Based on what? The percentage of citizens who believe in evolution? Anthropic global warming? Give me a break! Even if it were true, can’t the author make his point without relying on jingoism?

Is there any per capita statistic which supports this claim?

Also, arguments like this tend to obscure the true goal, science for its own sake, and warp it into “we have to do more than the other guys” (which will backfire if the other guys cut back).

If someone offered you a Mercedes Benz for $10K, on the condition it could not be serviced, no oil change, no tune up, etc., & you would not be allowed to sell, trade, or junk it, would you ? Not if you are sane, for it would inevitably break down, strand you, & then you’d have to tow it.
This is exactly the plight of JWST, reflecting the plight of NASA thinking, or lack thereof.
Lest no one forget, Hubble was launched with a fatal phuckup, but was saved by serviceability.

Personally, I’m ambivalent; it’s a great science instrument (assuming it works, which I think we can assume at least for the sake of this argument) but there has to be a moral hazard in continuing to fund things that blow their budget so badly, more than once, and by so much it impacts other science. It’s a shame that Congress, rather than NASA, could be the author of its demise, although I read that Obama somewhat offered it up by explicitly mentioning it as a budget line in his preferred budget (don’t know whether that is true, that it was Obama that initially put it up on the chopping block).

I know that amongst a fair number of astronomers to whom I’ve spoken, there’s a similar ambivalence. Amongst some, there’s actual hostility to JWST because of the sums of money it’s consumed. Most have wanted JWST to go ahead, though, even those not expecting much direct use of the scientific output. Just a sample of anecdotes, in any case, not significant data.

Anyhow, will Sen. Miksulski (D, GSFC) really let it go? At least without ensuring that Goddard still gets whatever monies it’d lose from the end of JWST, and finding something else for STScI to do when Hubble ends?

Even though in current dollars Hubble cost in excess of $8 billion if you don’t count all the launches and re-launches for servicing. In the context of other new missions the number to compare to should be over $13 billion when all these others costs are considered (and yes, most of the servicing missions and decommissioning mission were known to be costs of the duration of the entire mission life). When they argued for JWST to first get funded, they argued that it would cost under a billion dollars. I simply do not accept that they believed this number themselves, and they put it forward as they knew that was the number needed to start to get the mission program funded. Then they had the hope of always continuing. They were gambling that at no point would the astrophysics community “fold” once laying down a large amount of their cash on the table already – sacrificing many other people and scientific opportunities along the way. If you go back to the oldest JWST documents, you can see that the original estimates were not based upon anything – and were very likely a simple lie, considered a necessary evil in order to get started the thing they thought was most important. In the original estimates, in spite of JWST obviously being far more demanding and complicated, there are statements that simply go along the line of …. by developing new innovations we will be able to reduce costs. This is something that has actually happened, as the probably costs scaled from Hubble are less – but less by a factor of about 2-3, not even close to the completely unrealistic factor of 10-15 that was effectively suggested.

At this point I should stop and explain that all this nonsense about JWST’s cost being so over-blown is all due to delays and poor management. If they had to start again today and build the whole thing over again with what they already have learned, it would still cost about $5+ billion to build – the extra ~$1-2 billion is what has been lost from delays and poor management (perhaps not surprizing when you start with a completely unrealistic goal). So the people at the top made the decision to get a $5+ billion mission going without having a proper budget for it, with self-justification likely to have been an honest but misguided belief that it was the right thing to do, and since they were the ones with power to do, then they had to. The fact is, the rest of the astrophysics program have suffered from this decision for over a decade now, and will continue for the whole of the next decade, if not more. It will likely be more, because other scientific parts of NASA will also likely suffer from the effects of JWST for the rest of this decade, and will want compensation when choosing the next really big missions again in the decades to follow. From the tone of the most recent astrophysics Decadal survey, I have the sense that many in the community now realize what the story has been and that it shouldn’t continue. It was already far more conservative in outlook. But unfortunately, it is too late to help for the next Decade or two, while JWST continues to get funded. I do feel sorry for many who probably work really hard and effectively on this project and have done great things, and I do think that the scientific goals on the mission are pretty great. I blame the system that has set up this financial environment.

Although the JWST is the worst example, this kind of costing “game” is at the heart of the NASA science problems. In order to get funded it is always necessary to game the system to get the estimated budgets within the constraints needed and still appear cheap. Those that make estimates according to all the rules with integrity either end up with budgets too large to be funded, or missions not interesting enough scientifically to compete with those having unrealistic estimates. This often happens at the level of Decadal panels, at the Explorer program level, and at just about every level where funds get allocated. This is the main problem that needs to be addressed.

The worst aspect of all this is that these overruns force internecine wars between scientists. The argument shouldn’t be “Yeah, we can spend X on JWST, but only if we spend N-X on the other astrophysical projects.” I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir, but we’re chewing up something like $100G a year in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course our resources are limited, but they ain’t that limited, if we can devote billions to bombing every week.

Long ago Robert Wilson testified to Congress about Fermilab. Some Senator asked him, Dr Wilson, will this project help defend America? No, he replied, except to make America worth defending. And that was nearly forty years ago. If we spent more on research and less on the technology of death, maybe the country would be better off.

Should JWST have been planned with a 4m mirror? Yes. Should it have been managed better? Yes. Should we cancel the only flagship space astronomy mission the US will see for over a decade after spending billions of dollars on it and having finished nearly all the instruments and mirrors? No, I don’t think so.

