The James Webb Space Telescope debacle

[neoadorable]

Doc, you have officially put me into a state of shock. YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE WITH THAT MONEY? colonize Alpha Centaury A, anyone?

[spudtrooper]

Doc, you have officially put me into a state of shock. YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE WITH THAT MONEY? colonize Alpha Centaury A, anyone?

well, not really.. that money is what "inflated" our economy. It made loans "cheap" but also drove up pricing and therefor profits (for some). It wasn't released for a single purpose. If you average 280 million americans that money is about 61,000 per american and when figured over multiple years the number isn't nearly as scary.

[JamesWeb]

It's a quality name for a telescope though, I don't think anyone can deny that.

[neoadorable]

well, James, better pressure NASA to get your namesake up there pronto.

spud - whether or not this is what's been propping the economy is highly debatable, i'm just saying the money, or like five percent of it, could have been well spent on space.

[DocM]

Not looking good kiddies, the scientists are near giving up....

MSNBC Cosmic Log....

Scientists balk at telescope bailout

The troubles surrounding NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, which is often seen as Hubble's successor, are now drawing grumbles from astronomers as well as lawmakers.

Keeping JWST alive has been a cause celebre for the past couple of months, ever since a House panel proposed cutting off funding for the telescope. Over the years, the project's price tag has repeatedly gotten bigger while the launch timetable has faced repeated delays. At one time, the next-generation telescope was slated for launch this year with a mission cost of $3.5 billion. In contrast, the latest estimates suggest that the telescope won't lift off until 2018 at the earliest, with costs rising as high as $8.7 billion.

In July, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee that the JWST would open "new horizons far greater than we got from Hubble." But since then, the space agency has signaled that other areas of space science and exploration might have to face cuts to make up for JWST's cost overruns ? which has sparked the protests from scientists.

On Thursday, a newsletter published by the Arizona-based Planetary Science Institute published a signed editorial complaining that the game plan for planetary science in the next decade "is under threat from cost overruns by the NASA James Webb Space Telescope." If NASA is not given more funding to cover the costs, "JWST should not be restored unless and until an open science community assessment is made of the value of what will be gained and what will be lost across the entire NASA science portfolio," the editorial read.

Among the 17 signers of the editorial were the the institute's CEO (Mark Sykes), the CEO of the SETI Institute (Tom Pierson), the principal investigator for NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto (Alan Stern) and the principal investigator for NASA's Deep Impact / EPOXI mission (Michael A'Hearn).

The independent online publication NASA Watch, meanwhile, published letters from Rice University solar physicist David Alexander, the head of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division, complaining that "the cost of the JWST threatens to swamp us all." He voiced concern that the space agency's proposed strategy for dealing with the JWST program's problems would reduce the ability of other divisions within the NASA Science Mission Directorate to "accomplish their own nationally sanctioned scientific programs."

Alexander's letters were addressed to the leadership of the AAS and the American Geophysical Union's Heliophysics Section and obtained by NASA Watch.

All this led Nature News' Eric Hand to observe today that "the internecine warfare among NASA scientists over the fate of the James Webb Space Telescope has begun," with planetary scientists and solar physicists pitted against astrophysicists.

NASA says the James Webb Space Telescope would be powerful enough to see the first stars and galaxies form on the edge of the observable universe. It could also study the mechanics of planet formation in unprecedented detail, and investigate the potential for life in alien planetary systems. But the debate is starting to turn from those lofty scientific goals to issues of dollars and cents.

>

[DocM]

A pic of the full-sized JWST mockup to show its huge scale.

Things are still not looking good for it to be funded any further.

[neoadorable]

time to bring in private investors, not to mention other countries. why not call China and India? make this another space station. attach a Bigelow hab to it and off we go. i'm not kidding. you of all people know this can be done, Doc. where's the will? we're talking mere billions here, they spend trillions on the economy but they can't find a few billion to invest in our future...i'm sad :(

[zeta_immersion]

I will capitalize the following sentence

F-ING SCIENCE MUST NOT HAVE A FIXED PRICE

because, those laze f-ing idiots in the govn, that call themselves senators, are using science developed through long hours of research and sweat so now they can sleep and whipe their God dman hairy fat f-ig asses on the toiled with magical paper while watching a girl strip on their f-ing iPhone

now, I am not saying this thing is grosly over budgetted BUT, come one man, for the chance to touch the stars and kick some alien butt or visit some alien strip joint .... really?!!!!!

