5 ms·

Holy shit! This just happened: http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=250023 http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.a

Holy shit! This just happened: http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=250023 http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Doc... $4.5 billion for NASA Science programs, which is $431 million below last year’s level. The bill also terminates funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, which is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management.

nate_meurer 15y ago
Yep, especially shitty since the project is so far along. It needs to be said that JWST isn't primarily over-budget because of technical problems, but because they didn't do realistic cost and time estimates in the first place. Overall, the project has suffered very few technical surprises.
- TheCondor 15y ago
  So what does this mean? We just shit can it? Or it sits on a shelf for a couple years or what? If we want to save money, shouldn't we kill something before we start it?
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    Projects of this complexity are difficult to mothball, and the costs of restarting are very high. We've seen that with the F-22 fighter. What we really need are politicians who can grasp the ROI of basic science (which is what I believe the JWST is) and have the will to prioritize it. Sadly, politicians with both brains and courage are a rare breed.
    - jamesbritt 15y ago
      You say that like politicians with either brains or courage is somehow not rare.
mturmon 15y ago
Thanks for that link. People should know that there's a lot of turmoil in the astrophysics community about JWST. In current plans, JWST overruns have resulted in elimination or long-term postponement of all other NASA astrophysics missions in the next decade. Even non-flight-project research is being cut significantly.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  I am utterly incapable of intelligently commenting on the cost effectiveness of this telescope, but I will note that all of NASA's current money problems could be solved by allocating it just a tiny fraction of what we instead wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sorry to keep talking about these fucking wars, but it really does make me want to cry.
  - T-hawk 15y ago
    Expanding NASA's budget by 2x or even 10x would not solve its problems. Parkinson's Law is as applicable to NASA as to any other organization. JWST and the other missions will overrun any amount of time and budget allocated to them.
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      I had that thought as I was writing the comment, which is why I added the word "current". But you're probably right to a large degree, and my only answer is that, to the extent that larger budgets don't decrease NASA'a fiscal discipline, the investment is better made there.

nate_meurer 15y ago

Yep, especially shitty since the project is so far along. It needs to be said that JWST isn't primarily over-budget because of technical problems, but because they didn't do realistic cost and time estimates in the first place. Overall, the project has suffered very few technical surprises.

TheCondor 15y ago
So what does this mean? We just shit can it? Or it sits on a shelf for a couple years or what? If we want to save money, shouldn't we kill something before we start it?
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  Projects of this complexity are difficult to mothball, and the costs of restarting are very high. We've seen that with the F-22 fighter. What we really need are politicians who can grasp the ROI of basic science (which is what I believe the JWST is) and have the will to prioritize it. Sadly, politicians with both brains and courage are a rare breed.
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    You say that like politicians with either brains or courage is somehow not rare.

mturmon 15y ago

Thanks for that link. People should know that there's a lot of turmoil in the astrophysics community about JWST. In current plans, JWST overruns have resulted in elimination or long-term postponement of all other NASA astrophysics missions in the next decade. Even non-flight-project research is being cut significantly.

nate_meurer 15y ago
I am utterly incapable of intelligently commenting on the cost effectiveness of this telescope, but I will note that all of NASA's current money problems could be solved by allocating it just a tiny fraction of what we instead wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sorry to keep talking about these fucking wars, but it really does make me want to cry.
- T-hawk 15y ago
  Expanding NASA's budget by 2x or even 10x would not solve its problems. Parkinson's Law is as applicable to NASA as to any other organization. JWST and the other missions will overrun any amount of time and budget allocated to them.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    I had that thought as I was writing the comment, which is why I added the word "current". But you're probably right to a large degree, and my only answer is that, to the extent that larger budgets don't decrease NASA'a fiscal discipline, the investment is better made there.