This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Mars Cuts Save Webb – Now Webb Complains About Aftereffects of Being Saved

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 14, 2012
Filed under , , , , ,

Letter to Hillary Clinton and John Holdren: James Webb Space Telescope and our International Commitments, James Webb Space Telescope Advisory Committee (JSTAC)
“In this letter we wish to reiterate to the Administration the importance of JWST to our international partners and of our commitments to them. Through a series of unfortunate cancellations of planned NASA participation in key space science missions (e.g., Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, International X-Ray Observatory, ExoMars) the long-term US collaborative relationship with Europe through the European Space Agency has deteriorated substantially.”
Keith’s note: NASA cancels U.S. participation in ExoMars (and its associated international committments) to cover Webb Space Telescope cost overruns, and now the Webb community is citing this cancellation as a bad precedent – and then use this as an excuse to generate more support for Webb? This is both hilarious – and incredibly duplicitous.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

21 responses to “Mars Cuts Save Webb – Now Webb Complains About Aftereffects of Being Saved”

  1. rfsimpson2 says:
    0
    0

    Question: does JWST need HLV to place it in orbit?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      No.  NASA will launch it on an Ariane V

      • retired_geek says:
        0
        0

        OK, I’ll bite – why not a Delta IV Heavy?  Comparable lift capability and American made. 

        • ToSeek says:
          0
          0

           You’d like American taxpayers to put another $150 million (or thereabouts) toward JWST? NASA’s getting a launch vehicle at no cost to them – what’s to complain about?

        • Hallie Wright says:
          0
          0

          Pretty simple. It’s because ESA is a partner in JWST, and they’re buying the launcher. You want to use a Delta IV-H? OK, but ESA isn’t going to pay for it. So that’ll make JWST a $9.1B mission for the U.S.

        • Zed_WEASEL says:
          0
          0

          ESA is paying for the Ariane 5.

        • Brian Thorn says:
          0
          0

          The launch is ESA’s contribution to the mission. Besides, a Delta IV-Heavy would cost about three times more.

        • Stephen431 says:
          0
          0

          I think the Ariane V is about $80m cheaper…

          The real reason is the launch is part of ESA’s contribution to JWST, so technically it’s an ESA launch.

  2. hamptonguy says:
    0
    0

    JWST should have had a stake driven thru it last year.  Science is great but it is a zero sum game and this pig is eating far beyond its worth.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      hamptonguy,

      Are you saying that JWST is a zero sum game, or all of science?  Your wording makes it sound like science, and that makes no sense to me at all.

      Historically, science is the profession of a very small percentage of the population, but a high percentage of scientific discoveries end up benefiting the entire population, even though they may not know it.  So it seems to me that science is clearly an investment which pays off repeatedly; not everything in science pays off, but certainly enough to continue on the same path.  Almost all of the beneficial things we have in our lives — safety, better health, longer lives, conveniences, communications, transportation, and on an on — have their roots in science.  So, there’s nothing zero sum about it.

      If you meant space science or JWST specifically, that’s a tougher one to argue.  At the risk of sounding 1960ish, these things attempt to benefit the mind rather than the body, and appeal to a much smaller group of people.  But a a group, space science “fans” and the tax dollars probably spend far less every year than fans of other interests like football or lotteries.

      Steve

  3. hamptonguy says:
    0
    0

    Science is great but JWST should have been cancelled a year ago.  The budget is a zero sum game and this pig is eating far beyond its worth.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      hamptonguy,

      Considering the questions that JWST might help answer, I have no doubt that it, or something very much like it, will be done eventually.  Given the money situation and the growing public apathy and ignorance towards science in the US, NASA and Congress may have realized that if they didn’t finish it now, it might be a very long time before it did get done, at an even greater cost, throwing away the $$ already invested.  This is purely a guess on my part as to their motivations, and I have no evidence to support it.

      Steve

      • hamptonguy says:
        0
        0

        The money spent is gone regardless of what is done from this point on.  IS the billions to be spent between and its eventual launch and deployment (hopefully successful but there is risk) really worth it?  I just do not see it.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          hamptonguy,

          Is it really worth it?  That’s a fair question.  I guess it comes down to your personal priorities and interests.  Things would certainly be simpler if we all had the same priorities.  Myself, I think JWST is worth doing if the money is made available.  But is it worth slashing Mars exploration, etc.?  That’s a much tougher question, but again, it’s a matter of personal opinion.  The frustrating thing to me is that the decision about whether to continue JWST was made entirely for political reasons, and I think the potential benefits and public opinion were given very little consideration.  But then again, if this sort of decision were made based on the opinions of public majority we’d probably have no space science at all.

          Steve

  4. ejd1984 says:
    0
    0

    Rumors at GSFC is that the International X-Ray Observatory may not be dead………

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      If this is true, I’d say it’s not really something you want to admit on a popular public blog.  There are NASA Watch regulars from several continents, including several European countries.

      Steve

    • solarpup says:
      0
      0

       No, IXO is dead.  However, and this is all very public, NASA had an RFI
      (request for information) that *if* money became available to do an
      X-ray mission, what would you do that could address *some* fraction of
      IXO science.  Why does it need to address IXO science?  Even though IXO
      is dead (dead, dead, and dead… really…), it’s *science* was still
      rated highly in the decadal report, and those are the parameters that
      should be addressed.  In response to the RFI, various groups proposed
      mission concepts that ranged from $300M to $2B.  Several of the science
      concepts will go to the GSFC mission design lab for evaluation.  That’s
      it.  *None* of these are IXO.  *None* of these are “real” missions. 
      They are concepts that address a *fraction* of IXO science, which again,
      was highly rated by the decadal.  Will money become available?  Who the
      hell knows. But $300M is a SMEX, and Lord knows anything >$2B won’t
      happen.  So, those are reasonable ranges in which to explore concepts. 
      And if you don’t prepare, you won’t be ready if something does happen to
      open up.  It’s like LOTTO – you’ve got to be in it, to win it.  You
      probably *won’t* win it, but if you don’t prepare, you *definitely*
      won’t win it.  That’s all that’s going on at the moment.  Really.

  5. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    These people are so shameless it’s remarkable. They really can’t be let off the hook. It should be a career ending project for the individuals involved in managing its costs. Whenever I heard quotes like this, I takes me back to around 2001 and 2002, pre-Columbia, when some of the very same individuals involved in the JWST were ranting about how human spaceflight and the ISS is so wasteful considering that better cheaper science was being done by space telescopes (Hubble) and rovers like Mars Pathfinder.

    Now here we are, a decade later and the successors of those two programs have been textbook cases in what not to do. I’m not sure whats worse: that billions are being sunk into a mirror technology that will never be used at this scale, in this way for another 30 years, or the MSL’s $700 million “tainted component” cost overrun.The $9.7 billion space telescope with a five year lifetime should simply not exist. No matter what it discovers, the project team needs to have that number thrown at them every time they try to justify it. 

  6. dphuntsman says:
    0
    0

    I remain astonished to, money aside, how the single biggest risk to space science remains, that is: that an entire $8b program will be riding on a single rocket launch. It doesn’t matter which rocket; none on Earth are THAT reliable to base $8b, and the future of space astronomy for decades, on a single launch. It is an unacceptable, even irresponsible, risk.

  7. Andrew Gasser says:
    0
    0

    The arrogance of JWST is sickening.  We should rename JWST because it besmirches a good name.  JWST is continuing to destroy SMD and NASA leadership just doesn’t care.

    How many different things could we have done with $8.8 billion?

    And what happens September 30, 2012 when we find out that JWST now will bust $9 billion?

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space