JWST is a failure. we should stop, get some outside experts and try and figure out where the project needs to go...and get new management. Its a debacleIt is clear that the NG "engineering" groups do not work, and neither does NASA ovesight. the entire system is near dysfunctional and who knows what they have missedsadly this is just another echo of Challenger and Columbia
A major problem with JWST, one that is endemic in both NASA and other government-funded projects as a whole, is under-funding.
Who actually believed that $500 million number?
Who actually believed that $500 million number? TESS has a cost of $200 million with a cumulative aperture area of 346 square centimeters. JWST aperture area is ~330,000 square centimeters. So you get 1000x the telescope for 2.5x the cost? TESS wasn't around back then, but comparisons to Spitzer yields similar results (.85 meter aperture, $720 million).I need to get into the snake oil sales business.edit: Ohh, that estimate came from Dan Goldin's tenure at NASA - "faster, better, cheaper"...choose 3. I'm sure you could launch something with those rough dimensions for $500 million, just like the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander launched something with the rough dimensions of working spacecraft toward Mars.edit 2: I might be being unfair to Dan. His tenure had successes and failures at Mars. Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter failed, but pathfinder/Mars Global Surveyor/Mars Odyssey all succeeded.
I think that highlights what should be the real question, was JWST simply too ambitious?This is the thing that worries me about the latest set of mega scope studies for the next decadal. JWST shows we clearly have a lot to learn still before taking that step.
https://spacenews.com/northrop-ceo-offers-to-link-jwst-profit-to-mission-success/
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/26/2018 11:11 pmA major problem with JWST, one that is endemic in both NASA and other government-funded projects as a whole, is under-funding. JWST had a lot of problems, but I don't think this was one of them. The initial cost estimates were bad. There were a lot of lousy assumptions as well. If there was under-funding--and I don't know if there was--it may have been a result of them funding to a bad (lower) estimated cost than reality. It's like comparing your weekly paycheck to the cost of a car and thinking you can afford it, and then finding out that the cost of the car is actually much greater.To really get to the bottom of JWST's cost and schedule issues will take a book, a thick book. There's a lot of stuff that happened, and there's a lot of things to work through. For instance, it is common for people to claim that the "original" cost estimate was only $500 million. That's not true. That was a cost that was mentioned, but when the program was approved the estimated cost was over $4 billion, not $500 million. So it didn't grow from $500 million, it grew from $4+ billion.And the reality is that it's very difficult to estimate costs for something that has never been done before. JWST includes a lot of new technologies, and there was no way to estimate what they would cost.
..It is clear that the NG "engineering" groups do not work, and neither does NASA oversight. the entire system is near dysfunctional and who knows what they have missed..
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/27/2018 02:51 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/26/2018 11:11 pmA major problem with JWST, one that is endemic in both NASA and other government-funded projects as a whole, is under-funding. JWST had a lot of problems, but I don't think this was one of them. The initial cost estimates were bad. There were a lot of lousy assumptions as well. If there was under-funding--and I don't know if there was--it may have been a result of them funding to a bad (lower) estimated cost than reality. It's like comparing your weekly paycheck to the cost of a car and thinking you can afford it, and then finding out that the cost of the car is actually much greater.To really get to the bottom of JWST's cost and schedule issues will take a book, a thick book. There's a lot of stuff that happened, and there's a lot of things to work through. For instance, it is common for people to claim that the "original" cost estimate was only $500 million. That's not true. That was a cost that was mentioned, but when the program was approved the estimated cost was over $4 billion, not $500 million. So it didn't grow from $500 million, it grew from $4+ billion.And the reality is that it's very difficult to estimate costs for something that has never been done before. JWST includes a lot of new technologies, and there was no way to estimate what they would cost.*Just to make my point, yes, in the early years JWST was under-funded. That is not the only problem the JWST project had, it had a whole bunch of technology maturation problems at that time as well, which were exacerbated by the lack of the requested funding needed to address those problems. GAO report from 2009: "The JWST project was re-planned in fiscal year 2006 after a $1 billion cost increase and a 2-year schedule delay on the project. About half of the cost growth was because of a 1-year schedule slip, resulting from a delayed decision to use an ESA-supplied Ariane 5 launch vehicle and an additional 10-month slip caused by budget profile limitations in fiscal years 2006 and 2007."
