James Webb space telescope getting axed?
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
Oakey said:
And then after you've fed the public that bulls
t, you can spoonfeed them the justification for spending billions in Afghanistan.
The idiotic wars are a waste of money comparable only to a telescope.t, you can spoonfeed them the justification for spending billions in Afghanistan.In this case however I think many scientists would consider this a "halo" launch much like Hubble, in fact in many ways the James Webb is Hubbles sucessor. Its hard to argue with you though when you are basing your ideas purely on what economic output it will produce. Because that's not really the point of the project is it? Yes many here have put forward postive economic outcomes from many NASA projects but the point of this is pure science, it's a project to improve the understanding of the universe around us, it's to advance our knowledge.
I see that has a highly important thing. If this had this been other aspects of NASA work there might not be such disappointmentbut this is something we all expected to go through.
MiniMan64 said:
This is the thing which I is so sharply dividing opinion here. NASA and others put a lot of stuff into space, military, civilian, scientific and I'm sure every piece of equipment has proponents who consider it of high importance. We however may disagree in many cases, especially as you rightly point out in times like these where money is tight.
In this case however I think many scientists would consider this a "halo" launch much like Hubble, in fact in many ways the James Webb is Hubbles sucessor. Its hard to argue with you though when you are basing your ideas purely on what economic output it will produce. Because that's not really the point of the project is it? Yes many here have put forward postive economic outcomes from many NASA projects but the point of this is pure science, it's a project to improve the understanding of the universe around us, it's to advance our knowledge.
I see that has a highly important thing. If this had this been other aspects of NASA work there might not be such disappointmentbut this is something we all expected to go through.
Thank you. At last a sensible and considered reply (though Smith Olly had a reasonable go).In this case however I think many scientists would consider this a "halo" launch much like Hubble, in fact in many ways the James Webb is Hubbles sucessor. Its hard to argue with you though when you are basing your ideas purely on what economic output it will produce. Because that's not really the point of the project is it? Yes many here have put forward postive economic outcomes from many NASA projects but the point of this is pure science, it's a project to improve the understanding of the universe around us, it's to advance our knowledge.
I see that has a highly important thing. If this had this been other aspects of NASA work there might not be such disappointmentbut this is something we all expected to go through.
I completely understand your feelings, there's an emotional attachment to such projects. I nearly had a tear in my eye today when I watched the last Shuttle launch. I watched the first one in 1981, it occured on the same day I took (and failed) my driving test. Same as when I went to Heathrow to watch Concorde take off for (virtually) the last time. Something magic had died. But economically they were at the end of their days.
My personal view on this "James Woods" telescope is that it ranks quite a way lower than either the two machines above. Sure, I've seen the marvellous Hubble photos and understand they've led to certain theories being revised and indeed discoveries. Terrific, but I don't see it is to mankinds massive detriment, in the overall scale of time and space, if we delay finding things out for a few more years until we can afford it.
Einion Yrth said:
Andy Zarse said:
The idiotic wars are a waste of money comparable only to a telescope.
While you may view them qualitatively as on a par, quantitively the wars are out of sight of the entire NASA budget, which is frankly peanuts by the standards of US gummint spending.
Frankeh said:
Oakey said:
Andy Zarse said:
It's a total waste of money, they can't afford a luxury vanity like this silly telescope. Get real.
speechless really.Anyway, as someone said above if they don't go through with this then the US is going to lose out on a huge scientific asset.
They shut down the Texas collider before it was completed and look what happened there, us Europeans stepped in and funded our own one and now we're at the forefront of particle physics instead of the US.
I don't think it'll be China, but I wouldn't be surprised if us europeans don't take up the slack.
On a serious note, this is political gaming. In the end, the scope will be funded IMO.
Read this excerpt:
"If the bill is approved by the full committee and the House, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski will play a key role in determining the fate of the project when the legislation arrives in the Senate. The Maryland Democrat is the chairwoman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees science."
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politic...
The bill must first get out of committee, then passed by the House. Even if it gets that far, the Senate has the final say. As stated above, the Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee is a fan of the JWST. Again, IMO, it gets funded.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 8th July 21:37
Andy Zarse said:
AlfaFoxtrot said:
The US supplies their own money, they cannot go bankrupt in the way that you or I can (or Greece). Imagine your househould could print it's own money, you wouldn't ever be worried about going bust?? So long as you spent it properly, and don't suddenly go on a spending spree and cause massive inflation, you're fine.
I take it this is some sort of wind up?Andy Zarse said:
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.
So you are one of those people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing are you?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.
One thing to bear in mind is that knowledge is easily lost. NASA couldn't replicate the Saturn V missions now if they wanted to - the expertise has long since gone. They'd have to start again from scratch.
The only reason that we have the technology and knowledge that we do is because people have pushed at the limits of what is possible in order to discover something new. Some of them have paid for it with their lives along the way. How do you measure the benefit of an increase in knowledge? The money side of it might be simple, but the intangible benefits are impossible to quantify.
Andy Zarse said:
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff