Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: $6.5 billion for 5-year disposable satellite. NOT made in China.

  1. #1

    Default $6.5 billion for 5-year disposable satellite. NOT made in China.

    Management blamed for space telescope cost overrun
    by William Harwood

    NASA management miscues threaten to drive up the cost of the agency's next generation space telescope by some $1.5 billion, an independent review panel reported today, pushing the overall cost of the project into the neighborhood of $6.5 billion. That's a best-case assessment that assumes the agency launches the observatory in 2015, the earliest realistic target.

    But making that earliest possible launch date also assumes NASA comes up with an additional $250 million in both 2011 and 2012, an unlikely prospect in the current political environment. Barring a sudden infusion of cash, it's not yet clear what NASA can do to avoid additional delays--and even higher long-term costs--for the agency's successor to the hugely successful Hubble Space Telescope.

    Panel chairman John Casani, a widely respected project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said NASA had not squandered money budgeted for the next generation James Webb Space Telescope, or JWST. Rather, agency managers failed to accurately estimate the complex program's true costs in the first place.

    "The fundamental root cause of the problem is that at the time of (the program's formal approval), which goes back to July 2008, the budget that NASA was presented with by the project office was basically flawed," he told reporters in an afternoon teleconference. "The budget simply did not contain the content that the project even knew about at that time. And so from a money standpoint, it was just insufficient to carry out the work."

    The second major problem driving the projected cost overrun was that NASA Headquarters "did not spot the error in it," Casani said. "I don't think they fully recognized the extent to which the basic budget was understating the full requirements of the project. Those were the two major problems, the two root causes, at the outset.

    NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, who does not participate in news briefings, said in a statement that he was pleased the panel did not find any major technical problems with the new space telescope. But he added, "I am disappointed we have not maintained the level of cost control we strive to achieve, something the American taxpayer deserves in all of our projects."

    "NASA is committed to finding a sustainable path forward for the program based on realistic cost and schedule assessments," he said.

    The James Webb Space Telescope Independent Comprehensive Review Panel, or ICRP, was set up by NASA at the request of Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat whose district includes NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center where the telescope project is based. The review panel, which spent about two months evaluating the JWST project, presented its report today.

    Hailing the scientific potential of the new telescope, "this report raises significant concerns about the way in which the JWST project has been planned and managed and how its budgets were established," the panel's report concluded. "The ICRP did not find that the funds used by JWST over the last 7-8 years were wasted. On the contrary, a substantial amount of cutting-edge hardware has been delivered and is now being tested as part of the first steps toward the overall integration and test of the observatory.

    "The JWST project does face serious difficulties, however, largely stemming from the lack of a well-defined plan for completion and because a series of decisions have led to substantial underfunding. The project must find the path to a successful launch with a realistic budget and executable schedule."

    Chris Scolese, associate NASA administrator, said a new program office has been set up at agency Headquarters under the direction of Richard Howard, NASA's deputy chief technologist, who will report directly to Bolden and senior management.

    Scolese would not speculate on what NASA might do to find additional funding and avoid additional launch delays, telling reporters the agency would need several weeks to get a better idea of what might be needed.

    "Our main goal right now is to strengthen the management, which we're doing, to strengthen the oversight, which we're doing, and develop a good, strong estimate that we can defend," he said. "We aren't in the business of cost overruns...We're taking this very, very seriously."

    Howard said he hoped to present initial findings by February.

    The Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's premiere scientific satellite, has generated a flood of scientific papers, stunning pictures and major discoveries over the past 20 years. Thanks to a recent shuttle servicing mission, Hubble should remain operational through at least 2013 and possibly longer.

    The James Webb Space Telescope, named after NASA's second administrator, promises to push the frontiers of knowledge back almost to the big bang explosion that created the universe.

    "We've all seen the stunning results that have come out from Hubble over the last nearly two decades," said astronomer Garth Illingworth, a member of the JWST review panel. "The James Webb is a hugely more powerful facility than Hubble, a hundred times more powerful at least."

    Optimized to study infrared light emitted from the most ancient stars and galaxies, JWST is expected to give astronomers a glimpse of the first generation of stars to form in the wake of the big bang.

    Unlike Hubble, which rode into orbit aboard a space shuttle, the JWST will be launched by an unmanned European Ariane 5 rocket and boosted to a location known as the sun-Earth Lagrange point about one million miles from Earth. Satellites placed at gravitationally balanced Lagrange points can maintain stable orbits around the sun without the need for frequent rocket-powered maneuvers.

    To save money and simplify the engineering challenge, JWST was not designed to be serviced or repaired by spacewalking astronauts. Once launched, the telescope will be on its own for the duration of its five-and-a-half-year design life or however long it stays healthy.