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/26/2018 11:11 pmA major problem with JWST, one that is endemic in both NASA and other government-funded projects as a whole, is under-funding. JWST had a lot of problems, but I don't think this was one of them. The initial cost estimates were bad. There were a lot of lousy assumptions as well. If there was under-funding--and I don't know if there was--it may have been a result of them funding to a bad (lower) estimated cost than reality. It's like comparing your weekly paycheck to the cost of a car and thinking you can afford it, and then finding out that the cost of the car is actually much greater.To really get to the bottom of JWST's cost and schedule issues will take a book, a thick book. There's a lot of stuff that happened, and there's a lot of things to work through. For instance, it is common for people to claim that the "original" cost estimate was only $500 million. That's not true. That was a cost that was mentioned, but when the program was approved the estimated cost was over $4 billion, not $500 million. So it didn't grow from $500 million, it grew from $4+ billion.And the reality is that it's very difficult to estimate costs for something that has never been done before. JWST includes a lot of new technologies, and there was no way to estimate what they would cost.*
Quote from: TripleSeven on 07/26/2018 10:22 pm..It is clear that the NG "engineering" groups do not work, and neither does NASA oversight. the entire system is near dysfunctional and who knows what they have missed..How many scientific missions has this 'dysfunctional system' produced in the past 50+ years?How many of them failed in their scientific mission?What is the success/failure ratio for this 'dysfunctional system'?There are definitely problems with this mission, but I think NASA deserves at least a little bit of respect.I don't think the system is broken by a long shot, yes it's very expensive, but that's another discussion.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 07/26/2018 10:22 pmJWST is a failure. we should stop, get some outside experts and try and figure out where the project needs to go...and get new management. Its a debacleIt is clear that the NG "engineering" groups do not work, and neither does NASA ovesight. the entire system is near dysfunctional and who knows what they have missedsadly this is just another echo of Challenger and ColumbiaA major problem with JWST, one that is endemic in both NASA and other government-funded projects as a whole, is under-funding. You may scoff, but under-funding is a simple and effective way to have a program's costs dramatically increase over time while also pushing the completion date later and later - sound familiar? That's because it hapens all. the. time.JWST was under-funded for the first several years of its existence. From 2002 to 2010, the cost would increase by about half a billion dollars per year while the completion date was pushed out another year every two years. The "outside" intervention you want actually already happened. Congress stepped in in 2011 and slapped a cost cap of $8 billion on JWST, along with appropriate yearly funding. Guess what? The program has actually more or less progressed as expected and stayed on budget since then, until the more recent issues happened.
How many scientific missions has this 'dysfunctional system' produced in the past 50+ years?How many of them failed in their scientific mission?What is the success/failure ratio for this 'dysfunctional system'?There are definitely problems with this mission, but I think NASA deserves at least a little bit of respect.I don't think the system is broken by a long shot, yes it's very expensive, but that's another discussion.
*snip*I watched a video just last night (it was maybe a year old) where they talked about the JWST and interviewed various gov't and NG workers. One engineer who was really exited about being part of such a historic mission explained there there were ten new technologies* that had to be developed just for JWST. It's a technology demonstration mission, and a Flagship-class mission at the same time I can't think of another unmanned spacecraft that was quite like that (and there certainly haven't been any on that scale)*snip*
Quote from: mn on 07/30/2018 05:31 pmHow many scientific missions has this 'dysfunctional system' produced in the past 50+ years?How many of them failed in their scientific mission?What is the success/failure ratio for this 'dysfunctional system'?There are definitely problems with this mission, but I think NASA deserves at least a little bit of respect.I don't think the system is broken by a long shot, yes it's very expensive, but that's another discussion.It seems reasonable to me that you can't count expensive successes without counting against those successes the science / projects that failed at the budget stage due to the expense of even a successful program. JWST may do lots of valuable science.It did (assuming a flat NASA budget) prevent other science being done.
