5 ms·

NASA kills X-ray telescope, blames project's cost

6 points by ukdm 14y ago

adventureful 14y ago
Given the insane budget for Webb ($11 billion max cap), the notion that GEMS was going to be 20% to 30% over budget, and that would end up around maybe $150 million total, it seems absurd to kill this project. This is the kind of science NASA should be doing.
- iwwr 14y ago
  NASA is killing every project it can to not lose the James Webb. Casulties so far are a Mars rover and a Jupiter orbiter, as well as no new missions planned for the next decade. The question is, what happened to the Shuttle portion of the budged. You'd think they have more money for robotic spacecraft after that.
  - hexagonal 14y ago
    NASA's paying for Falcon 9 development by proxy. And the Antares launch system, and the shuttle-derived SLS.
  - adventureful 14y ago
    Good question, looking up the budget, they allocated about $3 billion in 2009 for the Shuttle program (17% of their budget). Mind boggling to think they spent $200 billion on that program over its life. Scientific breakthrough doesn't function by sheer dollar command, but it's hard not to think about what could have been done with that money instead ($20 billion for a cheaper SpaceX style launch system, $180 billion redirected toward research, invention, X Prize awards, telescopes, satellites, rovers, etc).
nkoren 14y ago
The Webb is funnelling too much money into too many congressional districts for it to be politically acceptable to be de-funded. At $150M, GEMS isn't. This is the pattern that NASA has been stuck in for decades: frugal projects that go an inch over their budget caps are cancelled with little hesitation; projects that spread around billions of dollars worth of pork -- or better yet, tens of billions -- are unkillable. The message to project managers and industry partners has been crystal clear: if you want your project to survive, make it really REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY expensive. In the early 90s there were a couple of incredibly cheap BMDO (military) projects (the DC-X and Clementine lunar probe, specifically) which proved to space enthusiasts like myself that the high cost of space was mostly a political artefact. The BMDO could get away with that because it wasn't subject to the same level of political porkbarreling as NASA -- but alas, it was the exception that proved the rule. Since then, our only hope has been with the private sector, and it's wonderful to see SpaceX finally delivering on that hope. I only hope that there will eventually be some spillover for pure space science itself, which will probably always remain a governmental endeavour.

6 points by ukdm 14y ago

Given the insane budget for Webb ($11 billion max cap), the notion that GEMS was going to be 20% to 30% over budget, and that would end up around maybe $150 million total, it seems absurd to kill this project. This is the kind of science NASA should be doing.

iwwr 14y ago
NASA is killing every project it can to not lose the James Webb. Casulties so far are a Mars rover and a Jupiter orbiter, as well as no new missions planned for the next decade. The question is, what happened to the Shuttle portion of the budged. You'd think they have more money for robotic spacecraft after that.
- hexagonal 14y ago
  NASA's paying for Falcon 9 development by proxy. And the Antares launch system, and the shuttle-derived SLS.
- adventureful 14y ago
  Good question, looking up the budget, they allocated about $3 billion in 2009 for the Shuttle program (17% of their budget). Mind boggling to think they spent $200 billion on that program over its life. Scientific breakthrough doesn't function by sheer dollar command, but it's hard not to think about what could have been done with that money instead ($20 billion for a cheaper SpaceX style launch system, $180 billion redirected toward research, invention, X Prize awards, telescopes, satellites, rovers, etc).

nkoren 14y ago

The Webb is funnelling too much money into too many congressional districts for it to be politically acceptable to be de-funded. At $150M, GEMS isn't. This is the pattern that NASA has been stuck in for decades: frugal projects that go an inch over their budget caps are cancelled with little hesitation; projects that spread around billions of dollars worth of pork -- or better yet, tens of billions -- are unkillable. The message to project managers and industry partners has been crystal clear: if you want your project to survive, make it really REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY expensive. In the early 90s there were a couple of incredibly cheap BMDO (military) projects (the DC-X and Clementine lunar probe, specifically) which proved to space enthusiasts like myself that the high cost of space was mostly a political artefact. The BMDO could get away with that because it wasn't subject to the same level of political porkbarreling as NASA -- but alas, it was the exception that proved the rule. Since then, our only hope has been with the private sector, and it's wonderful to see SpaceX finally delivering on that hope. I only hope that there will eventually be some spillover for pure space science itself, which will probably always remain a governmental endeavour.