The James Webb Space Telescope threatens to eat the budgets of other missions

JWST In Deep Space NASA

Huge cost overruns caused by mismanagement of the James Webb Space Telescope are delaying NASA’s keystone science project yet again, and could wreak havoc on the agency’s remaining astrophysics budget, a congressional panel found this week.

“This is NASA's Hurricane Katrina,” astronomer Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., told Science News.

The JWST, the successor to the aging Hubble Space Telescope, will cost $1.5 billion more than current estimates and will be delayed until at least 2015, according to a seven-member review panel. That brings the price tag to $6.5 billion, and the telescope is already years behind schedule. What’s worse, the project needs $400 million right away to have any hope of meeting a 2015 launch.

Heads will roll over this mess — NASA administrator Charles Bolden said this week that he was reorganizing the JWST project and installing a new boss to oversee the changes. But more significant will be the impacts on NASA’s other programs, especially astrophysics research.

JWST already consumes almost half of NASA’s Astrophysics Division budget, according to Boss, who was not involved in the report but chairs a different NASA committee on astronomy. Infusing it with even more cash could hurt remaining astronomy programs, such as the Wide-Field Infrared Space Telescope (WFIRST), a project that earned top priority in the Astro2010 astronomy decadal survey. If Webb fails, astronomy could be set back a generation.

Panel members explained in a teleconference earlier this week that the agency had unrealistic cost expectations from the outset. Finger-pointing commenced shortly thereafter, with some blaming the agency’s science mission directorate and even Bolden himself.

“The bottom line is that there was never enough money in the budget to execute the work that was required,” said John Casani, a scientist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

In a way, you can’t blame them — when you have to make brand-new metals from scratch, it’s going to get expensive.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who chairs a Senate committee that oversees NASA spending, charged Casani and the other panel members with finding out why and how the telescope has been plagued with such delays and high costs. The good news is that they found the telescope is technically sound, quite a feat for such an complicated concept.

JWST And Gas Clouds: Sort of resembles a Predator-class star destroyer, doesn't it?  NASA
In addition to its metametals, Webb contains a huge space umbrella to shield it from the sun, which will unfurl in space, and an enormous foldable 18-piece primary mirror made of material that is supposed to warp in frigid temperatures.

These feats of engineering have been worth it, the panel said — “the funds invested to date have not been wasted,” according to the executive summary. But the management approach needs to change. Here’s hoping for 2015, then.

22 Comments

The telescope is like. "Om nom nom, om nom." "This is delicious!" and "What was that NASA? Eat them all? Good idea!"

All in a Russian accent...

Just give them the friggin money. Hundreds of billions of our money stolen and gifted to bankers is okay, but not 6.5b to radically advance our knowledge of the universe?

and yet no auto targeting debri shooting lasers

Just think, we'll get it up in space, and the first signal we get will be: "Mirror Deployment Failure- An unknown error has occurred". 6.5 billion down the drain. The chances of a failed launch/deployment are low nowadays, but still there. If it tanks like other launches have in the past, are we going to risk a repair mission?

@jacobm

There could never be a repair mission, so lets keep our fingers crossed.

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/orbit.html

oh noes, chewing up too much money to launch a project to discover priceless knowledge of the universe, why can't has that while we washing down over 550 billion on the military

Can't we test it out before we launch it?

Is this project relly that improtant ? I mean, one thing to replace dozens in nasa ? Who's to say that somthing get's overlooked that the j. web "scrapped" could do soooooo much more for us as a race, somthing that could relly help us. Cold fussion anyone ? Food for thought.

lol you are suggesting to replace a sound experiment with Cold Fusion? lol...

Why not offer to sell the pictures from the satellite to all countries that pay an "investment deposit"? Then compose a contract with all the appropriate legalese and propose the info to the U.N.

I can think of several leaders that would toss every piece of monetary value at High quality pictures from space, especially the possibility of extraterrestrial discovery.

We're not going to play cold war again are we?

Think about it NASA.

