Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday January 01 2018, @12:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the is-that-a-question-or-a-challenge? dept.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), an infrared space observatory with an $8.8 billion budget, will be transported to South America to launch atop an Ariane 5 rocket, presumably in Spring 2019. The JWST was not intended to be serviceable at the Earth-Sun L2 point. Will there still be a "Golden Age of astronomy" even if the JWST fails?

[Due] to its steadily escalating cost and continually delayed send-off (which recently slipped from 2018 to 2019), this telescopic time machine is now under increasingly intense congressional scrutiny. To help satisfy any doubts about JWST's status, the project is headed for an independent review as soon as January 2018, advised NASA's science chief Thomas Zurbuchen during an early December congressional hearing. Pressed by legislators about whether JWST will actually launch as presently planned in spring of 2019, he said, "at this moment in time, with the information that I have, I believe it's achievable."

[...] Simply launching JWST is fraught with peril, not to mention unfurling its delicate sunshield and vast, segmented mirror in deep space. Just waving goodbye to JWST atop its booster will be a nail-biter. "The truth is, every single rocket launch off of planet Earth is risky. The good news is that the Ariane 5 has a spectacular record," says former astronaut John Grunsfeld, a repeat "Hubble hugger" who made three space-shuttle visits to low-Earth orbit to renovate that iconic facility. Now scientist emeritus at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, he sees an on-duty JWST as cranking out science "beyond all of our expectations."

"Assuming we make it to the injection trajectory to Earth-Sun L2, of course the next most risky thing is deploying the telescope. And unlike Hubble we can't go out and fix it. Not even a robot can go out and fix it. So we're taking a great risk, but for great reward," Grunsfeld says.

There are, however, modest efforts being made to make JWST "serviceable" like Hubble, according to Scott Willoughby, JWST's program manager at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in Redondo Beach, California. The aerospace firm is NASA's prime contractor to develop and integrate JWST, and has been tasked with provisioning for a "launch vehicle interface ring" on the telescope that could be "grasped by something," whether astronaut or remotely operated robot, Willoughby says. If a spacecraft were sent out to L2 to dock with JWST, it could then attempt repairs—or, if the observatory is well-functioning, simply top off its fuel tank to extend its life. But presently no money is budgeted for such heroics. In the event that JWST suffers what those in spaceflight understatedly call a "bad day," whether due to rocket mishap or deployment glitch or something unforeseen, Grunsfeld says there's presently an ensemble of in-space observatories, including Hubble, and an ever-expanding collection of powerful ground-based telescopes that would offset such misfortune.

Previously: Space science: The telescope that ate astronomy
Telescope That 'Ate Astronomy' Is on Track to Surpass Hubble
Launch of James Webb Space Telescope Delayed to Spring 2019
Launch of James Webb Space Telescope Could be Further Delayed


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:04AM (31 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:04AM (#616607)

    Elon is working with 50 years of data and experience to make his numbers up from. Mercury and Gemini was best guess of the best people at the time based on essentially nothing, the same inexperience that fried Apollo 1 during a ground exercise, the same massive pile of variables that led to two shuttle disasters.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @06:07AM (30 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @06:07AM (#616639) Journal
    And you are cutting down SpaceX's accomplishments, why again? I'll note that in the early-2000s, things looked really grim. In the wake of the dotcom collapse, space launches went way down [wikipedia.org] (including suborbital flights which cross the 100 km altitude mark). Everyone had some kind of set back. In the US, it was that no one wanted to use US launchers for anything serious (they were much more expensive than the other launchers in the world). The US launch business was solely supported by government (NASA and military launches). In 2001, there were 58 launches world-wide. It got worse with a low of 50 launches in 2004. China had lost most of its commercial customers due to a launch disaster [wikipedia.org] in 1996 which wiped out a good portion of a nearby town. Russia was going through budget troubles which threatened to end the program. SpaceX was founded right in the middle of that mess in 2002.

    Fifteen years later in 2017, SpaceX was responsible for 18 launches out of 84 launches (assuming the graph is up to date). From that low point in 2004, more than half the additional launches this year came from SpaceX. SpaceX has single-handedly changed the game from the stagnant one that had existed pretty much since the end of Apollo to one where several new competitors are coming out and people are actually seriously thinking about commercial stuff beyond unmanned satellites in space (like hotels and tourist trips, for example).

    Most of the big contractors in aerospace as well as NASA have been sitting around for decades. They too had those 50 years of data and experience.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:39PM (29 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:39PM (#616759)

      Not cutting down, but it's comparing apples and raisins - Elon is exploring like Myles Standish (captain of the ship that founded Plymouth colony) - the space race astronauts were more on the order of Columbus. Both important, but there's a difference between leading and following.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @07:14PM (28 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @07:14PM (#616832) Journal

        Not cutting down, but it's comparing apples and raisins

        Let us recall that you compared "apples and raisins" [soylentnews.org] on at least two occasions.

        No redneck, ever, came close to the utter ballsy faith in everything gonna work out and this is gonna be EPIC demonstrated by the Mercury and Gemini astronauts. Not even Mr. lawnchair outfitted with a beer cooler, BB gun and weather balloons. Elon launching a Tesla is weak tea by comparison.

        That also is a cut down of SpaceX's work since first, "Elon" (several other posters have since used that name, but you were the first). Second, the bravery of the earliest astronauts was neither in question or relevant. Yet you felt the need to compare "Elon" to astronauts on a scale that astronauts would win at. We can however change that scale. What from-scratch orbital launch businesses have those astronauts started again? None. Elon wins that one.

        Both important, but there's a difference between leading and following.

        Oh, another comparison where certain astronauts are leaders and certain billionaires are followers. There is indeed a difference. But I wouldn't call SpaceX following. More on that later.

        Let us keep in mind your various cutdowns here. "Elon" wasn't as brave as astronauts. SpaceX is "following". And of course, the mysterious need to mention "50 years of data and experience".

        So what did other parties do with that 50 years of data and experience? NASA launched a few white elephants; created a monopoly [soylentnews.org] and then when that was overturned, a cartel; and otherwise just plodded along for 40 years. Those rival aerospace firms, the ones who actually put things in orbit, they comfortably seated themselves in that cartel. There were many players with the ability and resources to do what SpaceX did in the last fifteen years at any time after the end of Apollo. None of them even tried. That is your "bargain" [soylentnews.org]. I can't make you think about the absurdity of throwing money away for many decades as a "bargain", but I can sure point it out for other readers.

        This unique action when others failed for 40 years is what makes SpaceX a leader.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @07:18PM (27 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @07:18PM (#616835)

          Both important, but there's a difference.

          Defend your hero as you will, I'm not calling him bad, or a failure, just different.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:41PM (26 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:41PM (#616879) Journal

            Defend your hero as you will, I'm not calling him bad, or a failure, just different.

            Whatever. SpaceX is not a hero, but thousands of them. Nor are all the other businesses that now exist to change space as we know. The real problem here is that you don't get my point. The diversion of this thread into the red herring about who was the braver/ballsier hero is your doing.

            My point has always been that the US via NASA blew over a trillion dollars on space exploration and development. In turn, it got a small amount of crap for it - a token few missions and white elephants. The JWST is just another white elephant in the herd - lots of money burned in a moderately sexy way, but it'll never pay for itself. The rationalizations for this have been complete nonsense, spin offs and displays of bold "faith". Well, you can get both of those for a lot smaller price tag! It's not a bargain "at any price", but a great squandering of opportunity.

            Learn some economics and how it applies to the real world: opportunity cost, economies of scale, Other Peoples' Money, orders of magnitude, etc. I'm tired of the people who don't have a clue what a cost or benefit, wiggling their fingers mysteriously and uttering a buzzword like "spin off". When SpaceX can do something for an order of magnitude less than NASA can price it for, that's an enormous failing. Learn why it exists rather than assume it must be a bargain.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:41PM (25 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:41PM (#616905)

              My point wasn't supposed to be about bravery, it was supposed to be about exploration - novelty - pushing the boundaries.

