
The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem - gscott
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a31929628/uss-ford-toilet/
======
grandinj
Given the size and complexity of such a device, and the limited number of them
that are constructed (which means they are always a one-off), it would be a
miracle on the order of Moses parting the Red Sea for one of them to be built
__without__ such mistakes happening.

In you are a developer, think of the number of times you have seen a
successful SAP deployment i.e. on time, on budget, meets specs. Then multiply
that by about 10k to reach the complexity of an aircraft carrier.

~~~
hwillis
Engineering has a much stronger and more specific focus on avoiding
"unexpected" problems like this. At its most general you use things like
dimensional analysis to identify and avoid issues that you can't specifically
foresee.

This is, bare minimum, an embarrassing failure of design. No system,
_especially on a military ship_ , should have no redundancy. A single point of
failure should not bring down every toilet on the ship. It's a damn aircraft
carrier- splurge on separate sewage in the aft and fore.

~~~
dreamcompiler
Engineering in the traditional sense plays very little role in modern defense
systems. The overriding concern is profit: How can we extract the most money
from the DoD? Good engineering that avoids recurring costs is discouraged in
favor of gee-whiz technology that's easy to sell but expensive to build and
maintain. The icing on the cake is that bids no longer matter; the largest
contractors always underbid to get the contract then send bills that are 2x,
4x or 10x the bid, knowing they have the DoD over a barrel.

The solution for this nonsense is competition. Real, honest, open, transparent
competition. Combined with laws that dictate refusal to pay in excess of the
bid, instant scrapping of programs that exceed cost estimates, and a 10-year
timeout window between when people in DoD leadership can transition out and
get jobs with DoD contractors.

~~~
hwillis
> Engineering in the traditional sense plays very little role in modern
> defense systems. The overriding concern is profit: How can we extract the
> most money from the DoD? Good engineering that avoids recurring costs is
> discouraged in favor of gee-whiz technology that's easy to sell but
> expensive to build and maintain. The icing on the cake is that bids no
> longer matter; the largest contractors always underbid to get the contract
> then send bills that are 2x, 4x or 10x the bid, knowing they have the DoD
> over a barrel.

As a government contractor, I agree and fully endorse this.

> The solution for this nonsense is competition. Real, honest, open,
> transparent competition. Combined with laws that dictate refusal to pay in
> excess of the bid, instant scrapping of programs that exceed cost estimates,
> and a 10-year timeout window between when people in DoD leadership can
> transition out and get jobs with DoD contractors.

...And I disagree with this fully. The solution is for the government to
return to in-housing, relax the rules they hold themselves to, and
aggressively expand their own capabilities. The things the government makes
are far and away superior to anything in the private sector. At its best, the
government does it better, cheaper, and longer-lasting than _anyone_ else.

Real competition for the things the government needs done is just not
possible. Roughly 50% of contracts are based on just flat-out lies, and it's
even worse for shitty contracts like SBIRs. I'll tell you, I have seen some
_real_ dumb shit. The BUYER needs technical expertise in order to not get
ripped off, and if you already have expertise it makes much more sense to go
the extra miles and build it yourself.

The market for government contracts would need to be _way_ more lucrative to
allow companies to fail honestly, and even then, why would they when lying is
more profitable? Plus, this doesn't even cover the worst part of large
contracts, which is that they're effectively negotiated by politics, either
congress itself or inter-DoD factionalism. That, more than anything else,
creates large-scale rot.

~~~
didericis
> At its best, the government does it better, cheaper, and longer-lasting than
> _anyone_ else

Can you cite examples and explain factors that you think lead to the
government working at its best?

As much as I like free market competition, I think you’re probably right, at
least when it comes to projects/pieces of projects where the only customer is
the government. But when there’s a problem not well suited for competition to
solve efficiently, that doesn’t guarantee a good government result: there’s a
ton of variability in the quality of government responses.

My basic theory is this: the success of large government engineering projects
depends primarily on whether or not everyone involved in the project believe
it to be of existential importance (military projects during the cold war),
whether its something that they will personally use and want to feel pride in
(golden gate bridge), or whether or not the problem has some novel/interesting
element that attracts the best and brightest.

~~~
hwillis
USPS delivers packages much faster, more efficiently (fewer stops),
significantly more cheaply, and with better employee pay and benefits.
Medicare negotiates far more effectively than private insurance (although
obviously that isn't a simple comparison) and has dramatically lower
overheads. Government and even locally-owned infrastructure is cheaper than
commercial infrastructure like roads or communications. Government-owned
health services are cheaper and higher quality. Government engineering
projects are superior. The GAO and IRS are extremely effective financial
institutions.

> But when there’s a problem not well suited for competition to solve
> efficiently, that doesn’t guarantee a good government result: there’s a ton
> of variability in the quality of government responses.

Can you find me an example? By and large, the idea that the government is
inefficient is a myth. There are boondoggles like Star Wars, but those are
failures independent of government implementation. There are "failures" like
Amtrak that are _unprofitable_ , but they are kept running to offer services
at a given price point because we want that regardless of what the market
says.

Government projects are generally subject to the exact same motivations as
private projects. They make profits. Employees can be fired and promoted.
Innovation is rewarded, at the individual level. Underperforming projects are
cut, often much more aggressively than in the free market.

Much more important than a sense of patriotism is the fact that governments
are subject to _intense_ internal and external scrutiny. Literally the most
powerful people in the country are _constantly_ looking, _specifically_ to cut
individual programs. There is no safe position in the government and
institutional rot is constantly being gutted even when it's unwise, eg CDC,
EPA, IRS lately. You will not find that pressure at IBM.

