The James Webb Space Telescope debacle

[DocM]

And people wonder why NewSpace is moving so fast and NASA's stuck in 2nd gear....

Flirida Today....

Telescope debacle devours NASA funds

Hubble's successor is billions of dollars over budget, 7 years late

The mission

James Webb Space Telescope will help scientists look further into space and back in time to better understand the origins of the universe and life itself. Highlights include:

SPACECRAFT

Telescope?s primary mirror is a group of smaller mirrors. Assembled, it?s more than 21 feet across.

--Observatory components must be kept cool using a tennis court-size sunshield, which must be unfurled in space into a sort of umbrella blocking the heat of the sun. The observatory will be kept at almost 400?degrees below zero.

WHERE IT?S GOING

A million miles from Earth, or four times farther away from Earth than our moon.

WHAT IT DOES

Infrared telescope designed to find the first galaxies that formed in the universe.

--Searches for the first light of stars and initial formation of galaxies and planetary systems.

Timeline

The James Webb Space Telescope, previously named the Next-Generation Space Telescope, has faced a decade of cost growth and delays since the program was green-lighted. Here?s a look at its history:

1997

NASA first starts spending money on technology-development work for what becomes the James Webb Space Telescope.

2002

NASA formally names the observatory after James Webb and selects major contractors.

2003

Cost estimate approved at $1.6 billion. Launch targeted for 2011.

2004

Launch set for 2011; analysis ongoing about whether to blast off on U.S. rocket from Cape Canaveral or European rocket from South America.

2005

NASA gets approval to change launch vehicle and site, picking South America; budget problems lead to first major overhaul of the project. Cost has grown to $4.5 billion. Target launch date delayed two years to 2013. ?

2006

Re-planning work leads cost to grow to $5 billion. Target launch date slips to 2014.

2010

Independent review panel led by veteran space project manager John Casani finds major management and budget problems with telescope program, delivering new cost estimate of $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion and a best-possible launch date of late 2015.

2011

NASA is restructuring program, delaying the target launch date to 2018 and conceding budget will go up again.

NASA?s next great space telescope will cost taxpayers at least four times more than planned and launch at least seven years late.

Considered by scientists the most important space mission of the decade, the James Webb Space Telescope project is being overhauled for the second time in five years because of skyrocketing costs and cascading schedule delays.

Decision-makers initially were told the observatory would cost $1.6 billion and launch this year on a mission to look deeper into space and further back in time than the Hubble Space Telescope, in a quest for new clues about the formation of our universe and origins of life.

NASA now says the telescope can?t launch until at least 2018, though outside analysts suggest the flight could slip past 2020. The latest estimated price tag: up to $6.8 billion. NASA admits the launch delay will push the bill even higher.

And, scientists are worried the cost growth and schedule delays are gobbling up more and more of the nation?s astronomy budget and NASA?s attention, threatening funding for other space science programs.

Some fear the dilemma will get worse if the replanning work this summer forces NASA to shift billions more science dollars to Webb to get it back on track.

So, what went wrong? A FLORIDA TODAY review of five years? worth of budget records, status reports and independent audits show the Webb observatory is plagued by the same, oft-repeated problems that caused most major NASA projects to bust their budgets and schedules.

In short, mistakes included:

--NASA and its contractors underestimated the telescope?s cost and failed to include enough reserve cash to handle the kinds of technical glitches that always crop up in development of a complex spacecraft, including many expensive risks managers knew about.

--Leaders at agency headquarters in Washington and Goddard Space Flight Center in Baltimore, which led the project before the problems came to light, failed to act on repeated warnings that cash flow was too tight and technical glitches too many to meet the budget or schedule.