It seems that a "grab the bull by the horns" approach would be the best way to save this project. At least the overruns were detected before all the funds were "sunken"-that is, irrevocably spent. A hard look at suppliers, contracters, etc, will be the best start towards bringing costs under control, followed by getting the various in-house groups together to more efficiently manage the course of the overall effort. A thorough reveiw of progress up to this point should take place (yeah, I know, all this is easier said than done, and looking at the report, a costly boondoggle in itself). Unfortunatly, there is probably nothing that can be done to save the project's original timeframe. I still think the JWST deserves to happen, as Hubble's problems,delays & overruns pale in comparison to the data/images it returned.

@jonny5ive really? I hope your kidding. I wonder about some of the people interested in science these days. are you actually interested in Science. first off. Nasa has to do with space. unless they plan on building a fusion reactor on the moon, why would nasa put up billions for a fusion reactor. Currently the largest joint project every convinced on earth right now is... wait for it.... a cold fusion reactor. yeah that's right they are trying to build one already. so why would nasa get involved. To add their poor management skills? Have you ever heard of Hubble? Have you ever seen a picture of outer space? Hubble has taken something like 2 million photos of outer space. It has added more inflammation to man kinds overall knowledge of the universe more than any other single piece of technology or experiment. The James webb telescope makes the Hubble look like that sausage you have in your pants right now. If and when this thing works it will be the single most useful scientific tool we have in outer space in terms of the amount of information it will gather for us.

Just give them the money, i'm not american anyway.

Really ? C'mon. The point(s) I was trying to make was. #1 what is this thing going to do....as in what will this do for us ? And #2 this is billions over budget and putting other programs on the out's. What if one of thouse things are the next hubble ? Rob, I read your comments, your a very smart dude, this has HAD to cross your mind I would think. (Going to play with what's in my pants now, thank you and good night)

This project deserves more money, and much better management...
Ivan Malagurski

But the question is, will she make .5 past light speed?

@jonny5ive THIS is the next Hubble. 'nuff said

In fifty words or less explain the reason for a telescope in space. The reason given is to look back in time. Can anyone explain why it wouldn't be more important to install desalination plants all along the coasts ? Can we not retrain these scientists in projects of PHYSICAL use to the country ? These NASA projects are a pure waste of time . Imho.

MaxHubert

from montreal, quebec

Because we dont need water, we got plenty of it, well atleast in north america, but if u think I would vote for a government that would use my money to have desalination in 3rd world countries, well no thanks, we got enough problem already with our own poors in NA that we cant be there to help everyone around the world. The main problem in third world countries isnt that they need water and stuff, its more about that they are overpopulating there countries by having average of 6 kids per women. Thats just insane and worst is its supported by religion that pray on these people minds to steal there money.

Best thing to do to help poor people is giving them contraception so that they stop reproducing, then they can concentrate on getting themselfs out of poverty and not give birth to 6+ kids that are going to suffer from it also, either by poor education, instruction or genetic.

Quote: Because we dont need water, we got plenty of it,

Answer: I would say there are alot of people believe you are wrong.
"There is no doubt that the United States is facing a water crisis, but a crisis is a time of opportunity when there are still choices to be made"
"Crisis feared as U.S. water supplies dry up
Government projects at least 36 states will face shortages within five years"
"The U.S. Nears the Limits of Its Water Supplies
Public water systems are failing, several states are setting severe water use restrictions, and key water sources are drying up."

Lens alignment error? Robonaut! Deploy!


140 years of Popular Science at your fingertips.



Popular Science+ For iPad

Each issue has been completely reimagined for your iPad. See our amazing new vision for magazines that goes far beyond the printed page



Download Our App

Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone or Android phone with full articles, images and offline viewing



Follow Us On Twitter

Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed


April 2013: How It Works

For our annual How It Works issue, we break down everything from the massive Falcon Heavy rocket to a tiny DNA sequencer that connects to a USB port. We also take a look at an ambitious plan for faster-than-light travel and dive into the billion-dollar science of dog food.

Plus the latest Legos, Cadillac's plug-in hybrid, a tractor built for the apocalypse, and more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor:Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif
bmxmag-ps