The James Webb Space Telescope debacle

[jebus197]

I'm all for that. I mean, lets stop fighting wars and killing each other, and then build a big ass old ship capable of going to the nearest potentially habitable extraterrestrial solar system.

Lets not build guns and bombs any more, and just spend the money instead in exploring the universe in which we are fortunate enough to find ourselves to be.

Sound like a good idea to anyone? Sure it does! It makes total, utter and complete sense! Will we do it? Hell no!! That's just too sensible. I mean shooting each other in the face and blowing each other to bits is just so much more worthwhile. Isn't it?? (I wish someone would explain that part to me though, as I'm not sure I always do really get it.)

Anyway even if we did want to go anywhere further than our local solar system (which all in all in my view is a bit boring really and I would be willing to bet my life savings, my house and my new born daughter and my dog, that there is no life anywhere else in our solar system), then we really ought to value the JWST a bit more. After all even if we did build something that was big enough and fast enough to take us to the stars, it might be wise to have at least a rough idea of where we are going. We couldn't just build it and send it off into the great unknown, because as someone rather famous once pointed out, 'Space is really, really big!' So it would be like sending a needle to explore a haystack a few tens of billions of times bigger than the size of the planet Earth.

So all of you space faring gun-ho jocks out there ought to be thankful really, as unless you really do just want to stay stuck in our own rather dull little corner of the galaxy, you may come to appreciate the benefit of having maps and of having somewhere to aim for, where you just might be able to survive. Think of the JWST as laying the groundwork for further exploration, if and when people do finally realise how dumb all of these wars and all this killing and hating on each other really is. (What the hey, we can dream I suppose.)

And if you still don't like it, well good luck with the tin cans and all the flag waving!

[Astra.Xtreme]

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

With all the corruption and greed in this world, we may as well be down a short path to another world war or nuclear war. Again, just a maybe.

But in the end, the space programs have advanced technology substantially, so we should be pouring as much money into it as we can. As of recent, it looks like the private sector is the area to invest in.

[jebus197]

With all the corruption and greed in this world, we may as well be down a short path to another world war or nuclear war. Again, just a maybe.

But in the end, the space programs have advanced technology substantially, so we should be pouring as much money into it as we can. As of recent, it looks like the private sector is the area to invest in.

I have no problem with the private sector building rockets, but I do have a problem when people argue we should leave it to them to undertake fundamental non-commercial scientific research too. The private sector is good when there's a profit to be made, but huge swathes of science hold no potential for profit whatsoever. Is it justified though to claim that this research is any less valuable? What value exactly do you put on expanding human knowledge? And if private industry don't do it - and if it's still worth doing, then who exactly will do it?

This is where politicians and the public purse come into play, because without this and without their cooperation a great deal of extremely valuable scientific research would simply never get done.

[DocM]

So the Senate budget gives JWST a spending limit of $8.0B, but the auditors say it needs $8.7B - and we know from past performance the reality is that it'll need about $10B. They also took $75M from other science programs while transferring it and more to JWST.

Aviation Week....

Senate Panel Caps Webb At $8 Billion[/b]

Lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee recommend an $8 billion cap on the development of the troubled James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) program, which covers the latest projected cost to finish and operate the huge infrared telescope.

NASA has estimated that $8.7 billion will be needed to finish building the state-of-the-art observatory, launch it and operate it for at least five years. Amid fears from scientists practicing other NASA-funded research disciplines that the JWST will drain funds from their work, the full appropriations panel followed the lead of its Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee in recommending an appropriation of $529.6 million for the telescope in fiscal 2012.

?As with many other projects, budget optimism led to massive ongoing cost overruns because the project did not have adequate reserves or contingency to address the kinds of technical problems that are expected to arise in a complex cutting-edge project,? stated the subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), in the report accompanying the fiscal 2012 NASA appropriations bill.

With the $8 billion development cap, the panel says it intends to hold NASA and its contractors to that commitment to stay under the latest life-cycle cost estimate. NASA generated the $8.7 billion figure after a Mikulski-ordered review found the telescope far over its previous budget and schedule targets (Aerospace DAILY, Aug. 23).

Overall, NASA would receive $17.9 billion under its Senate spending bill. That is about $1 billion less than the House mark, which means the final figures will be determined in a House-Senate conference committee later on. For obvious reasons, NASA managers want to get as close to the Senate figure as possible.

Adopted Sept. 15, the Senate bill trims $75 million from other science programs, and adds $83.2 million to Webb, to fund the program overrun at $156 million more than NASA requested for fiscal 2012.

Overall, the Senate panel would trim $785.5 million from the agency?s request, bringing in the bill at $17.9 billion. The panel would appropriate $500 million for commercial crew development, down $350 million from the requested amount. Space technology, another program emphasized by the Obama administration, would be trimmed from a request of $1.024 billion to $637 million.