              JWST is a big fat white elephant that WILL push those boundaries, open new frontiers of knowledge, and the outcome of that is completely unknowable. Maybe a waste of time, maybe esoteric BS that nobody cares about - but I think without the frontiers that have been crossed in the last 50 years, we'd be even more screwed as a species of 7 billion than we presently are.

              Will the JWST bring us cold fusion on a platter? Or something unexpected and equally dramatic? Likely not, but without continued expansion of the frontiers, big dramatic improvements like that won't be happening.

              Oh, but the big businesses are pursuing all the important things anyway because the free market knows all? The free market knows f-all about exploration, it knows how to drive costs and quality to the lowest possible levels, it knows how to open the maximum number of consumer wallets in the minimum time, but if you want to parade the white elephants, let's look at the output of Hollyweird, the great American SUV transporting an average of 1.1 people at a time, the tobacco industry, fast fashion, and Starbucks. That's what letting the people decide gets you: 500% inflated coffee prices, plush leather seating, and dazzling special effects.

              There are exceptions everywhere, but I don't think that the free market, in general, is doing all that great a job of science, exploration, or advancing the general state of the human race.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @10:53PM (24 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @10:53PM (#616948) Journal

                Will the JWST bring us cold fusion on a platter? Or something unexpected and equally dramatic? Likely not, but without continued expansion of the frontiers, big dramatic improvements like that won't be happening.

                What makes you think you're expanding a frontier?

                Oh, but the big businesses are pursuing all the important things anyway because the free market knows all? The free market knows f-all about exploration, it knows how to drive costs and quality to the lowest possible levels, it knows how to open the maximum number of consumer wallets in the minimum time, but if you want to parade the white elephants, let's look at the output of Hollyweird, the great American SUV transporting an average of 1.1 people at a time, the tobacco industry, fast fashion, and Starbucks. That's what letting the people decide gets you: 500% inflated coffee prices, plush leather seating, and dazzling special effects.

                As I said early, you really need to learn some economic basics. I'll note right now that the market made the JWST. It's all made by private contractors [northropgrumman.com] like Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK, and Ball Aerospace. Just because NASA vastly overpays for this doesn't mean the market isn't involved.

                Second, why would we expect the tobacco industry, fast fashion, and Starbucks to be making space telescopes? Market participants specialize just like their government counterparts do. We don't expect the US's ultraweak old age insurance or the various health care programs to build rockets. So we shouldn't expect Big Tobacco or hipster coffee businesses to do so either. This isn't a market thing, it's a standard division of labor thing.

                Once we get to NASA and its coterie, we quickly see that free markets have nothing to do with the mess that's been created. None of them, including NASA have a serious interest in exploration. It's just something they have to do to keep pulling those awesome checks. As long as they occasionally send something up, they get big money. I find it interesting that you complain about overpriced coffee, but not about overpriced space telescopes. The latter is more important to you, right? Maybe you ought to start caring about the things you care about?

                And that brings us to an important distinction. The market that gives us shitty, overpriced products like the JWST isn't free. It's this weird, highly restricted market with one customer, NASA, a cartel of suppliers (the few, large contractors who can qualify as prime contractors), and massive conflicts of interest all over the place. Once again, the free market gets blamed for crap that happens when you totally break a free market.

                Here's my take. The free market can easily meet your extremely low expectations. But you can't buy space telescopes with feelz. You'll need to put up some dough if you want a shiny telescope.

                But let's suppose you want to continue to steal public funds for your frontier fantasies, how can you improve the situation?

                1. Never use a cost plus contract ever. Your contractors are builders not lawyers. Pay them via the appropriate contracts.
                2. Exploit economies of scale. Never make one of anything. Encourage reuse of designs. Don't spaz out if a contractor wants to use off the shelf stuff - just test and verify it works.
                3. Don't do everything in one mission. Extremely limited missions with a little new tech are vastly cheaper than missions that do a lot of new things.
                4. Don't do anything that the market already does better. Scrap the Space Launch System, for example.
                5. Don't change your mind.
                6. Every project should be a stepping stone on a road to future projects and private world stuff.
                7. Never settle for merely spending money on something. If you're building something only for the status or feelz, then scrap it.

