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

South Pole Medevac (2016)

southpolestation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#11

Post by abeyer »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #2

"That patient is seasonally employed through the Lockheed Martin Antarctic Support Contract, the prime contract for operations and research support contractor to NSF for the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). NSF is not releasing any further personal or medical information to preserve patient privacy." That's a curious statement given that NSF has often heavily publicized medical issues researchers have had, inc…

Given that at least one other explicitly mentions witholding identity by request:

https://www.southpolestation.com/news/medevac2003/medevac200...

...maybe they just asked? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#12

Post by maxlin »

While reading this I realized this is exactly the kind of form that makes up many of the YouTube videos I end up watching, with just a good narrator voice and any amount of editing this would be good content. I do also get the opposing point of many people liking written content a lot more though...

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#13

Post by RugnirViking »

sokoloff wrote: post #5
KennyBlanken wrote: post #2

"That patient is seasonally employed through the Lockheed Martin Antarctic Support Contract, the prime contract for operations and research support contractor to NSF for the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). NSF is not releasing any further personal or medical information to preserve patient privacy." That's a curious statement given that NSF has often heavily publicized medical issues researchers have had, inc…

If that contract is cost-plus and the medevac is a cost related to the project, well, we’re going to pay for it anyway. Which seems reasonable to me, to be honest, for anything remotely related to the reason we were paying for that employee-by-proxy to be there.

What is the point of a cost-plus contract? At that point why not do it in house, it's explicitly more expensive than that

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#14

Post by sokoloff »

RugnirViking wrote: post #13
sokoloff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that contract is cost-plus and the medevac is a cost related to the project, well, we’re going to pay for it anyway. Which seems reasonable to me, to be honest, for anything remotely related to the reason we were paying for that employee-by-proxy to be there.

What is the point of a cost-plus contract? At that point why not do it in house, it's explicitly more expensive than that

Many times the government can’t hire employees they need (unable to pay them a competitive salary or otherwise attractive career prospects) so can’t bring it in house.

Then, cost-plus arises because a company has to cover overhead and leave a profit, otherwise why would they bother? (Cost plus makes sense when you’re not sure enough of the requirements to write a fixed-price contract and then get change-ordered to death.)

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#15

Post by RugnirViking »

sokoloff wrote: post #14
RugnirViking wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of a cost-plus contract? At that point why not do it in house, it's explicitly more expensive than that

Many times the government can’t hire employees they need (unable to pay them a competitive salary or otherwise attractive career prospects) so can’t bring it in house. Then, cost-plus arises because a company has to cover overhead and leave a profit, otherwise why would they bother? (Cost plus makes sense when you’re not sure enough of the requirements to write a fixed-price contract and then get change-ordered to de…

But aren't they explicitly paying the cost of those employees' competitive salaries?

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#16

Post by lmm »

RugnirViking wrote: post #15
sokoloff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many times the government can’t hire employees they need (unable to pay them a competitive salary or otherwise attractive career prospects) so can’t bring it in house. Then, cost-plus arises because a company has to cover overhead and leave a profit, otherwise why would they bother? (Cost plus makes sense when you’re not sure enough of the requirements to write a fixed-price contract and then get change-ordered to de…

But aren't they explicitly paying the cost of those employees' competitive salaries?

Sure, but they may not be able or willing to commit to paying that much in the long term, or they might be unable to hire them because they're noncitizen or would fail security clearance, or they may want to hide them from FOIA for some reason, or...

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#17

Post by User23 »

upwardbound wrote: post #6
KennyBlanken wrote: post #2

"That patient is seasonally employed through the Lockheed Martin Antarctic Support Contract, the prime contract for operations and research support contractor to NSF for the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). NSF is not releasing any further personal or medical information to preserve patient privacy." That's a curious statement given that NSF has often heavily publicized medical issues researchers have had, inc…

Obviously this isn't true but gosh I wish this were a larger-than-life example of the trope of the military conducting a secret investigation of a crashed alien spacecraft buried within Antarctica. This trope appears over and over again, including in The Thing, Alien vs Predator, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and lots of other fiction. My favorite instance of this trope is in the amazing final book of the trilogy T…

Crashed spacecraft? Oh no no, they're covering up the Ice Wall!

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#18

Post by User23 »

lmm wrote: post #16
RugnirViking wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But aren't they explicitly paying the cost of those employees' competitive salaries?

Sure, but they may not be able or willing to commit to paying that much in the long term, or they might be unable to hire them because they're noncitizen or would fail security clearance, or they may want to hide them from FOIA for some reason, or...

Or campaign contributors expect a return on their "investment."

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#19

Post by safety1st »

maxlin wrote: post #12

While reading this I realized this is exactly the kind of form that makes up many of the YouTube videos I end up watching, with just a good narrator voice and any amount of editing this would be good content. I do also get the opposing point of many people liking written content a lot more though...

I'm thankful that this fun read was NOT a YouTube video - this way I don't have to sit through ads!

Re: South Pole Medevac (2016)

#20

Post by Doxin »

anter wrote: post #10

My favorite story related to the south pole medivacs is the russian scientist that had to be evacuated after he got stabbed by his colleague for supposedly spoiling the endings of books they had at the station: https://www.latimes.com/books/la-et-jc-anarctica-stabbing-bo...

Not saying stabbing people is acceptable but as far as stabbings go this one is almost understandable. You're stuck on that station for god knows how long and someone is repeatedly ruining one of the only forms of entertainment you have.
Post reply on HN