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."
Hey, man, it's just a telescope. It haven't done you no harm.
I think your a tad out of line there, taking i to so personal.
Or maybe you're on a competing project?
$4.5 billion? That's far too expensive. I mean, we could keep our troups in Iraq for almost another month for that kind of money! What are they thinking, wasting it on a stupid big telescope.
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.
Judging by the latest sneak peek photo from NASA, it looks like money well spent.
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.
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.
They haven't spent $4.5B, they're going to spend $4.5B. From TFA: "...The mission's estimated cost remains $4.5 billion, including spacecraft development, launch and operations...".
Also from TFA: "The latest plan for the infrared observatory, ... is expected to be finalized in April". In other words, they haven't even frozen the specs yet.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
What's not to like about that?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
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
"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
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. ;)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
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.
That's metres, not feet, i.e. the JWST primary mirror is now 6.5 metres across. It was actually very originally (in the mid-1990s) to be 4 metres in diameter, but Dan Goldin suggested NASA wasn't being ambitious enough and said that 8 metres should be do-able. Given that he had worked in the defence arena before becoming NASA administrator, it makes you wonder what he knew :`)
The drop back to 6.5 metres was part cost-driven, part schedule-driven (it takes many years to fabricate all those beryllium segments), and part risk-driven. While the mirror diameter shrank, the overall mass of the primary mirror didn't change much: it can now be stiff enough to ensure we can test it on the ground properly, hopefully avoiding a Hubble-type optical manufacturing / testing fiasco.
As for the "originally 800M$", well, it's a long story, but JWST was never really that cheap, when full lifetime costs were accounted for. Still, there has been a cost overrun as we've developed the mission, but you can believe that those of us closely involved with the project do feel a strong responsibility to ensure that the end result delivers some great science to help justify the expense.
Another important factor is that Lagrange 2 is a saddle point. You can't keep an object there without constant monitoring and course correction (aka thrusters). Given that there's no way to send a resupply shuttle, our dear rocket scientists will absolutely have to get it right the first time. That means perfectly arranged mirrors (unlike Hubble), long-lasting gyros (unlike Hubble), and of course big honking fuel tank.
So whatever the final cost is, the project managers absolutely must resist the urge to cut corners. I'd rather see us spend $5B on a successful mission than $4B on an unintentional lunar impactor.
The Right will only support funding for the new Hubble if it's used to find proof of the firmament. And of course the Left will only support it if it's used to find voters. Essentially, it's a huge quagmire.
But hopefully the issues can be solved so scientist can use it to search for what remains of freedom in the US.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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.
"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
...but, JWST IS NOT A HST REPLACEMENT!!
People have had that misconception for years now.
The problem with the whole Moon idea is that you will have to build the telescope here on Earth first, then launch it into space in order to get to the Moon. Since space itself is actually preferable to the Moon (i.e. no gravity, no dust, no retro-rockets needed to land, etc.), why not just leave it in space?
It's true that the Moon would act as a shield for radio wavelengths,m but it wouldn't achieve much for optical-IR telescopes really: the ultimate limit to sensitivity is the zodiacal light in the solar system, which you'd see just as much of from the Moon as from near-Earth space. Get the telescope out beyond Jupiter and things get way better.
As for the 1km aperture, well, interferometry is one way to go, since you can hope to get the resolving power of the very long baseline, if not the collecting area. Ground- and space-based optical/IR interferometers are improving / under development and may eventually reach 1km baselines, while 30-50m filled aperture ground-based telescopes will likely be with us within a decade or so.
Finally, all large professional telescopes use mirrors, not lenses: mirrors can be supported against gravity from behind, whereas lenses sag.
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