    At the heart of the JWST is a huge, 21-foot-wide segmented mirror that is 2.7 times wider than Hubble's with about six times more light-collecting area. An instrument module is located below the mirror to analyze the ancient light collected by the telescope.

    Once in space, the JWST will unfold like a huge mechanical origami. A giant five-layer sunshade the size of a tennis court will unfold to shade the mirror, helping keep it at an operating temperature of about 50 degrees above absolute zero. The mirror itself will unfold to achieve its full diameter, along with an adjustable secondary mirror mounted at the apex of three folding support masts.

    The JWST will weigh about 14,300 pounds on Earth, about half the weight of the Hubble Space Telescope with its heavy one-piece mirror and closed-tube design. But given the one-shot make-or-break nature of the mission, the telescope's state-of-the-art systems must work perfectly right out of the box for the mission to succeed.

    "This is a very large, complex project and to estimate something with any read degree of precision that's never been done before is a tough job," Casani said. "The bottom line is, there was just not enough money in the budget to execute the work that was required."

    He said the review panel did not find "any way that the project costs could be reduced in any way. But we did identify a number of things that could be done that would reduce the likelihood of future cost growth. ... All of those are doable and can be handled quite readily by headquarters."


    Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20...#ixzz14xOd6WID
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

    Well, this is interesting. The satellite is not made to be serviced, which will "save money" and made the design easier. Saving money on a 5-year estimated life satellite which costs 6.5 billion? Just how expensive would the servicing have to be???? In any case, at $6.5 billion, you'd expect the design to have multiple redundant systems to extend the "5" into "10" years or more.

    Maybe it's just the reporting and it really is reliable. I dunno.

  2. #2
    the real question is of course how you'll service it if the shuttles have been retired and the new craft not operational yet.
    The money wasted on Iraq should have gone into space-exploration. We'd have our MArs-trips by now

  3. #3
    #1. This is exactly why it was so important not to scrap Hubble's final service mission. When the Bush Admin was all like, yeah, lets let Hubble splash 'cuz we got this other better one we're gonna launch soon anyway. Yeah, right.

    #2. They can't make it servicable anyway since we won't have anything to go up there and service it with.... We're going to be depending on the Russians just to get to the ISS for the next 15 years +, assuming we ever build a manned launch vehicle again.

    #3. This is what decline feels like. Get used to it.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  4. #4
    For this money we would have built a rail tunnel under the Hudson, which would have greatly improved the economy. But that too had budget "surprises" that cancelled the decades-long project.

    Our government is incapable of doing "big" things at this point in time.

  5. #5
    Using that line Dread, we could have funded a shit ton of public projects with the money we're blowing on our "wars"

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Using that line Dread, we could have funded a shit ton of public projects with the money we're blowing on our "wars"
    We could have done a fuck load of economy improving infrastructure projects with all that fucking bush tax cut money. And don't give me that fucking bullshit line all that money DID grow the ecomy. Bull fucking shit. Prove it.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20Just how expensive would the servicing have to be????
    They are launching the satellite so it will be in a Lagrange point, if the article is correct, that is at a distance of one million miles from Earth.


    The Moon is 238,857 miles from Earth.
    . . .

  8. #8
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Loki in 3...2...1...
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  9. #9
    Senior Member Evidently Supermarioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    They are launching the satellite so it will be in a Lagrange point, if the article is correct, that is at a distance of one million miles from Earth.


    The Moon is 238,857 miles from Earth.
    True, but considering how long things like the Cassini probe have been flying around, you would think 6 billion would get you more bang for your buck, longevity wise.
    I enjoy blank walls.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I assume 5 years is a minimum it is expected to work, so likely to work longer than that.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I assume 5 years is a minimum it is expected to work, so likely to work longer than that.
    Well, I hope that's the case, too.

    Two points:

    1: Assuming the estimates are correct, if it really is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble, (and will send a corresponding amount more data), then maybe it's kind of sort of worth it. Perhaps sell a few million of those pretty pictures to China and India at $100 bucks a piece??

    2: Repairing a complex telescope at distance 5 times away than that of the moon, at the sun-earth Lagrange point? I dunno, maybe there's more space radiation and debris that far away that at the moon, making it dangerous for a shuttle mission (assuming they weren't scrapped). But, it would have put money into creating the incremental advances needed to eventually go to Mars...

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Loki in 3...2...1...
    That's OK. We can banish him by summoning Wiggin, who always shut Loki up on economic issues (or Loki just selectively ignores Wiggin's demolishing points and continues to argue with others.)

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Well, I hope that's the case, too.

    Two points:

    1: Assuming the estimates are correct, if it really is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble, (and will send a corresponding amount more data), then maybe it's kind of sort of worth it. Perhaps sell a few million of those pretty pictures to China and India at $100 bucks a piece??

