Author Topic: JWST is rediculously over budget.  (Read 7408 times)

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
JWST is rediculously over budget.
« on: 11/11/2010 04:39 am »
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20101110/sc_space/nasasnextbigspacetelescopetocostanextra15billion

Quote
The cost of NASA's replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope is giving new meaning to the word astronomical, growing another $1.5 billion, according to a new internal NASA study released Wednesday.

Quote
NASA's explanation: We're better rocket scientists than accountants. Management and others didn't notice that key costs for the James Webb Space Telescope weren't included during a major program review in July 2008, officials said.

NASA cannot do anything on time and on budget.  This is gross negligence and simply unacceptable.  How can taxpayers, senators, congressmen and women have ANY confidence in NASA leadership.  It is time to reboot NASA.  This is precisely what happens when you turn a government agency into a "jobs program".

If a private citizen makes a 1,500 dollar error on their taxes they do not get a bail out but it is ok for NASA to get an extra 1 to 1.5 BILLION?  Does NASA really expect a bail out for this?  I really hope not.  I'm actively advocating against it.

These two quotes really say it all.  The next administrator must have the flexibility to clean house.  It is time to remove the scientists and astronauts who are running things and allow them to do what they do best: execute the mission.  NASA requires an economist and an accountant as the next administrator and deputy.  Simply having the passion for space doesn't cut it.  Flying the shuttle doesn't cut it.

This is why I, and many others, have no confidence in NASA and would much rather see money funneled to emerging space companies.  There is absolutely no way this current iteration of NASA can execute the SLS on time and on budget. 

MSL, Shuttle, ISS, and JWST.  All projects that suck the life out of NASA.

How the hell is anyone able to advocate for NASA when things like this happen?  You cannot.

VR
RE327

You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #1 on: 11/11/2010 04:46 am »
NASA requires an economist and an accountant as the next administrator and deputy.  Simply having the passion for space doesn't cut it.

O'Keefe was widely regarded as beancounter. Call him back, along with adm. Steidle, and revive CE&R perhaps as well.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #2 on: 11/11/2010 05:36 am »
O'Keefe was widely regarded as beancounter. Call him back, along with adm. Steidle, and revive CE&R perhaps as well.

You might want to look into what the cost estimate was for JWST under O'Keefe and ask yourself why it was that number.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #3 on: 11/11/2010 01:13 pm »
How the hell is anyone able to advocate for NASA when things like this happen?

The advocates of profit trump the advocates for accomplishment.  It should be the other way around.  I would like for JWST to be finished and launched and operated.  It seems to be a secondary concern of the people who are running that show.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #4 on: 11/11/2010 01:16 pm »
Notice the cost overruns weren't due to the "complexity" of the spacecraft.  Another HLV myth busted.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2010 01:16 pm by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #5 on: 11/11/2010 01:25 pm »
VR,

As usual, you are a bit of an extremeist and seemingly flying off the handle. 

Oh yeah, JWST has problems, no doubt.  This is also not a "new" issue.  Oh yes, they should be held accountable and the reason given for the cost overrun is assanine and absurd.  Something clearly needs to be done.....this time and finally. 

That said, always refering everything as a "jobs program" as if everyone remotely associated with this agency is corrupt and incompetent is going to far.

Fine, lets cancel shuttle right now and ISS too.  Since, after all, they "suck the life out of NASA".  Of course watch commercial dry right up too and also your reason for "funneling" to "emerging space companies". 

« Last Edit: 11/11/2010 01:26 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #6 on: 11/11/2010 01:32 pm »

This is why I, and many others, have no confidence in NASA and would much rather see money funneled to emerging space companies.

To do what?  No or little NASA, no need to fund emerging space companies.

Offline Perchlorate

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • 2 miles from the site of the first successful powered flight.
  • Liked: 909
  • Likes Given: 1289
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #7 on: 11/11/2010 01:55 pm »
JWST will inspire the human spirit in the same way Hubble has, and is worth a substantial investment.  Not being an insider as so many of you are, I can't begin to parse out what portion of its overruns are natural and inherent to such a complex, groundbreaking project, versus being attributable to waste.

NASA, IMHO, needs a strong Leader, not an "administrator," with no tolerance for waste and abuse, and a passion for the cause.  I don't know who that is.

Why do so many of these threads descend into hyperbole and mean-spirited ranting?

Finally, how seriously am I going to take the proposition of one who can't even spell "ridiculously"?
Pete B, a Civil Engineer, in an age of incivility.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #8 on: 11/11/2010 01:58 pm »
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20101110/sc_space/nasasnextbigspacetelescopetocostanextra15billion

Quote
The cost of NASA's replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope is giving new meaning to the word astronomical, growing another $1.5 billion, according to a new internal NASA study released Wednesday.

Quote
NASA's explanation: We're better rocket scientists than accountants. Management and others didn't notice that key costs for the James Webb Space Telescope weren't included during a major program review in July 2008, officials said.