                Note that a number of these simple approaches, it is politically infeasible for NASA to do at present. You'll need to change that.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 03 2018, @12:27AM (23 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 03 2018, @12:27AM (#616989)

                  I'm presently working with phase space representations of quasi-periodic series as a little side-hobby. The reason I mention this is because: a quasi-periodic series is a one dimensional sequence of numbers that repeats within a given range - almost periodically, but not quite, and yet not quite chaotically either. Adjust the coefficients of the oscillator just a little and it can collapse to a point, explode to infinity, or within small ranges it can increase or decrease its complexity in and out of chaotic states.

                  Anyway - a one dimensional string of numbers, chaotic or not, is pretty boring to look at, but if you plot one number against the next (in the method of Poincaire), that two dimensional plot of a one dimensional series of numbers can appear, quite convincingly, to represent 3 and possibly higher dimensional objects - depending on how you perceive the representation.

                  Now, whether you plot one number against the next, or skip 2, 3 or even 100 steps in the sequence to get the Y coordinate to go with the X, also affects the shape presented - while all phase-space plots of a given oscillator are somewhat "of a family" with recognizable features, they can also be quite different depending on the spacing at which you plot them, varying from dull blobs to swirling circular donut like shapes.

                  It's a lot like parsing your logic, sometimes it seems to represent a coherent picture, sometimes it's just circular:

                  I'll note right now that the market made the JWST. It's all made by private contractors

                  White elephant, ordered up by big government with a hefty side of pork. But this pig will be able to see things that no pig before it ever has, answering questions that are at present unanswerable. It's the perfect argument for a one-off. We don't need more Junior High 60x moon scopes, produced en-masse at a cheaper price with higher quality, we have plenty of those already. Neither would we benefit more from six more Hubbles launched instead of one JWST... the extra Hubbles might be nice to increase the bandwidth and reliability of the existing one, but they won't answer any fundamentally new questions, JWST will.

                  Once we get to NASA and its coterie, we quickly see that free markets have nothing to do with the mess that's been created.

                  But, wait - are you drawing a distinction between JPL and NASA? Houston is just as full of private contractors as any other branch of NASA/JPL. They bid, after their fashion, for the work.

                  All seems kind of hung on circular semantics/reasoning... is NASA to blame, or the politicians who hand down their mandates? Certainly neither of those work in the manner of the free market, and yet - they continue to do things that the free market has not, do them first - perhaps not best, but before others.

                  If it is the politicians to blame, why aren't they doing a better job of representing their constituents' interests? Oh, but they are, Political Econ 101: voters love pork. So,

                  let's suppose you want to continue to steal public funds for your frontier fantasies, how can you improve the situation?

                  let's roll back to basics: you're going to have to implement any changes via political mandates, good luck training your politicians to do anything other than try to win the next election.

                  Meanwhile, I'm satisfied that the JWST is money well, if not efficiently, spent, and I won't be changing that view until the Elon Musks of the world shift their focus off of commercialization of existing science and start to investigate new phenomena, in the open - shared with the world, on their own nickel. Not holding my breath for that one.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:05PM (22 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:05PM (#617404) Journal

                    It's a lot like parsing your logic, sometimes it seems to represent a coherent picture, sometimes it's just circular:

                    Perhaps less shaggy dog stories would help your criticism? Because, if we took your story at face value, it just means that you are looking at patterns rather than the logic generating those patterns.

                    White elephant, ordered up by big government with a hefty side of pork. But this pig will be able to see things that no pig before it ever has, answering questions that are at present unanswerable. It's the perfect argument for a one-off. We don't need more Junior High 60x moon scopes, produced en-masse at a cheaper price with higher quality, we have plenty of those already. Neither would we benefit more from six more Hubbles launched instead of one JWST... the extra Hubbles might be nice to increase the bandwidth and reliability of the existing one, but they won't answer any fundamentally new questions, JWST will.

