5 ms·

I remember getting excited about this telescope a decade ago. I haven't heard of it since; but I thought it's budget was cut and it was over. I'm excited NASA

I remember getting excited about this telescope a decade ago. I haven't heard of it since; but I thought it's budget was cut and it was over. I'm excited NASA is finally going to get it up in space!

callesgg 5y ago
I bet it will fail to deploy properly. But I hope not.
pkaye 5y ago
Actually the budget was overrun quite a bit. I think it will cost $10B at this point.
- keanebean86 5y ago
  $9.5 billion over is pocket change! If you adjust for inflation $10 billion is only $7.7 billion in 2007 dollars. Assuming the telescope works I can live with it being expensive.
  - mtdewcmu 5y ago
    Unlike the F-35, I think the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Unfortunately, I think it's easier to fund something like the F-35 because it can be framed as a way to avoid an existential threat. It's difficult to do the same with fundamental science
      - abz10 5y ago
        The F-35 was framed as a way to save money.
        bumby 5y ago
        That argument only holds because it was purported to replace different weapons systems that were needed for mitigating a threat. The threat is the primary motivation and cost reduction is secondary. I.e., if not but for the existential threat there's no need for the JSF or any system it would replace.
        abz10 5y ago
        The F-22 was sufficient for threat mitigation. The F-35 raison d'être was cost reduction, after that was exportability which again was supposed to help with cost reduction. Edit; comparing the logic of a 'but for' vs a 'necessary' condition. Was the F-35 necessary for threat mitigation. No. Was it framed as the necessary for cost savings, yes.
        Retric 5y ago
        Their designed for slightly different roles. The F-35’s R&D looks hard to justify vs simply having more F-22, but the F-35B can do verticals takeoff for example and the F-22 can’t. So, the real question is if the F-35’s should have had fewer versions and thus been more capable in it’s remaining roles.
        bumby 5y ago
        There's similar analogies here to the space shuttle. For the shuttle to get approved, it had to meet the demands of many masters. The fact that it had to meet DoD missions as well as NASA missions made it a bit of a boondoggle. Likewise, the JSF needed to meet the Marine Corps demands of VTOL to take the place of the AV8B. It's hard to remain focused when you have so many stakeholders. As the saying goes, a camel is a horse designed by committee.
        GekkePrutser 5y ago
        The space shuttle wasn't as bad as its reputation though. Both accidents had organizational causes and were entirely avoidable. And its huge payload bay and the fact it was a mobile base allowed for the construction of the ISS. It just failed at reusability, it was more like refurbishability :) But many lessons have been learned from that.
    - sawjet 5y ago
      All those European tax payers are certainly getting their money's worth
    - justshowpost 5y ago
      Yes, if you prefer eye candy photos to public safety. By the way will James Webb wield a modern eye candy capable sensor? Not sure about that. There is few worth from remote sensing unreachable (even in theory) objects. Kepler already proved theoretized Goldilocks Zone rocky planets and, in general, provided a lot of data for non-field research (less exciting than Hubble photos indeed). Last, but not least, what's the JWST's mission exactly? Also, from taxpayers' money perspective Kepler's component quality was complete disaster. So, I'd better invest in more Martian/Jovian probes than in revival of obsoleted project. Such revival is very similar to Russian GLONASS (a competitor to 1970s NAVSTAR) programme reboot.
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        The JWST's mission is to see deep infared, which can pass through interstellar clouds. It will uncover things that have been veiled to us since the beginning of history. It can only be built as a space telescope because the frequency of its intended observations are so low that to a device sensitive to them, air radiates light of blinding intensity.
        RapidFire 5y ago
        Thanks for this comment; that's a fascinating bit of information.
        justshowpost 5y ago
        But that was just like saying what F-35's mission is to fly high in the skies, sorry. This sort of proves my point, no one knows which exactly research JWST will do upon deployment, because original mission goals mainly became obsolete.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        mhio 5y ago
        There is a long list of scientists that know exactly what research they are doing on JWST down to the minute [0] For example, Dr Christine Chen et al will be using JWST for at least 34.9 hours to study the Icy Kuiper Belts in Exoplanetary Systems using near infrared spectroscopy [1] [0] https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-programs https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-progra... [1] https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-public/1563.pdf https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-public/1563.pdf
  - arp242 5y ago
    It's roughly the same costs as Hubble ($9.3 billion in 2020 USD), and that excludes the costs for the mirror correction they had to do. It seems clear the original estimate of $500 million was overly optimistic; actually, it was criticized almost immediately as such after publication. There's a lot of incentive to low-ball these initial cost estimates.
darkwater 5y ago
It's ESA that's getting it up into space, NASA is "just" collaborating.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

