11/1/09 5:44 PM"
ReplyDeleteI really do not understand your point. Having pits at LANL would be bad because LANL is run by the NNSA, which means the pits simply cannot be built.
FY, you could have proven me wrong, with "Facta Non Verba" (Actions, Not Words), but you only repeat yourself with words, but no actions that proves your words. (I gave you six examples, you followed none. FY, you are all mouth.)
ReplyDeleteGeez, Frank, don't you realize your hatred for LANL gets in the way of your ostensible support for national security? You may quibble based on your prejudices, but it's the way you are perceived. How about a solid statement of your national security views without resorting to your grievances against LANL? Will your long-standing bad feelings allow you to do that? I doubt it. (Remember now, no references to LANL.) Go for it.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the hate? And where is the ambiguity in what I said?
ReplyDeleteThe nation's nuclear deterrent meant that most of my uncles came home from WWII and that it ended just before my father had to go. It was also part of the reason that I never had to shoot at anyone when I was in the service (that was also partly luck).
National security has nothing to do with a signature on a certification letter. Do you even know what deterrence means?
"Geez, Frank, don't you realize your hatred for LANL gets in the way of your ostensible support for national security? "
ReplyDeleteDo you think that LANL under LANS and NNSA is helping or hurting national security? One can make a very strong argument that LANL is so utterly dysfunctional that it would be better to shut it down so that that we at least know that we have lost certain capabilities. Right now it could be percieved that we have those capabilities when in fact we may not.
Hell why should you care about national security? No one cares anymore. Do you think Bill Richardson cares, Joe Barton, Congress, Nanos, the average American? They could all care less. Do you think Halliburton cares about the United States and the soldiers? The moment we decided to go private with the labs was proof that no one cared at all about national security.
Of course we should all care about national security.I do not mean to be cynical but do you really think LANL in its current state could make reliable pits? To make anything that is reliable and good you need good people. We have reached the state where good people will not come to work at LANL anymore. Can you blame them why should they take the risk? Frank is proof that the risk is not worth it. All the people that got burned in the standown are proof. A lot of good people have left and more will be leaving soon, and the rest will retire. What than? Yes we need pits but LANL is no longer the place to do it. Who is to blame for this? All of us.
And here's a clue. it doesn't mean more money for you to dick around with what is proven to work.
ReplyDeleteYou want better nukes? Sounds great to me. Build a few, prove they work, and then people like me will be happy to pay for them and decommission the old ones.
Don't tell me "trust me". Show me that I can trust the new weapons. Show the world. That will make them a deterrent worth every penny, one that is less likely to ever be used.
Sorry, I couldn't type fast enough to get my additional comment in before someone else commented. It was directed at 10:00 PM, not 10:55 PM.
ReplyDelete= PBIs Baby! = PBIs Baby! = PBIs Baby! =
ReplyDeleteBelow is from the new LANS/LASO Performance Blog -
http://blog.lanl.gov/perform/
** LASO’s Snyder shares views about Performance-Based Incentives (PBIs) **
October 29th, 2009 by adminperf
Interview with Roger Snyder Deputy Site Manager, Los Alamos Site Office
MODERATOR: Are the PBIs mainly a management concern?
ROGER: From my point of view, not everyone works with NNSA, but NNSA is a customer, and customer expectations are fundamental drivers of LANL performance expectations. PBIs simply define what NNSA (and other customers) expect from LANS in the management of LANL.
The emphasis of the PBIs for FY10 can help employees know where NNSA is putting its emphasis. This year, FY10, for instance, is the focus on:
* Plutonium science
* Future positioning of the lab,
* Environmental cleanup, and
* Stimulus funding.
We also seek improvement in procurement and maintenance, as well as reinvestment in the common infrastructure and core capabilities at LANL.
MODERATOR: Is too much emphasis being put on PBIs instead of considering the outcomes of scientific R&D?
ROGER: Let me say that PBIs largely measure desired outcomes and also how they’re achieved. PBIs are grouped into mission, operations, and business categories and evolve from year to year based on annual objectives, needed focus, required improvements, mission needs, etc.
Now with FY 2009 behind, we look back at a year of operational improvements, key to mission capability and performance confidence. These improvements were a significant area of focus in the PBIs. Excellent progress was made. Employees should be proud.
