PRIMARY MIRROR SEGMENT, one of six in the James Webb Space Telescope, is prepped to begin final cryogenic testing at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
Image: NASA/MSFC/David Higginbotham
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
From Nature magazine
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is perilously overbudget and under threat of cancellation, but Naturehas learned that it may be offered a financial lifeline. The flagship observatory is currently funded entirely through NASA's science division; now NASA is requesting that more than US$1 billion in extra costs be shared 50:50 with the rest of the agency. The request reflects administrator Charles Bolden's view, expressed earlier this month, that the telescope is a priority not only for the science programme, but for the entire agency.
NASA expects that the total cost of getting the 6.5-metre telescope to the launch pad by 2018 will be about $8 billion, around $1.5 billion more and three years later than an independent panel predicted in November 2010. Because in the next few years agency budgets are likely to be flat at best, scientists had feared that the JWST would end up swallowing the $1-billion astrophysics budget whole, or at least heavily eroding the $5-billion science-division budget. The new proposal would scrape money from other corners of the agency's $18-billion budget, which also supports programmes such as aeronautics, technology development and human spaceflight. Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, says he is glad that the agency is making the JWST a priority. "There's an acknowledgement that the science budget can't solve this on its own," says Mountain, whose institute operates the Hubble Space Telescope and is preparing to do the same for the JWST.
The proposal to share the JWST's costs across the agency is part of a 'replan' developed by NASA after the independent panel criticized the project's management and found it to be colossally overbudget (see Nature 468, 353–354; 2010). The plan has been under consideration for weeks by the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has an oversight role in setting budgets. NASA declined to comment on the cost-sharing aspects of the plan, but spokesman Trent Perrotto notes that five years of operational costs will bring the telescope's overall price tag up to $8.7 billion. If the OMB rejects the plan, it would cast further doubt on whether the JWST will ever fly, because a House of Representatives committee has already voted, on 13 July, to cancel the telescope.
The drama surrounding the JWST is clearly on the mind of Bolden, NASA's highest official. On 2 August, before a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council began, Bolden told an assembly of dozens of advisers that the JWST is now one of the agency's top three priorities.
The first is to continue to support the development of commercial rockets able to carry people to and from the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit, a goal of companies such as Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California. Second is the development of a heavy-lift rocket that can take astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit to reach objects such as nearby asteroids. Both of these activities would fall under the aegis of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, which was formed on 12 August in a merger of the programme that operated the now-retired space-shuttle fleet and the programme that began the development of the Constellation rockets, part of the now-cancelled project to return to the Moon. That Bolden's third priority is the JWST "makes it clear that he's going to be fighting for it", says Alan Boss, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution of Science in Washington DC and chair of a NASA astrophysics advisory subcommittee.
Even allowing for cost-sharing within the agency, lawmakers on Capitol Hill would have to cough up more money for NASA than recommended by the House committee if it is to turn all of Bolden's priorities into realities. In September, when Congress returns from recess, it is expected to resume the appropriations process for the 2012 fiscal year. All eyes will be on the Senate and Barbara Mikulski (Democrat, Maryland) to see how strongly she fights for the JWST project, which is being managed in her state.
If the OMB approves NASA's plan — and if lawmakers oblige by appropriating enough money — astronomers should consider themselves lucky. Some observers suggest that if the science division has to cover only half of the JWST's overruns, it could do so without delaying or cancelling any other missions.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentYou know, as wonderful as manned spaceflight is in concept maybe it is time to admit that we simply don't know what our priorities are at this point and the limited amount of manned capability we DO understand that we need is handled by the COTS program. What would be the point of spending several MORE billion on technology designed to accomplish some sort of nebulous deep space exploration goal that is neither well defined nor who's goals are well articulated. The chances are very high such a program will simply scope creep its way to gigantic overruns, produce mediocre results, and in turn end up being canceled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter to scale back, let COTS run its course for several years, see what the commercial providers can actually do, focus on other important considerations like space medicine and other necessary aspects of long duration missions, and THEN when we've made our minds up good and well then do the next thing well and wholeheartedly. In the meantime space science and Earth monitoring can be funded adequately.