>

[jebus197]

I know it will cost a lot. But like I said nothing of this complexity has ever been tried before - and my view is that if it is a success, the value of the information and knowledge it will provide for mankind, far outweighs any monetary consideration.

There is a huge difference between the real science that the JWST can do (and other similar satellites), and the science a few guys floating around in a glorified tin can (or inflatable - take your pick) can do.

Left to people like you, I doubt Hubble would ever have flown (or been repaired later), or that projects like the LHC at CERN would ever have been built, as both of these massively overran their initial budget estimates, by several billions of dollars too. But no one is arguing now about their value in promoting the cause of human understanding. When you try something completely new, there almost certainly always will be big cost overruns and unforeseen snags.

But to be fair I think we should let other Neowiners decide for themselves which perspective they support most. You and I are unlikely to see eye to eye on this topic at all. (Unless the JWST does ever fly and starts bringing in truly spectacular data about the nature of our universe and our place in it, at which point I have no doubt you will conveniently 'forget' that you ever had any real objections to it at all.) So I would happily trade you any 50 (or more) of your big ass old rockets, just to see this thing fly.

You on the other hand clearly have a thing for rockets - and like to see guys floating around in space (and maybe floating around the solar system too) for no particularly good reason that I can work out. Except that it may make some people's balls swell up and overflow with jingoistic and political pride that they got to send guys on happy little sightseeing trips, and that they got to visit these places first. Your interest appear to be political and an engineering interest, with a relatively low science value, whereas my interest is in pure science. I don't really get people like you who think you can palm off pure research to the private sector, and leave them to make all of the important discoveries of our age. Quite simply, if there's no money in it, very often it simply wouldn't happen.

There's certainly a place for private industry, and if they think they can make money out of building rockets of the type you so obviously admire, then good luck to them. But if we want real science to be done, then they can only play (a probably relatively small) part in the mix, because real scientific non-commercial research, will almost always take political will, and public funds to complete.

But like I said, personally for the sheer value of the scientific data it may provide us with, I couldn't care less about all of these other rockets and space projects. Let's use the JWST to try to find somewhere worthwhile to go first - and then invest everything we have collectively as a species in trying to get there

[DocM]

You don't listen very well: I supported Hubble from the get-go and JWST until it morphed into a vampire program that threatens to devour NASA's planetary science budget, and then some. Go argue with The Planetary Society.

[jebus197]

You don't listen very well: I supported Hubble from the get-go and JWST until it morphed into a vampire program that threatens to devour NASA's planetary science budget, and then some. Go argue with The Planetary Society.

No thanks, I'm perfectly happy arguing and standing my ground with you. But thanks. I don't see a great deal of value in sending guys to visit planets or asteroids in our local vicinity. Like I said my view is that there's not much of interest that manned missions specifically can do there. Other robotic mission, have however had a spectacular track record in providing profoundly useful data. The JWST in my view holds the potential to surpass the value of all of these past missions combined.

But we'll see. If the JWST does ever fly and does ever start bringing in the kind of data that the majority of the scientific community hope it will, then I'm quite confident that all of your objections will seem meaningless and petty at that point.

Just think how much Hubble cost - and how much more it cost to fix. In today's money I have no doubt it would be at least as nearly equivalent to the $10 billion (if not more) you pessimistically predict the JWST will cost. If you think that was worthwhile, then I don't see why the JWST should be considered any differently.

Other than that, since further debate is pointless, I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

[DocM]

Hubble didn't have to cannibalize Science Directorate funds for other worthy missions.

[jebus197]

Like I said, it depends on your definition of 'worth' and 'value'. We both clearly have a different take on this. You clearly from all of your other posts on the topic, have a thing for rockets and putting guys in space, whereas I couldn't care less about this and would rather spend the money doing real science instead. (At least until we find somewhere that might actually be worth going to.)

I like rockets. Hey I'm a guy, so the bigger the rocket the better. But to me a rocket should just be a means of putting useful science packages in space. Men in space just floating around in extended sightseeing missions, just seems unnecessarily expensive and pointless to me. The science in these types of missions is invariably almost always just an afterthought.

[DocM]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38594

Geological Society of America Planetary Geology Division: NASA Funding and James Webb Space Telescope

Dear Members of the GSA Planetary Geology Division:

The GSA Planetary Geology Division (PGD) Management Board has been asked to address the current NASA FY2012 budget and the threat to planetary science funding caused by a possible congressional plan to transfer funds from NASA's Planetary Science Division (PSD) to cover cost overruns of the NASA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the nature of the problem, so that you can consider any corrective action such as writing letters to your Congressional representatives, if you deem this appropriate.