[neoadorable]

while i totally agree with the underlying sentiment you express and the logic is somewhat sound, there's no need to blaspheme and be so profane while you're at it...trust me i get upset at the backseat science and exploration are given in any budgeting scenario, but not all of it is because the politicians are crooked. they do have very finite resources to oversee and distribute. i do agree that we all enjoy and benefit hugely from human science and industry every moment of our lives and not spending the money on it is ridiculous. like i said before, i shudder every time i think of the money they gave Wall Street, yet they seem reluctant to finance our space efforts. that is very sad, but we must remain civil about it.

[DocM]

If it makes anyone feel better the Senate committee restored funding for JWST in their NASA appropriations bill. NO certainty that'll survive floor votes, the House or the Congressional Budget Super-committee that's charged with making $trillions in cuts before Thanksgiving.

[jebus197]

Just build the thing. It will blow Hubble out of the water in terms of what it will tell us about the Universe and our place in it. Some people may wish to put a price tag on such knowledge, whereas I believe it to be beyond value.

Sure it may cost a lot, but not nearly as much as we invest in killing each other. It involves many technologies and technological challenges that have never been conceived of before, let alone tried. Undoubtedly there will be many significant unforeseen obstacles along the way.

But just wait until this thing flies and starts bringing in real science. All the naysayers will soon melt away into insignificance.

[Hum]

I don't think you'll see any new space telescopes, until there is a new president.

[jebus197]

I don't think you'll see any new space telescopes, until there is a new president.

Well it won't be a Republican. I don't care about partisan politics, but republicans don't traditionally have a great track record on grand experiential endeavours of this nature. Indeed during the era of GWB, there was even a strong 'anti-science' lobby that sprung up.

Despite all the other white elephants that undoubtedly are going around, the JWT I don't think should be classed as one of these. It isn't in the same category as moon and Mars rockets that will probably never end up going anywhere.

This is real science - and could even be the last truly significant scientific project of this kind that America ever engages in.

Anyway given the time scale for a launch, it's practically a given that if it flies, there will be a new president in place.

[DocM]

Well it won't be a Republican....

First; there is a lit to be concerned about with JWST. The OSIM (optical simulator) for testing its sensors is still under construction, so they are in limbo as regards if they will even work. Because of this and other difficulties JWST has not even passed its Critical Design Review (CDR) and now here are more delays.

I would also point out that the most forward looking space plan in Congress has been submitted by the Tea Party. While geezer pols on both sides (ex: Shelby for the Reps, Nelson for the Dems) have been angling for rockets to nowhere the Tea Party has been pushing for refuelling depots, an L2 staging station, commercial crew, ISS assembly of exploration vessels, etc. etc.

[jebus197]

First; there is a lit to be concerned about with JWST. The OSIM (optical simulator) for testing its sensors is still under construction, so they are in limbo as regards if they will even work. Because of this and other difficulties JWST has not even passed its Critical Design Review (CDR) and now here are more delays.

I would also point out that the most forward looking space plan in Congress has been submitted by the Tea Party. While geezer pols on both sides (ex: Shelby for the Reps, Nelson for the Dems) have been angling for rockets to nowhere the Tea Party has been pushing for refuelling depots, an L2 staging station, commercial crew, ISS assembly of exploration vessels, etc. etc.

Yeah well this is where you and me differ. I think the JWST IS a forward looking plan, where I fail to see all that much merit in manned explorations, especially to places like the Moon and Mars, where robots could probably do just as good, if not better job of it. Manned flights like these are little more than political stunts, while the JWST holds the promise of bringing in some profoundly useful and valuable sience to mankind, of a kind that is unachievable by any other means. Sure there are technical problems. There always will be technical problems and cost overruns when you are trying to build one of the most sophisticated and technically challenging pieces of equipment ever constructed by mankind to date. The difficulties you mention are more to do with funding restrictions and political wrangling (no doubt while politicians fight over their favourite other 'white elephant' jobs preserving projects), than they have over any real inability, or will to complete the testing program.