                    Ok, so abandoning the free market complaints, I see. Probably a good move.

                    One JWST is going to answer more unanswerable questions than six Hubbles? Not buying it. I think it would help if you understood the technological capabilities of these telescopes. Hubble answers the unanswered in visual and near UV, JWST does it in visual and IR at a modest improvement in resolution and sensitivity (at the frequencies where it overlaps with Hubble). And while we can adapt one or more Hubbles to IR frequencies before launch, we don't have a second JWST that we can adapt to any holes in our astronomical coverage. We can also do interferometry with multiple telescopes, which can result resolution far better than a single scope can achieve. One is not strictly better than the other, performance-wise. But you can do a lot more with seven slightly worse space telescopes than two (assuming Hubble doesn't get decommissioned, which is probably a good bet to make).

                    Here, you're missing is that there are a limited number of instruments with which to answer anything. That means that even century old Earth-side telescopes are still seeing use. More telescopes means more questions answered now rather than well after the researcher dies of old age. Speaking of time, JWST won't launch before 2019. We could have had those Hubbles in space early last decade. Ten or fifteen years of observation before the JWST even sees light.

                    Even if space exploration really is the only thing in the world important to you (which is what "at any price" means), how much space exploration are you willing to sacrifice for a token bit of space exploration? Things like JWST sacrifice a lot of other opportunities. Even if the JWST were the only thing that mattered ever, you could buy several JWST for what NASA spent on one.

                    Once we get to NASA and its coterie, we quickly see that free markets have nothing to do with the mess that's been created.

                    But, wait - are you drawing a distinction between JPL and NASA? Houston is just as full of private contractors as any other branch of NASA/JPL. They bid, after their fashion, for the work.

                    Nope.

                    All seems kind of hung on circular semantics/reasoning... is NASA to blame, or the politicians who hand down their mandates?

                    NASA. They are the ones paid to carry out US space exploration. Not the congresscritters. This blame deflection has gone on forever. It's NASA's job to justify their budget and education whoever needs to be educated about the importance of the activity - not Congress. That leads to the next problem which is that the vast majority of the electorate doesn't have a stake in yet another space telescope and thus, elects congresspeople who don't have those priorities either.

                    Crowing about how the JWST is the bestest telescope ever when it is not, isn't persuading those people.

                    Certainly neither of those work in the manner of the free market, and yet - they continue to do things that the free market has not, do them first - perhaps not best, but before others.

                    And we come to the true circular reasoning. You have yet to establish that something which the market doesn't do, was worth doing. The market doesn't fund $8 billion telescopes like JWST, sure. But that doesn't mean that the telescope is worth funding. All you've been able to express is vague mumbling about "unanswered questions" and such. It's not a market failing that it doesn't fund white elephants.

                    Science is not just another religion. If you wish to do science, then you need to accept its conclusions. Here, one of those conclusions is simply that things have gone very wrong with the approach exemplified by the JWST. It shouldn't cost $8 billion and it doesn't do enough to justify that price tag. I think it's telling that you can't coherently explain why JWST is supposed to be worth $8 billion with concrete logic and reasoning. Instead, it's Starbucks is selling overpriced coffee and vague unanswered questions. We live in a world with limited resources. Everything, including our space telescopes should use those resources well.

                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:44AM (4 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:44AM (#617445)

                      JWST does it in visual and IR at a modest improvement in resolution and sensitivity

                      IR that, we hope, will show us deeper into the center of the Milky Way - with improved resolution that might enable comparison of our "local" galactic observations with the centers of Andromeda and more distant galaxies.

                      If you want to argue that six new Hubbles could have 3 equipped with IR capabilites rivaling JWST, you're going to have to eat the reduced resolution from the smaller scope, not to mention that you'll be launching tech that was designed to fit in a now defunct launch vehicle - not so great for efficiency in that respect.

