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."

Comments

Project(ed) Costs

[JonathanR]

IMHO, delaying the execution of projects only makes them cost more

Re:Project(ed) Costs

[w.timmeh]

While the launch slip will help NASA avoid big cash infusions on the program in the near term, Geithner conceded it will not save money in the long term. In fact, he said, about half of the $1 billion in cost growth is now attributable to the two-year delay.

They admit the total cost will be greater, but as funding is dished out on an annual (? periodic) basis, NASA can spread out the slice of funds that the JWST will take over a couple of funding rounds, so that the impact on other projects is lessened.

Re:Total lack of fiscal responsibility

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Total lack of fiscal responsibility

[Decaff]

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.

Re:NASA, Money and the U.S.

[Moby Cock]

It may not take the rest of the world with it. That's why the EU created the Euro.

Re:Fiscal issues

[Red Flayer]

"1,000 staff x $100,000/year (generous) = $100 million/year."

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/telescope arch_031703.html

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.

What's in a name?

[Billosaur]

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.