James Webb Space Telescope MIGHT be cancelled.

[Big Jim Slade]

However, how do we know China and India aren't preparing something of their own? I think if we are to start progressing again into space with Mars landings etc, then surely we have to look East to these nations that are growing quickly economically?

That's an asture point. If China gets a couple of guys on the Moon, or even Mars, you can bet the US will open the coffers again. Geopolitics is about the only thing that makes governments spend money these days.

[Superewza]

Could a mod please change the title of this thread to "James Webb Space Telescope MIGHT BE cancelled" or something else that's accurate?

Short Sharp Science: Congress proposes nixing flagship telescope

I second this notion. Had me seriously worried there for a second.

Even so, i'd believe it when i saw it on NASA's site.

[MjrTom]

Definately a step backwards in my opinion

[rabbithutch]

While I understand your point; rather than cancel it, which seems to be the knee jerk reaction of most governments, why not make a real, honest attempt at making the thing truly international? Not lip service, which again, seems to be the province of most governments, but real effort.

It seems such a tragedy to lose the progress made in all of these different projects just because of filthy lucre and some percieved "status".

Alan

From a practical standpoint, I support scrapping the project altogether. This project is flawed in so many ways that it can ever only be the kind of success that political spin doctors can put on absolute **** ups. Cancelling the project stops the bleeding and sends a clear message to all involved that poorly designed, poorly managed, poorly executed projects will not be allowed to continue.

If there is merit in building another extraterrestrial telescope, then let a new project be designed with better planning, better management and better execution. The American government has a 235 year history of investment in massive projects for the public good. The problem is that for the last 50 years, those projects have been undertaken without good project design and management in place. The result has been shoddy results that cost such premiums as to be wasted effort. It is the mentality of the 'grab the teat and latch on' of government projects that must be killed. This is such a project and deserves to die.

As for the statement that NASA moon project returns were 14 to 1, that is simply creative accounting and political spin doctoring. Yes, the early NASA results produced many marvelous innovations which were spread to the general economy; however, the statement that says that they were the direct result of the NASA projects and would not have otherwise been developed is the fallacy of such accounting as that. Much of the technology that NASA used was under development and would have come to the economy without the NASA project, eventually. Such claims are the political spin put on to generate support for future projects. There are some studies that say that the NASA lunar landing project produced an ROI in the neighborhood of 300%. Not insubstantial at all, but certainly not 14 to 1 and never again achieved by NASA. It is such spin doctoring that has produced "untouchable" budget allocations for projects that have never again achieved the efficiency of the original NASA projects. The ugly fact is that NASA's success became the hive around which all the pet projects of politicians and the greedy hopes of petty entrepreneurs swarmed. Even the appointment of administrators has been politicized to 'reach out' politically instead of requiring competency and focus on achievable goals.

NASA served a good and noble purpose and achieved some remarkable things, but it has become just another wasteful bureaucracy and must be obliterated in order to let some newly evolved, more effective instrument of science come to the fore. Complacency and politics have destroyed its effectiveness. If you believe Darwin's hypothesis wrt to life forms, then you must at least consider its application to bureaucracies.

It is well and good to criticize others for not spending their money for your benefit. It is something else entirely to pony up and pay the piper. I agree wholeheartedly that such projects that benefit mankind should be paid for by mankind. The US has paid its share over the last 100 years. Its political economy is in such disarray today - after 50 years of dreamtime, walkabout spending during bull markets - that there are no spending stimuli that are going to correct it. Only economy and reduced size of government spending will work. Keynes was a product of his zeitgeist. That time is past.

[MikeP]

Please steer clear of politics or this thread will be closed.

Mike

[inksmithy]

Again, I fully understand your points, however I would invite you to look beyond your borders from an economical perspective and see that the rest of the western worlds economy is in utter disarray, from a problem which stemmed from irresponsible behaviour from companies like Freddie and [removed word].

I have no idea of the actual figures relating to the financial value generated by Hubble and NASA over the last 30 years, but it is both significant and indefinable at the same time.

