I could not agree more with W. David Thompson's Commentary article ["No, 3-D Printing Will Not Save You," June 16, page 17], having focused on the matter of affordability, and "-ilities" in general, for the latter half of my career, which began with NASA in 1988. The data are there (as poor as the state of cost data is overall). Indirect costs comprise most of our traditional industry contractor costs (the cost of things, their price, as seen by the government). An amazing thing is the way in which the cost estimating, modeling and project management communities still won't focus on this issue of indirect costs. It's where most costs are! NASA people see it as beyond their control. Industry people obviously don't get brownie points for trying to lower indirect costs within their company - the many, many co-workers required by byzantine processes. Processes are not as sexy as technology. Engineers and scientists turn a blind eye, not wanting to get their hands dirty with indirects and "bean-counting." Better to direct energies toward winning that gadget proposal or justifying that gadgets budget - followed by the mantra "space is hard" or "this has unique requirements" (whip out catchy phrase justifying avoiding the cost and indirects discussion). When the expenses are noted and boards are convened, or the program is canceled, complain about a lack of commitment or leadership in space exploration.
展开▼
机译：我完全同意W. David Thompson的评论文章[“否，3-D打印不会救您”，第17页，6月16日]。我职业生涯的后半部分始于1988年，当时是NASA。数据在那里（就像总体成本数据一样糟糕）。间接成本构成了我们大多数传统行业承包商的成本（如政府所看到的东西的成本，价格）。令人惊讶的是，成本估算，建模和项目管理社区仍然不会将注意力集中在间接成本这一问题上。这是大多数费用所在！ NASA的人们认为这超出了他们的控制范围。显然，行业人士并未因尝试降低公司内部的间接成本而获得布朗尼积分-拜占庭流程所需要的许多众多同事。流程不像技术那样性感。工程师和科学家对此视而不见，不希望间接使用“计数”来弄脏自己的手。最好将精力引导到赢得该小工具提案或为该小工具预算辩护-紧随其后的口头禅是“空间难”或“这具有独特的要求”（删掉上乘的用语来避免费用并间接讨论）。在记下费用并召集董事会或取消计划后，请抱怨太空探索方面缺乏承诺或领导能力。
展开▼