>

>(3 more pages)

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

poor NASA...if only...if only... :alien: talk about opportunities lost.....oh well, at least SOME brilliant minds are behind what we'll see (as US citizens), and not some over-regulated program, like NASA's approach....I don't see how cutting NASA out of our budget ever really helped things, but then again, who am I? Oh, that's right...a registered voter, who didn't vote for any of it....I love the thought of extra-planetary exploration, and stood behind NASA since the 80's, but did my vote count in the end? H to the E double EL NO!!! I say, whomever discovers how to build the proper telescopes...RIGHT ON!!!!...but to the US space program? Weeeelllll.....that's another story all on its' own. I just don't want any BS censorship, if there IS life out there, just let us all know, so we can quit giving a darn about a conspiracy....I think the world would be a better place if we'd all just be honest, and not hide anything....NOT like the current US government (and I'm not going all alex jones, either, I'm just stating personal opinion...nothing more, nothing less), I'm just saying... </rant>

[neoadorable]

this really make me want to cry. i was so looking forward to it going up, it will be a major milestone on our way to proper space exploration. and this incompetence keeps getting in the way! why, Doc, why! seriously, if i was so miserable at what i do i literally would not last a week. how is it that these people entrusted with the future of humanity are so reckless?

obi - a skeptic mind is a healthy mind. while i ultimately do not believe there's any conspiracy, the healthy skeptic is inclined to wonder why it seems our space exploration efforts are almost always held back and seemingly sabotaged at the last minute. this is something that does lend itself well to conspiracy-thinking. however, i believe it's just the result of human negligence, incompetence, short-sightedness, greed and plain old stupidity. going to space is the big and difficult thing everyone knows we'll have to do one day but no one has the cajones to go and do properly. like a lot of things in human history, they'll get around to it for sure when they run out of options. i still believe we will do the right thing before then. i do believe that the realization is sinking in that we are back in the 15th century, it's either fund the ships and become a vibrant empire that leads to an entire new world for humans to inhabit and make their own, or don't fund the ships and sink into mediocrity and poverty. every time i read poverty statistics i feel like screaming, how come the people in positions of power don't realize that space exploration and settlement can literally expand our global economy by a factor of about a million? it will eliminate poverty, it will make us a spacefaring species, another step closer to fulfilling the destiny of any sentient lifeform. i believe we were chosen, and every day we stay exclusively on this Earth, not only are we indeed killing our mother a little more, but we are in fact digging our own grave by way of inaction.

that's the end of this particular rant.

[DocM]

Why? Lots of causes.

To-Down design. Instead of giving line engineers a set of fixed operational goals and turning them loose SpaceX style, they've been designing things in a board room, sending the engineers conflicting goals, then changing things at the next design review, necessary or not.

Political goals. 70% of politicians only think of space in terms of how many jobs and how much pork it brings to their districts. Just the infighting causes delays and needless expense.

NIH - not invented here. Never mind if a new way makes sense and saves money, it's not the way we've done it for the last 50-60 years.

1 does, 10 watch. One guy drives in and torques a screw and it takes 10 inspectors checking him and each other before it gets a sticker, then 6 other people chevk & re-check the paper the sticker was peeled from.

Anal doesn't begin to describe it, but then they let things like shuttle SRB's be fired st subzero temps.

Etc. etc. etc.

You get the idea.....

[neoadorable]

i definitely do, that was a very good description. it's just horrible that this is the state of NASA and state-sponsored space development. however, i am fully familiar with this kind of mentality from my own work, where the organization has way too many decision makers (i.e. people who get in the way of any progress and common sense) and a chronic inability to just do things because they're good. however, in my profession the future of the species factor is far less relevant than for NASA. thanks again for putting things in perspective. what's your prognosis for the Webb? when will that big boy finally go up?

[DocM]

NASA now says no earlier that 2018, but many analysta are predicting another slip to at least 2021. Cost started out at $1.6B, are now $6.8B and could end up somewhere north of $8B.

Sux.

[Hum]

... the healthy skeptic is inclined to wonder why it seems our space exploration efforts are almost always held back and seemingly sabotaged at the last minute.

