Slashdot Mirror


GAO Denied Access To Webb Telescope Workers By Northrop Grumman

schwit1 writes In a report as well as at House hearings today the GAO reported that Northrop Grumman has denied them one-on-one access to workers building the James Webb Space Telescope. "The interviews, part of a running series of GAO audits of the NASA flagship observatory, which is billions of dollars overbudget and years behind schedule, were intended to identify potential future trouble spots, according to a GAO official. But Northrop Grumman Aerospace, which along with NASA says the $9 billion project is back on track, cited concerns that the employees, 30 in all, would be intimidated by the process." To give Northrop Grumman the benefit of the doubt, these interviews were a somewhat unusual request. Then again, if all was well why would they resist? Note too that the quote above says the cost of the telescope project is now $9 billion. If the project was "back on track" as the agency and Northrop Grumman claim, then why has the budget suddenly increased by another billion?

25 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. 9 whole billion? OUTRAGEOUS! by Black.Shuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can get a whole month of war for that!

    1. Re: 9 whole billion? OUTRAGEOUS! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Informative

      It costs about half a billion to launch something that size into a Lagrange point. It costs maybe a billion dollars to make a telescope that big. It costs maybe another billion to make a telescope that big that you can fold up onto a rocket's nose cone and have it unfold into the right shape by itself. Add another half a billion for the cameras and instrumentation. That makes 4 billion, which was the original budget. Add another 50 percent to make it flight qualified and for the various surprises that happen at the coal face and aren't quite as evident when you're writing a grant proposal with all the rigor that I'm putting into writing this comment. That's 6billion. Where does the other 2 billion come from? Easy: when a project this big picks up another 2 billion and congress critters and the gao start to make shutting down noises it makes it hard to retain good people on a projectwithblood in the water, and it goes on with the next notch down in talent but no less stringent requirements. So you now make more mistakes, catch them, and are obligated to go back and redo work, since it's better to go over budget than to deliver a 6 billion dollar turkey that doesn't work as advertised. Bd

    2. Re: 9 whole billion? OUTRAGEOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Find the spot where "Invent entire new techniques and industries in the process of making the bird fly, then give them away" that NASA does all the time with these kind of engineering marvels fits in and I'd say you've about nailed it.

    3. Re: 9 whole billion? OUTRAGEOUS! by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      Look, I'm on your side in the sense that science is worth dollars. At least I think I am, but I feel confused.

      I have no idea how much it costs to make, launch, test, or do anything to a telescope other than break it with a hammer, which costs zero dollars and might be largely ineffective.

      So you are going to claim that retention is behind the cost increase? You said $6b, with another $2B, citing retention. What about the other $1B to add up to the $9B cited directly twice, and indirectly once, in the summary?

    4. Re: 9 whole billion? OUTRAGEOUS! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well then I must have just flubbed my arithmetic. Having zero visibility into the project, I'm just guessing. Hell, even on projects I work on that straddle the line between R&D and procurement I have a hard time putting a number on retention, but I do know that if an individual piece of work takes X months for one competent guy to do, and he quits after having his budget cut, restored, and then cut again, only to be restored the month after he leaves, it'll take ~0.5X months to find a replacement and bring him up to speed. And by definition he's not as good as the guy who left since he's new to the organization and doesn't have as finely resolved of a mental picture of the whole project and where his work fits in as the first guy did. Is that 1.5 times the cost for the same work? Maybe. Sometimes slack gets picked up, sometimes people burn out under the added load. Sometimes a flash of divine inspiration lets you do more with less, and sometimes the whole thing tanks because the guy walked out the door with 50% plus epsilon of the knowhow to get it done and the whole thing needs to be restarted or retendered.

  2. GAO = U.S. Government Accountability Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    n/t

    1. Re:GAO = U.S. Government Accountability Office by hendrips · · Score: 2

      Another important note is that the GAO is probably the most trustworthy and reliable portion of the U.S. Federal government from the public's point of view. They are sort of like Cassandra; they constantly give dire warnings about where the Feds are failing, they're almost always right, and nobody pays attention to them.