Even if it meant ditching every other major space project going, including all of these staging stations and whatnot else you speak of, I think (for the sheer level of science and insight it will provide us with) the JWST is one project that should take priority and that should still fly, whatever the cost.

People like you would no doubt have stood in the way of Hubble flying. Now look at where all the detractors are? Curiously like you if the JWST does fly, they have all disappeared and have all conveniently become ardent supporters.

I won't get into partisan politics, but there was a vast swathe of the scientific community who expressed open disquiet about the previous governments attitude towards fundamental research across all of the sciences, from physics, to molecular biology, to genetics, to teaching of science and so on. If this was a political thread (which it isn't) and if I had time (which I don't), I could dig out plenty of evidence about the last governments disastrous policy towards the development of scientific research in the USA at large. Not one credible scientist believed GWB's assertion from the second he made the announcement, that his constellation program was anything more than a great white elephant to nowhere. Big ass old rockets with no particular purpose, other than to take a few ex-jocks on sightseeing missions around the solar system, does not good scientific research make.

[DocM]

Yeah well this is where you and me differ. I think the JWST IS a forward looking plan, where I fail to see all that much merit in manned explorations, especially to places like the Moon and Mars, where robots could probably do just as good, if not better job of it. ....

Wrong. The level of AI required for that won't exist for decades, and with the time delay between command, execution, and feedback robotic missions have great difficulty once you're past Mars. Even at Mars it presents great difficulties. To do the best tele-robotic survey missions on Mars etc. there will have to be humans in Mars orbit operating tele-robots equipped with stereoscopic vision so there is near instantaneous feedback, and that tech exists today in the form of the robotics and stereo vision techs designed for telesurgery; the surgeon can be in the US or Europe and the patient most anywhere on the planet. This is well proven and surgeries are done with it many times a day - and it is an outgrowth of NASA & DoD (Trauma-Pod) research. Putting human geologists & biologists on the surface for the tougher bits is easy from there.

People like you would no doubt have stood in the way of Hubble flying.....

And you would be 200% WRONG. It was a great idea, but you can't overlook the errors made in cutting its mirror. Without servicing missions by HUMANS to fix the optics and to replace or update the sensors it would be an orbiting junk pile today. To service JWST we need a manned program capable of going to L2, the Lagrange Point 1,500,000 km (930,000 mi) from Earth where JWST will live, and that is 80+% of the infrastructure necessary to travel to the planets. Once you're at L2 it requires very little extra fuel to go anywhere else in the solar system. Refueling and replenishing oxygen at water-rich bodies like Ceres or icy moons handles most of the consumables.

I won't get into partisan politics....

And then you proceed to write an almost entirely political paragraph with a final swipe at manned programs, which self-justify themselves by servicing those grand space telescopes etc. you want to build in addition to doing exploration which would include the tele-robotic missions from orbit.

[jebus197]

Wrong. The level of AI required for that won't exist for decades, and with the time delay between command, execution, and feedback robotic missions have great difficulty once you're past Mars. Even at Mars it presents great difficulties. To do the best tele-robotic survey missions on Mars etc. there will have to be humans in Mars orbit operating tele-robots equipped with stereoscopic vision so there is near instantaneous feedback, and that tech exists today in the form of the robotics and stereo vision techs designed for tele-robotic surgery. This is well proven and surgeries are done with it many times a day - and it is an outgrowth of NASA research for these missions. Putting human geologists & biologists on the surface for the tougher bits is easy from there.

And you would be 200% WRONG. It was a great idea, but even you can't overlook the errors made in cutting its mirror. Without servicing missions by HUMANS to fix the optics and to replace or update the sensors it would be an orbiting junk pile today. To service JWST we need a manned program capable of going to L2, the Lagrange Point 1,500,000 km (930,000 mi) from Earth where JWST will live, and that is 80+% of the infrastructure necessary to travel to the planets. Once you're at L2 it requires very little extra fuel to go anywhere else in the solar system.

