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

The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

responsiblestatecraft.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#161

Post by jtrip »

cushychicken wrote: post #143
mcdonje wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Until 2010, Boeing charged an average of $300 for a trash container used in the E-3 Sentry, a surveillance and radar plane based on the 707 civilian airliner. When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels, according to a weapons industry source who spoke to RS. That's the 2nd paragraph of…

Also means that there are way fewer airframes to spread development costs across. Looks like we both read it, but not all of us understood the implications of it.

Development costs of what? The trashcan? What could possibly have cost them 50,000xplane frames to develop it in the first place?

The reading of the article implies the contract set prices for commercial items and Boeing simply started charging the army whatever as soon as it technically wasn't 'commercial'.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#162

Post by nonethewiser »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

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…

> The reason you can buy an OXO trash can for $30 on Amazon are the scale and volume at which they're produced.

I could make 1 plastic trashcan at home for less than $50,000. And probably less than $30.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#163

Post by hospitalJail »

ilyt wrote: post #128
cushychicken wrote: post #24

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…

>The government isn't just paying for the trash can. >They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design. It's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product. I call bullshit on that. There is no "maintenance" on that design, it was already done and paid for. It's a trashcan, it doesn't require specialized tooling to the cost of $50k. That's far above "make the to…

Only thing I'll mention is that tools wear out. Not that it justifies the price.

So the design may not need to be maintained, but if the company supplying the material goes out of business, someone needs to confirm the new material specs will work on the tool.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#164

Post by hef19898 »

aeyes wrote: post #148
throwaway290 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single trashcan shipped from China for military purpose in US would have to be pulled apart, inspected down to nanolevel and then put back together. That would not be just a few dollars... Edit: Yes obviously they are concerned about targeted attacks. And where do you live that hardware store sells trashcans that verifiably comply with all requirements to be put on a custom military Boeing 707 and not f things…

You can't be serious. Buy a plastic trashcan, use a generic metal scanner and an X-Ray and you are done. If you are concerned about targeted attacks, head down to your local hardware store and buy one of the thousands they have in stock.

Just don't put it on an aircraft then.

Funny, HN was up in arms over Titan's use of a logitech controller just a few days ago. But somehow using something from best buy on a freaking expensive plane like an E-3 is a good idea. Well, folks, that way of thinking actually sank the Titan and cost five lives.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#165

Post by hospitalJail »

nonethewiser wrote: post #162
cushychicken wrote: post #24

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…

> The reason you can buy an OXO trash can for $30 on Amazon are the scale and volume at which they're produced. I could make 1 plastic trashcan at home for less than $50,000. And probably less than $30.

I have a 3D printer, and I made a desk trash can.

I even gave it a fancy pattern.

I used FreeCAD.

It took 5 minutes to make the trashcan, and 2 nights to learn the pattern tool.

Total cost was 1.50 for my fancy color changing filament.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#166

Post by sailfast »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

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…

True! That said, the monopoly plays a role. I bet if you gave these specs to an open bid sheet metal fabricator somewhere in the US they’d replicate it for less than 52K shipped, no?

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#167

Post by Joker_vD »

pixl97 wrote: post #142
ilyt wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government isn't just paying for the trash can. >They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design. It's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product. I call bullshit on that. There is no "maintenance" on that design, it was already done and paid for. It's a trashcan, it doesn't require specialized tooling to the cost of $50k. That's far above "make the to…

War is messy when it comes to free market... Pentagon: "Oh hey, I need special bolt X" FreeMarket: "Sorry, was too expensive to make that here so we're making special bolt X in China" Pentagon: "Um, but we are shooting China right now" FreeMarket: "Don't worry I can get a production line setup in 3 months for 100 million dollars" Pentagon: "But I need special bolt X TODAY!"

During the first World War, the French and the English found out that building (and then operating) new state-run munition factories was faster and cheaper than buying munitions from the privately-owned firms, and the production quality was also better, too. Something to do with competence transfer or something.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#168

Post by smallerfish »

hef19898 wrote: post #155
smallerfish wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to spin up a production facility for a run of four trash cans. I guarantee there are ad hoc metal shops aplenty. Cut some sheet metal on the CNC, run it through a folder-thingy, rivet/weld it up, add some hinge hardware. You're talking one guy and 2-4 days, including the CAD work.

Sure. And all of this needs to be peoperly certified, to whatever standard the E-3 was certified against, in order to be mounted on the plane. Your comment tells me you were never involved in any of this. Alternative: Those trash cans set in stock somewhere, the 300 buck price guarantee ran out, and the alternative was to not fly or develop new cans. Well, that wpupd also justify 50k per can if said E-3s are actually…

And your comment tells me you're too deep into the system to realize how ridiculous this is. Your guy in a metal shop can do this for $5k with plenty of padding. Hire your certification consultant for $15k, and so on. If being efficient with taxpayer money was a priority, you could do one-off jobs a hell of a lot more efficiently than this was handled.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#169

Post by hef19898 »

jtrip wrote: post #161
cushychicken wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also means that there are way fewer airframes to spread development costs across. Looks like we both read it, but not all of us understood the implications of it.

Development costs of what? The trashcan? What could possibly have cost them 50,000xplane frames to develop it in the first place? The reading of the article implies the contract set prices for commercial items and Boeing simply started charging the army whatever as soon as it technically wasn't 'commercial'.

Which is exactly how it works. And one of the main reasons why airplanes get more expensive to operate with age. Because it is not just trash cans, but also engine parts, electronics, structural parts...

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#170

Post by jollyllama »

markus_zhang wrote: post #27
cushychicken wrote: post #24

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…

I mean seriously, you really believe this?

It's surprising to see people carrying water for the MIC in this way. Boeing already has the machines to make these kinds of things. It's just going to be sheet metal and plastic molds. Even assuming a one-off custom-fab job, $52k is obscene.
Post reply on HN