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

211–220 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#211

Post by jtbayly »

hef19898 wrote: post #25
junon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trash can needs to be tested and certified for use in the Pentagon? ... holding a small collection of waste is that intense eh?

If it goes on a plane, not as cargo but as part of the equipment: yes. Inflameable, certification paper work, corresponding risk for the supplier, obligations to provide said waste bin for, sometimes, 50 years after last serial delivery... That stuff adds up very quickly. Throw in low quantities, and the high NRC ammortized per unit, and that explains a bunch of said prices. Plus obligatory surcharge for being aerosp…

"obligations to provide said waste bin for, sometimes, 50 years after last serial delivery"

This is obviously not a problem since you can charge literally whatever you want after the initial purchase.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#212

Post by _xnmw »

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…

Even if what you're saying is true, then the cost of maintaining the production line should be billed separately from the trash can itself.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#213

Post by dale_glass »

ilyt wrote: post #135
dale_glass wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

50K is easier in this regard. Things like molds are expensive to make and are amortized over thousands of copies. So making 5 costs a lot per unit, making 50K is cheap per unit.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#214

Post by mcdonje »

ceejayoz wrote: post #195
mcdonje wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you're moving on to a different argument now. Before it was about R&D, but now that it's been established that we're talking about trash cans for a plane that's been built since the 1950s, the argument is now about economies of scale. For trash cans that each cost roughly the median income of a US full-time worker.

> a plane that's been built since the 1950s, the argument is now about economies of scale There used to be economies of scale. It's a 707; they stopped being made in 1979. If you want 707 parts now, there's a good chance they're gonna be produced on a very small scale custom job for you. (It's also a very special 707, inside and out. Cabin designs can vary significantly from airline to airline, let alone civilian to…

Yes, that's essentially their argument about economies of scale.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#215

Post by jtbayly »

hef19898 wrote: post #97
sesuximo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t add up to 50k. Maybe 300. Probably not even

Well, you can take that from someone who does it for a living (not for Boeing or the Pentagon, bit still), or not. Your choice. Whether or not 50k is actually justified or not, no idea. But the price for a new, low volume, production of obsolete aircraft spares is orders of magnitude more expensive than the original high volume one. And even it if is old stock, as soon as the low contractual prices are running out, e…

There is only one buyer for these parts. "Paying the market price" means that Boeing charges whatever they want, and that's the market price, take it or leave it.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#216

Post by sfn42 »

cushychicken wrote: post #194
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…

This shows very little hands on knowledge of how the US government actually works, how it pays for the contracts it writes, or the costs of making physical goods. For example: as other more level headed folks with actual knowledge of contract fulfillment have mentioned, this might have been a T&M or cost plus procurement. In which case, there's very little opportunity for the profiteering that most of my replies have…

I don't think the antipathy is against the government, i think it is against the obscenely rich people who own these companies, and to a degree the companies themselves.

I also think the excuses made here are dishonest. It doesn't keep people employed, it doesn't fund innovation. It goes into some billionaire's bank account, gets invested in whatever and pushes them up some list of top 100 richest people in the US.

The profits don't go to employees, they don't cause more hires. They don't create jobs. The trash cans are already designed, they're probably already manufactured as well. They're not going to hire anyone for this, they're just jacking up the price because they can so why the hell wouldn't they? Just like they jacked up the price of insulin not to mention general healthcare and medicine and everything else recently.

The rich have one objective, it is to get richer. They will hide research that goes against that interest. Oil companies knew CO2 was bad nearly 100 years ago. Teflon producers knew teflon was bad decades ago. Until someone makes them stop, they will not stop. Because money.

Corporations literally do not give a single ounce of fuck about anything except money. If they do something that seems selfless it's because seeming selfless is in their interest (money). Like how Patagonia made record sales of their "Don't buy this jacket".

If you ever fins yourself thinking a corporation is giving a shit about something that doesn't make them more money it's because you're not seeing their angle.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#217

Post by uberman »

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…

Having worked on projects sponsored by "three letter agencies", I also suspect that the cost of the trash cans is potentially recovery for unbudgeted and uncompensated requirement changes.

If the navigation station on the plane had to be shrunk by 1/4 inch due to some 3rd party not being able to meet their required tolerances after manufacturing had begun how does that get paid for?

The award is fixed but now the requirements have changed. The TLA is not going back to Congress to get $200k in additional design funding. That phase of the project is done. However, the TLA potentially has a large budget for maintenance and replacement of parts.

The navigation station gets an emergency redesign and it is paid for by no-bid 50K trash cans. There is no corruption here just the realities of working with fixed bid contracts, hundreds of third parties from every state in the nation and a political appropriations process.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#218

Post by athenot »

This is similar to hospitals sometimes billing $300 for a simple saline IV bag. Creative accounting where the cost of highly scrutinized items is reduced, so other items are inflated to essentially make up for the difference.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#219

Post by wongarsu »

hef19898 wrote: post #164
aeyes wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think the controller would have gotten such a strong reaction if it was an X-Box 360 or X-Box One controller. Those are reliable, sturdy, and used as controllers in industry and military. But instead it was some $30 Logitech controller, something you would consider the budget choice in the context of somebody playing Call of Duty.

I guess the equivalent is putting the flimsy $1.25 trash can from Dollar Store in your spacecraft, instead of a $8 trash can.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#220

Post by danhor »

cushychicken wrote: post #65
danhor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad example, JLCPCB will do PCBA for just a few dollars.

...in China. Which is where we don't want our manufacturing dollars or skill base to go.

The choose some other manufacturer. E.g. Aisler will do assembly for 10 Boards for around 200€ in Germany, more than JLCPCB (this is probably in part due to the scale and automation with which JLCPCB operates), but much less than 1k.
Post reply on HN