Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How the Webb Space Telescope Got So Expensive

Posted by timothy on from the pity-we-can't-short-the-stock dept.

First time accepted submitter IICV writes "Ethan Siegel of Starts with a Bang has done some research on how and why the James Webb Space Telescope's price tag ballooned. Quoting: 'Something wasn't adding up. How could the telescope be more than three-quarters complete after $3.5 billion, but require more than double that amount to finish it? Also, how did the launch date get bumped by three years, to 2018? And how did 6.5 billion become a disastrous $8.7 billion so quickly? So I did a little digging around, and perhaps a little investigative reporting as well, and got ahold of a Webb Project Scientist who's also a member of the Webb Science Working Group.'" Whether or not you buy the argument that the money's well-spent (at $5 billion or $8 billion, or either side of these), even the work in progress is beautiful.

11 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. It's a deal compared to other things. by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole project, with budget over-runs, is still cheaper than 1 month in Iraq...

    1. Re:It's a deal compared to other things. by haruchai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny you should mentioned that - it showed up on my YouTube page yesterday - first time I'd seen it. Carter was and is a good man but he didn't understand what the US had become and still is - a nation that looks to a cheerleader in the top job rather than an honest father figure.
      But, not to worry, that wish just might come true, so brace yourselves.

      http://www.rickperry.org/join-today/

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. Corollary to Hofstader's law by shoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1st Corollary to Hofstadter's Law: It always costs more than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

    Hofstadter's original law actually only applies to time (not money). Typical usage: A couple years ago the NYC MTA Canarsie line "next train" countdown signs, originally a two year project, were running a couple years behind, and projected to take 5 years to complete.

    1. Re:Corollary to Hofstader's law by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another law from time immemorial:

      A poorly planned project takes three times as long to complete as planned.

      A carefully planned project only takes twice as long.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Yeah, I've seen this by RogerWilco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're doing something nobody has done before, inventing it as you go, and people expect you to know in advance how much it's going to cost. There are always unforeseen things that crop up.

    And then there is the whole complexity of getting it funded in the first place. And the smoke and mirrors that come with that. The most fun we had was getting funding for the hardware but not the software. The project is one year over schedule, the hardware is done, but the software...

    --
    RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    1. Re:Yeah, I've seen this by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're doing something nobody has done before, inventing it as you go, and people expect you to know in advance how much it's going to cost. There are always unforeseen things that crop up.

      It's an order of magnitude bigger than the Hubble, and they bid $0.8 billion initially, which is less than $2.5 billion the Hubble cost to build and launch. I wouldn't call that unforseen. It was simply massively underbid.

      --
      Find free books.
    2. Re:Yeah, I've seen this by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're doing something nobody has done before, inventing it as you go, and people expect you to know in advance how much it's going to cost. There are always unforeseen things that crop up

      Which is why one hires good system engineers who have managed large projects before, and have a feel for how much to keep in reserve to deal with those things. Not to go totally Rumsfeldian, but there are known issues or unknowns, and you can generally budget for that. You want to make sure to understand the project well enough that you're not walking into things you don't even realize are problems.

      This is why you can't just hand control of a project to a team of scientists without putting someone in charge who can understand the issues and budget for them. Otherwise you're handing over a blank check.

      And I'm saying this as a scientist.

  4. Indicative of poor US economy by arcite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The dollar is being systematically debased.

  5. Re:Synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you delivered an entirely new scientific instrument and only went over budget by 4%, I'd call you a fucking hero.

    Based on your comment, I'm going with dipshit.

  6. Re:Synopsis by Raenex · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A large part of the added cost could have been avoided if Congress had just given an additional 250 million for a launch date in 2015.

    I find it hard to believe that a lack of $250 million ballooned into several billions of dollars. The article cites a supposedly independent review, but doesn't go into any detail about the math. It just sounds like activist propaganda. Sorry, I like science too, but let's be honest.

  7. Re:it's a government project by IICV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The original budget was intentionally low-balled (i.e. it was a lie), and now the truth is coming out.

    Since I submitted this story, I've actually RTFA'd and that's exactly what didn't happen.

    Here's a timeline of events:

    1. NASA says "we could make the JWST for $5.1 billion, and launch in 2014". Not "make and run for five years", the $5.1 billion only covers making the thing and putting it into space.
    2. NASA's management fucks up, and an independent review panel finds that the actual price tag will be $6.5 billion, with a launch in 2015. This is NASA's fault.
    3. However, the $6.5 billion number is contingent on NASA having $250 million to spend in 2011 and 2012 on important things like not laying off critical workers, and funding the fabrication of vital parts.
    4. Congress does not provide that money, so the $6.5 billion number was never actually achievable anyway.
    5. Now that NASA's fucked, climbing back out of the hole will cost an extra 1 - 1.5 billion dollars, because Congress didn't want to approve a total of 0.5 billion dollars over the next two years.
    6. To add insult to injury, the number they're bandying about right now to show how much the project has gone over includes the cost of running it for five years, which the initial estimates did not. This adds nearly an extra billion on to the number.

    At no point did NASA intentionally lowball the budget; if NASA's management hadn't fucked up, they could have made it. The initial cost overrun from $5.1 to $6.5 billion is NASA's fault, because NASA's been administrated by idiots for the last couple of decades.