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

231–240 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#231

Post by ben_w »

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...

I imagine it depends on the specifics. Closest I got[0] to the defence industry was all the anecdotes my dad had about Plessey and GEC Marconi.

I'm sure it's important to have a stable technology to train on in the military; at the same time, I remember one of their open-days they were showing off a civilian in-flight entertainment system that was so clearly overpriced for what it was that I knew even as I saw it that I could've done better for lower unit-cost. This isn't to show off, even despite my having not yet finished secondary school at the time — my solution would've been little more than "glue laptop to chair/wall in front", as tablets weren't something people discussed much around me in the 90s — it's just that the business solution was really unimpressive.

I assume there's secret military equivalents to that public project.

[0] if you exclude the job interview at Lockheed Martin for the year in industry paid work experience part of my degree, which didn't go further than an interview

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#232

Post by vanchor3 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #187
arp242 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some price increase after that would be completely fair and reasonable, because it is harder and more expensive to produce. But 165×? Colour me skeptical on that. At $50k you can hire a craftsman to custom fit something (at a $500k income a year they'd have about a month for it). There's also some foresight involved here. I used to work for a company that delivered computers for industrial applications such as ASML a…

> I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them". Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!" Examples: Rand Paul complaining about things like $8M in unused solar panels: https://www…

> Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!"

Unfortunately, both of those things frequently happen simultaneously.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#233

Post by paulddraper »

ceejayoz wrote: post #187
arp242 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some price increase after that would be completely fair and reasonable, because it is harder and more expensive to produce. But 165×? Colour me skeptical on that. At $50k you can hire a craftsman to custom fit something (at a $500k income a year they'd have about a month for it). There's also some foresight involved here. I used to work for a company that delivered computers for industrial applications such as ASML a…

> I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them". Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!" Examples: Rand Paul complaining about things like $8M in unused solar panels: https://www…

Hyperbole. Orders of magnitude different.

4 extra =/= hundreds extra

---

And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels? I could have gotten 26,000+ trash cans at $300 each!

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#234

Post by ceejayoz »

paulddraper wrote: post #233
ceejayoz wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them". Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!" Examples: Rand Paul complaining about things like $8M in unused solar panels: https://www…

Hyperbole. Orders of magnitude different. 4 extra =/= hundreds extra --- And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels? I could have gotten 26,000+ trash cans at $300 each!

The article says they needed another 11 the next year. Buying a couple hundred seems sensible if (as I suspect it is) most of the cost is at the project level rather than the unit level.

> And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels?

Spares? A lower than expected defect rate? Who knows? Paul doesn't provide useful specifics, just the politically sexy top-level numbers.

In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#235

Post by hef19898 »

ilyt wrote: post #177
hef19898 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, including profit it costs peopably somewhere around 200k for a run of 5 trash cans.

sure buddy, trashcan costing as much as building a custom car

In military aviation, including overhead amd profits? Yes.

Fun fact, if parts are around 30k they can be treated as not worthy of repair. Instead, discard them and nuy a new one.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#236

Post by paulddraper »

ceejayoz wrote: post #234
paulddraper wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyperbole. Orders of magnitude different. 4 extra =/= hundreds extra --- And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels? I could have gotten 26,000+ trash cans at $300 each!

The article says they needed another 11 the next year. Buying a couple hundred seems sensible if (as I suspect it is) most of the cost is at the project level rather than the unit level. > And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels? Spares? A lower than expected defect rate? Who knows? Paul doesn't provide useful specifics, just the politically sexy top-level numbers. In an organization with a mu…

Presumably that would be for the Dept of VA to clarify.

> In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.

And yet a fraction of that amount is front page HN.

Clearly a lot of other people believe differently.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#237

Post by activiation »

mcdonje wrote: post #145
lesuorac wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Military is one of the largest (the largest?) Jobs Creator in the US. Cities can literally be made or break by the Military (and other Gov functions) moving there or leaving. A vote against the military is a vote for more unemployment in your district.

Or the government can pay people to build better infrastructure instead.

War is better of course /s

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#238

Post by hef19898 »

hospitalJail wrote: post #230
hef19898 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All nice and dandy. And now imagine doing all that according to some obscure military aviation certification standards from the 50s. For a handful of parts. When you are the only reasonably available supplier.

Aerospace is different from automotive, just how different is only apparent by actually suffering through it. And as I said elsewhere, 200k to keep four highly specialized military planes in the air is, as stupid as it sounds, almost a no brainer.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#239

Post by cscurmudgeon »

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…

If the SF govt can spend $20k on a non-functioning trash can (that is actively defended), is $50k that crazy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/22/san-francisc...

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#240

Post by hef19898 »

jtbayly wrote: post #211
hef19898 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It obviously is a serious problem. Because all money in the world doesn't miraculiously materialize the needed production facilities over night.
Post reply on HN