James Webb space telescope getting axed?

[cazzer]

No not complainin that no one will pay for it.
Realising no one will pay for it.

The best thing that could have happened in the 60s was that the moon was hollow and full of oil.
It wasn't.

So no one is willing to pay for it.
Fine.

Because I think its a waste of time and money. Clarified?

[smith_oli]

It is obvious that no one on here will be answer your questions satisfactorily, partly because we don't have access to a crystal ball that could say without a shadow of a doubt what discoveries will be made and how they will influence our current and future technologies; also I would hazard a guess that noone here works on this project for NASA, a person who have the expertise to answer those questions as fully as possible likely doesn't exist on this forum. Finally you are coming from a totally different (incompatible) prerogative, you are asking "why should we?" in light of difficult times; to borrow from JFK's famous speech: "We don't do these things because they are easy, we do them because they are hard".

In response to your question, we should always answer: "Because we can".

There will always be an excuse not to do something, that shouldn't excuse us from what most would deem mankind's greatest endeavour, the exploration and expansion of our current knowledge - we've been doing it for as long as our species has been sentient. "We don't have any money at this specific moment in time" isn't a valid reason to give up or stop trying.

Like I say, I'm sure this won't be satisfactory to you and your counter arguments will be much the same as already stated; I would finish by asking if you have any proof that there is no money left? Many people have provided links justifying the spend on this project; what do you have that suggests the US can't afford $1.6bn, or that spending that money would be at such a detriment to the US economy?

[Frankeh]

I'm sure there's many many many tax payers in the US that would rather their money be spent of space exploration than a silly war in Afghanistan.
I know that if I had control over where my tax money went i'd be issuing a lot more to science than the UK government is.

Hell, why isn't this already happening? Call it capitalistic democracy.

Ok, so 20% of my pay cheque goes to the government in the form of income tax. Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose which sectors my money is spent on?
You could just have the sectors all lined up with boxes next to them where you can write the percentage of your income tax you'd like to donate.
Surely that's a very pure form of democracy if I've ever heard of one.

[Oakey]

Mojocvh said:

Where do you think advanced composites [ CF etc] came from, Fool.

Yes but even without the space race someone would have invented these anyway, for, erm... i dunno. Hold on, let's give that crystal ball a rub...

[AlfaFoxtrot]

Andy Zarse said:

I take it this is some sort of wind up?

Logically, if you control the supply of money, how can you run out of it? So it would cause hyperinflation and many other problems, but in principal, the US can never not meet its debt obligations in USD.

Despite all the concern about the political wrangling over the debt ceiling, and general talk of austerity, interest paid on new US treasuries remain stubbornly low. The people who have to put their money where their mouth is are NOT pricing in any kind of budget problems for the US, quite the contrary to Greece, Portugal etc. where there is a definite concern of default.

NASA's entire budget is the equivalent of a rounding error in the social security bills, it really is pointless to target them for spending cuts and avoid the real elephants in the room.

[Andy Zarse]

Frankeh said:

I'm sure there's many many many tax payers in the US that would rather their money be spent of space exploration than a silly war in Afghanistan.
I know that if I had control over where my tax money went i'd be issuing a lot more to science than the UK government is.

Hell, why isn't this already happening? Call it capitalistic democracy.

Ok, so 20% of my pay cheque goes to the government in the form of income tax. Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose which sectors my money is spent on?
You could just have the sectors all lined up with boxes next to them where you can write the percentage of your income tax you'd like to donate.
Surely that's a very pure form of democracy if I've ever heard of one.

The notion of hypothicated taxes is another question altogether; it has its pros and cons and deserves its own thread but on my tax return I would be ticking the box marked "Big telescope? - No Thanks!"

With regard to the advanced composites question, it is perfectly obvious that manufacturing industry would have advanced the developement of such synthetics had manned space flight not happened. Much of the space "research" budget was simply state subsidy of US industry under another name, the French are past masters of this sleight of hand too, and it can be contended that such subsidy has been to the detriment of the economic world at large.

There's also an argument to say that they'd have done it quicker and cheaper without the deadhand of State bureaucracy. Look at the Dreamliner, it's pioneering stuff, the engineering challenges of the composites nearly broke (in both the financial and mental sense of the word) Boeing. Leaving aside Airbus's accusations about state subsidies to Boeing, at least building new aircraft with new technology has an immediate benefit in the tough economic conditions, keeps hundreds of thousands in jobs and has immediate practical applications and benefits. None of which can be said about the subsidised star gazers and their precious telescope. I'd gladly stick a hammer through it and tell them to use their admittedly massive minds on something more useful.

[jmorgan]

Go on, send them an email saying so.

[Frankeh]

Why do you honestly think this particular downturn is any worse then the last? We get them on average every 10 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in...