We also may find in 10 or 20 years that our notions about how to go about manned exploration will have evolved. Maybe we'll decide to partner with the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese and our technology needs will be considerably different.
Amen to that. Heck, I'd love to see a really ambitious and successful manned program too. I just think it needs more thought or a MUCH larger budget. Probably both...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll we need to do is give NASA 10% of the money we gave away to the billionaire bankers this year alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring these times, we have a humanitarian obligation to focus our resources to help the human condition. Such projects as the Webb Telescope for pure science only and need to be put on hold for the time being until we are able to create new industries to employ people so they can feed their families and put a roof over their heads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis does not mean that NASA need to shut down. Their scientists and engineers need to redirect their focus to develop sources of energy such as safe nuclear power plants. We also need to find ways to grow food in arid lands during a drought. We need better ways to prevent the spread of diseases. As I see it, projects such as these are bound to lead to technologies that will be useful for space travel sometime in the future.
We need to find windfalls for space travel from solving problems here on Earth. We can't afford to wait patiently for something to trickle down from NASA's current projects.
Several posters here seem to have little idea what a telescope is useful for since the moon is already visable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJWST is a CRITICAL, SEMINAL project that MUST fly.
Perhaps some of the same posters here also critisized the cost overruns of the Hubble, and there were many.
When it actually did fly, it was a flop with a badly polished mirror that required millions more to fix!
What did humans get back for this budget folly? Only an astonishing, unimagined view of the universe that shook astonony from top to bottom.
The JWST is the successor to the Hubble. It will have capabilites that the Hubble totally lacks. It may be able to find new earths, just to name drop.
Perhaps a few Tea Party folks are not interested, thinking the universe is only a few thousand years old in any case, right?
And at the other end of politics, humans cannot, cannot devote all of their resources to the support of those unwilling to pull their own weight. The universe is waiting for those of us with the vision to venture out and claim it. JWST will give us that vision.
"Their [NASA] scientists and engineers need to redirect their focus to develop sources of energy such as safe nuclear power plants." Indeed, American universities produce not enough nuclear physicists to care care of the [alleged] problem, so let's add rocket scientists into the mix. The more people, the merrier!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome "Rocket Scientists" are developing highly efficient and light weight nuclear power plants to drive ion engines which are used for long range space probes. Thermal piles (Nuclear Batteries) have been in use for decades to power military satellites. In the nineteen-fifties, rocket scientist built and test fired a nuclear rocket engine. It was never used because of concerns over radioactive contamination should it crash. Those rocket scientists have an incredible amount knowledge regarding atomic energy. Many of the best scientists in the country are employed as rocket scientists. Think of what they might be able to do for more domestic projects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe britons collected money from the interested people to keep flying an old surplus Avro Delta Wing Nuclear Bomber.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay be some people would be interested in voluntarily contributing to that kind of progress of science, even more if they get tax reductions as corporations do.
Given a choice, I'd have NASA spend my tax dollars on the JWST.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJWST is a flawed plan. One time shots that need to be perfect never happen. Imagine if Hubble were placed in deep space? It would be just a piece of space junk. We were lucky that it was in low orbit and that it could be repaired. How many times must we learn this lesson?????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlace a big scope in low Earth orbit where it can be reached with cheap robotic machines that can repair and upgrade a space telescope platform. Design the platform for upgrades with replaceable modules. As technologies improve, upgrade the scope. Design filler tanks so that propellant can be refueled with robot rockets to keep the thrusters fueled. The platform can be up there forever.
Get scientist out of the design and manufacturing processes. They are pie in the sky and will always crash the mission.
I want a great, super space telescope that will last several life times. Imagine if the Hubble were designed with upgrades in the design rather than ad hoc repairs and band-aids.
Nuclear safety is hinged upon that abandoned tunnel in Yucca mountain. I doubt assigning NASA personnel digging it would either contribute to the project completion, or make those researchers happy [with their new assignment].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right, of course, but think what it will do for the development of autonomous robotics for the repair missions!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is great news. Now if NASA could just figure out how to successfully launch a mission for monitoring the earth's surface temps and carbon sources (I believe two such attempts have failed to open into orbit in the last 36 months) then the agency could really be proud of it's continued services.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this