    2. Re:GAO = U.S. Government Accountability Office by sjbe · · Score: 2

      Another important note is that the GAO is probably the most trustworthy and reliable portion of the U.S. Federal government from the public's point of view.

      I agree that they are certainly up there with regard to trustworthiness. However they are hardly the only ones. I know it's super fashionable to claim that government is nothing but a bunch of crooks and that they can't do anything right but it's demonstrably not true. Government can be and often is a powerful force for good in society and while there is no denying that power often breeds/attracts corruption, for a government to be effective it cannot be universally incompetent and/or corrupt.

      Other generally regarded as trustworthy and normally competent portions of the US government? Here are a few though hardly an exhaustive list.
      1) Portions of the FAA
      2) The US Geological Survey
      3) The National Park Service
      4) US Army Corps of Engineers (make mistakes sometimes but nobody thinks they are crooks)
      5) National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
      6) US Fish and Wildlife Service
      7) US Coast Guard (and select other portions of the US military)
      8) The Secret Service (despite some recent embarrassing errors they're quite good at their job)
      9) The US Mint

  3. Still not as bad as Perkin-Elmer... by TWX · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...who ground the Hubble mirror wrong because the primary measuring instrument said it was right, even though two independent test instruments said it was wrong...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Still not as bad as Perkin-Elmer... by TWX · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... It was the biggest space-science story of 1990...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Still not as bad as Perkin-Elmer... by jbrandv · · Score: 2

      I worked for Ball Aerospace during this time frame. Before the final packaging for putting the telescope on the rocket, there was supposed to be a final laser alignment test to check the all the components and to make sure everything was alligned properly. (This test would have cost about $50000) But the government told Ball to skip the test as they knew everything was correct. This was done to save money. The Ball team objected but was overruled. The final alignment test was never done and we know the rest of the story. "Saving" that $50000 cost several billion to fix it in space instead of on the ground.

  4. I'm a hypocrite by Random+Nobody · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't give a fuck if they're doing blow and fucking hookers, I want my god damn Hubble successor.

    1. Re:I'm a hypocrite by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      hubble's big payoff mission was deep stare to the early universe in visible nand. Turns out there's a whole lot to learn out there, but redshift means it's better to look in IR if you're going to look that deep. So JWST's mission does follow from hubble's mission.

    2. Re:I'm a hypocrite by Drumhellar · · Score: 2

      These wouldn't be a very useful replacement for JWT. The JWT's 6.5m mirror is much larger than the NRO satellite's 2.4m mirror - giving it vastly superior light gathering capabilities and resolution. Even if interferometry were used with the pair, it only increases resolution, not light gathering capability. The NRO satellites are also wider angle, able to view an area 100x larger, making it good for survey work, but not planet hunting, and certainly not observing distant galaxies. They only view in the near infrared, as they lack hardware for cooling. JWT, on the other hand, can capture from long-visible to mid-infrared - that's what the cool looking sun shield is for, to have a mission length not limited by the amount of helium it can carry on board for cooling. So, no, we won't be looking anywhere near as far back in time as JWT with these - however, they will be eventually used, but just not before 2020, and for a mission with zero overlap of JWT.

  5. Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards by imidan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know the PP is a bit trolly, but it's important to note that the investigators that were denied access belong to the GAO, not to the Congress. The GAO has a generally good reputation as being non-partisan and being genuinely interested in reducing government waste.

  6. They're the boss. by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    I can understand the reluctance to speak to Congress, or their henchmen.

    I don't think you understand how federal programs work.

    In order to bid on a government project, you have to comply with *a lot* of rules. If you don't want to, you don't have to big on the project. They're just such an awfully big buyer that a lot of people are willing to comply with the rules.

    It's like any other moment in life when you're dealing with an annoying and overly demanding client. If you're very lucky you don't have to--but they do put the food on your table.

