House Appropriations Committee Kills James Webb Telescope

  • Context: Stargazing 
  • Thread starter Thread starter signerror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    James webb Telescope
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proposed cancellation of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) by the House Appropriations Committee, focusing on the implications of its significant cost overruns and management issues. Participants explore the financial aspects, potential alternatives, and the broader impact on scientific research funding.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the drastic increase in JWST's budget from an initial estimate of $1.6 billion to $6.8 billion, attributing this to mismanagement within NASA.
  • Others argue that the cancellation of JWST would not be justified solely based on management failures, suggesting that the scientific value of the project should be the primary consideration.
  • A participant notes that the cost overruns could have funded multiple other projects, raising questions about the allocation of limited resources in scientific research.
  • Concerns are expressed about the opportunity costs associated with JWST's funding, including the potential loss of other high-priority missions like the Jupiter Europa Orbiter and WFIRST.
  • Some participants propose that comparisons to other projects, such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the National Ignition Facility, may not be entirely fair due to differing scopes and objectives.
  • There is a discussion about how much cost overrun should be tolerated before deciding to abandon a project, with varying opinions on the threshold for continuing funding.
  • One participant suggests that the sunk costs of JWST should not influence the decision to continue funding, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the scientific merit of the project against its projected costs.
  • Another participant questions the justification for spending on JWST compared to potential ground-based alternatives, such as the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the management of the JWST project and its financial implications. There is no consensus on whether to continue funding the project or to prioritize alternative scientific endeavors, indicating a contested discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions about project management, funding priorities, and the value of scientific research, with no resolution on the implications of the JWST's cost overruns or the best path forward for NASA's budget allocation.

  • #31


5.2B is already sunk, does it really make sense to axe it at this point?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32


Hells said:
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.
 
  • #33
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.
 
  • #34
D H said:
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.
 
  • #35


edpell said:
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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

Stargazing The James Webb Space Telescope construction
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
NASA House Panel Cuts Funds for NASA's Managed Space Exploration
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
9K
Undergrad Some questions about Cosmic Inflation
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K