I remember getting excited about this telescope a decade ago. I haven't heard of it since; but I thought it's budget was cut and it was over. I'm excited NASA is finally going to get it up in space!

callesgg 5y ago

I bet it will fail to deploy properly. But I hope not.

pkaye 5y ago

Actually the budget was overrun quite a bit. I think it will cost $10B at this point.

keanebean86 5y ago
$9.5 billion over is pocket change! If you adjust for inflation $10 billion is only $7.7 billion in 2007 dollars. Assuming the telescope works I can live with it being expensive.
- mtdewcmu 5y ago
  Unlike the F-35, I think the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Unfortunately, I think it's easier to fund something like the F-35 because it can be framed as a way to avoid an existential threat. It's difficult to do the same with fundamental science
    - abz10 5y ago
      The F-35 was framed as a way to save money.
      - bumby 5y ago
        That argument only holds because it was purported to replace different weapons systems that were needed for mitigating a threat. The threat is the primary motivation and cost reduction is secondary. I.e., if not but for the existential threat there's no need for the JSF or any system it would replace.
        abz10 5y ago
        The F-22 was sufficient for threat mitigation. The F-35 raison d'être was cost reduction, after that was exportability which again was supposed to help with cost reduction. Edit; comparing the logic of a 'but for' vs a 'necessary' condition. Was the F-35 necessary for threat mitigation. No. Was it framed as the necessary for cost savings, yes.
        Retric 5y ago
        Their designed for slightly different roles. The F-35’s R&D looks hard to justify vs simply having more F-22, but the F-35B can do verticals takeoff for example and the F-22 can’t. So, the real question is if the F-35’s should have had fewer versions and thus been more capable in it’s remaining roles.
        bumby 5y ago
        There's similar analogies here to the space shuttle. For the shuttle to get approved, it had to meet the demands of many masters. The fact that it had to meet DoD missions as well as NASA missions made it a bit of a boondoggle. Likewise, the JSF needed to meet the Marine Corps demands of VTOL to take the place of the AV8B. It's hard to remain focused when you have so many stakeholders. As the saying goes, a camel is a horse designed by committee.
        GekkePrutser 5y ago
        The space shuttle wasn't as bad as its reputation though. Both accidents had organizational causes and were entirely avoidable. And its huge payload bay and the fact it was a mobile base allowed for the construction of the ISS. It just failed at reusability, it was more like refurbishability :) But many lessons have been learned from that.
  - sawjet 5y ago
    All those European tax payers are certainly getting their money's worth
  - justshowpost 5y ago
    Yes, if you prefer eye candy photos to public safety. By the way will James Webb wield a modern eye candy capable sensor? Not sure about that. There is few worth from remote sensing unreachable (even in theory) objects. Kepler already proved theoretized Goldilocks Zone rocky planets and, in general, provided a lot of data for non-field research (less exciting than Hubble photos indeed). Last, but not least, what's the JWST's mission exactly? Also, from taxpayers' money perspective Kepler's component quality was complete disaster. So, I'd better invest in more Martian/Jovian probes than in revival of obsoleted project. Such revival is very similar to Russian GLONASS (a competitor to 1970s NAVSTAR) programme reboot.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      The JWST's mission is to see deep infared, which can pass through interstellar clouds. It will uncover things that have been veiled to us since the beginning of history. It can only be built as a space telescope because the frequency of its intended observations are so low that to a device sensitive to them, air radiates light of blinding intensity.
      - RapidFire 5y ago
        Thanks for this comment; that's a fascinating bit of information.
        justshowpost 5y ago
        But that was just like saying what F-35's mission is to fly high in the skies, sorry. This sort of proves my point, no one knows which exactly research JWST will do upon deployment, because original mission goals mainly became obsolete.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        mhio 5y ago
        There is a long list of scientists that know exactly what research they are doing on JWST down to the minute [0] For example, Dr Christine Chen et al will be using JWST for at least 34.9 hours to study the Icy Kuiper Belts in Exoplanetary Systems using near infrared spectroscopy [1] [0] https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-programs https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-progra... [1] https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-public/1563.pdf https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-public/1563.pdf
- arp242 5y ago
  It's roughly the same costs as Hubble ($9.3 billion in 2020 USD), and that excludes the costs for the mirror correction they had to do. It seems clear the original estimate of $500 million was overly optimistic; actually, it was criticized almost immediately as such after publication. There's a lot of incentive to low-ball these initial cost estimates.

darkwater 5y ago

It's ESA that's getting it up into space, NASA is "just" collaborating.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]