I agree the JWST has a couple of technical points which are worrying, but the arguments supporting it are equally as valid as the ones you make against it.

Cutting a mostly built project would be a ridiculous tragedy. My opinion. Yours is different.

Alan

[rabbithutch]

Apologies to all if my post seemed political. It was not intended as such (it promotes no party or candidate or particular political philosophy - at least it isn't meant to).

I was trying to address how NASA and its objectives have transmogrified over the years and how truly wasteful they have become. I have dear friends who worked with NASA, some in the early years and some now closing their careers there. Nothing succeeds like success but too much success leads to excess.

I was also trying to provide an American perspective to the discussion.

Again, if I've strayed beyond the bounds, please accept my heart-felt apologies. I trust the moderators to exercise their authority.

[rabbithutch]

Again, I fully understand your points, however I would invite you to look beyond your borders from an economical perspective and see that the rest of the western worlds economy is in utter disarray, from a problem which stemmed from irresponsible behaviour from companies like Freddie and [removed word].

I have no idea of the actual figures relating to the financial value generated by Hubble and NASA over the last 30 years, but it is both significant and indefinable at the same time.

I agree the JWST has a couple of technical points which are worrying, but the arguments supporting it are equally as valid as the ones you make against it.

Cutting a mostly built project would be a ridiculous tragedy. My opinion. Yours is different.

Alan

Alan,

Your point about abandoning a project which is 'mostly built' is well made; however, at some point one must stop throwing good money after bad. My position about scrapping it is not on the merits of the final result but is based on the need for vector correction, if you will. There will always be some valued project in the pipeline. I support stopping funds, but that is not to say I support throwing out what has been produced. I would treat it as I would a business asset that was draining me of funds and sell it off. Again, my rationale is to stop an ineffective institution and to signal a new direction in funding for projects and demanding better means to manage them throughout their life cycle.

I meant no disrespect in disagreeing with estimates of economic benefit from NASA projects. They are considerable but mostly overstated because the premise is that NASA projects were solely and directly responsible for them all. They are also overstated to generate support and traction for further spending, spending which might or might not be able to stand on its own merits.

As for the Fannie and Freddy root cause, I plead guilty on behalf of my countrymen. Again, to my position about a vector change, this example supports my argument regarding project funding for badly conceived plans. I must point out, though, that the meltdown might have begun in sub-prime lending, publicly underwritten; but the damage was done by derivatives (and greed not limited to US bankers), although the banking law changes of the '90s in the US gave birth to the practices.

[the_laughing_crow]

"Only economy and reduced size of government spending will work."

Thats half the story, the other half is increasing taxes.

Although I agree with the broader sentiment. The US has carried the lions share of weight for mankind's space dreams for far too long. The achievements of NASA were paid for by Americans yet enjoyed by all humanity. Its about time europe and the UK really upped their game.

Ive also wondered for a long time if there could be dual track government funding for space science.... a proportion from general taxation and a proportion from those who "opt in" to pay a little more tax on the basis that 100% of that addtional opt in tax money goes direct to funding Space exploration.

Id sign up for it. Hell, Id opt to pay taxes to the US government to help fund NASA... and I'm british.

Am I mad?

[Macavity]

Management issues aside, one feels considerable sorrow - Especially since recent construction milestone seemed so positive. Of course it would be nice if the European nations could somehow "help out", but we always seem just as (MORE?) strapped for cash, especially re. big science ventures.

Shades of the: Superconducting Super Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- A machine that would have worked at almost TRIPLE the energy of CERN's LHC.

[rabbithutch]

"Only economy and reduced size of government spending will work."

Thats half the story, the other half is increasing taxes.

Although I agree with the broader sentiment. The US has carried the lions share of weight for mankind's space dreams for far too long. The achievements of NASA were paid for by Americans yet enjoyed by all humanity. Its about time europe and the UK really upped their game.

