[flagged]
the US government never dropped an atomic bomb on civilians
Depends which civilians you're talking about.
The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
41–50 of 387 posts
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#42This 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?
They’re buying four trash cans at a time via a process that can take months of paperwork by the contractor. It’s simply not designed for such low volume scenarios.
It’s a bit like doing a custom PCB design and fabrication run for personal reasons. It’ll be $10 worth of components, but a half dozen might cost you $1k if you want someone else to set up a run on their machines to make ‘em.
The Stinger missile example further down seems more egregious. edit: Maybe less egregious than I thought; its original microprocessor is now obselete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#43This 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?
[deleted]
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes, but not always. People tend to underestimate how much costs are coming from certification, testing and corresponding warranties. The F-117 so did canabalize quite some "spares" bought for the F-16 and F-15 fleets.
A trash can needs to be tested and certified for use in the Pentagon? ... holding a small collection of waste is that intense eh?
The traditional response is “over-specification” with a coffee pot on a commercial airliner needing to be certified against becoming a dangerous missile in the event of a plane crash (shatter, break, etc).
Yes, it may be that the trash can or plastic had to be certified against breaking in a weird way since it’s a military plane and you don’t want plastic shrapnel in your soldiers (or whatever).
It _could_ be that Boeing made 100 trash cans, threw away the mold, and had to re-make the mold in order to fulfill the order for 4 more trash cans.
If not Boeing, potentially _their_ trash can supplier threw away the mold and you end up with the same price.
So there MAY be a reasonable explanation, but it seems very egregious that the “before” and “after” prices are so dramatically different.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#45Earlier 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…
There was a major incident with nuclear weapons caused by pillows on a B52 catching fire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#46This 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?
What specifically do you find to be untrue?
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#47This 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?
I'd welcome your contrary explanation if you have one handy.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#48Ripping off the federal government has been an American tradition since the Civil War - https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
It was a tradition long before that.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#49If only everyone paid their fair share!
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#50This 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 keeps people employed, ...
What fraction of that $50k landed in the hands of the workers, do you think?