                      Don't get me wrong, I preferred the days of Voyager, Pioneer and Viking, if you're going to do one, you should at least do two to CYA and get better return on the design effort - but the long history of successful twin missions seems to have doomed the funding to only consider one these days.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:04AM (3 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:04AM (#617545) Journal
                        So what? This is just another example of the dishonest games that are played with these projects. Sure, JWST is in an absolute sense better with moderately higher resolution and light gathering power. I already said that earlier. But it costs money. You don't seem to get that. A bunch of Hubbles, some working in the IR range, can do a lot as well, and they would be operating for over a decade by now.
                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:57PM (2 children)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:57PM (#617665)

                          and they would be operating for over a decade by now.

                          Only if they got funded, and apparently our funding system is more likely to open the purse for novel science than production line repetition.

                          What is needed is an NRAO / VLA type application for Hubble-like telescopes - where a constellation of 30 of them can work together to do something that none could alone, and... by the way... the 30 can also be individually tasked for increased coverage of, oh, say, NEO tracking and other existential threats to the human race.

                          --
                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:03PM (1 child)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:03PM (#617792) Journal

                            Only if they got funded, and apparently our funding system is more likely to open the purse for novel science than production line repetition.

                            Remind me again how "our funding system" was supposed to be better than the "free market business" thing? You're hiding behind Congress. They are much less interested in space development and exploration than you are.

                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:15PM

                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:15PM (#617802)

                              Remind me again how "our funding system" was supposed to be better than the "free market business" thing?

                              Just this: we also have a free market for space projects, for decades now, the one that launches projects like Iridium.

                              Q.E.D.

                              --
                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:51AM

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:51AM (#617447)

                      We could have had those Hubbles in space early last decade.

                      Could we? I'll grant you: for the cost of invading a country with no actual WMD, we could have replicated the entire HST program with all its inefficiencies 80 times. But, do we have the political will to do such a thing? Apparently not.

                      I'm much more pissed off about $30B spent on fuel for air conditioning for the troops for one summer than I am about $9B spent on JWST. Not that our troops didn't deserve AC, not that the AC didn't make them more effective in carrying out their mission, just that the mission itself was 1000x more bone-headed than any judgement call made by NASA or JPL, ever.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:57AM

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:57AM (#617448)

                      It's NASA's job to justify their budget and education whoever needs to be educated about the importance of the activity

                      The only argument that will ever get NASA a respectable level of funding is that they are defending "us" against something or someone who is "dangerous." Since Apollo, they have failed to manufacture another adversary to justify why their funding is more important than aircraft carriers to intimidate the rest of the world with.

                      If you want to look at it this way: NASA made MAD stick, and they made it stick so well that they put ICBMs out of the "practical defense" game. Sure, we still have 'em. Sure, carrot-top's button is bigger than anyone elses. But unless you're an unhinged lunatic, you can't really use them to deliver nukes to real targets, so they've lost their practical value. Too expensive to deliver conventional weapons, and too politically unpalatable to use for anything other than armageddon.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:06AM (14 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:06AM (#617451)

                      JWST is the bestest telescope ever

                      Far from it, but it is the only telescope with certain (planned) capabilities ever.

                      JWST is supposed to be worth $8 billion with concrete logic and reasoning. Instead, it's Starbucks is selling overpriced coffee and vague unanswered questions. We live in a world with limited resources. Everything, including our space telescopes should use those resources well.

                      So, what I am unwilling to accept is the condemnation of exploratory research and development programs because they don't live up to the standards of assembly line engineering efficiency. Is JWST a poor performer? Nobody can answer that yet, and if the program is cancelled then it will be a long time indeed before we know.

                      Can future programs like JWST be managed better, produce more for less, etc.? Undoubtably, but there's more to the program than science and engineering, program management, political representation, public relations, all are important pieces of the puzzle, and none of them are performing at 100% within NASA, or any other exploratory agency on the planet. Is the JWST so horrible that we need to cancel the program, take NASA out behind the woodshed and give them a whuppin' for being so bone headed? I think that would be counter-productive, and even more inefficient than the present course.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:07AM (13 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:07AM (#617546) Journal

                        Is JWST a poor performer?