Pretty much clockwork.
Is it worth scrapping 20 years of work for a blip on the economic radar? No.

Edited by Frankeh on Friday 8th July 12:40

[Eric Mc]

Andy does not undersatnd that science is fundamentally about finding out about the unknown. He thinks it is about refining the known and making it more commercially beneficial.

It is a flawed atitude and one the human race would adopt at its peril. Luckilly, his view is not held by everyone.

[Oakey]

Yes, Dreamliner will be a huge benefit to mankind when no one will be able to afford to fly because our government commit us to ridiculous climate targets making air travel a luxury of the wealthy.

[loafer123]

Frankeh said:

Andy Zarse said:

I've always thought astrology is a complete waste of money.

I'm with you there.

You've shown why your opinion is pretty much worthless.

That's a very Taurean attitude.

[Andy Zarse]

Eric Mc said:

Andy does not undersatnd that science is fundamentally about finding out about the unknown. He thinks it is about refining the known and making it more commercially beneficial.

It is a flawed atitude and one the human race would adopt at its peril. Luckilly, his view is not held by everyone.

Not so Eric, and I would have thought you'd know me better than that by now and my love of all things engineering and aviation.

My whole point is precisely that it IS about discovering the unknown, and it is my view that there isn't the money to do it at the moment. I think there are far more pressing concerns for the R&D budget when you consider the cost/benefit analysis. Others might think there is, but I don't.

[dickymint]

Mojocvh said:

Andy Zarse said:

Mojocvh said:

Yes you are.

If you like.

Any chance of answering the question in a proper manner?

Thought not.



just saying they can afford wars etc, and the space race gave us cordless drills does not constitute an answer

Where do you think advanced composites [ CF etc] came from, Fool.

Thomas Eddison in 1879 (pre space race). Fool.

[thatone1967]

loafer123 said:

Frankeh said:

Andy Zarse said:

I've always thought astrology is a complete waste of money.

I'm with you there.

You've shown why your opinion is pretty much worthless.

That's a very Taurean attitude.

Your talking Bull!

[Mojocvh]

dickymint said:

Mojocvh said:

Andy Zarse said:

Mojocvh said:

Yes you are.

If you like.

Any chance of answering the question in a proper manner?

Thought not.



just saying they can afford wars etc, and the space race gave us cordless drills does not constitute an answer

Where do you think advanced composites [ CF etc] came from, Fool.

Thomas Eddison in 1879 (pre space race). Fool.

and that's it apart from carbolic acid.

Don't know about "inventing" mica, but it sure wasn't in an autoclave!

[Eric Mc]

Andy Zarse said:

Eric Mc said:

Andy does not undersatnd that science is fundamentally about finding out about the unknown. He thinks it is about refining the known and making it more commercially beneficial.

It is a flawed atitude and one the human race would adopt at its peril. Luckilly, his view is not held by everyone.

Not so Eric, and I would have thought you'd know me better than that by now and my love of all things engineering and aviation.

My whole point is precisely that it IS about discovering the unknown, and it is my view that there isn't the money to do it at the moment. I think there are far more pressing concerns for the R&D budget when you consider the cost/benefit analysis. Others might think there is, but I don't.

How can ypou cost/benefit analyse pure research in advance of that research?

[Andy Zarse]

Eric Mc said:

How can you cost/benefit analyse pure research in advance of that research?

Hey! You're the accountant!

I dunno, how about Cost $1.3 billion: Benefit $0.

Maybe you can't in the empirical sense... but it's safe to say it isn't going to help in the current crisis. Imagine being a politician having to explain away public sector cuts, massive job losses, why we've got no aircraft carriers etc, then going on to approve an expensive new telescope that might help discover something but nobody knows what it might be. If my granny was lying in a pissy bed because there's no money to change the sheets, I'd be pretty annoyed with the politician. And, I guess, the telescope people.

[Oakey]

And then after you've fed the public that bullst, you can spoonfeed them the justification for spending billions in Afghanistan.

[Einion Yrth]

Andy Zarse said:

Hey! You're the accountant!

I dunno, how about Cost $1.3 billion: Benefit $0.

Maybe you can't in the empirical sense... but it's safe to say it isn't going to help in the current crisis. Imagine being a politician having to explain away public sector cuts, massive job losses, why we've got no aircraft carriers etc, then going on to approve an expensive new telescope that might help discover something but nobody knows what it might be. If my granny was lying in a pissy bed because there's no money to change the sheets, I'd be pretty annoyed with the politician. And, I guess, the telescope people.

You are of course aware that the vast majority of the costs involved in space based research are the costs of employing people? It's only a question of where you would prefer the job cuts to come. I think attempting to further human knowledge is worthwhile, you plainly don't and while you are entitled to your opinion, I don't, on this occasion, hold it ion any high esteem.

[Andy Zarse]

Not I yours.