MODERATOR: I’m not sure employees know where to look to find this information.
ROGER: So that all employees can take that backward look and see the progress made, a summary of the FY 2009 PBIs in the Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) is viewable at the Performance Communications Center, http://int.lanl.gov/performance/ (click on the green PEP button), on the LANL yellow network. I hope you take a look at this summary because you’ll see significant improvements and advances in meeting the Lab’s goals and commitments for FY09.
MODERATOR: So I am hearing that, in general, LASO is pleased with the Lab’s performance in FY09. What about FY10?
ROGER: We’ve just finished drafting the FY 2010 PBIs, although we still await a final budget. We’ve put forth a set of joint goals, allowing for revision downstream. We expect to face many new challenges as we await the Nuclear Posture Review, assist in the pursuit of energy independence, undertake stimulus work and forever change the skyline of TA-21, meet Consent Order milestones, start LANSCE-R design, possibly start construction of the Science Complex and demolition of SM-43, as well as seek opportunities to improve the things we can and work creatively to surmount the many challenges before us.
A summary of the FY 2010 PBIs will be made available at the Performance Communications Center, http://int.lanl.gov/performance/ (click on the green PEP button), on the yellow network, once Congress has approved a budget for LANL and the NNSA.
I’ll be watching and responding here to comments.
Memo comments?:
ReplyDelete-
"The Director held an off-site for his management team (PADs, ADs) a few days ago. He shared his views on several important topics, including LANL budgets and staffing, political timetables in Washington, attempts to find further efficiencies at LANL, and emphasizing inclusiveness and diversity at the Laboratory."
"This year’s budget looks very solid, including funding for LANSCE-R, as well as healthy WFO increases. As usual, the uncertainties lie in future years. The FY11 and out-year budgets are in early stages, of course, but NNSA will be heavily influenced by the Nuclear Posture Review and related studies which are due to report out over the next few months. Whatever this future, the need for high quality R&D to ensure a safe, secure, and effective deterrent for 21st century challenges, and a robust non-proliferation capability, is clear. The need for a skilled work-force to this end is a major topic in all the studies. The Lab’s opinions and advice are being sought and respected. However, strategic decisions will follow the FY11 budget decisions - where and how to invest in human capital, physical infrastructure, and major facilities across the NNSA complex."
"The increased costs and decreased buying power continue to stress LANL’s ability to provide the technical output required by our multiple program customers. The Director again re-emphasized the need to seek efficiencies in the way we are doing business; He also re-affirmed a tight hiring scrutiny. Both of these topics are now being elevated to PAD-level plans and we should hear more in the next weeks, including a more detailed Lab communication from the Director."
"Funding pensions is a serious issue for the NNSA Complex, including LANL. This is being treated seriously by LANL, but we have to wait for decisions on a path forward."
"There was extensive discussion of the importance of diversity in the work-place: an emphasis on both diverse applicant pools and training pipelines, and on a inclusive work-place. These important topics will be a focus of leadership summits being rolled down through the organization over the next months."
-
The moment we decided to go private with the labs was proof that no one cared at all about national security.
ReplyDeleteDoes this logic imply no nuclear weapon delivery system can be trusted because they were all built by private entities? Comrade, we must immediately open Ballistic Missile Institute No. 3. Or maybe the Cruise Missile Collective?
10:51 PM Article Post...
ReplyDelete"I’ll be watching and responding here to comments." (Roger Snyder/NNSA-LASO -- LANL Performance Blog)
Rodger Synder of LASO should be spending his time watching and responding to the posts on *THIS* blog and not the new, worthless LANS/LASO "performance" blog. He would learn a lot more by doing this, but it is clear that NNSA has decided to deeply bury their head in the sand and pretend that things are going better than ever.
"...However, strategic decisions will follow the FY11 budget decisions - where and how to invest in human capital, physical infrastructure, and major facilities across the NNSA complex." (Memo)
ReplyDeleteTRANSLATION: A RIF is coming. We need a cheaper and smaller work force and more down-sizing of the scientific staff! The money saved can be used by Bechtel to build the new Plutonium Pit Factory and stock it with lots of new Bechtel managers.