All you people in science fields other than IR astronomy: if JWST is cancelled, you’re not getting the money either. Really, you’re not. If you were, I’d understand your argument. But you’re not.

Or, wait. No, it isn’t.

Nothing that does what JWST will do can operate near the Earth. So… total failure is a possibility, but it’s honestly not that likely. And that’s why they’re testing the hell out of everything.

Yes, not unexpectedly, those whose research would directly benefit from it are shrill in their “at all costs!” You can interpret that, in this context, as meaning “our science is way better than yours!” Take that, planetary scientists and solar physicists! Step right up and let us slap your face.

What is hilarious is that this division in the science community (oh, it isn’t just astronomers, wait until the Earth science folks get involved!) seems to have been totally unexpected by many. Did the JWST community really think that the other science communities were going to lay down and get walked all over? Pathetic.

This is all about a project that was not only very badly fiscally managed, with many failures in its cost management history, but about a project whose bad fiscal management was not recoverable within its own discipline. There has to be a lesson there about where to draw the line in cost overruns.

You know, if this were to support an existing mission — say, add a year or two of ops for a fantastically productive mission, that’s a bird-in-hand proposition, and a little arm twisting in the science community isn’t that bad. But that’s not what’s going on here. This is about a mission that is seven years away from launch. It may, yes it just may, fail after launch. Why should other science communities ever be put in the position that they were forced to help pay for a mission that failed?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38331

Point 3 is most telling:

“(3) Without additional funds to NASA, JWST should not be
restored unless and until an open science community
assessment is made of the value of what will be gained and
what will be lost across the entire NASA science portfolio.”

In addition, the director of the Solar Physics Division
of the American Astronomical Society expresses concerns:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38328

So it would appear that the astronomical community itself is
divided over whether the JWST is worth continuing. Only those
whose research would directly benefit from it are in favor of
continuing it “at all costs.”

Doug M.

Saving JWST isn’t about saving science. It’s about saving JWST science. JWST science is great. But so was SIM science and LISA science. And so would be WFIRST science. But those missions are unlikely to happen because of the JWST overruns. Would not those missions have also been inspirational and help us write the story of the universe? In spite of what some save-JWST-at-all-cost advocates will say can’t happen, that $5B needed to complete JWST could actually be replanned, with Congress’ enthusiastic support, to other fantastic science missions such as these others. Constellation, which was the pride of human space flight, was cancelled because of cost overruns. Lots of sunk costs, big embarrassment. Did NASA human space flight lose that money originally obligated to Constellation? Did it go to science or aeronautics instead? Nope.

Let it furthermore be understood that JWST isn’t being cancelled because dumb House of Representatives members don’t appreciate good science. They do. Rep. Wolf, who inserted that cancellation language, was honored for his strong efforts on behalf of science several years ago by the Science Coalition. No, Congress just sees a fiscal train wreck. In fact, a train wreck that has repeated several times in the last decade.

Mind you, I believe strongly in JWST and it’s science potential. But the astronomy community is now confronted with what is a most un-inspiring fiscal train wreck that contributes in a questionable way to any impression of scientific leadership. The science community has to think hard about the ramifications of saving JWST. It’s a situation that has degenerated substantially since the good old days when the Astrophysics Division at NASA had even a chance of paying for it.

As for me, my career and wallet will be fine if JWST is cancelled. I probably won’t be able to support as many graduate students and postdocs in the long run and our campus will be less likely to hire new faculty members because the funding stream that is now HST will be gone. Current grads and postdocs will be less likely to get to work in this wonderful field. If the JWST money goes away it is not going to go back to astronomy, that’s for sure.

I wrote the above op-ed because I think that it’s the right thing for astronomy and I wanted to give back something to a field that has been very good to me. The time I spent writing it was time that I didn’t spend writing grants, Keck proposals (due tomorrow!), doing research, or generally working on things that benefit my own personal research agenda. If you disagree with me, then fine. But don’t suggest that I’m doing this to get paid. If I was doing something for the money it sure as hell wouldn’t be astronomy.

Or you can re-hire the ones who went over to China and Europe. And believe me, they already exist!

Checking the comments, neither I nor anyone else one on the thread is actually “arguing to defund” the mission. Although I think at least a few JWST management heads should roll.

I have no problem with academic science being a tough career. Medicine is also a tough career. But 50% of med school graduates don’t end up leaving medicine. Yet those are the kind of numbers new Astronomy phds are looking at. That’s going beyond “tough career” to a career no one in their right mind would start. There’s a standard mantra, echoed in the LA Times article, that scientists are some of the best and brightest. The reality is that science has been attracting a smaller and smaller fraction of the top students. That’s a serious problem, and little is being done to address it.

I think “complaining and running away” is actually the ONLY way we can actually fix things. Science in the US is so hierarchical change has to come from the top. The only way for those of us on the bottom (grads and postdocs) to force change is to walk away. It’ll only be when PIs are unable to find competent people to fill their grad and postdoc positions that the funding organizations will be forced to reorganize. Maybe I’m just fired up from the Labor Day holiday, but I think we’re overdue for a labor movement in Astronomy. The alternative is to let the field continue to bleed talent and become like the Humanities where everyone acknowledges there are no jobs and a phd is just a vanity project for those who can afford it.