Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Replacement on Slow Track
iamlucky13 writes "The targeted launch date for the James Webb Space Telescope, an infrared space observatory currently nearing the completion of the design stage, has been pushed back 2 years to help deal with a price tag that has grown to $4.5 billion. This advanced telescope is designed to build upon the achievements of the Hubble after its retirement, peering into deep space with it's large 6.5 meter primary mirror from the L2 point 1.5 million kilometers from earth. As the highest priority science mission on NASA's agenda, a decision was made to spread the extra cost over additional budget cycles rather than compromise it's instrument package. Regardless, some of the lower priority missions may feel the impact of the JWST cost growth."
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
IMHO, delaying the execution of projects only makes them cost more
With some great techniques for correcting the disturbances our atmosphere creates and a lot of huge (e.g.http://www.gmto.org/) ground based telescope slated for construction, it seems that super expensive space telescope will fall out of favor. I think we def need to continue with the JGW scope though - or at least send something to Lagrange point 2 before china does.
I can see how support staff make up the bulk of the cost but you have to realize that once they send this thing up into space it has to work; there is no warranty. If things aren't quadruple checked and all the scenarious played out you may end up loosing the whole project. I'm not a big fan of spending so much money on things such as these (there are worse like the war in Iraq), especially with 10's of thousands of people dying of starvation everyday, but if we're gonna do it we have to do it right.
That's right. We shouldn't trust scientists and engineers to be fiscally responsible, that's the job of government administrators. They always do the right thing, and when did you last hear of someone in government giving out jobs to "their favorite people"? Never happens.
We must ask them for what they have spent $4.5B. I would not be a least bit surprised that the large portion of it went down to pay the salary for support staffs (*) to continue on science projects, not directly to the R&D for the telescope and its instruments.
You think that people go into science for the security of jobs and the pay, or to fund thousands of well-paid staff? Of course not - there are far easier ways of earning money and 'building empires'. People go into science and research because they want to explore nature. They want funding for experiments and instruments to help with this. There is no way that the the pay and staff costs would be billions or anything close: there are very few millionare scientists, or research teams consisting of thousands of staff.
By the way, compared to the defence budget, 4.5B is insignificant.
It may not take the rest of the world with it. That's why the EU created the Euro.
Since the US is currently dumping $6 billion a month in Iraq ($9 billion+ of which can not even be accounted for since the war started,) why not launch an initiative to launch a satellite by an organization other than NASA?
Provide an incentive (say cash) to find a cheaper way to design and launch a satellite into space. NASA, as an arm of a bogged-down and partisan government, is clearly not using innovative and cost-cutting solutions to further its own goals. Take the US government funding out of the equation and maybe something will get done. If NASA has too much on its agenda, its time to find other qualified people who can do the job.
In my humble opinion, space exploration is just as important scientific study as any other out there. The images that the Hubble has delivered to the world are indeed beautiful, amazing and priceless.
See: http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/galindex.html
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
But it does provide a stable alternative as reserve currency
"1,000 staff x $100,000/year (generous) = $100 million/year."
e arch_031703.html
That's not generous at all, since this is a one-off try... NASA needs to spend top dollar to get the best minds working on priority projects like this.
Also, you've costs other than payroll to deal with -- health insurance, recruitment, training, etc. Plus admin and support staff (which will be cheaper no doubt), as well as PMs (which will be more expensive, no doubt).
Throw in the fact that there is almost zero margin for error in terms of manufacturing tolerances, and that many of the parts are not regular production-line parts, and so cost a bunch more to have made... Plus, the mirror itself is being made of Beryllium, which is both expensive and toxic (so working with it is much more expensive).
"I hate to be cheeky, but if I could pay 1,000 people $100k/year, I could build you a seriously awesome space telescope for a lot less than $2.5 billion.I hate to be cheeky, but if I could pay 1,000 people $100k/year, I could build you a seriously awesome space telescope for a lot less than $2.5 billion."
I'm sure there are a bunch of things I'm not thinking of, but my point is that pulling numbers out of a hat to say that we're overpaying is a little ridiculous. Admittedly, the overruns are a serious problem, though.
Finally, this is not the first time that they've announced cost overruns for the JWST... see this link from 2003: http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/telescop
Original cost was to be 800 million, with an 8-foot mirror; cost was doubled and mirror diameter was reduced to 6 feet -- and this was with the EC contributing an additional 300 million.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It is interesting to note, that the telescope in question is named for perhaps the greatest administrator NASA ever had, who ran the agency during the critical years of the Apollo program and quit in 1968 shortly before the Apollo 8 mission which first sent men around the Moon. James Webb was, by the admission of many in NASA at the time, the best administrator they could have had, even though he was not an engineer but a politician. I suspect if he were still around, he'd be able to get his telescope built on time.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
His idea of precise attacks, understanding the gravity of the problem, and operating under the restraints placed by his personal struggles, etc. was a far better job.
Remember, in those days, there was no "rallying" call, no PATRIOT Act, no "Patriotism waving", etc., You guys were more interested in punishing him for his MonicaGate, than in knowing who the BAD guys were.
If Dubya had been president, he would have Nuked Iran or Iraq for the USS Cole bombing instead of hunting them down in Kenya, etc.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
...but, JWST IS NOT A HST REPLACEMENT!!
People have had that misconception for years now.
If Dubya had been president, he would have Nuked Iran or Iraq for the USS Cole bombing instead of hunting them down in Kenya, etc.
That's why voted for Dubya. If anything, he should have nuked Baghdad, Tripoli, and Kandahar after 9/11. When one of your enemies attacks you, you really have to go after them all, innocent or not.
This is my sig.
Can you not understand the difference between criticism of your government and criticism of your troops?
Saying that criticism of Bush is criticising the troops is the kind of appallingly twisted argument that makes Bush and his government so loathesome - pretending to be patriotic whist using the troops and an excuse to cover your political ass. Disgusting.
Now to me, it seems, the only way to pay off the debt we currently have would be to privatize.
That's funny. What fraction of the Iraq War is NASA's budget again?
It seems to me (and go ahead and call me a bleeding heart liberal) that the way to pay off the debt would be to raise taxes on the rich. They are going to complain about a 45%-50% income tax rate? Did you know that it hit 77% during WW1 and 91% during WW2? If this "War on Terrorism" is really worth fighting then I would like to see Bush convince the American people that it's also worth paying for. If we can't pay for it today then I don't think we should be fighting it today.
Likewise, why the hell do we need to privatize NASA? What's the NASA budget compared to the cost of one CVBG (aircraft carrier battle group)? We have twelve of them!. Perhaps we should withdraw from the Middle East, withdraw from Europe (does the EU really need American troops for defense anymore?), withdraw from Korea and Japan (do they really need....) and bring our troops home. We could then downsize the military to something a little bit more reasonable for the defense of the United States/North America.
You think that's a bad idea? You think it spells the end of the American superpower? I call bullshit -- the real power in the 21st century is economic and information based. And even if the world reverted back to 19th/20th century rules (unlikely with the invention of nuclear weapons) we'd still have more then enough time to rearm. Hell, the military was virtually built from scratch to fight WW2 -- and we won that one as I recall.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It doesn't really exist. The "robot repair" was conceived and proposed by politicians with little grounding in the current state of the technology. It's not at all feasible to get such a mission designed let alown flown before the gyros on Hubble fail. Humans are really the only way to save it. We have astronauts chomping at the bit to go up and do it, yet our politicians are crying that "it's too dangerous". Why don't we let those actually flying the missions decide if the risk is worth it? They've only trained their whole lives for it.
-Kurt
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007