And then you proceed to write an almost entirely political paragraph with a final swipe at manned programs, which self-justify themselves by servicing those grand space telescopes etc. you want to build in addition to doing exploration which would include the tele-robotic missions from orbit.

The JWST will not be a manned serviceable mission mate. There are no plans to go that far out if things go wrong and it breaks down - and no plans to build or design any missions, or any hardware capable of doing this. Since the demise of the shuttle - and the failure to design any viable successor, the capability to do in-flight repairs of this kind has probably been lost, if not forever, then very probably at least for the next several generations. (Not that even the Shuttle could go that far out anyway.) The JWST is therefore a 'fire and forget' mission, which is what makes it so challenging, because it has to work flawlessly first time for the full 3 years of it's projected serviceable life.

Like I said, I stick to my guns, in conjunction with the vast majority of the science community, that manned missions as they currently stand are of limited value - and the real science can get done much better, can tell us much more and can achieve much more via space telescopes and robotics, than any 50 of these politically motivated jobs preserving sightseeing missions ever could. Wait until the technology is there to take man significantly beyond the confines of our own local solar system - and perhaps to other galaxies, and maybe then we can reassess the meaning and value of manned exploration.

Manned space flight right now is little else beyond a political party trick. It is just a nation saying 'hey look what we can do!" It is an engineering achievement at best. However the true scientific value of manned space flight remains low.

Having guys floating around in glorified tin cans in space might be interesting for some and it may (to some extent) be able to capture the public imagination, but it does little to expand our knowledge or our insight into the fundamental mechanics of the universe, or our place in it.

Anyway I just hope that voices like yours don't hold sway and that one day the JWST does fly. As I said, although I doubt you will remember this post, I will be happy to be my house that you and all of the other naysayers will remarkably alter your perspectives and become instantaneous ardent supporters (just as happened with Hubble), and will wax lyrical about how passionately you supported this mission from it's inception. Just remember however that once those images showing the Universe a few hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang first occurred, that you didn't support it and didn't think this kind of science was worthwhile at all.

Personally I hope passionately that the JWST is an unparalleled success, and reveals to us some truly astonishing truths about the nature of the Universe in which we live. If it can find other Earth like planets floating around other Sun like stars (which is one of it's stated goals), then maybe you and me can chat again at that point about the potential value of manned space flight.

[DocM]

The JWST will not be a manned serviceable mission mate. There are no plans to go that far out if things go wrong and it breaks down - and no plans to build or design any missions, or any hardware capable of doing this. Since the demise of the shuttle - and the failure to design any viable successor, the capability to do in-flight repairs of this kind has probably been lost,

Servicing isn't listed as possible based on the current absence of human capabilities out that far, but both the NASA MPCV/Orion and SpaceX Dragon are beyond Earth orbit capable with mission durations by far long enough to do servicing at L2. A big part of this is that they're solar powered, but also they have large fuel reserves and advanced heat shields.

Having guys floating around in glorified tin cans in space.....[/Quote]

Catch up - habitats are far more likely to be based on other technologies like Bigelow's expandables - much larger and more self contained with independent life support, high innate radiation shielding and water recycling.

Anyway I just hope that voices like yours don't hold sway and that one day the JWST does fly.

I wish it could fly too, but not at the cost of gutting the rest of the NASA budget including dozens of other science missions that are just as worthy and will wither if JWST's costs aren't controlled. Even the science community is extremely concerned about this.

[jebus197]

Servicing isn't listed as possible based on the current absence of human capabilities out that far, but both the NASA MPCV/Orion and SpaceX Dragon are beyond Earth orbit capable with mission durations by far long enough to do servicing at L2.

Catch up - habitats are far more likely to be based on other technologies like Bigelow's expandables - much larger and more self contained.

I wish it could fly too, but not at the cost of gutting the rest of the NASA budget including dozens of other science missions. Even the science community is extremely concerned about this.