THE PROBLEM: The recently released NRC Planetary Science Decadal Survey ("Visions and Voyages"), with input from the planetary geology and planetary science community, detailed specific priorities for the next decade of solar system exploration. The NRC Planetary Decadal Survey did not cite JWST as a priority for planetary science. While the House and Senate have basically agreed upon a budget for NASA Planetary Science for FY2012, the resolution of whether or not and how to fund JWST places this all at risk.

JWST is a very important mission for the astrophysics community and the NASA's Astrophysics Division. In a recent editorial published in the Planetary Exploration Newsletter, several leading planetary scientists suggested that a better solution for the JWST cost overruns is that any funds not added to the NASA Science Mission Directorate by Congress to cover the significant increases in JWST costs should be solely derived from the NASA Astrophysics Division budget line, as advocates such as the American Astronomical Society have identified JWST as their highest priority (it was the top major initiative for U.S. astrophysics in the 2001 & 2010 NRC Astrophysics Decadal Surveys). That prioritization is among activities only within astrophysics, not planetary science, Earth science or heliophysics. Because astronomers have been so strongly supportive of JWST for the current and future budgets, it is only appropriate that they be responsible for the consequences of such a choice.

The biggest concern of planetary scientists, therefore, is that our own current and planned planetary missions, and supporting research and data analysis funding, will be severely reduced over the next decade to pay for the JWST overruns (JWST is now scheduled for a 2018 launch with a total cost approaching $8.7 billion).

THE SOLUTION: As members of the PGD your opinions should be heard. It is important that everyone concerned with this issue contact their Congressional representatives to express your opinions and comments on this issue WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. Here are some questions to consider as you prepare your letters:

(1) What is the relative importance of planetary missions and R&A vs. JWST as national priorities in space?

(2) If Congress believes JWST is so important that it must be restored, then should Congress 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) Where should any JWST funding shortfalls come from? The NASA Astrophysics Division budget? The Planetary Science Division budget? Spread evenly throughout NASA Science Mission Directorate? From within other parts of NASA, or outside NASA?

(4) Because of the importance and successes of the NASA Planetary Science program and its carefully thought out slate of current and planned missions, do you think U.S. leadership in space would suffer if funds were removed and planetary missions sacrificed to pay for JWST cost overruns?

We suggest you write letters and FAX them to:

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on

Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies

FAX: 202-225-1808

The Honorable Senator Barbara Mikulski

Chairwoman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on

Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies

FAX: 202-224-8858

We also suggest that you write to your own Congressional representatives, and ask them to contact the appropriate CJS Subcommittee.

FYI, the editorial is posted to the PEN Newsletter .

Thank you for supporting space exploration and the scientific endeavors that it enables!

Sincerely, your GSA Planetary Geology Division Management Board,

Dr. David A. Williams, Chair

Dr. Simon A. Kattenhorn, First Vice Chair (VC)

Dr. Robert C. Anderson, Second VC

Dr. Debra L. Buczkowski, Secretary-Treasurer

Dr. Jayne C. Aubele, Past Chair

Geological Society of America

Planetary Geology Division

[neoadorable]

jebus, we won't get to the useful stuff unless we go on these extended sightseeing missions first, unless you can convince the politicians to release endless funding so we can accelerate and get to the good stuff first. The Webb is a must-have in my book, no doubt about it.

[DocM]

A report is in from someone who attended the ESTEC day at Noordwijk, The Netherlands last Sunday. An ESA member of the JWST science team says its price tag is now $10B and likely to keep rising. Some in the conversation are betting on >$12B+ by the time it flies. I'm not that optimistic.

Anyone else feel like banging their head on a wall?

[DocM]

Here we go again....

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/gao-warns-jwst-cryocooler-poses-risk-of-schedule-slip#.VI9e2Vw3QvY.twitter

GAO Warns JWST Cryocooler Poses Risk of Schedule Slip

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its third annual congressionally-required assessment of the status of NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) today warning that the project's schedule is at risk particularly because of challenges developing its cyrocooler.

GAO acknowledged that JWST program officials report that the space telescope's overall schedule reserve is above its plans and standards, but pointed out that with four years until launch, NASA is only now beginning to integrate and test two of the five elements and major subsystems and this is the time period where problems are likely to be found. Therefore "maintaining as much schedule reserve as possible ... is critical."

JWST also has "limited short-term cost reserves" to deal with potential schedule slips, GAO found. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems (NGAS) is the prime contractor for JWST, and GAO criticized the cost risk analyses used by NASA and NGAS because "they do not account for many new risks identified since 2011." GAO stressed that cost risk analyses must be continually updated to ensure reliability and that is part of adhering to cost estimating best practices.

It recommended in the report that NASA follow best practices in cost estimating. NASA "partially concurred" with the recommendation. NASA's comments are published as an appendix to the report and say basically that it agrees it should follow best practices and is already doing so.

>