Ive also wondered for a long time if there could be dual track government funding for space science.... a proportion from general taxation and a proportion from those who "opt in" to pay a little more tax on the basis that 100% of that addtional opt in tax money goes direct to funding Space exploration.

Id sign up for it. Hell, Id opt to pay taxes to the US government to help fund NASA... and I'm british.

Am I mad?

The problem is that there seems to be no such thing as 'designated funding.' If one thing is paid for from designated funds, money is directed elsewhere. In the US virtually every state has a state-run lottery. Without exception (that I know of) these initiatives were approved under the aegis of supplementing funds for education. Again, without known exception, every state reduced spending from non-lottery sources for education.

Perhaps, though, you've hit upon the answer to all public funding issues: Allow people to designate where their tax dollars must go and force government to spend them accordingly. I wonder how we would fund our armies, navies . . .

[the_laughing_crow]

Of course by far the best option is to vote for me as Global Dictator.

It'll be the last vote you ever cast, but we'll be on Mars in a decade.

[rabbithutch]

Management issues aside, one feels considerable sorrow - Especially since recent construction milestone seemed so positive. Of course it would be nice if the European nations could somehow "help out", but we always seem just as (MORE?) strapped for cash, especially re. big science ventures.

Shades of the: Superconducting Super Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- A machine that would have worked at almost TRIPLE the energy of CERN's LHC.

North Carolina was in the running to get the SSC some years ago. I think Rep. Wright had more political clout at the time and Texas pulled ahead. I was living in NC at the time. While I don't recall the details of the proposal, my recollection is that it was to be nearly a hundred miles in diameter. It was touted as the source for prosperity for a fourth of the counties in the state.

It is a highly imaginative and ambitious project. No doubt much could be learned to advance particle theory and science generally. The cost per household would be such that I doubt tax dollar votes (designated taxes) for it would ever see it built.

[callisto]

Money eh, the root of all evil

[matt220781]

Not cancelled yet!

[Nexus 6]

Hope it will be saved, this article does give some chance for it to still make it into space

thanks for the link matt.

[Telrad]

That's sad news for NASA, the future of space exploration and humanity

[FraserClarke]

Id sign up for it. Hell, Id opt to pay taxes to the US government to help fund NASA... and I'm british.

You already are. Europe IS paying for 10% of JWST (similarly with HST). It's not an entirely American project, which a lot of people probably don't realise.

I'm sure the contracts etc deal with the scenario of a partner pulling out, but I can't imagine it will be good for that partner's image going forward.

[meteoriot]

I've had my say and i stand by it but I'm not going to debate any further. but i would like to say that the $14 to $1 return regarding the lunar project was not political spin doctoring as suggested above nor was it suggesting it was just the technology that was developed that bought back in the money. It was however from study done in America in 1975, And although it can never be 100% accurate (like the drake equation) The study showed that the lunar missions inspired so many people to go into science and technology which in turn enhanced the US economy at a rate of $14 for every dollar spent on the Apollo mission.

Similar studies have shown similar results.

Fair points about the project being badly managed etc. But remember NASA costs less than 0.13% of GDP and 9x return on investment.

Some people don't know the difference between 'spending' and 'investment'

Richard

[Dippus]

BBC News - JWST backed by Nasa amid call to scrap telescope mission

[whirlpool5194]

Sign of the times I suppose, not surprised if I'm honest. Still a huge loss if it it scraped.....

Wp

[inksmithy]

Alan,

Your point about abandoning a project which is 'mostly built' is well made; however, at some point one must stop throwing good money after bad. My position about scrapping it is not on the merits of the final result but is based on the need for vector correction, if you will. There will always be some valued project in the pipeline. I support stopping funds, but that is not to say I support throwing out what has been produced. I would treat it as I would a business asset that was draining me of funds and sell it off. Again, my rationale is to stop an ineffective institution and to signal a new direction in funding for projects and demanding better means to manage them throughout their life cycle.

