House Appropriations Committee Kills James Webb Telescope

In summary, the House Appropriations Committee has proposed to cancel the James Webb Space Telescope due to ballooning costs and project mismanagement. Originally estimated to cost $1.6 billion, it now has a price tag of $6.8 billion and may require even more funding. This has sparked criticism and worry in Congress and the scientific community. Some argue that the cost overruns could have funded multiple other projects, such as three ground-based telescope arrays. However, others argue that space telescopes are a top priority for NASA and eliminating all human projects may not be the best solution. Ultimately, the decision to cancel the telescope raises questions about how much cost overrun is acceptable for a project before it is deemed too expensive to continue.
  • #36


Vanadium 50 said:
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.

That salary seems high, I know postdocs who worked on the project who made substantially less money. If its like most scientific projects, there are probably many more postdocs and graduate students attached than full time people.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #37


ParticleGrl said:
That salary seems high, I know postdocs who worked on the project who made substantially less money. If its like most scientific projects, there are probably many more postdocs and graduate students attached than full time people.

That number seems incredibly low. Even grad students get benefits, have an office or a cubicle, have computer on which they can work, get paid, are managed, and so on. There are costs associated with each. Vanadium 50 was presumably talking about the fully loaded cost: salary plus benefits plus overhead plus general and administrative plus other fees plus profit.

This is not a scientific project. It is a development project. There should not be all that many grad students and postdocs working on a development project. If there were, that is yet another sign of mismanagement.
 
  • #38


I am also counting the supply chain - if you buy a widget, someone has to be hired to make the widget (and the subwidgets, etc.)

Anyway, the $100,000 is a rule of thumb, averaged over everything. Scientists are more expensive, temporary laborers, less.
 
  • #39


Vanadium 50 said:
JWST's cost overuns alone would allow one to launch two more Hubbles (with good mirrors 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.

Gosh, V50, you're a genius. The Senate just capped JWST at $8B to launch, $700M to operate.

Vanadium 50 said:
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.

A genius again. The money for JWST in 2012 came out of WFIRST, who was told "try again next year". That's not enough, so some other mission or missions will be cancelled.
 

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
7K
Replies
58
Views
11K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top