I think you are living in a fantasy world. A world in which space habitats are much more developed than they actually are (Bigelow's expandable isn't even a tested concept yet and isn't even envisaged to be capable of anything more than low earth orbit insertion) and where commercial space flight (in your view) is already significantly more developed than those proposed by NASA. (Remember the majority of the systems you speak of barely even exist as sketches on an engineers drawing board at the moment, whereas NASA have over 60 years of experience in putting together some of the most fantastically successful missions ever achieved in the history of mankind so far.) Also I feel you are working under a serious misconception of what is and is not science. Sending a bunch of guys in jolly little jaunts around the solar system, in what would still be at that point little more than glorified pressurised tin cans, is not science. It is certainly good engineering - but it is nowhere nearly as capable of bringing in the same bang for the buck in purely scientific terms as projects like the JWST.

I am well aware of the issues and the debate thanks. I majored in astrobiology in Durham University in England, which is the 3rd most prestigious University in the country and my experience is that the vast majority of scientists passionately support the JWST. My interest is in uncovering the possibility of other habitable Earth-like worlds. Maybe then if we do find any, as I said, you and I can chat again, and I might be willing to reconsider my position on the value of manned space flight at that point.

[DocM]

Untested concept? There are two Bigelow Genesis-class testbeds in orbit and they've functioned well for years. As for the BA-330's, a 180,000 sq/ft expansion to 360,000 sq/ft is nearly finished to produce modules and 2 sizes of propulsion bus-docking nodes. Their life support/water recycle system is months into human trials, the avionics have been delivered and fore/aft thrusters from both Dynetics and Aerojet have been delivered. Mr. Bigelow has only spent ~$200m of the $500m he budgeted for this project and has LOI's from 7 nations so far.

His main problem is having commercial crew come online, and with NASA's CCDev program that's coming on fast, and even accelerating because of the Soyuz issues. Dragon has flown and is well on the way to meeting crew development goals as it was designed for humans from the start. Dream Chaser starts drop tests next year and Boeing is assembling their first CST-100 now. So much for drawing boards.

Also; Boeing has tons of experience building spacecraft, as does Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser). SpaceX may be new, but they've been headhunting other aerospace companies heavily, as well as the Shuttle program, so experience isn't an issue for them either. All 3 are working hand-in-glove with the NASA centers too, so any thoughts that they aren't building quality products are wrong. Period.

As for the international space science community, remember that this is the US taxpayers dime. If you guys want it so badly, get your governments to contribute. Otherwise....

It's also the US community whose projects are being put at risk by the JWST cost overruns, see upthread. They are very concerned about the other worthy missions at risk, and so far the Senate has only proposed funding to launch it, not for operations. Even then, they have put that funding on a very short leash - if more overruns happen they may well cut it for good.

[rob.derosa]

Just build the thing. It will blow Hubble out of the water in terms of what it will tell us about the Universe and our place in it. Some people may wish to put a price tag on such knowledge, whereas I believe it to be beyond value.

Sure it may cost a lot, but not nearly as much as we invest in killing each other. It involves many technologies and technological challenges that have never been conceived of before, let alone tried. Undoubtedly there will be many significant unforeseen obstacles along the way.

But just wait until this thing flies and starts bringing in real science. All the naysayers will soon melt away into insignificance.

To play devils advocate; the universe isn't going anywhere, it'll still be the same when finances are a bit better!

[DocM]

Followup on the planetary scientists take -

Nature story.....

http://planetarynews.org

Text of the Planetary Exploration Newsletter on JWST.....

Planetary Science Institute (they host PEN)....

PLANETARY EXPLORATION NEWSLETTER - SPECIAL EDITION

Volume 5, Number 40 (September 8, 2011)

PEN Website: http://planetarynews.org

Editor: Susan Benecchi

Co-Editors: Melissa Lane, Mark Sykes

Email: pen_editor at psi.edu

o---------------------------SPECIAL EDITION---------------------------o

EDITORIAL: JWST THREATENS PLANETARY SCIENCE

The recently released NRC Planetary Decadal Survey ("Visions and

Voyages"), with input from the planetary community, detailed specific

priorities for the next decade of solar system exploration. This

carefully laid out plan is under threat from cost overruns by the

NASA James Webb Space Telescope. The NRC Planetary Decadal Survey did

not cite JWST as a priority for planetary science.

JWST has, however, been a priority in the NRC Astrophysics Decadal

Surveys. When JWST was ranked as the top major initiative for NASA

astrophysics in the 2001 NRC Astronomy Decadal Survey, it was estimated

to cost $1B and launch by 2011. NASA has now spent $3.5B on JWST and it

is now projected to cost a minimum of $8.7B for a launch no earlier

than late 2018. As a result, JWST's cost increases have outstripped the

resources of the NASA Science Mission Directorate's Astrophysics

Division, and NASA leadership has now declared JWST an "agency

priority." Resources of other NASA programs, including the Agency's

Planetary Sciences Division within the Science Mission Directorate,

are now threatened to cover current and future JWST cost overruns.

Citing these overruns, the House zeroed out JWST from NASA's 2012

budget.

We believe it is time to have an open debate on JWST and its value

across all targeted communities, from planetary, Earth science, and

heliophysics to human spaceflight. Congress needs to be informed about

the impact of the choices facing it.

We individually and together reject the premise that JWST must be

restored at all costs. We further stand by the following positions:

(1) There are important national priorities in space beyond the goals

of JWST that as a country we cannot afford to sacrifice.

(2) If Congress believes JWST is so important that it must be restored,

then Congress should commit to adding funds to the NASA budget

sufficient to cover JWST's expenses from here forward, recognizing

that it may well cost more than $8.7B.

(3) Without additional funds to NASA, JWST should not be restored

unless and until an open science community assessment is made of

the value of what will be gained and what will be lost across the

entire NASA science portfolio.

(4) If Congress cancels JWST, it is important to preserve the NASA

astrophysics budget and mandate the formulation of a plan to retain

US astrophysics leadership.

Signed,

Mark V. Sykes

CEO, Planetary Science Institute

Former Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Michael F. A'Hearn

Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland

Former Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

Principal Investigator, NASA Deep Impact Mission

Principal Investigator, NASA EPOXI Mission

Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Raymond E. Arvidson

James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor,

Washington University

Former Chair, Planetary Geology Division

of the Geological Society of America

Former President, Planetary Section of the American Geophysical Union

Fellow, Geological Society of America

Fellow, American Geophysical Union

Jayne C. Aubele

Museum Adult Programs Educator/Geologist,

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science

Former Chair, Planetary Geology Division

of the Geological Society of America

Fellow, Geological Society of America

Reta Beebe

College Professor, New Mexico State University

Former Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

Michael J. S. Belton

President, Belton Space Exploration Initiatives, LLC.

Former Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

Former Chair, NRC 2003-2013 Planetary Decadal Survey

Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Larry S. Crumpler

Research Curator, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science

Former Chair, Planetary Geology Division

of the Geological Society of America

Fellow, Geological Society of America

Bruce Hapke

Professor Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh

Former Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

Fellow, American Geophysical Union

Stephen Mackwell

Director, Lunar and Planetary Institute

Fellow, American Geophysical Union

Thomas B. McCord

Director, Bear Fight Institute

Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii

Former Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

Former President, Planetary Section of the American Geophysical Union

Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Fellow, American Geophysical Union

Harry Y. (Hap) McSween

Chancellor's Professor, University of Tennessee

Former Chair, Planetary Geology Division

of the Geological Society of America

Former President, Meteoritical Society

Fellow, Meteoritical Society

Fellow, American Geophysical Union

Fellow, Geological Society of America

Clive Neal

Professor, University of Notre Dame

Former Chair, NASA Lunar Exploration Analysis Group

Tom Pierson

CEO, SETI Institute

Fellow, Geological Society of America

Louise Prockter

JHU Applied Physics Laboratory

Former Chair, Planetary Geology Division

of the Geological Society of America

Fellow, Geological Society of America

S. Alan Stern

Former Associate Administrator, NASA Science Mission Directorate

Former Vice-Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

Faith Vilas

Project Scientist, Atsa Suborbital Observatory

Former Director, MMT Observatory

Former Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences

of the American Astronomical Society

David A. Williams

Faculty Research Associate, Arizona State University

Chair, Planetary Geology Division

of the Geological Society of America

Michael E. Zolensky

Curator, Stratospheric Dust,

NASA Johnson Space Center

Fellow, Meteoritical Society

Fellow, Mineralogical Society of America

Note: You are invited to send comments to [email protected] and

indicate whether you support this position and an open discussion of

JWST and its value/cost to planetary science.

***********************************************************************

* The Planetary Exploration Newsletter is issued approximately weekly.

* Current and back issues are available at http://planetarynews.org

*

* To subscribe, go to http://planetarynews.org/pen_subscribe.html

*

* To unsubscribe, go to http://planetarynews.org/pen_unsubscribe.html

*

* Please send all replies and submissions to pen_editor at psi.edu.

* Announcements and other messages should be brief with links to URLs

* for extended information, including detailed descriptions for job

* announcements. Title plus text is limited to 200 words. Go to

* http://planetarynews.org/submission.html for complete submission

* directions.

*

* PEN is a service provided by the Planetary Science Institute

* (http://www.psi.edu).

***********************************************************************

[jebus197]

Untested concept? There are two Bigelow Genesis-class testbeds in orbit and they've functioned well for years. As for the BA-330's, a 180,000 sq/ft expansion to 360,000 sq/ft is nearly finished to produce modules and 2 sizes of propulsion bus-docking nodes. Their life support/water recycle system is months into human trials, the avionics have been delivered and fore/aft thrusters from both Dynetics and Aerojet have been delivered. Mr. Bigelow has only spent ~$200m of the $500m he budgeted for this project and has LOI's from 7 nations so far.

His main problem is having commercial crew come online, and with NASA's CCDev program that's coming on fast, and even accelerating because of the Soyuz issues. Dragon has flown and is well on the way to meeting crew development goals as it was designed for humans from the start. Dream Chaser starts drop tests next year and Boeing is assembling their first CST-100 now. So much for drawing boards.

Also; Boeing has tons of experience building spacecraft, as does Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser). SpaceX may be new, but they've been headhunting other aerospace companies heavily, as well as the Shuttle program, so experience isn't an issue for them either. All 3 are working hand-in-glove with the NASA centers too, so any thoughts that they aren't building quality products are wrong. Period.

As for the international space science community, remember that this is the US taxpayers dime. If you guys want it so badly, get your governments to contribute. Otherwise....

It's also the US community whose projects are being put at risk by the JWST cost overruns, see upthread. They are very concerned about the other worthy missions at risk, and so far the Senate has only proposed funding to launch it, not for operations. Even then, they have put that funding on a very short leash - if more overruns happen they may well cut it for good.

I stand by what I said. I don't believe big ass old rockets and people flying around in tin cans particularly solves anything at the moment and the JWST is a project that promises far greater bang for the buck than any number of these combined. Also I believe the JWST very much is an international effort, with funding and expertise being provided by all of the major space agencies in the world (including ESA). I recommend you look at where some of the major components for the JWST are actually being designed and built. Admittedly the largest part of the funding probably does come from the US, however this is a project that has deep and profound implications for all of mankind, so any attempt to claim it for any one single country, is in my view at best extremely petty.

I like rockets as much as the next guy, but I have never really been convinced that our space faring technology at the moment is sufficiently advanced enough to constitute anything other than a political stunt. This is the way it has been for a long time, where the nation that can put the most guys in space is viewed as being 'top dog'. It has everything to do with national prestige - and very little to do with science.

This is the way it was with the moon missions, where it was only on the very last mission that someone had the bright spark of an idea to actually include a scientist (in this case a geologist) on the mission.

[jebus197]

To play devils advocate; the universe isn't going anywhere, it'll still be the same when finances are a bit better!

Yeah the Universe might not be going anywhere for a while, but sadly we might be long gone before we get a chance to really explore it. This is why I support public investment in science projects, because major science projects that exist for the sake of pure research often take political will and public funds to complete successfully. Without this there is little incentive for private industry to take up the slack. There's not much profit in studying how black holes are formed, or whether pulsars are the remnants of past gigantic exploding stars. Real science is something that happens at the societal level - and there are sadly just too many people around these days who are simply too short-sighted to be able to see this.

[Hum]

^ I'm afraid humans need to mature more, get over the petty squabbles, before Space exploration will advance much.