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

331–340 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#331

Post by mortify »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #210
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 worked on a radar system that could see precipitation- think doppler radar map view. The ability to do this was in the contract but there was no way to view it. We had Matlab scripts so we the devs could view it and the weather people wanted them. We weren't allowed to hand them over without a contract. They'd pop in multiple times a day to view our doppler. The adversarial nature that defense companies treat our m…

If the viewing software was provided, the support would be included and that will cost money in the long term. That is something that the company didn't agree to provide nor the government to pay for. In this case, the adversary wasn't the contractor, it was the users in the government and the government employees holding the purse strings. No contractor will turn down the chance to extend the contract.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#332

Post by mortify »

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…

> it was already done and paid for. It's a trashcan, it doesn't require specialized tooling

The government doesn't spec "a trashcan." They create size specs, water-tightness ratings, material durability, etc. The exact spec they provide may be met in 90% of areas by an existing trash can, but that won't do. If there are requirements for some level of waterproofing, you can't just seal it or even mold it from a single piece of material, you have to PROOVE it. It has to be tested and usually adhere to an existing standard so you're going to design several trash can, submit them for approval and use the best one that passes.

It's mind-numbingly tedious to build anything for the government.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#333

Post by Tangurena2 »

Asdrubalini wrote: post #127
sofixa wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's just a piece of metal, how can it explode?

If it is the wrong metal, or wrong enough alloy, merely by touching the things it is in contact with can cause a galvanic reaction. Several airplanes have crashed due to damage caused by galvanic corrosion. The FAA is frequently called a "tombstone agency" because they tend to only take action after a bunch of people die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion

Mercury versus aluminum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrdYueB9pY4

In an earlier life, I shipped items requiring this particular hazmat label on packaging: https://www.safetyemporium.com/12332

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#334

Post by Symmetry »

ren_engineer wrote: post #204
Symmetry wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of it, probably. These sort of contracts operate on a cost plus basis where the profit margin that Boeing takes home is fixed ahead of time. I hear from people doing software for defense contractors that they spend a lot of time being bored not doing anything productive, but by collecting their salaries they increase the cost of the software, which is the only way for the defense contractor to increase its profi…

it's still a net negative to society due to the inefficiency, having presumably skilled people sitting around doing nothing due to bureaucracy instead of producing things of value. The opportunity cost is massive and the result is DC area codes being some of the richest in the nation off the backs of tax payers

Oh, yes. In terms of societal impact its far worse to pay people with valuable talents to not be productive than it would have been for the defense contractor to just pocket the money and pay it out as bonuses and dividends. But the system has its own logic and inertia.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#335

Post by throwaway290 »

hef19898 wrote: post #245
throwaway290 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the money quote you can use to argue this is actually corruption: > 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 So now one can look why it cost "mere" $300 before, unless Boeing losing money back then the price hike may be shady behavior and then someone should change supplier asa…

Single source supplier tend to have incresible bargaining power. And 50k per E-3 propably isn't even worth mentioning for everyone involved. Peanuts, actually.

"The sum is low enough so it's not corruption" is also naive. Another side of the same coin

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#336

Post by [deleted] »

game_the0ry wrote: post #147
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…

> 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. Wrong - almost all of the profits go to the shareholders of those contractors. The people who are actually doing thew work do not get paid more. Shit like this is the tip of the iceberg. [1] [1] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/22/why-cant-the-do...

[deleted]

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#337

Post by fiestaman »

ceejayoz wrote: post #323
kcatskcolbdi wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone shoots me in the foot I don't need to understand the mechanics of a gun to get upset about it.

If someone has a good reason to shoot you in the foot, your being upset about it doesn't necessarily make it the wrong choice.

What's the good reason for this type of pro rata accounting?

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#338

Post by ceejayoz »

fiestaman wrote: post #337
ceejayoz wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone has a good reason to shoot you in the foot, your being upset about it doesn't necessarily make it the wrong choice.

What's the good reason for this type of pro rata accounting?

Given "a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall", I'd propose "it saved time, which costs taxpayers money".

Given the hammer was actually $15, there's presumably a corresponding item that's also listed at $600 for ease of accounting that normally costs something like $1,200. "Pentagon gets 50% off computer monitor" is a less exciting headline, though.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#339

Post by Symmetry »

pphysch wrote: post #325
ceejayoz wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To do that, they need to itemize the purchases. It'll be something like: Paperwork / contract negotiation: $50k Legal review of paperwork: $20k Project management: $50k Activating mothballed production line: $39,400 Trash cans (4): $1200 Mothballing production line: $39,400

This does not make the picture better. Here are two models of production: 1. You mostly make the thing yourself and pay the R&D + production costs in-house (i.e. public sector). There is little to no profit-waste. You need the thing, and so you created the thing. In this case, you are aware of the personnel, R&D, production costs. AFAIK this was mostly the state of play during WW2, or at least a lot more common. 2. Y…

The current cost-plus model actually worked pretty well for a time. When it was first introduced defense contractors hadn't figured out how to use the rules to their advantage and really it's pretty counter intuitive for a businessperson to try to maximize their costs.

But the big historical problem with (2) is that if you give people discretion they can just choose to award the contract to their cousin Joe and end up paying $600 for a $300 trash can.

What kept graft in check under the old system was fear of being found out and fear of being fired after embarrassing an elected official who might fear the voters getting angry.

In the current system everybody is following the letter of the rules. Boeing has really managed to structure their costs so that they can charge $52k. They really did win the bid according to the rules. The bureaucrats who awarded the contract to Boeing followed the rules. And while elected officials might bitch and moan there's nothing they can do to disrupt the careers of officials who follow the rules - by very intentional design.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#340

Post by jasmer »

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-…

[dead]
Post reply on HN