    2: Repairing a complex telescope at distance 5 times away than that of the moon, at the sun-earth Lagrange point? I dunno, maybe there's more space radiation and debris that far away that at the moon, making it dangerous for a shuttle mission (assuming they weren't scrapped). But, it would have put money into creating the incremental advances needed to eventually go to Mars...
    It will be worth it to finally peak into God's bedroom window.

    Also, an existing shuttle would never make it out to the L point this thing is going. It's not called an "orbiter" for nothing. If they were going to service this thing, then it would be by robot or something new.

    Also, to the idiotic title of this thread, ALL satellites are disposable as are indeed all robotic space missions. If you really want to whine about too-expensive science, then you should go after the ISS, it's a 100 billion dollar "disposable" satellite.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  14. #14
    IIRC, LaGrange points are full of debris, right?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    2: Repairing a complex telescope at distance 5 times away than that of the moon, at the sun-earth Lagrange point? I dunno, maybe there's more space radiation and debris that far away that at the moon, making it dangerous for a shuttle mission (assuming they weren't scrapped). But, it would have put money into creating the incremental advances needed to eventually go to Mars...
    Anyone know of a reasonable function for balancing additional reaction mass and supplies for any trip to L2 and back?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermarioman View Post
    True, but considering how long things like the Cassini probe have been flying around, you would think 6 billion would get you more bang for your buck, longevity wise.
    It's probably a 5 year mission in the same sense that Spirit and Opportunity were 90 day missions. Spirit ended up going for nearly 6 years before being declared stationary, and AFAIK Opportunity's still at it.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Using that line Dread, we could have funded a shit ton of public projects with the money we're blowing on our "wars"
    Indeed, this is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    We could have done a fuck load of economy improving infrastructure projects with all that fucking bush tax cut money. And don't give me that fucking bullshit line all that money DID grow the ecomy. Bull fucking shit. Prove it.
    Chill. And, once again, it's not a linear line. Tax receipts from "the wealthy" certainly increased during that period of time. If anything, the tax cuts failed to mitigate our over reliance on an increasingly narrow tax base. But we shouldn't drag this thread into that, I don't intend to get into that when we could have a much cooler discussion about spacecraft.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Evidently Supermarioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    But we shouldn't drag this thread into that, I don't intend to get into that when we could have a much cooler discussion about spacecraft.
    Or Mobile Suits! : D

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Suit_Gundam
    I enjoy blank walls.

  19. #19
    Mobile suits are definitely the future. Not flying ones, though.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Evidently Supermarioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Mobile suits are definitely the future. Not flying ones, though.
    In space that wouldn't be a issue. :P

    I really think Mobile Suit-esq machines are the future of the robotics industry. If you can find a decent power source like fusion, there's no reason to use conventional construction equipment ever again.
    Like Patlabor! :O
    I enjoy blank walls.

  21. #21
    Sci-fi tech like portable fusion isn't necessary for decent strength enhancing exoskeletons.. I think some very basic versions are/have already being/been developed.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Sci-fi tech like portable fusion isn't necessary for decent strength enhancing exoskeletons.. I think some very basic versions are/have already being/been developed.
    Fusion would be total overkill for a simple robo-suit. Fusion is for taking the stars or lighting cities ffs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Chill. And, once again, it's not a linear line. Tax receipts from "the wealthy" certainly increased during that period of time. If anything, the tax cuts failed to mitigate our over reliance on an increasingly narrow tax base. But we shouldn't drag this thread into that, I don't intend to get into that when we could have a much cooler discussion about spacecraft.
    You've lost your fucking mind.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  23. #23

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar View Post
    So? They should spend $8 billion and make it repairable.

  25. #25
    So many breakthroughs were made by people greatly inspired by NASA. I suppose funding it is like the trickle down theory for dreams, imagination, and inspiration. All NASA gets is that half a penny on the tax dollar and everyone cries out that it's better spent elsewhere. Civilization is made up of those of us who sustain it and those of us who progress it through science and technology. Sustenance always seems the wiser investment. It's depressing that so few people in my field have the passion. Most of my colleagues are in it for job security and money.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar View Post
    So many breakthroughs were made by people greatly inspired by NASA. I suppose funding it is like the trickle down theory for dreams, imagination, and inspiration. All NASA gets is that half a penny on the tax dollar and everyone cries out that it's better spent elsewhere. Civilization is made up of those of us who sustain it and those of us who progress it through science and technology. Sustenance always seems the wiser investment. It's depressing that so few people in my field have the passion. Most of my colleagues are in it for job security and money.
    Poppy, there's no profit. That means it's a fuck in' liberal science bullshit waste.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •