House Appropriations Committee Kills James Webb Telescope

[signerror]

Or it might as well be, the result would be the same. Dennis Overbye in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/science/07webb.html"

Panel Proposes Killing Webb Space Telescope

The House Appropriations Committee proposed Wednesday to kill the James Webb Space Telescope, the crown jewel of NASA’s astronomy plans for the next two decades.

The telescope, named after a former administrator of NASA, is the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, and it was designed to study the first stars and galaxies that emerged in the first hundred million years or so after the Big Bang.

It was supposed to be launched in 2014, but NASA said last year that the project would require at least an additional $1.6 billion and several more years to finish, because of mismanagement.

According to this article (found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope" ), the project cost ballooned from $1.6 billion to a current $6.8 billion, which I would imagine made it a conspicuous target.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110605/NEWS01/110604013/Telescope-debacle-devours-NASA-funds"

According to this NASA budget, spending on James Webb in 2010 was $439 million, compared with spending on frivolous nonsense such as $3.3 billion for "Human Exploration Capabilities", $3.1 billion for the Space Scuttle, and $2.3 billion for the International Space Westin.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516674main_NASAFY12_Budget_Estimates-Overview-508.pdf"

 

[mege]

Drunks with hammers? You mean the NASA folks that floundered several billion dollars? (and want more)

It's tragic that the telescope may be cancelled, but the fault isn't that of Congress (unless there's some directives they gave which caused price bloating that I don't know about). I find it very interesting that the NYT article doesn't give the total price tag or reasons which would let congress off the hook, but instead focuses on the 'tragedy for cosmology' with as few facts as possible in an attempt to indict congress.

The Florida Today piece you linked had a segment which I think describes it accurately:

The Independent Comprehensive Review Panel concluded NASA needed to make immediate management changes mostly because leaders had not questioned and verified enough of what they were being told. The review panel recommended NASA headquarters take control, starting with a new cost estimate and schedule more in line with reality.


The experts’ estimate Webb might now cost $6.8 billion sparked criticism and worry in Congress and the scientific community.


“Simply put, we are not in the business of cost overruns,” said U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, chair of a NASA oversight committee, in a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. Bolden later said he will stretch the telescope’s schedule, and budget, rather than ask Congress for more money in the short term.

 

[Born2bwire]

Yeah, as much as I hate seeing scientific research funding being cut, we can't reward such inextricably bad management here. The bottom line is that this is a program that has overrun its originally approved budget by 425%. Look at it this way, they originally thought they could do this on a budget X. What other kinds of projects can be done with $X? Continuing to fund this project means we've lost funding for 3 of those projects. Not that I'm under the illusion that Congress would give up the extra money regardless but the point is that there are limited funds and we need to start thinking about what projects are really worth putting money into.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

$6.8 billion is a truly monumental amount of money to be applied on a single project in science... It seems pretty amazing to me that this single telescope would cost that much money- the entire National Ignition Facility cost less than 5 billion!

Imagine the size of a ground-based telescope array that could be built for 6.8 billion, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telescope" was estimated to cost around $2.1bil in a feasability study, maybe we should build 3 of them with money to spare?

 

[signerror]

$6.8 billion is a truly monumental amount of money to be applied on a single project in science... It seems pretty amazing to me that this single telescope would cost that much money- the entire National Ignition Facility cost less than 5 billion!

Imagine the size of a ground-based telescope array that could be built for 6.8 billion, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telescope" was estimated to cost around $2.1bil in a feasability study, maybe we should build 3 of them with money to spare?

But are those fair comparisons? Hubble cost $1.5 billion at launch ($2.5 billion inflation-adjusted), and $10 billion over its entire program.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/09/us/telescope-is-set-to-peer-at-space-and-time.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137040818/scientists-undeterred-by-hubble-successors-costs

Yeah, as much as I hate seeing scientific research funding being cut, we can't reward such inextricably bad management here. The bottom line is that this is a program that has overrun its originally approved budget by 425%. Look at it this way, they originally thought they could do this on a budget X. What other kinds of projects can be done with $X? Continuing to fund this project means we've lost funding for 3 of those projects. Not that I'm under the illusion that Congress would give up the extra money regardless but the point is that there are limited funds and we need to start thinking about what projects are really worth putting money into.

Aren't space telescopes supposed to be one of the top priorities of NASA, in terms of actual science? James Webb suffered ugly project mismanagement, but then so do most government megaprojects. The Space Shuttle cost $196 billion. The ISS cost ~$100 billion, and it'll be deorbited as soon as it is completed.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-05/news/29739531_1_shuttle-program-deputy-nasa-administrator-hans-mark

http://www.space.com/9435-international-space-station-worth-100-billion.html

If there's prioritizing to be done, I say eliminate all human projects and spend on actual science.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How large a cost overrun should be tolerated before throwing in the towel? $1B? $10B? $100B? At some point you have to draw a line.

JWST's cost overuns alone would allow one to launch two more Hubbles (with good mirrirs this time) and three more Spitzers. And $6.8B is optimistic - assuming a 2018 launch. Make it 2020 or 2021 and it will be $8B or 8.5B.

Put another way, the JWST overruns have already cost the space program MAX-C and LISA, and put the final nail in the coffin of the Terrestrial Planet Finder. It is about to cost us the Jupiter Europa Orbiter and quite possibly a Uranus orbiter. It is putting WFIRST (the last surviving top priority project) in a very precarious position, in part because the WFIRST proposed cost is exactly that of the JWST proposed cost.

 

[DaleSwanson]

On the one hand:
While it is awful that the money has been so mismanaged, once the management is fired how would continuing the project be rewarding mismanagement? The money spent so far is a sunk cost and shouldn't weigh in on the debate to continue funding or not. The only question that matters is if the science is worth the $x billion more it will cost.

On the other hand:
Mech_Engineer raises a good point about the OLT. While doing things in space has a certain awesome factor, I find it hard to justify spending more for a telescope that will be less capable.

 

[mege]

But are those fair comparisons? Hubble cost $1.5 billion at launch ($2.5 billion inflation-adjusted), and $10 billion over its entire program.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/09/us/telescope-is-set-to-peer-at-space-and-time.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137040818/scientists-undeterred-by-hubble-successors-costs




Aren't space telescopes supposed to be one of the top priorities of NASA, in terms of actual science? James Webb suffered ugly project mismanagement, but then so do most government megaprojects. The Space Shuttle cost $196 billion. The ISS cost ~$100 billion, and it'll be deorbited as soon as it is completed.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-05/news/29739531_1_shuttle-program-deputy-nasa-administrator-hans-mark

http://www.space.com/9435-international-space-station-worth-100-billion.html

If there's prioritizing to be done, I say eliminate all human projects and spend on actual science.

1) For all it's underachieving, the space shuttle has accomplished many different missions. It alone helped enable hundreds of projects at (I'd expect) lower cost than a disposable launch. My main point is: comparing the multi-mission space shuttle to a single (or limited) mission device like the JWST isn't proper. They're apples and watermelons.
2) The ISS has cost the US 'only' 1/2 of the total, and again - it's accomplishing many different projects simultaneously and throughout it's lifecycle.
3) Regarding hubble: once it proved itself, they started add/changing components to update it. But that was after it proved itself as a resource, so we got 3-5 generations of equipment out of the HST for the cost of what it's going to be to START the JWST.
4) Human projects: I think they already are prioritizing away manned flight, esspecially since the cancellation of the Constelation program.


Your comparison, IMO, is like trying to justify the cost of a single ornate Mississippi river bridge by comparing it to the entire cost of the Eisenhower Interstate System. They're different scales, different usages, and different functionalities. Both are ways for vehicles to travel and the money may come from the same place, but the similarities stop there and they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[kgbgru]

Personally I'd like to see them bring back JIMO, but I hate for JWST to die because of bureaucratic nonsence and poor management within NASA. I understand the need to hurl humans into space but we often forget how much we can learn just by looking and watching.

 

[WhoWee]

Given this is a Politics thread - I'm in favor of adding little boxes to the tax return document - donate (from your return) $10, $20, $50, $100 - and a write-in box - for direct investment in whatever agency needs cash - show a list. Even a poor person receiving a $5,000 EITC can "afford" $10.

 

[Dadface]

One thing for sure is that it is a beautiful structure.If they scrap it I'm going to try to retrieve it from the rubbish bins and assemble it as an ornament in my garden.

 

[D H]

First and foremost, the federal government has to cut spending everywhere. They are currently spending more than 40% more than they take in. The easiest place to cut is that small 10% or so sliver of the federal budget on non-defense discretionary spending. As NASA is a small sliver of that small sliver, NASA can only look forward to substantial cuts.

One thing for sure is that it is a beautiful structure.

That "beautiful structure" is a big part of the problem. It is a beautiful but incredibly convoluted and expensive structure. A smaller, monolithic structure wouldn't have been near so pretty, but it would have cost a lot less, and the science would have still been top-notch. The design decision to double the diameter (and hence quadruple the area) did not take into account that doing so would more than quadruple the cost but would yield a lot less than quadruple the science outcome. Sometimes making things bigger/better makes sense because of economies of scale. Economy of scale is not a given. Sometimes you get diseconomies of scale, and that is exactly what happened with JWST.

According to this NASA budget, spending on James Webb in 2010 was $439 million, compared with spending on frivolous nonsense such as $3.3 billion for "Human Exploration Capabilities", $3.1 billion for the Space Scuttle, and $2.3 billion for the International Space Westin.

There's no reason to do that. There are plenty of people, including congresscritters, who could make derogatory remarks about space science. To many people, human spaceflight is the primary reason NASA deserves any funding whatsoever. Others think that human spaceflight and space science should somehow complement one another. It is only a very small minority who think space science is the primary reason NASA deserves any funding whatsoever.

 

[Vanadium 50]

On the one hand: While it is awful that the money has been so mismanaged, once the management is fired how would continuing the project be rewarding mismanagement?

Once management is fired? That will never happen. NASA has convinced themselves and Congress that the are the only people who can manage this and that whoever they put in charge is the best possible person, and even in the case of a complete disaster, nobody could have done better. They may be right.

The way you manage a $500M or less project is different than the way you manage a $5B project. In the former case, you keep to your budget religiously. In the latter case, you make the most recklessly optimistic baseline budget you think you can get away with, and then once too much money has been committed to back out, then you start overrunning.

The problem with an honest estimate here is that even if you provide one, Congress will think you are lowballing and will double the price in their heads anyway.

The money spent so far is a sunk cost and shouldn't weigh in on the debate to continue funding or not. The only question that matters is if the science is worth the $x billion more it will cost.

It's overrunning at about $500M per year. That's one Spitzer (or equivalent) every 18 months.

 

[KenJackson]

... I'm in favor of adding little boxes to the tax return document - donate (from your return) $10, $20, $50, $100 - and a write-in box - for direct investment in whatever agency needs cash - show a list. ...

That's a good-hearted thought. But foolish.

If you work, you've been sending thousands of Social Security dollars to Washington every year to save or invest for your retirement. But has Congress saved or invested your hard-earned money? No! They've wantonly squandered it on anything they though would get them reelected.

If you give Congress more money for project X, they'll take the money, ignore your designation and use it as they see fit.

 

[KenJackson]

I can't condemn the condemnation of any project that runs so far over budget.

But it should be noted why this thing cost so much to begin with. I think it was this article in Scientific American magazine (though I can't seem to access it now even though I subscribe) that explained how they are making those beautiful mirrors.

They are made out of beryllium because it's so lightweight. But like everything, they will warp when subjected to near absolute zero of space. So how do they account for the warping? They ship the pieces to some facility in Huntsville, Alabama that lowers the temperature to something like 50K while they measure the warping and compare with what it has to be to get an in-spec image. Then they ship it back and grind it some more. And the cycle repeats.

 

[WhoWee]

That's a good-hearted thought. But foolish.

If you work, you've been sending thousands of Social Security dollars to Washington every year to save or invest for your retirement. But has Congress saved or invested your hard-earned money? No! They've wantonly squandered it on anything they though would get them reelected.

If you give Congress more money for project X, they'll take the money, ignore your designation and use it as they see fit.

I must disagree - if given a choice - I'll designate thousands of my tax dollars to projects that might someday help mankind progress - rather than give my money to a bum that games he system and chooses not to work! Again - IMO!

 

[MTd2]

Who am I to criticize? I am not an US citizen. But cutting back of this extraordinary mission and other important missions and increasing the military spending is a way to accelerate the demise of USA as the most powerful country. It is fair and democratic in the long run, given that India and China have both together 9 times the population of USA, so they deserve to have an opportunity to lead the science as soon as possible.

But given that it will just take too long, if I were an US citizen, I would gladly plead for an increase of, say 20% in taxes, even in my earnings, overall, to keep and improve such missions.

 

[DaveC426913]

drunks with hammers?

You are the winner of 10 million dollars!
(...is what we could be saying to you if you fill out this form...)

I look forward to your next post, where you try to get my attention with mention of the bat faced boy from The Enquirer...


hmph.

 

[mege]

Who am I to criticize? I am not an US citizen. But cutting back of this extraordinary mission and other important missions and increasing the military spending is a way to accelerate the demise of USA as the most powerful country. It is fair and democratic in the long run, given that India and China have both together 9 times the population of USA, so they deserve to have an opportunity to lead the science as soon as possible.

But given that it will just take too long, if I were an US citizen, I would gladly plead for an increase of, say 20% in taxes, even in my earnings, overall, to keep and improve such missions.

In the case of NASA cuts - it's not a zero sum game. Much of the military spending is non-budgetary anyhow (there are some effects, but they're not tugging from other things like you may think). NASA is seeing cuts because of it's lack of management and an overall tightening of strings - which because of it's cost overruns across the board is being hit doubly hard. Blaming the 'wars' for NASA's budget problems that have been going on for decades doesn't really hold much weight.

 

[MTd2]

So, the extra costs of war in Afghanistan, the countless military bases of US around the world are not a non budgetary spending?

 

[mege]

So, the extra costs of war in Afghanistan, the countless military bases of US around the world are not a non budgetary spending?

The 'war' in Afghanistan was just now partially budgeted for the first time in 2010or 2011(I forget which cycle it actually hit?). Before that it was all non-budgetary. There's still a chunk that's appropriated outside the budget.

The military bases are budgetary. I wonder how the economy of Frankfurt, Germany would be doing if it wasn't for that large military presence? Many of the bases are from past arrangements with the local countrys and not just unilateral US presences (esspecailly the largest bases). It would take both the US, the host country, and maybe another governing body (NATO, etc) to agree to let them go. With as integral as those bases have become to some of those localities - I doubt the locals want to see them go any time soon.

While many see the bases are just raw one-sided hegemony, there is definatly more to it than that.

 

[MTd2]

So, the ideal would be retreat all bases, retreat in all war missions, cut the budget and non budgetary money at least by 80%, excluding those for paycheck and routine maintenance. The cut military contract all be converted into civilian projects.

 

[D H]

But given that it will just take too long, if I were an US citizen, I would gladly plead for an increase of, say 20% in taxes, even in my earnings, overall, to keep and improve such missions.

Most US citizens beg to differ. Valid or not, the general perception in this country is that taxes are already too high. Moreover, a 20% across the board increase in the tax rate will not solve the US budget problem. Things will still need to be cut. Projects such as this that are mismanaged, over budget, behind schedule are still going to be targets for those necessary cuts.

 

[MTd2]

Yeah, I am aware of that. I was just saying what I would do to keep the leadership of my country. Although I have no proof that this project is considerably mismanaged, given that a lot of technologies had to developed and so over budget was necessary and also possibly rewarding.

Oh well, what can I say? Because of this culture, rewarding military and personal overspending with useless vanity products, instead of science, that USA will fail soon. I hope China will have a science minded attitude when they take over the 1st spot of USA in 6 years or so.

If JWST is cancelled, this will be the historic mark, for me, that the high spot of USA has entered in the stage of decline.

