BETTER LATE THAN NEVER? An artist's conception of the James Webb Space Telescope.
Image: NASA
-
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 »
An independent review of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), a mammoth space-borne infrared observatory that should greatly surpass even the venerable Hubble Space Telescope in observing power, has revealed that the telescope will cost about $1.4 billion more than had been thought. And the telescope is likely to launch more than a year later than had been planned, according to the report, which was made public November 10.
The seven-member review panel, convened at the request of Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D–Md.), concluded that the complex observatory, which features a foldable, segmented mirror and a multilayer sunshade the size of a tennis court, is on sound technical footing. But the "badly flawed" budget presented to NASA Headquarters in 2008 by project staff did not include enough total funds, and the reserve funds that were added in to account for surprise costs were neither sufficient nor phased in during the years they would actually be needed.
The panel, chaired by John Casani of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, found fault both with the authors of that 2008 budget and with NASA Headquarters for not identifying the budget's flaws. "From a dollar standpoint it was just insufficient to carry out the work," Casani said in a November 10 teleconference about the report. "This is a very large, complex project, and to estimate to any degree of precision something that has never been done before is a tough job," he added later in the teleconference.
Casani's group, which included representatives from academia and industry, sought to determine the minimum cost and earliest launch date for JWST. The figures they came up with were a cost of $6.5 billion, up from a prior estimated cost of $5.1 billion, and a launch date of no sooner than September 2015. The telescope had previously been targeted for a June 2014 launch.
But both estimates, Casani noted, "would require funding in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 that would be substantially over what is in the president's request." In other words, political and economic realities may cause further slips of the launch date as well as additional cost increases. The project would need more than $250 million above what President Obama had requested for it in both 2011 and 2012 to meet the panel's targets.
"We're going to look at what we can do" to add money to JWST in the coming years, said NASA Associate Administrator Christopher Scolese, a top official at agency headquarters. "I think it's fair to say I doubt that we're going to find $200 million." Scolese said that NASA was heeding the suggestions made in the report, which included elevating JWST to a more visible program that reports directly to him. "We have some recommendations that we have to go off and deal with, and we will," he said.
Even though the project continues to eat up a large portion of NASA's astrophysics budget, it carries a stamp of approval from the astronomy community. The observatory was endorsed as the top-ranked large-scale project in the 2000 decadal survey, an influential National Research Council report that helps set funding priorities for the coming years. "James Webb is a hugely more powerful facility than Hubble, 100 times at least," said Garth Illingworth, an astronomer at the University of California Observatories who sat on the inquiry panel. "The science just underpins so much of what we're looking to do in the future."
And even with the harsh realities revealed by the new report, Scolese said that JWST's value should carry the day. "We believe that JWST will be a valuable tool for the astronomers; it will improve and enhance our view of the universe," he said. "We believe that we can bring forward a credible plan, and that with a credible plan it will be accepted."
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentOh, gee! A government project is late & over-budget! I feel faint with surprise & astonishment... NOT! Until bureaucracies change their internal culture by rewarding money-saving behavior, instead of institutionalized profligacy ("If we don't use up all this money, we won't get as much in the next budget."), all such projects will contain cost over-runs & scheduling errors. How about rewarding people (& groups) who bring projects in on time & under budget WITHOUT SACRIFICING QUALITY? Who knows? It could work. 0.0
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr like the guy said, when you do something nobody has ever come close to attempting before you simply cannot calculate the cost very accurately. What is the surprise in that? Lets see YOU design an object the size of a large building that can be folded up into a package smaller than a VW, stuffed inside a rocket, and unfold perfectly with practically 100% guaranteed reliability the first time. Oh, and it has to unfold into a telescope 1000x more powerful than Hubble (which btw means the shape it unfolds into has to be exact to within something like 1/2 wavelength). Yeah, didn't think so...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL... Yes, you're right. I definitely could not do that. Hell, I have difficulty making my bed in the morning & squishing last night's leftovers into the right-sized container. I'm not complaining. I love Hubble. I like the idea of NASA. I think that science for the sake of science is the ONLY way to really ADVANCE science; & if there are practical spin-offs, as there always are, then wooohoooo. I really was just saying, why be surprised? However, I will say this about estimating. I have for years done hourly contract work for which I have many times been asked, "How much?" I calculate the time I think it will take me & then I triple it. The larger number is seldom far off. Scientists building things they've never built before that must perform to the strictest of standards in the most difficult environment imaginable ought to calculate & then multiply by 10. That might be about accurate. I think people often forget to calculate the cost of things they have forgotten to consider. ;) In every field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPS: WHICH wavelength? *grinning*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt makes no sense to spend so much to fold this thing up,and send it up on one rocket.The first stupid thing about this idea is if it's lost you lose everything.While if you send it up on several rockets you can get rid of the costly compact design,and if you lose one you can send up another,and probably still end up spending less.I mean come on,what moron came up with this plan?I understand that some of this is new technology,but what is in thing that cost 6 billion +? At some point NASA needs to get it's act together or see it's funds cut to the point that nothing can be sent up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Jack.123,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you are not aware of how far away from Earth this telescope will be.
Like Starwars- it will be far,far away.
Ahhh yes, Bureaucracy, working as it should; hindering progress and results by spewing red-tape and paperwork, while the top-brass divvy up all the government funding amongst themselves for more cocaine and hookers.... :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn Monday, Nov. 15th, NASA has a press conference scheduled to announce some magnificent, astounding, utterly amazing object that Hubble has recently discovered. It is a tight secret what the heck it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I hope it is not is some type of publicity ploy to try to woo the new Congress to shell out more money for the new Hubble. I am a Teapublican but I do strongly support NASA and both its manned and unmanned programs.
Without a grand purpose or an over-arching goal humanity will just degenerate into hive socialism where the worker bees toil extremely hard for nothing and the whole community just keeps on doing exactly what its ancestors were doing a thousand generations ago.
What is the Tea Party's idea of a"grand purpose"? Isn't the effort to learn more about the universe's origins and the other life-supporting planets a grand purpose ? And what do you mean by "hive socialism"? Isn't the collective work among the world's scientists and space agencies a socialistic arrangement ? One might refer to the multi-national crews of the space shuttles and station as worker bees in an orbiting hive. I'm guessing that the "worker bees" referred to in the above post are all Tea Party supporters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't mater how far away something is if it never gets there.It will still be when it's said and done cheaper to sent it in several packages.What ever happened too not putting all ones eggs in on basket?It seem that now a day's it's damn the torpedoes lets blow it all on one launch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what happens when dreamers, bankers, and wealthy make the Decisions not Necessarily in that order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHubbell barely survived the ordeal.
It took enough pictures to show us what space was like far beyond our reach.
If or when they go to mars it will surly be as disappointing as the moon, they are uninhabitable.
We would do well to use all this money to solve problems here on this planet.