Should be glaringly obvious the reasons for the repeated, hold-backs in Space exploration.

But I shall wait for you all to catch up. ;)

[neoadorable]

jeez, 2018...that's just ridiculous. unbelievable.

[spudtrooper]

I'm not sure why people expected something different. When you're building one of the most sophisticated space instruments to ever be launched from scratch of course its going to cost a lot of money.

With that being said, i'm not happy with the delays, but what did you really expect? Hubble was WAY over budget and extended missions many times over but damn, the science was worth it. JWT will be the same.

Either way, the space telescope pales in comparison to defense spending so the cost is really a dip in the bucket compared to amount of money we BLOW on BLOWing crap up. JSF and 300+ billion comes to mind :)

[casper2]

I'd cancel the project since there waisting lots of tax payers money. Hell by 2018 i bet they'll say we need more money since there some problem or glitch with The James Webb Space Telescope. If i was president oboma or member of congress i'd kill The James Webb Space Telescope project since there waisting Billions of dollars that could be spent on somthing else like fixing roads or replacing old bridges or somthing else.

[neoadorable]

blahism - the problem is that lessons from the Hubble were apparently not learned. we're making the same damn mistakes to the detriment of all of humanity.

casper - will give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just trolling, but this project is more important than the overpass next to your house. besides, NASA is a national agency. fixing roads and bridges is technically the responsibility of your local government. blame them for needing to rely on federal funds to do these things.

[DocM]

If he doesn't like the space or military programs then he should toss his phone service, TV, and most anything else technological because it's either derived from space/military tech or dependant on their architectures.

Internet? ARPANET, a DoD military program.

Camera CCD's? First major use was for KH-11 spy sats.

US Comm satellites? Mostly launched by Atlas V and Delta IV, both developed for the USAF's EELV program, or former Russian ICBM's.

Only recently have US commercial launchers got a foothold, and even here we see military footprints; Falcon Heavy's largest market will be NRO spysats and Falcon 9 has already launched satellites for the US Army and NRO, all as secondary payloads with the Dragon.

[guru]

can Nasa contract that out to private company completely and get it up before 2018/2021 ?

[DocM]

The problem isn't lack of a booster, it's slated to go up on an Ariane 5. The problems are with the JWSTitself, both design and budgetary. Can't fix those just by moving it to Falcon Heavy or whatever. One example of how late they are is that they have just started testing its mirror panels at the crogenic temperatures it'll encounter. If there's an issue that 2018 date could be very optimistic.

[neoadorable]

well said Doc, people totally underestimate the catalytic effect space exploration has on every other area of technology. without it we'd be 50 years behind. even the passenger planes we take have gotten progressively safer and better thanks to space. it's important to remember we've only been flying in our own atmosphere for just over a 100 years, and look at how much has been achieved.

as for the Webb, if they're only now testing the mirrors, how the **** did they expect to launch in 2011?

[spudtrooper]

as for the Webb, if they're only now testing the mirrors, how the **** did they expect to launch in 2011?

Last I checked the launch was scheduled for 2014 and is expected to be 2015. If 2010-2011 was ever a date, it was probably a date before construction started. News so far says probably 2017 or 2018..

either way, a lot has changed since the projects inception.. and the total cost to get the science we will achieve is still less than what it costs to run Air conditioners for our troops in iraq/afghanistan for a year.. not that i don't want to provide them AC, it just gives a little perspective.

[DocM]

2015 slipped to 2018, but some analysts now expect that 2021 is more realistic.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Now just think how much it would suck if the shuttle it's on explodes on take off.

[DocM]

Shuttle flights end after next months final launch. After that the fleet goes to museums.

The JWST is to go up on a European Ariane V launcher.

[DocM]

Scuttlebutt abounds that NASA just cut the hours of the 15 contractural employees working on JWST's over-budget OSIM (Optical SIMulator) to just 20 hrs/week from at least July to October. This makes them part-timers, so NASA saves much of the cost of their benefits in addition to the reduced hours. Odds are quite a few will just flat quit.

