4 ms·
Is a 3000 dollar valve with 220,000 worth of paperwork. Without the paperwork and a pedigree it’s basically useless
by nothercastle 2y ago
Is a 3000 dollar valve with 220,000 worth of paperwork. Without the paperwork and a pedigree it’s basically useless
- archontes 2y ago+1. There's a lot of money invested in having very very high confidence a part is perfect all the way through.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Ekaros 2y agoSo 30$ sounds like pretty fair valuation.
- littlestymaar 2y agoJust to clarify for people who are allergic to “bureaucracy”, paperwork here means a lot of quality assurance tests[1] have been run for the part and each of this test has been duly documented. It's not paperwork for the sake of paperwork! [1] I'm not too familiar with the aerospace world, but for nuclear that would include shooting gamma rays at the valve in order to see if there's any microscopic crack in it, like you'd do with X rays for humans, but X rays don't go through metal so you need more penetrating radiations.
- Den_VR 2y agoLet’s assume $500/hour in labor. Did this specific part require 440 hours of testing? The price doesn’t appear to come down at any volume, and the government already substantially subsidized the R&D efforts, so just how much shenanigans do you think there are in that 220,000?
- daedrdev 2y agoIt could be there were many parts made and many of them fail QC. Not to mention a part like this probably has to recoup all of its R&D and overhead costs from its sale because it was likely made by a supplier to Honeywell, not "substantially subsidized the R&D efforts" like you said.
- compiler-guy 2y agoThey also are amortizing the cost of all that r&d over less than 5k units. All the tooling too.
- x0x0 2y agoThis would be my guess. I worked on microscopes sold to wet labs. When you have limited production runs, the fixed costs, that most of us ignore in saas, become very large on a per-piece basis. Even on 6 figure instruments, to take one that I spent 18 months on, approximately $55k per instrument sold was recovering R&D costs ($20k software, hardware the rest).
- Den_VR 2y agoWhile Airbus is almost famous for its “improper subsidies” through Launch Aid, I’d probably focus on just how GE was subsidized in the development of the CF6 engine family through technology transfers, military “system development and demonstration” programs, and layered tax incentive programs from city to federal levels. Airbus, GE, and Honeywell all have benefited from government subsidies. Many others have as well. But if it’s not “substantially subsidized the R&D efforts” like I said, I guess I’m corrected.
- daedrdev 2y agoA part like this is almost certainty made by a supplier to one of those companies, who does not benefit from government subsidies. Developing the part, tooling, factory, and personnel for an extremely high quality, low part count run is very expensive.
- quickthrowman 2y agoHow many of those valves do you think they sell? It’s likely in the hundreds or thousands, so a very low volume item. How many of them fail to pass the stringent quality tests? The price includes all of the defective valves that failed QA/QC testing. You still need all of the engineering and tooling, but the costs are spread across a small number of units vs a larger volume product.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago> Let’s assume $500/hour in labor. What about the cost of that gamma ray machine? Those don't sound cheap. And all the other likely very precisely engineered testing apparatus. Overhead is also a cost center.
- nujabe 2y agoApparently he can get it recertified at some facilities, who knows he might be able to get a decent return
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]