                        So what massive amount of science has JWST done to this point to match what we would have gotten from the Hubbles? It's already a poor performer. We're just attempting to make good on a massive sunk cost.

                        Is the JWST so horrible that we need to cancel the program, take NASA out behind the woodshed and give them a whuppin' for being so bone headed? I think that would be counter-productive, and even more inefficient than the present course.

                        JWST should have never existed in the first place. Grownups need to be put in charge.

                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:53PM (12 children)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:53PM (#617664)

                          JWST should have never existed in the first place. Grownups need to be put in charge.

                          Hindsight... both for the telescope program and the management staffing decisions. Life is a massive sunk cost, if you spend all of it abandoning endeavors that appear to be sub-optimal, you accomplish exactly nothing.

                          --
                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:09PM (11 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:09PM (#617797) Journal

                            Hindsight... both for the telescope program and the management staffing decisions.

                            Because NASA has an amazing record with this JWST being an outlier? Perhaps it would be educational to consider other projects? JWST may be a little worse than normal, but over budget and behind schedule is SOP.

                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:19PM (10 children)

                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:19PM (#617807)

                              over budget and behind schedule is SOP

                              I don't know what industries you work in, but in Medical and Military, the larger the organization, the more over-budget and behind-schedule projects are, on average. Not that they shouldn't strive to be better and be exposed to competition, but NASA is quite large, this is indeed SOP and expected.

                              --
                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @05:27PM (9 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @05:27PM (#618399) Journal

                                but in Medical and Military, the larger the organization, the more over-budget and behind-schedule projects are, on average.

                                Yet another good argument for humongous NASA there. The larger the organization the harder it fails.

                                Welp, looks like time to summarize my arguments here. The endless fire hose of public funding demonstrates once again its ability to corrupt. You've ignored something like a half dozen different glaring signs that US space activities are a long term failure merely because it occasionally delivers something you want. It's too bad that economics doesn't matter to you. This attitude multiplied over 340 million people is why the US is so remarkably bad at spending money. If it were your personal money, you'd at least be interested in spending that was better or more effective and make priorities over what you want that money spent on. But when it comes to public funding, even a token chance at "unanswered questions" is sufficient to insure your complicity.

                                My view on these things is different. This is money taken from everyone of us, even those who don't directly pay taxes. We all should strive to spend those resources well rather than settle for poor outcomes.

                                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @05:50PM (8 children)

                                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 05 2018, @05:50PM (#618415)

                                  The endless fire hose of public funding demonstrates once again its ability to corrupt.

                                  Good point, and I'll take a wild extrapolation to the USSR and its primary downfall: size.

                                  Still, there are economies of scale that make the big, corrupt, inefficient, even embarrassing large organizations competitively superior to their smaller more nimble counterparts.

                                  it occasionally delivers something you want.

                                  As opposed to the free market space industry which has funded/delivered exactly ZERO science projects bigger than a box in the Space Shuttle cargo bay.

                                  This attitude multiplied over 340 million people is why the US is so remarkably bad at spending money.

                                  In the military, in the bureaucratic administration of bizarrely complicated social programs, in healthcare - absolutely. By the time you get down into NASA, it's a tiny pimple on the butt of a tremendous elephant of bad spending.

                                  This is money taken from everyone of us, even those who don't directly pay taxes. We all should strive to spend those resources well rather than settle for poor outcomes.

                                  Like Gulf War II? Social Security and Healthcare? A 1% improvement in either of those areas would be more significant that a dramatic overhaul of all of NASA.

                                  All of public spending does produce public benefits, some more immediately tangible than others, some more efficiently than others (none very efficient when compared to small scrappy businesses.)

                                  So, are you running for office, or how exactly are you going to turn this great economic-justice wit into action?

