5 ms·

Why are the budgets for operating these so expensive? The numbers in the article are staggering

by stogot 1y ago

micah94 1y ago
I think like they said, it's people. The JWST has "17 different modes" (yeah, I wish I knew what that meant exactly), but it sounds complicated. For all our tech, the bottom line is it requires humans to calibrate this thing and keep it that way (or one of 17 different ways) depending on the science that needs done.
- magicalhippo 1y ago
  > The JWST has "17 different modes" (yeah, I wish I knew what that meant exactly) It's explained in the user documentation[1]. You did read the documentation right? For example[2]: JWST Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) has 5 observing modes: imaging, coronagraphy, grism wide field slitless spectroscopy, time-series imaging, and grism time series. With further details for each in subsections. [1]: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ [2]: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam-observing-modes https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam...
  - mastermage 1y ago
    Peak comment right here.
mastermage 1y ago
Because these are some of the most complicated and technically advanced pieces of technology that we have ever created. To communicate with them we have a worldwide array of massive satellite dishes (Deep Space Network) which needs to be operated part of the cost is operating that. Then there is the scientist using the data. These are some of the greatest scientists in the world they are getting paid well enough. Then there is the engineers which make sure the spacecraft operates correctly which are expensive good engineers are expensive.and obviously all the other costs associated with it like facility, technology electricity etc.
cosmotic 1y ago
We have multiple single humans with net worths over a thousand times their budget. The only thing that's staggering is what's getting priority over these monumental scientific achievements.
- tiahura 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - hliyan 1y ago
    This is one of the most harmful attitudes to come out of otherwise smart people in Silicon Valley. Dismissing any effort that does not bear immediate, tangible fruit, failing to follow a chain of causality to long term benefits and discounting the intellect of people working on such efforts. For example, a similar attitude would have dismissed J.J. Thompson's work on cathode rays and electrons in the late 1800's, and would have seen his intellect directed to steam engines and steel work. That would have seen a delay in the very technology ecosystem that enabled the parent to post their comment.
    - tiahura 1y ago
      Interesting doesn’t necessarily mean important. There are an infinite number of potential scientific endeavors, I don’t think it’s unseemly to suggest that a field’s likeliness to improve humanity’s quality of life should be a factor in determining funding.
      - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
        I think any advances in basic science is worthwhile. You can’t predict when or how it will become useful. Quantum mechanics or relativity were probably pretty useless for a few decades after their discovery.
        ta8645 1y ago
        Sure, but we don't have unlimited time and money. Prioritization is obviously a necessity, and therefore I think the OP's point stands. Considering potential tangible rewards shouldn't be seen as a taboo factor in that calculation.
UltraSane 1y ago
Lots of highly paid people are needed to run them.
bravesoul2 1y ago
It is incredible value for money. It's one of the few non-bullshit industries.
- madaxe_again 1y ago
  $60M a year goes to Northrop just to ensure they’ll answer the phone if they’re needed.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Source?
thangalin 1y ago
In March, 2024 the US Department of Defense fiscal year 2025 budget request was $849.8 billion. The 2024 JWST budget was 0.022% of that. https://nasawatch.com/exploration/ernst-stuhlinger https://nasawatch.com/exploration/ernst-stuhlinger
madaxe_again 1y ago
You’re being downvoted for asking a reasonable question, sadly. The numbers are staggering. The answer is mostly “Northrop Grumman”, “cost plus”, and “cover your ass”. The sunk costs are >$10bn. Nobody wants to be the guy who cut the flight operations team from 200 people (!) and have the thing go offline and unrecoverable. While the cuts are very much in the category of “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”, if there’s a silver lining it’s that perhaps it will lead to a more cost-conscious approach for future missions - ie “how can we automate station keeping”, or “do we really need six people to watch a thermal map”, or “perhaps we should look at alternatives to DSN”. It’s an artefact of a system evolved to never take risks, to shelter congressional pork, and to externalise liability onto padded contracts, born out of Cold War thinking - when JWST was conceived (1992), the Berlin Wall had only just fallen. It was meant to launch in 2005.
_Algernon_ 1y ago
A failure is highly costly to NASA in terms of public support, so everything is incredibly over-engineered. That's also why failures are rare.