That's going to move thie timeline significantly to the right, again.

[neoadorable]

very sad to hear that, this was supposed to be a big step for us. i hope it can still be salvaged. however, looks like Moon and Mars missions are taking priority. honestly, i think that's a good thing, but not at the expense of the Webb.

[DocM]

Latest review. Funding very questionable, thermal stability problem with mirror segment, etc.

Internal NASA GSFC Report: Weekly Input May 14, 2011- May 21, 2011 Submitted to Code 550

Source: Goddard Space Flight CenterPosted Thursday, June 30, 2011

From:

Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 1:26 PM

To: aetd-550@listserv.gsfc.nasa.gov

Subject: weekly report

All,

See attached for the input received this week for the Division Report. Enjoy!

WEEKLY INPUT May 14, 2011- May 21, 2011 SUBMITTED TO CODE 550

CODE 550

No Input

CODE 551

ICESat-2 - Rene Boucarut/551: ATLAS Laser Beam Combiner Plate (BCP) on BK7 glass has been received from CVI. Accuracy of the BCP raytracing model has been incrementally directed. Results of the BCP model are communicated with the ATLAS optics designer Luis Ramos-Izquierdo (551). Results of study are to be delivered to Rene Boucarut (551), ATLAS Optics PDL. PCB mechanical designer (Timothy Filemyr) is informed about the results of the study.

JWST ISIM - Davila and Mehalick/551: The JWST Standing Review Board (SRB) outbrief to the project was held last Friday. The SRB heard from the project regarding the new baseline plan (including budget and schedule) for a launch date of fy18. The SRB reported that the new baseline plan for JWST was not viable due to lack of sufficient funding in fy11 and fy12, rapid ramp-up of support planned for fy13 and marginal reserves for the years fy13 fy18. The SRB was very complimentary of the new OTIS testing structure, and systems engineering take-over by GSFC.

JWST ISIM - Davila/551: JWST PIL (Pupil Imaging Lens) user community (ISIM, JSC, WFS&C group) gave the green light to Lockheed Martin for their new proposed singlet design of the NIRCam PIL. The ISIM Optics team evaluation of the new design shows that it will be suitable for optical tests that are planned at ISIM level for optical verification. One important cross-check test will possibly be compromised, but our team is still in the process of evaluating the performance for this case. Lockheed Martin will move forward with the new design and is preparing for a CDR.

JWST ISIM - Davila/551: Requested that George Hartig be an Optical Test Conductor for ISIM level cryo-vac tests. He agreed. Planned support now includes: Pam Davila (lead test conductor) with Ray Ohl and George Hartig supporting.

JWST ISIM - Davila/551: Held cost review with Project Management Jamie Dunn and Resource Analysts; our costs projected to end of this fiscal year are very tight with no margin; suggestion was made to drop some support now to add extra margin in light of possible additional I&T Work Directives that may be forthcoming from Analex.

JWST OSIM - Dean/551: Developed an algorithm interface for handing amplitude recovery during phase retrieval as a component of the optimization interface. The interface allows the user to select between several different amplitude models. Debugging code this week and then will apply to the BIA (Beam Image Analyzer) PHARET data. The PHARET is an imaging array on stages and will be configured with the BIA for phase retrieval during OSIM cryo-testing.

JWST OSIM - Leviton/551: Evaluating BIA (Beam Image Analyzer) linear encoder images for possible scale contamination. Experimenting with encoders that use webcams for image sensors to enable very cheap, very high accuracy position readouts for laboratory GSE mechanisms using USB 2.0 interface.

JWST OTE - Howard/551: Blind Test JSC Aft Optical System (AOS)-ISIM test: "Nominal" data set for 0.5 pass configuration delivered and reviewed by Team B. Minor discrepancies: MIRI wavelength incorrect, labeling inconsistencies. This week: single error dataset delivery (AOS-ISIM B-datum alignment error).