~~~
closeparen
But because of all that scrutiny, the government often has to behave
suboptimally:

a) Processes can be a matter of law, requiring an extraordinarily heavy
bureaucratic lift to adapt to new information or fix bugs.

b) Processes are calibrated to minimize trust. Contracting _must_ be as obtuse
as it is, because the alternative is to let civil servants make judgement
calls, which the public cannot abide. This probably mitigates some serious
downside risk, but it also precludes a lot of potential upside. Other
institutions succeed when competent and trustworthy people just do what they
think is right. (I daresay this is the only way an organization ever
accomplishes anything difficult). Government agencies are only allowed to do
that in emergencies, or in tiny edge cases like special forces.

c) Where leaders do have latitude, the fear of embarrassment weighs unusually
heavy on their decision-making. It's harder to take good risks. I'm sure there
was waste at IBM that would not survive in government. I'm equally sure there
was innovation at IBM that could not have happened in government.

In some ways "government can't do anything right" is a self-fulling prophecy.
The controls we implement in response to that perception make it come true.
More fundamentally, I think any engineer can identify with how having to
balance _so many_ stakeholders could be incompatible with doing their best
work. Making government less accountable probably isn't the answer either.

------
Reason077
_“system must regularly be cleaned with ... acid solution that costs $400,000
per use.”_

I realise the government/military procurement process can result in higher
costs than the private sector would pay, but that is beyond ridiculous.

~~~
trelliscoded
Guess how much shipping is to the middle of the ocean. Go on, guess.

~~~
hejdirk
Surely you can stock on the thing.

~~~
thawaway1837
Why in the world would you stock it and use up valuable space, and fuel on
carrying it around the world?

Also, it surely cannot be a good idea to keep massive amounts of acid around
for non essential purposes.

~~~
ulfw
How is it non-essential if that's the only way to get the toilets going?

~~~
vikramkr
Its non essential if you can get it shipped there easily in a resupply

------
Rebelgecko
It's interesting that there's so much focus on the toilet problem, and not the
other $139 billion in unexpected maintenance costs

~~~
ookware
I know right. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking
real money.

------
dukoid
Still sounds harmless compared to the toilet problem of U-1206:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfr0nsh0Ghc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfr0nsh0Ghc)

------
guidedlight
What problem is solved by using aircraft-style toilets on Navy ships?

~~~
wmoser
Well, the old way to do it is to use sea water flushing which leads to its own
problems over the life of the ship with pipes corroding. New(ish)
environmental regulations dictate that you can't just flush everything
overboard anymore, it needs to be processed through a sewage plant. Despite
probably being able to ignore most environmental laws, the Navy normally at
least tries to abide by the current laws to be a good citizen and not pollute
the oceans as well as having an easier time when visiting foreign ports.

The process plants run better on fresh water but fresh water is expensive and
heavy on a ship so a vacuum system allows for less water per flush and really
works pretty well if people don't flush stupid things.

Stupid things that my co-workers have fished from sewage plant besides the
things mentioned in the article: Towels Screwdrivers Glasses Rags _baby wipes
/ flushable wipes_ Pens

As long as only body waste and a small amount of toilet paper are used, the
systems are actually fairly reliable. Teaching people that that is ALL that
can be flushed is an on going problem. The chemicals seem to be another issue,
possibly a design issue but there are ways around that too. Urine crystals
build up on the walls of the pipes and reduce the diameter for the waste water
to flow. The vaccum systems typically have smaller diameter pipes then the old
style "gravity" flush systems. There are companies that make continuous dosing
systems that go in the end of the branch lines to help keep them clear.

A lot of issues with maintenance can be solved by design of branches in the
piping system with isolation valves so the whole system doesn't have to be
shut down to fix something. Even replacing a toilet means shutting off the
branch or system since it opens a hole in the vacuum system and leads to loss
of vacuum.

Some more information: [https://www.boatus.org/clean-boating/sewage/msd-
types/](https://www.boatus.org/clean-boating/sewage/msd-types/)

Manufacturers: [https://jetsgroup.com/jets-group/the-highest-
standards/the-h...](https://jetsgroup.com/jets-group/the-highest-
standards/the-heart-of-our-system) [https://evac.com/](https://evac.com/)

