The Pentagon’s $52k trash can • Hacker News Board

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#221

Post by cjbgkagh » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:32 PM UTC

I was studying to do military software at university, and the amount of deliberate inefficiency is insane. I worked on reducing software bugs and increasing quality, but the more bugs delivered the more money is made so such improvements were actively resisted. Plus pay at Raytheon and Lockheed was really really bad so I went to Silicon Valley instead.

I actually do sell software to the military now so I do know what it’s like. Part of it is the customers fault, they make it so expensive to do business with them that you lose money in overhead if you’re not ripping them off somewhere else. I wish I could put a line item that shows them just how expensive their stupid paperwork is. But part of the reason the customer is like that is because they’re routinely getting ripped off. Maybe if people in the military were smarter they could figure things out but in my experience it seems that McNamara’s Project 100K never ended and the military serves as an alternate welfare program for people who would be unable to get a job anywhere else. I’m not even sure I’m mad about it, the US still loves war too much despite how ruinously expensive it is. I worry if it was cheaper the US would do even more of it. Unfortunately it’s becoming cheaper anyway with all this drone warfare so we still have that dystopia to look forward to.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#222

Post by jliptzin » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:35 PM UTC

TrackerFF wrote: post #124

I had the pleasure of being involved in a software project where the contractor was one of the usual suspects (Raytheon, Lockheed, etc.). Prior to this, I had no idea why defense projects were so expensive and slow. You have to understand, there are so many levels of negotiation, over the smallest changes imaginable. There's no such thing as "open source code" in these projects, everything is either modified off-the-…

I have encountered a situation a few times where a bug that went unnoticed for a while was actually keeping another, more serious bug from surfacing. So when the first bug was fixed, it caused more serious problems elsewhere in the system. I could see where they're coming from where any kind of "fix" needs to trigger a careful reevaluation of the whole system. That being said, I don't see a need for the Kafkaesque months of planning and budgeting that follow.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#223

Post by ajmurmann » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:35 PM UTC

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #180

TrackerFF wrote: post #124

I had the pleasure of being involved in a software project where the contractor was one of the usual suspects (Raytheon, Lockheed, etc.). Prior to this, I had no idea why defense projects were so expensive and slow. You have to understand, there are so many levels of negotiation, over the smallest changes imaginable. There's no such thing as "open source code" in these projects, everything is either modified off-the-…

My experience has been that you can use open source software, but security considers that to have a high risk and you need to make a business case for it. What isn’t a security risk? A closed source vendor supplied application that has its headquarters in the US. You can sometimes find pockets of innovation in the defense sector, but it’s mostly filled with bureaucrats with engineer in their title.

To be fair, securing the OSS supply chain is a tough task, especially when pulling in new versions.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#224

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:36 PM UTC

hospitalJail wrote: post #165

nonethewiser wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And you did, at least, go through full ISO 9100 certification, as the minimum to make the long list of suppliers for flying parts.

It is becoming so frustrating to read all those tech bro comments, believing that doing some messy 3D printing is the same thing as manufacturing. Ignoring that the whole field of mechanical engineering exists.

Thinking like that, a bunch of millions, get you the Titan and five dead people. Add some billions and it gets you FSD and a bunch of dead people.

Oh, and accounting and cost calculation seems to be a black art as well...

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#225

Post by deelly » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:36 PM UTC

DropInIn wrote: post #192

david422 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I worked for a company that had loads of process for even the smallest changes. It was frustrating, but what I came to realize was that the company was not interested in fixing bugs or building features - they were primarily interested in not breaking things/keeping the status quo. This was an established business that was concerned with keeping the business running, not chasing the latest and greatest. Perhaps a…

That sort of business sounds like what we want in milsec and government suppliers, no? Reliable even down to the bug behaviors...

Not only. Also some software for financial sector, for suppliers, for maintenance too. Basically, anything that do not crash a system could be a feature. And sometime even have logical and good reason to exists.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#226

Post by adolph » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:38 PM UTC

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…

For sure, let us understand Chesterton’s fence before we demolish it. A full appreciation for the problem is not the same as making excuses or justifications for it. At a minimum if the reason for something is a second order effect of said thing, then just take Vienna—make your intention a first order effect.

https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Napoleon-say-If-you-want-to-ta...

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#227

Post by ajmurmann » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

DropInIn wrote: post #192

david422 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I worked for a company that had loads of process for even the smallest changes. It was frustrating, but what I came to realize was that the company was not interested in fixing bugs or building features - they were primarily interested in not breaking things/keeping the status quo. This was an established business that was concerned with keeping the business running, not chasing the latest and greatest. Perhaps a…

That sort of business sounds like what we want in milsec and government suppliers, no? Reliable even down to the bug behaviors...

The reliable bug behavior is an underappreciated point and can be hard to understand. I work on software that gets deployed on-prem by customers and had very powerful capabilities for deploying your own code to it etc. There have been a few discussions about some bug fixes and in particular security fixes being appropriate in a patch release when following SemVer. Something might be unintentional or insecure, but customers might be building on the broken behavior and now deploying a patch breaks their apps. The line can become quite blurry.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#228

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

smallerfish wrote: post #168

hef19898 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never said it wasn't somewhat ridiciulous, did I? I just try to explain the status quo, and some reasons why it is not as easy as buying some trash can from AliExpress or wherever.

But keep in mind, those same rules apply to safety critical parts, e.g. engines and wings. And overall, it is easier to just apply the same high standards to everything.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#229

Post by ajmurmann » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

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…

It's interesting to contrast this with all the complaints about the Titan sub using off-the-shelf components.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#230

Post by hospitalJail » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:42 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #224

hospitalJail wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you did, at least, go through full ISO 9100 certification, as the minimum to make the long list of suppliers for flying parts. It is becoming so frustrating to read all those tech bro comments, believing that doing some messy 3D printing is the same thing as manufacturing. Ignoring that the whole field of mechanical engineering exists. Thinking like that, a bunch of millions, get you the Titan and five dead peopl…

I'm talking about a desk trashcan though, at $100 an hour, it cost $400 to design.

By the way I'm a (real) engineer and I did design mechanical engineering for 5 years and electrical design engineering for 3 years. (and other fields of engineering for 4 years total as well)

Yes, you get your specs and you design to them.

I got real engineering parts certified and I believe the total cost, including tooling was under 600k. Heck, back when I made airbags, I don't think we spent anywhere close to 1 million dollars between design, tooling, testing, and manufacturing.