iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

NASA: James Webb Space Telescope Costs Becoming Astronomical

SETH BORENSTEIN   11/10/10 06:47 PM ET   AP

James Webb Space Telescope

WASHINGTON — 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.

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.

The study says in the best case scenario it will now cost about $6.5 billion to launch and run the powerful, new telescope. And that can happen only if NASA adds an extra $500 million in the next two years over current budget plans. If the agency can't get the extra money from Congress, it will ultimately cost even more and take longer to launch the telescope.

Before now, the cost of the telescope had already ballooned from $3.5 billion to $5 billion.

NASA officials said they had not done a good job of figuring out the confirmation cost for the massive telescope. The report said the budget in 2008 "understated the real requirements" and managers didn't realize how inadequate it was.

"We were missing a certain fraction of what was going on," NASA associate administrator Chris Scolese said in a late Wednesday afternoon teleconference.

The Webb telescope, "we hope is just an aberration," Scolese said, but suggested there may be other budget-busting projects. He said the agency is now reviewing all its projects, not just to find extra money for Webb but to see if there are similar cases of poor budgeting.

The costs aren't because of problems with the technology, design or construction of the instrument. NASA said, technically, it is in good shape. It is designed to look deeper in the universe to the first galaxies. A collaboration with the European Space Agency, the telescope is being built by Northrop Grumman and will be run out of Baltimore, Md., like Hubble.

The fault "lies with us, no question about it," Scolese said.

The Webb telescope is already late. When first announced more than a dozen years ago, it was supposed to launch in 2007. That was eventually delayed until 2014. The new report, issued at the request of the Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., says the earliest launch date now would be September 2015.

Scolese said technically the telescope was not confirmed as a project until 2008 – even though many millions of dollars had been spent on it and NASA had been promoting it since 1998. In 2008, NASA said it would cost $5 billion and that's the number to use for how overbudget it is, Scolese said. But previous numbers that NASA provided said it would cost $3.5 billion.

This follows the well-worn path of the Hubble telescope. In current dollars, it cost NASA $4.7 billion to build and launch Hubble and then another $1.1 billion to fix it in orbit.

Astronomer Garth Illingworth, a professor at University of California Santa Cruz and a member of the internal study team, said Webb will be worth the money.

He said the Webb "is hugely more powerful than Hubble, 100 times more powerful at least."

___

Online:

NASA's report: http://bit.ly/cMhzJ8

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

WASHINGTON — 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 re...
WASHINGTON — 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 re...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 483
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
12:56 AM on 11/24/2010
Hi,
I just wanted to share my interest on the topic. As a 3rd party not directly involved,maybe seeing things from my perspective might enlighten a few minds that are clearly wrong like Cory111. My first thought is, I know where I am and where I am going thanks to my eyes, Thanks to N.A.S.A. we can see well, why wouldn't you want to see 100x better at any cost? My second thought is for the economics of the situation. There are unlimited resources out there, they just need to be found. I can't think of a better way than the JWSP. Discovery has given us all the things we utilize in daily life, why stop? This project is essential for many reasons, an important one is it might give our children or their children the vital information needed to either save our lives or enhance and lift our entire species on to the cosmic stage not just the global one. In closing I just want to thank the Men and women at N.A.S.A for letting me see things I could never have seen without you and know things I could never figure out on my own. Thank you America for leading the charge into the future. I hope you all realize that have affected the entire world already and the universe is waiting, pretty good for the "New" guy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tsihcrana
10:27 AM on 11/15/2010
Can you put a cost of gazing upon the face of god?

We will spend more in one month in Iraq, than we will spend on this awesome tool. Part of America's problem is that we spend more on destruction that we do on education, science and medical research COMBINED.

Hubble has rewritten what we thought we knew about the cosmos, the Webb telescope will allow for DIRECT viewing of EXO-Planets, the required precursor to finding life beyond our planet.
The day science can say with 100% certainty that we are not alone, is the day this planet changes forever, how do you put a price tag on that?
02:29 PM on 11/14/2010
when estimating the needs of project development for something that has never been done before, there is only so much information available at the outset. project managers at nasa are known for their diligence in estimating, but you can only know so much before the project gets underway because you are developing something unheard of to address problems and needs yet unknown.
for the investments american citizens have made in science and technology research, the dividends have been immense. beyond achieving the express goals of air and space exploration, the by-products touch the lives of average people every day.
worth every penny. as with every entity with a budget, your values are reflected by how you allocate your resources. imho, providing or the advancement of science and technology is important and extremely fruitful.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jtt
-
10:43 AM on 11/14/2010
I cant believe this is an issue. How much does TSA give in welfare to air travelers to photograph and fondle them? When have we ever regretted a space mission?? Our DoD spends upwards of 800 BILLION a YEAR? where is the accountability there?
10:24 AM on 11/14/2010
Does anyone know the yearly budget of the NEA (National Endowment of the Arts)?

