Hacker News Reader

Comment by et2o | Hacker News Reader

Makes you think about the enormous cost of the United State's defense operations if they have come to the conclusion that it is sensible to routinely fly employees for a commute. Extravagant things like this are obviously only a miniscule fraction of the cost, but still.

View on HN

It does speak to the enormous costs, but, given the kinds of operations that they're serving with this thing, it makes some sense to me. The whole point of, e.g., the facility at Groom Lake is that it's very remote. Accumulating a large town nearby would defeat the purpose.

> It does speak to the enormous costs, but, given the kinds of operations that they're serving with this thing, it makes some sense to me.

Just a consideration: would it be cheaper to build and use an express railroad line between the remote facility and "the other commute destination" instead?

Maybe over the long term, but I wouldn't say that for certain given the insane costs of building infrastructure in that kind of environment. However, I can say that it would totally defeat the purpose of trying to keep things secret. Any tracks would be visible in satellite images and show exactly where the trains go.

planes are not hard to track

They were presumably a fair bit harder to track in 1972.

It’s a hundred pretty mountainous miles from Las Vegas to Area 51. The cost of building a fast line along that route would probably pay for decades of these flights.

It would have been a lot cheaper if the military didn't order the Tonopah & Tidewater Railway to be dismantled for its precious steel. That would be like half the line.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonopah_and_Tidewater_Railro...

It had already ceased operation before the start of the war (in the US), and would have been taken up for scrap sooner or later anyway. Even without World War II, there is exactly zero chance that the railroad would have survived long enough to be useful again. Unused rail lines don't sit for 50 years without being scrapped. (At least, they didn't in those days. Tennessee Pass seems to be headed toward becoming the exception that proves the rule.)

No.

Ever meet any consultants? I got 2 in my family and 1 of them takes 2 flights per week and the other takes 3-6 flights per week. Add in the hotel costs and their businesses expenses are almost certainly more than these workers taking short 90 mile flights.

Yes I know many, and the consultants that travel this much are enormously expensive. For a top tier management consulting company, I heard they typically bill at like a million dollars per year per consultant, all together. They also typically don't go to the same place for more than 6-12 months or so, which is why they travel this much.

and the carbon footprint. I'm supposed to conserve gas or take the train to reduce my footprint, meanwhile there's 20 or 30 flights/day, probably not all full, going from vegas to groom lake, guzzling gallons of jet fuel per second.

Military does far worse all the time, thousands of planes and vehicles that do not have to comply with any civilian emissions standards and are on the move every day for no reason at all. Ferrying employees on a civilian jet will be one of the most efficient things that the airforce is doing every day.

> Extravagant things like this are obviously only a miniscule fraction of the cost

What makes it 'extravagant'? That it's not typical or normal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com