ICESat-2 - Boucarut/551: Held successful kick-off of in-house development of parts for Lateral Transfer Retroreflectors (LTR ); participation from Mike Mulloney, Bryan Martin, Rick Gore and Dick Carter; working with Molly Fahey/554 on ray trace through Polarizing Beam Combiner and the Beam Dump Assembly; looking into new lab space for verification testing 5:W051 may be available; looking into if 551 capability can be used to develop ATLAS coatings (M. Quijada/551, F. Threat/551); Addressing possible thermal load to main fold mirror from Start Pulse Detector electronics.

IXO - Saha/551: Analyzed metrology data of 489P&S2152 mirror segments measured in CT4 mount. Segments have a few large defects degrading the performance. Analyzed PO set of metrology data measured on 489P2136 segment mounted on CT4 mount in the thermal box in place for a long time period. Significant improvements in the repeatability were seen because of the thermal box. (100%) Analyzing metrology data of 489P2136 mirror measured using CT3 mount and thermal box to protect the mirror from thermal fluctuations. (30%) Analyzed calibration data measured on 60-degree null lens.

Other Mission Highlights - Content/551: WFIRST SDT (Science Definition Team) agreed with project recommendation to adopt unobscured 1.3m aperture design for its initial baseline Design reference mission. Project charts presented to SDT by D. Content.

CODE 552

Susan Breon/552 - The Astro-H Adiabatic Demagnetization Refrigerator (ADR)/Test Dewars/ADR Controller (ADRC) Engineering Peer Review was held this week. The Review was chaired by Susan Breon/552. Panel members included Jim Tuttle/552, Sandra Irish/542, Rodger Farley/543, Matt Garrison/545, Jerry Karsh/564, Steven Feng/564, and Damon Bradley/564. Presentations at the review were made by Code 552 members Mike DiPirro, Peter Shirron, Bryan James, Raul Martinez/BATC, Nick Galassi/542, and Tom Bialas/564.

[neoadorable]

hahahaha this reads like one of the Armacham memos you pick up as intel collectibles in the FEAR games. can you translate this for me, Doc :whistle:

[DocM]

The budget is insuffucient, the plan is suspect, some of the mirrors aren't imaging as expected without extra thermal isolation and there is almost no wriggle rooom in the plan for antything to go wrong. May have to be delayed, again. This despite some work being reassigned to improve management and oversight.

[DocM]

Brian Berger, Deputy Editor at Space News, has Tweeted:

"House CJS mark also terminates funding for [JWST] , which is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management"

UPDATE:

http://spacenews.com/civil/110706-nasa-budget-cancel-webb.html

NASA Budget Bill Would Cancel Webb Telescope

WASHINGTON ? The House appropriations panel that oversees NASA unveiled a 2012 spending bill July 6 that would pull the plug on the budget-busting James Webb Space Telescope as part of a broader $1.6 billion cut that would roll back spending on the nation?s civil space program to pre-2008 levels.

The $16.8 billion top-line figure, released July 6 in draft legislation from the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee, is nearly $2 billion less than U.S. President Barack Obama?s 2012 budget request for NASA.

The draft appropriations bill, which the subcommittee is scheduled to vote on July 7, also includes $1.95 billion for the Space Launch System ? the heavy-lift rocket Congress ordered NASA to build for deep space exploration. The proposed 2012 funding level is $150 million more than the heavy lifter got for 2011, but some $700 million below the amount recommended in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which became law in October.

The bill also would provide $812 million for the Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS, being developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

That amount would be an increase of $430 million from the amount appropriated for the program in 2011 but $258 million less than the agency requested. In total, NOAA would receive $4.49 billion next year, $103 million less than was appropriated for 2011 and $1 billion less than the administration?s request for 2012.