First, I should probably apologize for the manner in which I commented on President Obama's words about the shuttle era ending.
It would have been better if I had just explained why I felt that in today's political world, nice declarations don't always come true.
My being sarcastic probably doesn't add anything to the conversation.
With today's budget crunch and discussions about raising the debt limit, there are programs being cut rather than new ones being started.
NASA has historically had missions almost ready to launch and Congress cuts the funding to NASA and the projects fold.
Another one may be the James Webb Space Telescope.
- LRK -
==============================
And what say President Obama?
- LRK -
------------------------------
Obama marks end of shuttle era, urges NASA to 'break new boundaries'
By James Oliphant
July 8, 2011, 12:19 p.m.
snip
"Today’s launch may mark the final flight of the space shuttle, but it propels us into the next era of our never-ending adventure to push the very frontiers of exploration and discovery in space," the president said. "We’ll drive new advances in science and technology. We’ll enhance knowledge, education, innovation and economic growth. And I have tasked the men and women of NASA with an ambitious new mission: to break new boundaries in space exploration, ultimately sending Americans to Mars. I know they are up to the challenge -- and I plan to be around to see it."
==============================
==============================
snip
------------------------------
Hmmmm, I feel better already. NOT! [apologize for snipping. - LRK -]
- LRK -
There were discussions about whether the Hubble Space Telescope should be refurbished since the JWST was going to take its place.
At the last minute the HST was indeed refurbished and now we are waiting for JWST to be launched. OR maybe not.
- LRK -
- By Matt Blum
- July 8, 2011 |
- 8:45 am |
- Why You Need to Help Save the James Webb Space Telescope
The latest U.S. House of Representatives appropriations bill seeks to cut funding for NASA by $1.6 billion, and in the process eliminate the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project. While it is undeniable that the project has had large cost overruns and is behind schedule, it is also very clear that the project will once complete be a tool of enormous worth to the scientific community — and, through them, to the general population — not just in the U.S. but in the entire world.
JWST was supposed to be finished by June 2014 and to cost about $5.1 billion. An independent review panel, however, last fall determined it would likely cost $6.5 billion and not be finished until September 2015. This is of course not a good thing, but it’s nothing new. In fact, there was a NASA project that was supposed to launch in 1983, but didn’t make it into space until 1990, and by the time it launched it had cost triple its original budget — about $11 billion in 2011 dollars. In the 21 years since its launch it has cost many billions more in servicing missions.
I refer, of course, to the Hubble Space Telescope, whose cost overruns were outlined in a General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office) report in 1992 (PDF). Yes, Hubble has cost the U.S. a substantial amount of money, but its contributions to science have been of incalculable worth: the way we look at the universe has changed in ways we could never have predicted before the telescope’s launch.
And JWST will be a much, much better telescope than Hubble, and not just because it has the benefit of decades-better technology. Not only will it be in a much higher orbit than Hubble, but it will be substantially larger and thus able to collect considerably more detailed and more distant observations. Scientists have some educated guesses as to what kinds of discoveries JWST could make, but it’s very likely that, as it was with Hubble, many things it will find are so revolutionary they’re simply beyond our ability to predict.
snip
==============================
Cost overruns and NASA budget cuts have been problems over the years and many of the different NASA mission folks have felt the pinch when funds are moved to cover what is deemed more important. At lot of politics come to play and Congressional Representatives often tell NASA where they want the money spent. Not enough to go around but don't cut the funding to my pet project.
- LRK -
==============================
James Webb Space Telescope
by Risa
Sean mentioned yesterday that the next generation space telescope JWST is at risk. In a bit more detail, JWST has been cut in the House appropriations bill:
$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.
In all, the House appropriations bill cuts 1.6 billion dollars from the NASA budget. The game is not over yet — the House Appropriations Subcommittee in charge of NASA will consider this bill today, and the full Appropriations committee will meet again to consider the final bill on Wednesday — and of course the Senate will have its own bill. But this is obviously a very ominous sign for NASA astrophysics in general.
JWST is a 6.5 meter IR-optimized telescope, which has been scheduled to launch in 2018. It is certainly true that it has suffered from numerous cost overruns, and has essentially eaten the rest of the NASA astrophysics program. However, nearly all the technical hurdles have now been overcome. And the science reach of JWST is spectacular. It is now the only observatory-class mission planned to operate once the current Great Observatories (Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra) reach their end of life. JWST has been the highest priority for NASA of the Decadal Surveys and essentially every other study commissioned by the field.
Hubble Space Telescope has given us amazing views of the Universe, back to about a billion years after the big bang. However, it has reached its limits there — JWST would allow us to see well into this first billion years, to view the formation of the first stars, galaxies, and black holes, and to study in detail how radiation from these objects reionized the Universe. There are no other planned missions that will allow us to observe this earliest stage of galaxy formation with this level of detail. JWST would also allow us to observe the chemical composition of planets outside the solar system, and to image the disks around stars as they begin planet formation.
snip
==============================
Another post on the JWST funding/lack thereof topic.
- LRK -
==============================
James Webb Space Telescope Funding to be Terminated
July 6, 2011
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, is close to losing all its funding. The fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, being considered by the US government’s House Appropriation Committee (see the release here), is to recommend $1.6 billion dollar cuts to the total NASA budget, with about half a billion disappearing from its Science programs.
Of course, we have to remember these aren’t 100% confirmed, but why announce something so controversial if you’re not pretty sure about it? After all, part of the bill provisions include the prohibition of prisoner transfer from Guantanamo to US soil, so you’d be pretty sure about making statements of that ilk
Perhaps lobbying from the astronomy community will mellow things somewhat, but what are the alternatives? JWST is pretty ambitious (its mirror is too big to be launched fully open, and must be assembled in orbit at L2 to within millimetre accuracy). It’s also about four times over-budget, and behind schedule (note the image says 2013 – current scheduling puts it at 2018). Cuts are required all over the place (NASA’s not the only one to feel the pinch, if you read the rest of the release). As astronomers, we have to ensure that lawmakers understand the associated costs with cancelling JWST.
snip
==============================
My feeling is that it would be nice if Congress would agree from the beginning on what NASA proposes and then management follow through to ensure the missions are handled properly and completed instead spending a lot of money and then folding at the last moment for lack of funds. If the mission is worth doing there needs to be enough funds to complete the goal and new technology is often unpredictable in cost.
Also the life of a mission and extended missions require commitment and funding as well. There often are discussions about funding when the life of a spacecraft is better than forecast. I am thinking of the Pioneers, the Voyagers (which have squeaked by), the 90 day rovers that have well exceeded their life expectancy.
- LRK -
Having spent some 20 years inside the NASA fences and having seen the changes that happen with new administrations, I find it hard t get excited about nice words, even if they come from the President. I guess seeing too many missions canceled have just made me a bit bitter. Hope I haven't offended too many folks.
Lets just say I am not really feeling better.
May I suggest you go read what Harrison H. (Jack) Schmitt has to say.
OR possibly an interview with Al Worden, Apollo 15 CMP.
Thanks for looking up with me.
- LRK -
Web Site: http://lkellogg.vttoth.
Web Site: http://lkellogg.vttoth.
WordPress: http://lrkellogg.
========================================
WHAT THE MIND CAN CONCEIVE, AND BELIEVE, IT WILL ACHIEVE - LRK -
==============================
Posts
