James Webb Space Telescope Closer To the Axe

astroengine writes "This could be considered 'strike two' for the deeply troubled James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Last week, the House Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee made the recommendation that the advanced infrared space telescope be cancelled. On Wednesday, the full House Science, Space and Technology Committee has approved the subcommittee's plan. The project may not be dead yet — the 2012 budget still has to be voted on my the House and Senate — but it sure is looking grim for 'Hubble's replacement.'"

Comments

So Painfully Frustrating

[eldavojohn]

Can someone please explain to me why despite the fairly linear rising budget of NASA we are shutting everything down right now? Is mismanagement really that bad at NASA? Is it saddled with debt from past programs?

I don't get it. It's like I'm watching my generation drop the ball despite all the obvious reasons in my mind to establish a presence off this rock. "Oh, my parents' generation put people on the moon. Not only did my generation stop putting people and telescopes in space, we also made ground observatories illegal and have re-instituted burning people who claim the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why? Because it was more affordable in the very immediate future."

Re:So Painfully Frustrating

[zoobaby]

Read the report: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35294

In short, the answer is yes, management is that bad at NASA. I am coming to believe that we need to look at NASA's mission and alter it for the post Cold-War era.

Re:So Painfully Frustrating

[Moryath]

It's quite simple.

Every time the "budget for NASA" is drawn up, it's not the actual NASA budget. If NASA were able to put the money where it was needed, they'd be in a lot better shape.

What Congress does instead is writes a "NASA budget" with a fuck-ton of strings attached. They give a "budget" for various missions, not overall. They cover salaries and the funding of various project bids, which can't be reassigned until Congress writes the next "NASA Budget."

Add to that the fact that NASA projects are usually on the order of a decade long, and most of these Congressional Fuckwits from either party are up for reelection (and a lot get replaced) every couple years, then come in and rewrite the budget and re-earmark things to the states of whatever party's in power to the loss of the states that aren't.

The current, added problem is that the Republicans - the party currently with "power of the purse" - have a hate-on for NASA because NASA was actually DOING the climate research and ongoing studies in response to screams of "global climate change is a myth, there's not enough research." The cuckoo clock wing of the party wants to kill NASA right now because they don't want there to BE enough research, ever.

Re:So Painfully Frustrating

[bravecanadian]

When the greatest generation put us on the moon NASA's budget reached 4.41% of the federal budget.

Now it is 0.60 percent.

Meanwhile the pockets of the rich have been filled, and the military industrial complex/financial industry/various other big corporations run the USA.

Obama really got handed a steaming bag of **** when he took office after good ole George. Just as all the tough decisions that had been put off until tomorrow for years on end started coming home to roost.

The Republicans should be so glad they lost that election because now, with everyone's short memory, they can blame all these problems on Obama and have a good chance next year. Nevermind that in our topsy turvy modern world, Conservative/Republican means "spend like drunken sailors who cares about fiscal responsibility, yahoo!!!" and Liberal/Democrat means "try and get a handle on things before our bonds reach junk status" and then take the fall for making the tough choices.

Re:So Painfully Frustrating

[darkmeridian]

I remember from a book discussing the Hubble Space Telescope that a significant political problem that NASA faces is the shifting political winds with regard to space exploration. If NASA put in a request for how much a project would actually cost, then the project would never be funded because of the "why are we spending so much on space when there are people starving in America" crowd. Thus, NASA would put in a low-ball request, which would be stuffed through. The sub-contractors would have to cut corners to meet the low-ball bid. Of course, these cut corners eventually result in huge catastrophes such as a defective main mirror on the space telescope. However, at that point, so much money has been put into the project that asking for a few billion more seems more attractive than losing all the money already spent.

If politicians would fund NASA appropriately, and more importantly, if they could commit to a certain level of funding past the current administration, then things would probably (not certainly) better. But NASA lives in fear that every four years, its budget might be eliminated. The current movement away from NASA-designed lift vehicles would be a good thing in this regard. If private enterprise were providing all the launch vehicles, NASA could spend the money more effectively on space exploration while other agencies such as the NSA, NRO, Air Force, etc. helped subsidize the research on the private launchers.

Just my two cents.

Re:So Painfully Frustrating

[spidercoz]

Technical degrees? More like MBAs, the downfall of American society. Which brings up a point: why are "Masters of Business Administration" so fucking terrible at administrating businesses? It's almost like they don't have any real skills or abilities and it's a bullshit degree. Oh wait...

Re:Cut bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? 5 days of worth of sustaining the wars funds the James Webb Telescope.

NASA's eulogy

[MrKaos]

This is the true cost of the Iraq War. Such a shame.

Re:Read the writing on the wall

[nutshell42]

The deficit is so large because the taxes are the lowest they've ever been since the 20s. There certainly is such a thing as too much taxes but there's also not enough. If you don't have any taxes at all the State will cease to exist and you get the equivalent of Somalia, the tea party people overlook that neither extremum of taxation produces an optimal result. It's especially funny because they're the same people who think fondly of the high tax eras like the 50s.

And yeah, when gas prices double in two years, we are going to bitch because my income has not increased to compensate. So, instead of taking my wife and child out to dinner a few times a month and giving my money to people who live near me, I have to give it to people who want to kill us all. BTW, that's another TEA Party platform; domestic energy production.

The solution would have been to increase the gas tax gradually over the last twenty years instead of leaving it unchanged since '93. The economy would have adjusted gradually as well (as it did elsewhere). And now that oil's back through the roof (how could anyone have known in the 80s that oil might become expensive? Madness, I say!) the relative increase would have been a lot smaller. In addition roads would be safer with less soccer moms in land battleships.

As for taxes, the Democratic plan is tax the rich that would otherwise invest the money into business that would hire people and to tax large corporations who will simply raise prices on their products that everyone purchases.

Companies charge what the market will bear as long as anti-trust laws are enforced.

Unless, of course, you are GE who owned a media empire friendly to the president. They didn't have to pay taxes.

Yes, the vast left wing conspiracy. The worst part is where Planned Parenthood in conjunction with NAMBLA ensnared Republicans to refuse the elimination of tax loopholes so it would look like they were in the pockets of big business.