Talk:Sandia National Laboratories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous Comments w/o Headers[edit]

This article makes almost no mention of Sandia California, which is an important oversight . . . does anyone have any info that could be added on the Ca operation?

The previous version was a copyvio from this source. If anyone wanted to know, and/or write a more detailed article...? Meelar 05:12, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Created new intro, imported text from government source website ( Wikified text to best of my ability. This is all public info and all US Government data so no copyvio is possible. No special copyright asserted on the site, info gives very complete history and current research facility breakdown. Specific info on the divisions who do research at Sandia (not necessarily their names, just the basics) such as physics, chemistry, materials science, cryptography, etc would help. --Abqwildcat 01:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Sandia National Laboratories would be considered a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin... Sandia is operated by Lockheed, but Lockheed would be unable to sell or otherwise control Sandia Corporation without the US Federal Government's approval. It's not a big point, but I think that it could be misleading without better explanation on the category page and the Sandia Laboratories page. --ABQCat 23:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'm holding off on adding the template U.S. National Labs to all the national labs pages, but wanted to see what the feedback was about it on this page. The template is {{U.S. National Labs}} and would be applicable to all the national labs that it lists. User:Fastfission designed it on Talk:United States Department of Energy and I think it adds great value to each national lab page. It would certainly be preferable to using a category page, in my estimation. Anyway, feedback on using the template here and on other pages? --ABQCat 20:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Sandia Base[edit]

  • Oppose - Sandia Base holds a separate historical importance from Sandia National Laboratories. The Army base may have been partially where SNL was eventually housed, but they are not the same thing and do not share history (in the way SNL shares history with LANL, for example), only space. Also, as a resident of Albuquerque, you could talk to me about SNL or Sandia Base and I'd know the difference - something that indicates they're not really the same topic or related enough for the same article in wikipedia. --ABQCat 19:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to me. --Fastfission 22:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
As seen above in my comment from several months ago, I oppose this merger. The two are separate entities - Sandia Base is an army base, the labs are a DoE facility - they're not the same thing and, to the best of my knowledge, are not even coterminous. --ABQCat 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I was merely trying to clear some old entries on WP:Proposed mergers. Since it appears that this merger is not desired, I'll clear both the merge requests here and there. Alba 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I oppose for the fact cited previously that Sandia Base holds a seperate historial importance from SNL. In fact, I was BORN in the U.S. Army hospital at Sandia Base on 11/28/48! T.E. Goodwin 23:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification about Lockheed Martin's relationship to Sandia[edit]

I worked at Sandia's main facility for 25 years as an engineer. Let me clarify the role of Lockheed Martin for you. It's a bit confusing.

Sandia Labs is 100% owned by the Dept. of Energy's National Nuclear Security Agency, a fairly new subset organization within the Dept. of Energy. Before that directly by DOE, and its various names in the past (ERDA and AEC), since its beginnings in the mid-'40s.

Sandia is a Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) organization.

Originally Sandia was operated by AT&T. In 1993 Martin Marietta took over operations, and they later merged with Lockheed.

Your front page for Sandia mistakenly identifies Sandia as a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Lockheed Martin owns exactly 0% of Sandia, and cannot own any of it due to federal law.

The operating contractor cannot buy or sell any assets. They are merely the management shell. They handle day to day operations, administer benefits, etc. Payroll is paid through Sandia Corporation - an entity created for this purpose, wholly funded by DOE. Sandia employees are in a gray area - neither government GS-rated employees, nor strictly Lockheed Martin employees, although we enjoy many benefits from our relationship with LM, including almost all employee benefits. One benefit that had endured almost to this day was 24 paid vacation days per year - for new hires and old veterans alike. It was a major factor in my decision to move from Chicago to Albuquerque to go to work there in 1980.

When Sandia was formed from Los Alamos Z Division in the '40s, they wanted to lure people from back east to come work there. Since most used trains to travel back and forth, it was decided to offer this generous vacation package so they could visit family back east without worrying. Being as popular as it was, it wasn't until about 2000 that this policy was phased out for new hires. Existing employees retained this benefit.

And - a little background on the Livermore, CA facility (SNLL). It's primary projects include weapons systems engineering (partnered with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories across the street, much like Sandia is partnered with Los Alamos upstate). Each design team consists of a nuclear physics lab (LLNL & LANL) and an Arming, Fuzing & Firing Design lab (SNLA and SNLL). SNLL also does work in combustion research, and various other projects. It has about 1000 employees.

Details can be found at


Albuquerque, NM 3/28/2007

FWIW the article at this point says "... by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin..." which is probably more correct. RobI (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandia Supercomputer Linking Park[edit]

Some woman engineer named Devon Townsend at Sandia Labs just confessed to cyber-harassing Linking Park lead singer and family, collecting every tiny aspect of their life for almost the whole year 2006. Scariest shit I've ever seen, much worse than those hollywood hacker-fantasy movies were with Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock. She actually used govt supercomputing networks to frame the singer and rip apart his family via total surveillance. How come nobody in CIA or FBI noticed this sooner?

BTW, the CAPTCHA to solve for this entry is "burstgood" which is quite ironic for a Sandia entry as the lab develops nuclear weapons. Does Mr. Teller from above issue these captchas?

Wacky "Director" link[edit]

The link for the "Director" position goes to "Head Teacher". Should it go to "CEO" or something? RobI (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:SandiaLogo.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:SandiaLogo.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


The article is currently marked as an advertisement. However I beg to differ. The article states the company's core mission and values, and projects. The legal issues section makes it seem even less like an advertisement. What do you guys think, advertisement or not? Austin131 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

agreed, removed the tag. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)