  7. Re: Government Contractors by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

    Funny, when I here government inspectors, I always think incompetence. But maybe I've just been working on telescopes and dealing with th government types who can't spell telescope for too long.

  8. the other way by supernova87a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Intimidated by the process"? More like intimidated by Northrop Grumman's supervisors being in the room to make sure they don't say anything that might, hmm, jeopardize their future at Northrop Grumman...

  9. Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    But the GAO has to make its findings public, or at least put it in congressional review reports. Congress persons are political animals by nature, both parties, and if they can take something out of context or cherry-pick bits and re-package them into a scary-sounding narrative to score political points, they will.

    Look how they mangled issues with emails, back-up systems, file formats, servers, hard-drive failure rates, etc. in the Lerner/IRS situation. (Granted, some of the mangling of IT concerns* may have been sheer ignorance instead of intentional political manipulation.)

    Transparency is a double-edge sword. I'm not choosing sides here, only saying that they are probably between a rock and a hard-place.

    * They probably also mangled non-IT subjects, such as law, but I don't know enough about those topics to readily spot mistaken notions or claims.

  10. Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

    I think that the reason is DoD. A really good telescope could as well be turned towards Earth

    You'd think that after President Clark did that with the planetary defense grid, any new deployments would have safety interlocks to prevent it from happening again.

  11. Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

    A really good telescope could as well be turned towards Earth to look at details on the surface.

    No. For two reasons:

    First, it's an IR telescope. The reason they're putting it in space is to get it away from Earth's atmosphere, which is opaque to the IR wavelengths it's designed to detect. Earth would look like a light bulb for all the IR it gives off and there is zero chance of seeing the surface.

    Second, even if it could somehow be used to see through the opaque atmosphere, it couldn't make out anything. The James Webb telescope has a claimed resolution of 0.1 arc-seconds. It's going to be put into the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrangian point, about 1.5 million km from the Earth. At that distance and resolution, each pixel of the image would be ~730 meters square... just under half a mile. Useless for any kind of surveillance.
    =Smidge=

  12. Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards by dcw3 · · Score: 2

    Isn't this a NASA project? If so, that's not DoD.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  13. Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How far back would you like to go? If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't have ever invaded them either, and ISIS wouldn't exist. But, much more recently, if we had left a stabilizing force, as many recommended, instead of removing everyone for political reasons, the same would be true.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  14. And Northrop is right to do it. by Puls4r · · Score: 3

    Fuck auditors. I have yet to meet a single auditor *ever* who is qualified enough to be asking questions of the experts - the engineers - who are working on the project. Almost universally the auditors work from a pre-made playbook that looks for the same thing. They have neither the time nor the intelligence to actually understand why decisions were made the way they were made.

    We recently had an quality audit at the manufacturing firm I work for. The auditor noted that several of our part-feeders had parts laying underneath, and broke into a full fledged 'teach moment' about how we could save money and lower scrap by correcting the feeding issues. I bit my tongue.

    At the wrap-up meeting with directors present, the auditor pressed the point. I was quiet as long as I could, then I carefully explained that we had a $2,000,000 capacity problem that our engineers were working on, and politely asked my director if he'd like me to pull those engineers off that to work on saving a couple dozen parts a day that cost a fraction of a penny a piece.

    Auditting rarely adds anything of value anywhere. If it were that easy to the correct the problems, the competent engineers would have already done it.

    1. Re:And Northrop is right to do it. by Mirar · · Score: 2

      I suspect auditors is behind a process I noted at a large American company I worked at for a bit:

      In the engineering office, the engineers were using laptops. The laptops were managed by a third party, which bought new parts from a fourth party through a fifith party.

      If one engineering laptop broke, it could take 2-3 weeks to get it repaired.

      In the meantime the engineer can't work, and just costs money. This happened, in my office, to a consultant - costing about a laptop a day.

      But in some budget somewhere I'm sure it looked cheaper than having a hired IT-guy in the office with a pile of spare laptops.