~~~
101404
If all that can be flushed is human waste and paper, then why not put it
directly into the ocean? It's quickly and completely bio degradable (eaten by
fish and micro organisms).

~~~
wmoser
If the ship is at sea (>12 NM) it can be put directly into the ocean but when
it comes close to land it needs to be mashed up and disinfected. Also there
are some places called special sea areas that have different rules even if you
are more than 12 NM. There are different rules for less then 3 NM and between
3NM and 12NM too.

Having one system for when the ship is out at sea and switching to something
else causes even more engineering problems. Even if you're not processing the
waste, the vacuum sewage system would still be used to collect the waste to
discharge it.

MARPOL Laws:
[http://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/listofconventions/pa...](http://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-
convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-\(marpol\).aspx)

[https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-
Commanda...](https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-
for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Commercial-Vessel-
Compliance/Domestic-Compliance-Division/MARPOL/)

Special Sea Areas:
[http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/SpecialAreasUnderM...](http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/SpecialAreasUnderMARPOL/Pages/Default.aspx)

------
avar
Previous (flagged) discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681785](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681785)

------
unixfg
Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.

~~~
synaesthesisx
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems
to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the
defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not
uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed
by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all
sectors/layers.

“[A] McKinsey “business analyst”—someone with an undergraduate degree and no
experience—lent to the government priced out at $56,707/week, or
$2,948,764/year.”

~~~
zdragnar
The amount of red tape involved in working with the government- especially
anything related to defense- is astounding. I previously worked with a start
up whose contacts in the military genuinely wanted to buy our services, but
the process to do so was so long that the company ended up pivoting to focus
exclusively on the commercial market. It was a less ideal fit, but it actually
paid.

Take:

One part slow bureaucracy

One part nepotism

One part jealousy of internal teams

One part good intentions (regulations to prevent said nepotism)

And you get a cluster of inexcusable outcomes.

The company seriously considered hiring a consulting firm whose sole business
was helping other businesses land government contracts. The fact that the
system is so inefficient that that kind of arbitrage opportunity exists is
depressing.

The only companies that can possibly win government contracts here are those
that are huge, with tons of staff dedicated to winning government contracts.
The end result is they can charge the moon and the sky, not because they do
what they do better than anyone else, but because they are just as bloated and
inefficient as the government itself and can survive the process of winning
the contract in the first place.

~~~
christophilus
I worked for a government contractor for a little over two weeks once. (I gave
my 2 weeks notice almost right away.) It’s hard to express how wasteful and
broken this process is. When I realized that I wouldn’t actually be doing
anything useful for the first two months of my job, I just quit. No way could
I do that kind of “work” day in and day out.

~~~
vsareto
I did the exact same thing for similar reasons (although it would be nice to
have a paycheck during COVID-19). 3 months of side projects, nothing related
to what I had studied to do. We were projected to begin work 3 months later,
but that was after dozens or so deadline pushbacks already.

------
sillywalk
I'd have to say my favorite problem with the ship is that it has to stop
flight operations if the new arresting gear needs repairing, and if one
catapult needs repairs, it cannot be independently shut-down, all four need to
be turned off, which takes ~90 minutes.

------
credit_guy
Link to GAO report:

[https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/705463.pdf](https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/705463.pdf)

------
spease
"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

------
antman
Another toilet problem was in a WWII submarine which had worse consequences.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-1206#Fate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-1206#Fate)

------
lmilcin
That would be mighty unpleasant in case _real_ war broke.

------
Lagogarda
Human poop cannot polute oceans, fishes tend to poop and pee as well

~~~
avree
Fish and humans have vastly different diets, and human feces contain different
bacteria and viruses than fish feces. You can absolutely pollute an ocean with
sewage. Please try to educate yourself.

~~~
hwillis
It's also not just about the ocean- hepatitis A spreads quite regularly when
shellfish feed on contaminated sewage.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJLKhsLx18&ab_channel=Steve...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJLKhsLx18&ab_channel=SteveMould)

------
m3kw9
The crew should be required to use a laxative at all times instead. Wouldn’t
cost 400k

------
everyone
So the 'Bush' is so filled with excrement it cant function? Appropriately
named :)

------
simonblack
US Carriers will repeat History in following the usage of the British
Dreadnoughts.

In WW1, the Dreadnoughts were too valuable to be risked. So they were really
only used once, in the non-conclusive Battle of Jutland which only lasted a
couple of hours.

Millions of Pounds (the equivalent of Billions of Dollars, in today's money)
were wasted on ships that were locked safely away because they were too
valuable to be actually used in combat. That money could have been far more
usefully employed elsewhere.

The same can be said of today's billions of Dollars wasted on useless slow,
very expensive targets (= carriers).

