Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 98 posts

Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem

#11

Post by [deleted] »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #3
unixfg wrote: post #2

Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.

Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers. “[A] McKinsey “business analys…

[deleted]

Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem

#14

Post by Rebelgecko »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #3
unixfg wrote: post #2

Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.

Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers. “[A] McKinsey “business analys…

My guess is that the cost of the raw chemicals is a small part of the $400,000. If there's 500 toilets on board that's $800 per toilet. What is probably much more expensive is safely transporting the chemicals in massive amounts, storing them, inspecting all the pipes after the treatment, and safely disposing of the chemicals. The GAO report doesn't say what they're using. I wouldn't even be that surprised if the acid flush was actually done with a base like Drano/lye

Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem

#17

Post by prox »

zdragnar wrote: post #9
synaesthesisx wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers. “[A] McKinsey “business analys…

The amount of red tape involved in working with the government- especially anything related to defense- is astounding. I previously worked with a start up whose contacts in the military genuinely wanted to buy our services, but the process to do so was so long that the company ended up pivoting to focus exclusively on the commercial market. It was a less ideal fit, but it actually paid. Take: One part slow bureaucrac…

I wonder if thats one of the reasons, in this case the acid, is so expensive. You have to add all of the logistical and bureaucracy costs.

Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem

#18

Post by erpellan »

jonsen wrote: post #13
guidedlight wrote: post #10

What problem is solved by using aircraft-style toilets on Navy ships?

Stealth.

Aircraft toilets always sound pretty damn loud to me. And their main reason to exist on planes is the lack of available water. Pretty sure that is not an aircraft carrier’s constraint.

Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem

#19

Post by jonititan »

erpellan wrote: post #18
jonsen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealth.

Aircraft toilets always sound pretty damn loud to me. And their main reason to exist on planes is the lack of available water. Pretty sure that is not an aircraft carrier’s constraint.

Actually ships are very water constrained. Especially Nuclear as they can't risk sea water contamination to the reactor cooling.
Post reply on HN