Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

responsiblestatecraft.org

131–140 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#131
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a trash can, not an aircraft's engine

It's still on the plane. If nobody tested it at the pressure a plane is at, and it turns out it explodes and injures the crew, that's not great.

So borrow a vaccuum chamber, throw it there and certify new company doing trash cans. It won't cost 50k

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#133
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corruption?

If you analyze how much the product and all associated processes can actually cost and then find a discrepancy (or find some pointless regulation that drives up the cost so much and explain how it was designed for profit and not purpose) then you can claim corruption. But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive. If US gov bought cheap plastic stuff from another country instead…

"But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive."

Naive or not, this turns out to be true surprisingly frequently.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#134
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd welcome your contrary explanation if you have one handy.

An alternate explanation would be that their accountants used the average cost method, and the trash can got averaged with a bunch of actual E-3 Sentry planes, or expensive component systems, or something.

This was the reason behind the $600 Hammer.

https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#135
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this comment a joke?

Why would it be? Making even consumer products is much harder than it seems. Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work. And far more if you actually want to do a good job of it. Linus Tech Tips put a surprising amount of work into making a screwdriver. Then consider that the military probably has a bunch of re…

> Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work.

....coz they are making 50k of a thing. Not four a year.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#136
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a trash can, not an aircraft's engine

It's still on the plane. If nobody tested it at the pressure a plane is at, and it turns out it explodes and injures the crew, that's not great.

It has been tested. It has been sold and used commercially and by the government for $300 before. This is not an example of actual costs being $50k. It is an example of massive incentives on the seller’s side to rip off the one who pays (the US pop), and no incentives on the buyer’s side to care about it.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#137
Same as Russian corruption, albeit on a smaller scale. Why do they do it? Because they can escape retribution. Recourse - possibly, after they fight and defeat warrior lobbyists(in mortal combat BTW, as they see an existential threat to their golf club membership at mar-a-largo)

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#138

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Reductio ad absurdum is a misnomer here. Apagogical argument is a completely valid mode of argumentation that’s used by philosophers and mathematicians throughout history. What you’re accusing this article of is cherry-picking.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#139
post #98

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

As a German, it always suprises me how pedantic americans can be when it comes to Letter of the Law vs Spirit of the Law situation. Yes, for Warplane Parts this whole Idea of keeping it inside america and enable local companies to continuously produce parts is reasonable. Having to receive bids for contracts as a public entity is also reasonable. But is there no one in government that can see that a 50k trashcan is j…

Usually the real answer is that it isn't actually $50k for a trash can. In something like an airplane, there's a whole bunch of costs that are overhead on the plane itself without being attached to any particular part (delivery, integrated testing, R&D, whatever). The accounting convention is that the overhead gets spread out amongst the individual items. The side effect of this convention is that if you view a line item without context, you get something utterly nonsensical.

It's absolutely possible to apply some level of basic human reason and common sense to such situations. A different accounting convention is probably in order.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#140
post #98

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

As a German, it always suprises me how pedantic americans can be when it comes to Letter of the Law vs Spirit of the Law situation. Yes, for Warplane Parts this whole Idea of keeping it inside america and enable local companies to continuously produce parts is reasonable. Having to receive bids for contracts as a public entity is also reasonable. But is there no one in government that can see that a 50k trashcan is j…

They see that it's stupid and they have all the same reason and common sense as anyone else. They just worry that if they don't follow the rules they'll go to jail.
Post reply on HN