Webb Space Telescope May Bust Its Budget Cap Yet Again (Updated)
James Webb Space Telescope Integration and Test Challenges Have Delayed Launch and Threaten to Push Costs Over Cap, GAO
“Extending the launch window provided the project up to 4 months of schedule reserve. However, shortly after requesting the new launch window in September 2017, the project determined that several months of schedule reserve would be needed to address lessons learned from the initial folding and deployment of the observatory’s sunshield. Given remaining integration and test work ahead–the phase in development where problems are most likely to be found and schedules tend to slip–coupled with only 1.5 months of schedule reserves remaining to the end of the launch window, additional launch delays are likely. The project’s Standing Review Board will conduct an independent review of JWST’s schedule status in early 2018 to determine if the June 2019 launch window can be met. JWST will also have limited cost reserves to address future challenges, such as further launch delays, and is at risk of breaching its $8 billion cost cap for formulation and development set by Congress in 2011. For several years, the prime contractor has overestimated workforce reductions, and technical challenges have prevented these planned reductions, necessitating the use of cost reserves. Program officials said that existing program resources will accommodate the new launch window–provided remaining integration and testing proceeds as planned without any long delays. However, JWST is still resolving technical challenges and work continues to take longer than planned to complete. As a result, the project is at risk of exceeding its $8 billion formulation and development cost cap.”
Keith’s 1 March update: NASA PAO just sent me this statement to post: “After the successful test performance of the James Webb Space Telescope science payload last year, and the delivery of that payload to Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, NASA looks forward to the mission’s final integration and test phase now that the two major observatory elements (science payload and spacecraft with sunshield) are together under one roof for the first time. As we enter this critical and challenging period, the Webb project is carefully reviewing its plans for the remaining tasks. The mission’s Standing Review Board will begin an independent assessment of the project plans in mid-March with an expected report out in early April.”
The space telescope that ate NASA space science – but still a drop in the bucket compared to SLS.
Shocker.. Much like every other program proposed by every Administration in the last 30 years.. It takes more than 8 years to do the R&D and build a program to be able to just get off the ground. That is the problem. I have no doubt SLS ( if its ever actually built) well turn out to be way way to expensive and will be moth
balled eventually just like Constellation and the Shuttle ( while I loved the shuttle it cost way more in the long term that was projected). I dont know what the answer is but its not some grandiose over ambitious program.Lets find a place to go and go.. It wont be easy but it doesnt have to be so hard either.
Yeah, but we can afford SLS.
And a wall, and > $trillion for unending wars…not a penny for infrastructure.
This is the poster child of why NASA needs to be reformed. Poor SMD.
Ok. Comes out of WFIRST’s hide.
Not likely. Unless you think that Goddard and JPL will meekly let their budgets be slashed with a reduction in their work force. Which will set the Congressional critters with districts around those centers and the WFIRST contractors off.
As I see it. The budget level of NASA and the various NASA centers will not change much .
When is a ‘cap’ not a ‘cap’?
When a project has too much “sunk cost” to scrap…
At the rate they’re going JWST will bump into Ariane 5’s 2022 drop dead date, then they’ll need to qualify Ariane 6. That’d be a Charlie Foxtrot.
Keith do you know if aside from the mirror, have they built a spare set of flight hardware. I was wondering what redundancy they have in case it’s lost during launch.
Oh no. Not anywhere close to a spare set. This is it.
Not to mention the ghastly possibility of something going wrong between launch and the end of science checkout, way out there in the dark a million miles from nowhere. HST had problems with the mirror, remember? But then it got “eyeglasses” to fix it. Anything like that will be difficult or impossible for JWST.
That was true. But servicing the JWST is possible with commercial super heavy lift in a few years.
Access to JWST wouldn’t be that hard but fixing JWST may be very costly. But since NASA already spend $8B+ on the JWST, whats a few hundred millions more.
It would depend on the problem, but almost any sort of repairs on JWST would be very, very difficult. Getting to it is one thing, but the way the parts are arranged, doing anything once you got there would be a problem. Hubble was designed for maintenance, with many (relatively) easy to remove, modular components. JWST would have to be partially disassembled before you could get to most of parts of it.
No one complains when a military project go over budget? Why do they always do so (and often kill them – SuperCollider) when they are tools to expand our knowledge of reality and nature?