I meant no disrespect in disagreeing with estimates of economic benefit from NASA projects. They are considerable but mostly overstated because the premise is that NASA projects were solely and directly responsible for them all. They are also overstated to generate support and traction for further spending, spending which might or might not be able to stand on its own merits.

As for the Fannie and Freddy root cause, I plead guilty on behalf of my countrymen. Again, to my position about a vector change, this example supports my argument regarding project funding for badly conceived plans. I must point out, though, that the meltdown might have begun in sub-prime lending, publicly underwritten; but the damage was done by derivatives (and greed not limited to US bankers), although the banking law changes of the '90s in the US gave birth to the practices.

Apologies for not getting back to this sooner, I should have.

To our moderators, thank you for being so forebearing, this could easily have turned into a political argument of intercontinental proportions. I think everyone is prepared to keep things calm. So, while acknowledging the political potential of the discussion, nothing I say here is intended to be intepreted from a political point of view.

As we here in the UK saw yesterday, greed can be the ruination of many great organisations, from newspapers through to space exploration programs.

In the case of NASA, I believe there was a combination of bad management on the inside which did the organisation no favours at all, accompanied by greed on the outside, from people in the political sphere as well as in the commercial one. Remember the $99 screwdrivers and so on?

Regardless of all that though, when I mentioned in a previous post that the economic benefit of NASA is both enormous and indefinable. NASA all on its own has made some amazing and useful contributions, but the knock on effect of those contributions is incalculable. The inspiration it has provided. You can't put a value on it.

I believe it should continue. Yeah its risky, but when it all comes down to it, its only money. And if you have any understanding of the stockmarket, you will know that the money itself is mostly imaginary.

Innovation and risk go hand in hand. The payoff comes afterwards.

It was possibly ungracious of me to mention Freddie and Fannie. Greed of that scale isnt the monopoly of any nation - Rupert Murdoch was Australian, till he spurned his nationality in the pursuit of yet more money.

As I said, my opinion. Yours may be different, but thats a good thing, if everyone always agreed with each other, we would get very bored indeed.

Alan

[rabbithutch]

Alan,

Very well said.

You and I do not disagree at all about the value of scientific exploration. I support, as do you, government funding of worthwhile projects. I was once the biggest fan of NASA imaginable. When I suggested disbanding it, the purpose was twofold: 1) to send a clear and unambiguous message to all - including the poor managers and the outside contractors - that the party is over; 2) to allow the government to rid itself of what has become something of a white elephant in order to create something much more effective and valuable - something that can contribute even more to the science and exploration of space. To have an omelet, one must break eggs.

I agree that the benefits of the space program have been immense. I do not believe all - or even most - of the claims that credit that program with every innovation going back to sliced bread and toast with tea, however. Having lived in Houston among many NASA scientists, I know how valuable their contributions have been; but I also know how NASA play the games to garner continued funding which sometimes are for projects that no longer have the hope of achieving their goals.

Thank you for the frank, open and non-political discussion of a subject that needs it. As for Freddy and Fannie, no offense was taken and I'm sure none was intended. It is sometimes impossible to avoid unpleasant subjects when having a good chin-wag. Your posts are proof that unpleasant subjects can be discussed without one becoming unpleasant. I hope that my contributions came across in the same manner and offer apologies if they did not.

[Superewza]

In the case of NASA, I believe there was a combination of bad management on the inside which did the organisation no favours at all, accompanied by greed on the outside, from people in the political sphere as well as in the commercial one. Remember the $99 screwdrivers and so on?

I'm not sure that getting the right tools for the job counts as 'bad management'. It may sound strange at first, but when you consider that we get what, £10 screwdrivers kits for DIY work, they break all the time with parts flying off everywhere, something you really don't want to happen on a project as delicate as this. I think $99 for a screwdriver you can trust is fair enough - at least you won't be buying another one in a hurry.

[Superewza]

What the James Webb Space Telescope means : Starts With A Bang

Nice article... which i may have got from one Brian Cox's Twitter feed, but still