It's $160 Million this year.

Yet provides arts education for students, enhances tourism, enhances quality of life, preserves cultures, creates jobs and begins careers for all types of artists.

All for a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of NASA's bloated and wasteful budget.

The NEA is a far better education investment of tax dollars than NASA. Just for the increased tourism alone, the return on the dollar is superior. And for the wonder of introducing young people to the arts, it's worth it.

So F* NASA
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
okami
former US Marine, retired police. disabled.
10:49 AM on 11/14/2010
wrong. they're both very important, and very, very needed. the space program has given innumerable benefits to the world over the years.

the only literal insurance this planet has for the survival of life itself, not just humanity, is in gettng out there. the sooner, the better.

on the other hand, we definitely don't need a defense budget that's larger than that of the rest of the world combined. it's a measure of our collective greed, paranoia and sociopathy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deweydecimal
@DeweyMai on Twitter
04:27 PM on 11/14/2010
Yea and the DOD spends more than $800 billion a year. So leave Nasa alone and go whine about the real fat pigs at the trough. Considering all the innovations that basic scientific research has provided us with and cemented the US as the world's only superpower it's a bargain.

Find a real target.
05:57 PM on 11/14/2010
The same fat pigs at the DoD trough are also NASA's contractors. Instead of looking at pretty pictures of stars, get a real education.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mustraline
10:06 AM on 11/14/2010
I hope the Tea-Baggers, with their anti-intellectual bias and deep fear of education, will support funding for this very important project.
03:31 AM on 11/15/2010
Republicans are pretty good about NASA.  The space program is "testosterone technology".  It's loud and fast and phallic.  It's also a potent symbol of American nationalism.  Few people note that NASA was intentionally designed by Lyndon Johnson as an instrument of Southern industrialization, so it's an important jobs program for red states.  I've encountered lots of right-wingers on the web that want to dismantle the welfare state and triple the budget for NASA!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
09:54 AM on 11/14/2010
Well, maybe NASA won't get a NEW telescope, maybe they'll have to hitch-hike a ride with Russia or something, and take up some rolls of duct tape and computer boards or whatever, and go do a repair job on the Hubble. 
-------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
" Hubble is the only telescope ever designed to be serviced in space by astronauts."
-------------------

Says here, they built it so the guys could work on it Up There. Ok, so it's not this year's model. It's 20 years old. So? Are they concerned because it doesn't have an in-dash satellite radio player? If it's broken, go fix it. You're the one that signed up to be an astronaut, right? Ok, then, here's your wrench...and now you're going to be an in-flight telescope technician.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deweydecimal
@DeweyMai on Twitter
06:58 PM on 11/14/2010
No amount of "fixing" will improve the technical limitations of an outdated design. Just because you can fix a Mac II doesn't mean that it can run the programs that you require a computer to in 2010. The Hubble is the same way. To see farther and deeper into time and space we need bigger eyes which is basically what a telescope is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iblogleft
Certifiable
09:54 AM on 11/14/2010
Better to look into space for a even 100 billion, than fight wars for 3 trillion.

When it comes to huge leaps in technology, innovation and jobs, we really have two paths; Space or War.

I will take space for 10 Billion Alex.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
alienator
democrats win when republicans talk
10:41 AM on 11/14/2010
and the answer is;
"fear-mongering republicans"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kucheka
09:20 AM on 11/14/2010
Cost of not regulating the banking industry: Priceless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Anderson
You're going to burn up my bullshit detector.
09:15 AM on 11/14/2010
Divide by a life of 15 - 20 years....drop in the bucket.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
blurredmolly
Ipswich, Mass. 1641
09:02 AM on 11/14/2010
I like the attitude.
photo
dannyconda
Simba Malaika
08:52 AM on 11/14/2010
Lets have a cake sale!
It's worth it!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
american-dolt
Divide and Conquer
08:49 AM on 11/14/2010
I guess that means they will do it.
08:40 AM on 11/14/2010
It's a much better use for money than two failed wars, an imploded housing bubble and tax breaks for Bush's friends.
08:38 AM on 11/14/2010
It seems that we have one satellite looking out and several hundred looking back down at us.

I suspect that a lot of the money that is claimed to be used for regular NASA projects like this actually gets diverted towards the military
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deweydecimal
@DeweyMai on Twitter
04:28 PM on 11/14/2010
The military gets more than it's share by dipping into the "Mandatory" funds section of the budget. It's disgusting what a trillion dollars a year looks like flushed down the toilet.