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

Re:$4.5 billion

[freedom_india]

What pains me is that your comment was modded as Funny instead of Insightful.

The day when we spend more money on killing rather than on science is the day when Dubya has established his stamp for eternity.

May dubya live in infamy !

NASA, Money and the U.S.

[Danathar]

Who cares about what it costs, just spend the money.

This may sound a bit jaded...but I read an opinion piece (can't find the link..sorry) talking about the fact that the deficit and overall debt is considered by many economists to be so far gone that we'll crash no matter what we do. So, why not just run up the credit card while it lasts? Pay for the space telescope (new one), get that fence up along the border. Spend...Spend...Spend...Seriously! I think the most accurate analogy was that when falling 50 yards the first 30 really are'nt that bad (where we are now). The U.S. is gunna crash and it's going to take the rest of the world economy with it. We might as well just enjoy the "card" while it's still good.

Re:NASA, Money and the U.S.

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

The U.S. is gunna crash and it's going to take the rest of the world economy with it.

Paraphrasing Peter Schiff - "America likes to think it's the world's economic engine, but really it's the caboose being dragged by rest of the world"

As the US dollar falls and Americans stop consuming most of the world's resources, other economies will be in a position to use those resources and better their own standards of living.

Hubble Origins Probe

[bhima]

Whatever happened to the Hubble Origins Probe? That sounded like a great idea... Use the basic Hubble design, don't make the same mistake with the optics, use the spares that were supposed to go up on the canceled shuttle mission, use updated electronic science packages... The only thing that left is to do some about the gyroscopic stabilizer system.

What's not to like about that?

JWST is not a HST replacement.

[Shag]

HST's instruments deal with several different portions of the spectrum. JWST is dedicated infrared. Those of us who actually work in astronomy keep pointing this out, but oh well. ;)

Re:JWST is not a HST replacement.

[bjomo]

I whole-heartedly agree that many just don't seem to understand that JWST is not an HST replacement (and yes, I too cringe when that is mentioned). On you second point, Adminstrator Mike has pointed out that the CEV would be capable of traveling to L2 and could potentially service JWST if needed. If I recall correctly, he was not quite advocating designing the observatory to be servicable, simple not designing it such that servicing it would be impossible. I thought that was an interesting point, but I do agree that JWST will not be serviced in the same manner as HST has been.

Minor cost

[bxbaser]

Really think about what is 4.5 billion these days ?
The us national debt increases more that 100 times that amount every year and they cant fund the hubble.

The problem probably is the people in power want the budget to be 45 billion but it will need to goto a no bid contract.

Re:ST's falling out of favor?

[t0ddsh3rman]

Thanks for dropping that knowledge. Thought you or others might like to read about the Thirty-Meter Telescope(TMT). "What makes the TMT so unique is its diameter -- or aperture -- and the light-grabbing dimensions of its primary mirror, which will produce images 10 to 100 times the clarity of the Hubble telescope." http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,69578,00.ht ml?tw=rss.TEK

Re:Fiscal issues

[Red Flayer]

I agree totally that the expense is justified... and sorry about the feet/metres mistake -- hadn't finished my first cup of coffee yet.

Of course, I get the funny feeling that I'm not the only one who has made a metric/non-metric unit error when dealing with a space program :)

Re: cost overruns, no surprise there. That's how project budgeting in the federal govt works in general, IMO... especially with the present & past couple administrations.

Re:ST's falling out of favor?

[Trapezium Artist]

We don't tend to call JWST "the successor to HST" so much anymore, but of course, the moniker has stuck. That said, there is a fair amount of overlap between the two: HST gets out to 2.5 microns with NICMOS, while JWST will reach down to 0.6 microns with NIRCam and NIRSpec. Of course, with STIS dead on the HST now, it's UV capabilities are reduced.

In the end, it's a question of scientific drivers: the US Decadal Report placed JWST first on its priority list because astronomers argued more strongly for the high-redshift/star&planet formation science that it can do than argued for a new UV-optical telescope. Sure, it'd be great to have full coverage at all wavelengths, but money is finite and hard choices have to be made.

Besides, one of the key reasons JWST doesn't press too hard on the short wavelength end is because of the whole new generation of ground-based ELTs which will compete very handsomely with JWST at below 2 microns. Ok, that's not the UV, but ...

On the budget overrun, well, as a European, I can't speak for NASA really, but most of the cost inflation so far has been there. The key elements which raised the budget by 1G$ this year were:

(A) Revised cost request from the contractors, Northrup Grumman Space Technologies (NGST, ironically), based on increased specifications. NASA generally lets contracts which allow cost growth like this, as true fixed-cost contracts would be completely unaffordable at the get go.

(B) A huge delay incurred by the former NASA administrator (O'Keefe) not signing off on the use of a European Ariane 5 launcher, at ESA expense. There was serious wrangling at the congressional and lobbyist level to dump this in favour of a US launcher (e.g. Delta Heavy), which led to long delays (and thus cost overruns) in interfacing NGST (the company) with Arianespace. One of the first things Mike Griffin did when he came in was to sign off on this, breaking the logjam. However, as Paul Geithner at NASA said in the parent article, this has yet to pass the highest levels of US government, so could yet bite our ass again. But it's hardly fair to lay this one on the JWST per se: it's way beyond our pay grade.

(C) The transition to full cost accounting at NASA Goddard, the prime centre for JWST. In this case, this was money that was always going to be spent at Goddard on roads, buildings, etc., but had not been posted directly on JWST's budget. Again, hardly JWST's fault per se, but makes us look bad again.

In the end, as you've worked on NGST/JWST, you'll know it's a really challenging mission. 4.5$G is a lot of money, but the project (at all levels) is working very, very hard to make this thing work and make it great scientific value for that money, whatever that really means in this game.