 

[mege]

Yeah, I am aware of that. I was just saying what I would do to keep the leadership of my country. Although I have no proof that this project is considerably mismanaged, given that a lot of technologies had to developed and so over budget was necessary and also possibly rewarding.

Oh well, what can I say? Because of this culture, rewarding military and personal overspending with useless vanity products, instead of science, that USA will fail soon. I hope China will have a science minded attitude when they take over the 1st spot of USA in 6 years or so.

If JWST is cancelled, this will be the historic mark, for me, that the high spot of USA has entered in the stage of decline.

Even with all of the US's overspending, as you put it, the country still spends 3x more on space per year than all of Europe combined. (~18bill for NASA and ~4.5bill for the ESA and 1bill each in Italy and Frace).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Even with all of the US's overspending, as you put it, the country still spends 3x more on space per year than all of Europe combined. (~18bill for NASA and ~4.5bill for the ESA and 1bill each in Italy and Frace).

Bloody Frace and it's lack of spending

 

[MTd2]

Even with all of the US's overspending, as you put it, the country still spends 3x more on space per year than all of Europe combined. (~18bill for NASA and ~4.5bill for the ESA and 1bill each in Italy and Frace).

Yes, I am aware of that too, but I don't want to think about mediocrity. And this makes me even sadder. The whole mankind, as if they would bother anyway, will "suffer" because of USA's internal affairs.

But thinking about big projects, in general, what will remain within a few years? National Ignition Facility focus is to simulate nuclear explosions, so I think results will mostly remain confidential.

The only one that will remain will be probably LHC, in Europe. There are lots of smaller ones, but they are "smaller" like in "early projections" of JWST, like LISA.

 

[mege]

Yes, I am aware of that too, but I don't want to think about mediocrity. And this makes me even sadder. The whole mankind, as if they would bother anyway, will "suffer" because of USA's internal affairs.

But thinking about big projects, in general, what will remain within a few years? National Ignition Facility focus is to simulate nuclear explosions, so I think results will mostly remain confidential.

The only one that will remain will be probably LHC, in Europe. There are lots of smaller ones, but they are "smaller" like in "early projections" of JWST, like LISA.

If it's such an international travesty, why hasn't another government stepped up to the plate to fund it? Maybe if the US spent less on defense then it would force Europe to spend more on defense because of the power vacuum - where would their space funding be then?

 

[MTd2]

I see 2 power vacuums here and 1 bloating problem. One vacuum is due the lack of competition from USSR. This killed SSC and Venture Star, there is no reason to boost nationalism anymore. The second vacuum is the move of tangible production to the far East together with the moving of expertise. That depletes too fast the base pillar of all pyramid schemes of these economic bubbles.

The bloating it is that there is not an army based enemy anymore like the USSR, no clear targets, so all justifications and projects for war do not have clear dates for completion, objectives and so are bloated. Probably much worse than in NASA case, since, as you said (and I didn't know), there are a lot of things that are not even budgeted.

 

[edpell]

Where did NASA spend this money? I would like to see a breakdown of the costs for this project. How many people were employed on this? How much did they cost with complete overhead?

 

[Hells]

5.2B is already sunk, does it really make sense to axe it at this point?

 

[edpell]

5.2B is already sunk, does it really make sense to axe it at this point?

If the management is funding things unrelated to the project that is important to know and fix for future projects. If the loaded cost of NASA personnel is so bloated that no project can be done at reasonable cost that is important to know and fix for future projects.

 

[D H]

The first two pages of the portion of the committee report (http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/CJS_REPORT.pdf; NASA starts on page 68) scolds NASA for failing to control costs. The committee is making an example of NASA's failure to control costs with JWST and is serving a severe warning to NASA to get its act in line.

 

[edpell]

The first two pages of the portion of the committee report (http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/CJS_REPORT.pdf

They are pretty harsh. Basically NASA has no idea what level of development projects are at, when projects will finish, how much projects will cost.

I still would love to see how many people's salaries were paid out of this project.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I still would love to see how many people's salaries were paid out of this project.

About 5000, counting NASA, contractors and the supply chain. The budget is $500M a year, and it costs about $100,000 a year in salary, wages, fringes and taxes to hire a "typical" worker.