Why are the budgets for operating these so expensive? The numbers in the article are staggering

by stogot 1y ago

Why are the budgets for operating these so expensive? The numbers in the article are staggering

I think like they said, it's people. The JWST has "17 different modes" (yeah, I wish I knew what that meant exactly), but it sounds complicated. For all our tech, the bottom line is it requires humans to calibrate this thing and keep it that way (or one of 17 different ways) depending on the science that needs done.

magicalhippo 1y ago
> The JWST has "17 different modes" (yeah, I wish I knew what that meant exactly) It's explained in the user documentation[1]. You did read the documentation right? For example[2]: JWST Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) has 5 observing modes: imaging, coronagraphy, grism wide field slitless spectroscopy, time-series imaging, and grism time series. With further details for each in subsections. [1]: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ [2]: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam-observing-modes https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam...
- mastermage 1y ago
  Peak comment right here.

mastermage 1y ago

Because these are some of the most complicated and technically advanced pieces of technology that we have ever created. To communicate with them we have a worldwide array of massive satellite dishes (Deep Space Network) which needs to be operated part of the cost is operating that. Then there is the scientist using the data. These are some of the greatest scientists in the world they are getting paid well enough. Then there is the engineers which make sure the spacecraft operates correctly which are expensive good engineers are expensive.and obviously all the other costs associated with it like facility, technology electricity etc.

cosmotic 1y ago

We have multiple single humans with net worths over a thousand times their budget. The only thing that's staggering is what's getting priority over these monumental scientific achievements.

tiahura 1y ago
[flagged]
- hliyan 1y ago
  This is one of the most harmful attitudes to come out of otherwise smart people in Silicon Valley. Dismissing any effort that does not bear immediate, tangible fruit, failing to follow a chain of causality to long term benefits and discounting the intellect of people working on such efforts. For example, a similar attitude would have dismissed J.J. Thompson's work on cathode rays and electrons in the late 1800's, and would have seen his intellect directed to steam engines and steel work. That would have seen a delay in the very technology ecosystem that enabled the parent to post their comment.
  - tiahura 1y ago
    Interesting doesn’t necessarily mean important. There are an infinite number of potential scientific endeavors, I don’t think it’s unseemly to suggest that a field’s likeliness to improve humanity’s quality of life should be a factor in determining funding.
    - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
      I think any advances in basic science is worthwhile. You can’t predict when or how it will become useful. Quantum mechanics or relativity were probably pretty useless for a few decades after their discovery.
      - ta8645 1y ago
        Sure, but we don't have unlimited time and money. Prioritization is obviously a necessity, and therefore I think the OP's point stands. Considering potential tangible rewards shouldn't be seen as a taboo factor in that calculation.

UltraSane 1y ago

Lots of highly paid people are needed to run them.

bravesoul2 1y ago

It is incredible value for money. It's one of the few non-bullshit industries.

madaxe_again 1y ago
$60M a year goes to Northrop just to ensure they’ll answer the phone if they’re needed.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Source?

thangalin 1y ago

In March, 2024 the US Department of Defense fiscal year 2025 budget request was $849.8 billion. The 2024 JWST budget was 0.022% of that. https://nasawatch.com/exploration/ernst-stuhlinger https://nasawatch.com/exploration/ernst-stuhlinger

madaxe_again 1y ago

You’re being downvoted for asking a reasonable question, sadly. The numbers are staggering. The answer is mostly “Northrop Grumman”, “cost plus”, and “cover your ass”. The sunk costs are >$10bn. Nobody wants to be the guy who cut the flight operations team from 200 people (!) and have the thing go offline and unrecoverable. While the cuts are very much in the category of “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”, if there’s a silver lining it’s that perhaps it will lead to a more cost-conscious approach for future missions - ie “how can we automate station keeping”, or “do we really need six people to watch a thermal map”, or “perhaps we should look at alternatives to DSN”. It’s an artefact of a system evolved to never take risks, to shelter congressional pork, and to externalise liability onto padded contracts, born out of Cold War thinking - when JWST was conceived (1992), the Berlin Wall had only just fallen. It was meant to launch in 2005.

_Algernon_ 1y ago

A failure is highly costly to NASA in terms of public support, so everything is incredibly over-engineered. That's also why failures are rare.