                                  --
                                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @08:43PM (7 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @08:43PM (#618503) Journal

                                    As opposed to the free market space industry which has funded/delivered exactly ZERO science projects bigger than a box in the Space Shuttle cargo bay.

                                    And why is that a problem? Earth-side is a pretty good location for a telescope. For example, there's the privately funded Keck observatory in Hawaii. That's bigger than a bread box.

                                    By the time you get down into NASA, it's a tiny pimple on the butt of a tremendous elephant of bad spending.

                                    It's a part that buy votes for the rest of the elephant.

                                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @09:34PM (6 children)

                                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 05 2018, @09:34PM (#618526)

                                      So your answer is: shutdown NASA because it isn't as efficient or effective at spending money as I imagine I would be?

                                      Let's review: JWST - $9B program started in 2011, probably running through at least 2025. If you take the "average American's" share of this $9B project, that's OMG! $26.47, $0.013 or less per day of in-space operation. And you're pissed at NASA because that's not good value for "your" $26.47? Seems to me that you've gotten at least a couple of bucks' entertainment value ranting about it just these past few days, and you seem the type that could continue to harp on a subject for years, so I'm sure you'll eventually manage to derive $26.47 worth of entertainment just espousing your views on what a turkey the JWST and all of NASA is. Private business would manage it better, your government is stealing tax money from you and wasting it on junk science.

                                      Meanwhile, private business (Comcast) just upped my internet access rates by $7 per month, for no reasons other than: they want to, they can, so they will. Service remains the same: deeply sub-standard when compared against the world market.

                                      Who do you think I'm more pissed at? JWST for $105.88 (family of 4) spread across 20 years, or Comcast for jacking my rates $84 for the coming year?

                                      --
                                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @11:23PM (5 children)

                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @11:23PM (#618554) Journal

                                        So your answer is: shutdown NASA because it isn't as efficient or effective at spending money as I imagine I would be?

                                        Yes. Though I would accept moving that money to a space agency (or rather several space agencies) that actually does the job of developing space.

                                        Let's review: JWST - $9B program started in 2011, probably running through at least 2025. If you take the "average American's" share of this $9B project, that's OMG! $26.47, $0.0?Let's review: JWST - $9B program started in 2011, probably running through at least 2025. If you take the "average American's" share of this $9B project, that's OMG! $26.47, $0.013 or less per day of in-space operation. And you're pissed at NASA because that's not good value for "your" $26.47?

                                        Yes. That's $26.47 taken from how many people again?

                                        Meanwhile, private business (Comcast) just upped my internet access rates by $7 per month, for no reasons other than: they want to, they can, so they will. Service remains the same: deeply sub-standard when compared against the world market.

                                        NASA helped buy your vote for that Comcast monopoly.

                                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @11:44PM (4 children)

                                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 05 2018, @11:44PM (#618558)

                                          NASA helped buy your vote for that Comcast monopoly.

                                          Sorry, not following - when, and how did I, or any citizen, ever have the opportunity to cast a vote against a Comcast monopoly?

                                          --
                                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:17AM (3 children)

                                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:17AM (#618583) Journal
                                            When you elect your representatives.
                                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:52AM (2 children)

                                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:52AM (#618601)

                                              Explain, then, what representative was available on the ballot to strike down a Comcast monopoly, and how they bear any connection to NASA?

                                              My thinking is mine, your thinking is yours - I'm just curious what connection you might make.

                                              --
                                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 06 2018, @04:44PM (1 child)

                                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 06 2018, @04:44PM (#618818) Journal
                                                Every one of them is. I don't care about Comcast, and you care more about bargains in space.
                                                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 06 2018, @06:15PM

                                                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 06 2018, @06:15PM (#618837)

                                                  Every one of them is.

                                                  Not sure what this degenerated into, but if every representative on the ballot is willing to do my bidding, that would be a wonderful world indeed.

                                                  But, NASA bought my vote so the representatives won't do what I want?

                                                  This does reflect poorly on the opinions you previously put forth regarding the value of a deep space research telescope...

                                                  --
                                                  🌻🌻 [google.com]