NASA cannot do anything on time and on budget.  This is gross negligence and simply unacceptable.  How can taxpayers, senators, congressmen and women have ANY confidence in NASA leadership.  It is time to reboot NASA.  This is precisely what happens when you turn a government agency into a "jobs program".

If a private citizen makes a 1,500 dollar error on their taxes they do not get a bail out but it is ok for NASA to get an extra 1 to 1.5 BILLION?  Does NASA really expect a bail out for this?  I really hope not.  I'm actively advocating against it.

These two quotes really say it all.  The next administrator must have the flexibility to clean house.  It is time to remove the scientists and astronauts who are running things and allow them to do what they do best: execute the mission.  NASA requires an economist and an accountant as the next administrator and deputy.  Simply having the passion for space doesn't cut it.  Flying the shuttle doesn't cut it.

This is why I, and many others, have no confidence in NASA and would much rather see money funneled to emerging space companies.  There is absolutely no way this current iteration of NASA can execute the SLS on time and on budget. 

MSL, Shuttle, ISS, and JWST.  All projects that suck the life out of NASA.

How the hell is anyone able to advocate for NASA when things like this happen?  You cannot.

VR
RE327



I will agree with only one part of this statement and that is that MSL and JWST are both waaaay overbudget. Of the two, I think MSL should be cancelled, and should have been cancelled a while ago. If we are planning to go to mars in the next 15-20 years why send another probe? Why spend soo much money on that probe?? JWST should probably be finished out, at this point, but it has indeed cost way way too much. OFC if larger fairings were availble or there was a way to launch the vehicle without having to fold it up it probably would not have been anywhere near as complex or expensive.I will also agree with you, however, that NASA needs a management change a damn big one if you ask me.


Now lets clear something up: I do not appreciate the hate you seem to be expressing towards NASA and the rather extreme position you are taking. Not all NASA programs are or were overbudget, and to suggest something in a blanket statement like that is rather silly. The sad thing is you rarely hear about the ones that ARE in budget or that DO work. Nasa is not nore is it going to be a jobs program, number 1. Number 2: Politically speaking the idea of funneling that money into new companies will never work. 3: Logistically speaking it would never work either. Are you forgetting what COMMERCIAL means? If you funnel government money into a commercial company, its ceases to be a commercial company and you end up spending the exact same amount or more anyway. Additionally you may end up with less bang for your buck. Commercial contracts are one thing, government takeovers of the private sector are another.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2010 02:07 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #9 on: 11/11/2010 02:01 pm »
JWST will inspire the human spirit in the same way Hubble has, and is worth a substantial investment.  Not being an insider as so many of you are, I can't begin to parse out what portion of its overruns are natural and inherent to such a complex, groundbreaking project, versus being attributable to waste.

NASA, IMHO, needs a strong Leader, not an "administrator," with no tolerance for waste and abuse, and a passion for the cause.  I don't know who that is.

Why do so many of these threads descend into hyperbole and mean-spirited ranting?

Finally, how seriously am I going to take the proposition of one who can't even spell "ridiculously"?

"Why do so many of these threads descend into hyperbole and mean-spirited ranting?"

Because the OP usually takes an extreme position which sets the tone for the rest of the thread. But I think we, as posters, can do better than that. I would rather talk more specifically about ongoing issues regarding JWST, on this thread, rather than whether or not JWST and/or NASA is a "jobs programs".
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #10 on: 11/11/2010 03:20 pm »
The timing of this couldn’t have been worse. With a new Congress coming in with budget axes in hand NASA has just offered up a sterling example of a juicy target. Following so closely on the massive overruns of the MSL program only broadens the target and increases the likelihood of the axe falling on NASA. Chris Scolese said, "We aren't in the business of cost overruns." I'm fairly sure the American public would question the validity of this statement based on the news coverage they’ve seen recently.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #11 on: 11/11/2010 03:28 pm »
And people think that large science payloads for a HLV will be cheap. Oh yeah. No, it will require years of planning, and billions of dollars - for EACH payload.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2010 03:30 pm by Lars_J »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #12 on: 11/11/2010 03:32 pm »
And people think that large science payloads for a HLV will be cheap. Oh yeah. No, it will require years of planning, and billions of dollars - for EACH payload.

"Let's build HLVs and then we'll see where we go from there..."

Giant, cheap telescopes, outer planet probes, yeah, right.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #13 on: 11/11/2010 03:36 pm »
And people think that large science payloads for a HLV will be cheap. Oh yeah. No, it will require years of planning, and billions of dollars - for EACH payload.

Not necissarily.  That seems to be over-reaching a little. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #14 on: 11/11/2010 03:38 pm »
I'm just looking at the recent high-profile cases as an example - JWST & MSL. And those are EELV launched... Projects to build larger and more capable payloads will cost more.

I agree with you that it *shouldn't* have to cost that much. But it seems to end up that way...
« Last Edit: 11/11/2010 03:39 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: JWST is rediculously over budget.
« Reply #15 on: 11/11/2010 06:57 pm »
This thread brought out the armwavers and anti-NASA whiners. Deleted some of it back as downright insulting, but locking the thread to avoid a repeat.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0