NASA: "We're going back to the moon!"

So assuming a similar development timescale, JWST is the only hope any currently working astronomer has to do optical/infrared astronomy in space for the rest of their career. It's being placed in a more distant orbit than Hubble, which means it can't be repaired if something goes wrong, and it's lifetime can't be extended if things go well (both were the case for Hubble). Fingers crossed, eh? This is a good summary of the situation: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/full/4671028a.html

― caek, Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:56 PM (8 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol

:(

seriously. it's been a clusterfuck, but it's our clusterfuck, you know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/science/07webb.html

don't have much to add but yeah this is super depressing.

ha this happened over the weekend too:

http://www.universetoday.com/87245/subaru-8-meter-telescope-damaged-by-leaking-coolant/

^ aw shit that explains why my dad had to be on the summit the other day. all he told me was that he listened to joan jett on the way down and it was a "beautiful morning" though.

(my dad is an engineer for subaru)

oh rad!

looks like the Spielberg war of the worlds

oh man the inside is so cool. the whole summit is so cool. nothing up there except those huge domes, like cathedrals.

us in our regulation hard hats:
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/47572_705670264166_19506071_38038078_7669841_n.jpg

anyway yeah :( :( about the jwst but i guess Big Science stuff is the first to go when people get upset about "spending". because what does it do for me.

oh cool! i would love to got to mauna kea.

i have only been to palomar and the mcdonald.

i would love to go to hubble too but space does not work that way.

american astronomical society responds

http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-July/000215.html

(kind of)

there is a great section in David Mitchell's "Cloud Atlas" where a post-apocalyptic tribal dude finds Mauna Kea

just FYI

that is in my unread pile. i will keep an eye out!

I gotta say that the press release caek quotes above, listing 9 (count 'em 9!) devastating impacts if JWST is terminated just struck me as very weak arguments on the whole, just throwing stuff against the wall to see if it will stick. The preeminence of USA science will be jeopardized! Children will have fewer pretty pictures of nebulae to get them interested in astronomy and science, and therefore we will generate Fewer Technicians for The Future.

Face it, there's just one impact that matters; astronomy will lose an exceptionally valuable for tool for advancing our knowledge about the remoter parts of the universe, which knowledge would enable astronomers to piece together a more accurate picture of the universe as a whole. Entire areas of research would be gutted. We'd be throwing away an opportunity to learn many interesting things.

If that reason isn't enough, none of the others will make a dime's worth of difference.

Otoh, really big expensive projects are also opportunities for expensive and spectacular failure, too.

it's not just a "we're #1 at science" thing. scientific leadership since the war has resulted in the us growing a huge skilled economy. both through migration, and american kids growing up in an environment where academic science is prestigious (in a way it isn't in a lot of the rest of the world) and so choosing to go into it. it's been kind of the unique selling point of the u.s. economy for 70+ years.

the potential scientific impact of jwst is massive but it's not particularly cost effective compared to, e.g., SDSS ($200/scientific paper!). personally, i don't think the cost of any space mission is worth it merely on the grounds that we find stuff out we don't know. pure knowledge just isn't that important. astronomy is culture: we get paid to do it because society finds it profound and exciting and stuff, and also because many economies recognize that if you want a strong applied knowledge economy (and you do) having a strong basic research sector is demonstrably a necessary condition, even if it does feel like wasting money.

also manned space exploration sucks.

it's not just a "we're #1 at science" thing. scientific leadership since the war has resulted in the us growing a huge skilled economy. both through migration, and american kids growing up in an environment where academic science is prestigious (in a way it isn't in a lot of the rest of the world) and so choosing to go into it. it's been kind of the unique selling point of the u.s. economy for 70+ years.

So that's why perhaps over half the population thinks global warming is a hoax.

-- Gorge, Ph.D.

the median person in the u.s. thinks less of science than the median person in most other developed countries, sure.

but you don't need everyone to think science is great for the prestige attractor effect to operate.

On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.

i'm not saying jwst is going to fix problems with mass perception of science issues that are considered political in the u.s.

Whoever wrote that press release does not make their fundamental argument explicit. Instead the author bets that by increasing the number of arguments (9!!), he will impress the reader by sheer quantity. But since all the arguments are minor variations on a primary argument that is never stated, the overall effect is fatally watered down.

caek understands the primary argument: if you want a thriving modern economy, science and technology must be elevated to positions of prestige and high status within your society, in order to attract talented and ambitious people. You can't do this without spending a signifigant amount of money on basic research, because that is how status is measured in our society. The rest of the benefits of a thriving scientific community flow rather naturally from this initial condition.

well tbf that's not a press release, that's an email i got forwarded with some ideas for talking points (agree that it's pretty scattergun)

the aas will hopefully have a slightly more compelling case later today/tomorrow.

They have a lot of brilliant minds. Surely a few of them grasp rhetoric at a fairly high level of competance.

I'm pretty sure the brainiacs at NASA will come up with something else to spend FIVE BILLION DOLLARS on that'll keep soccermoms interested in science.

astronomers mostly hate nasa and are happy to see its funding get moved to science fwiw

They must feel conflicted about big money-hungry projects like JWST sopping up the available funds, mostly sent to Raytheon, et. al.

i think manned space exploration is cool provided it's not just shuttling a couple people into orbit for a weekend for the nine millionth pointless time, which is apparently what it is

i mean obv we should be doing a lot more robot stuff before we Go To Mars but i think we should still be looking at a permanent presence on the moon

why? because it's cool and there's only so many pleasures in life

it'll be a great day when the defense department has to prove that children will get excited about bombers to buy a bomber

i think i'm ok with manned exploration as long as it's not an either/or thing with research which, in practice, it would be, despite the fact that they have basically no overlap. whether it's something the u.s. government should be doing i have no idea.

They must feel conflicted about big money-hungry projects like JWST sopping up the available funds, mostly sent to Raytheon, et. al.

From: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101112-jwst-cost-imperils-priority-projects.html (dated November of last year)

During a Nov. 10 news conference, NASA released the findings of an independent review that found the JWST will cost some $1.5 billion more than its current $5 billion life-cycle cost estimate, and that the observatory’s launch, previously slated for June 2014, will not occur before September 2015. Led by John Casani of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel attributed JWST cost growth to poor management and inadequate funding reserves needed to develop, launch and operate the next-generation flagship astronomy mission.

Alan Stern, a former associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, said the cost growth could ravage the agency’s $1.1 billion annual astrophysics budget, 40 percent of which is already consumed by JWST development.

“Are we going to turn off all the many existing astrophysics satellites and kill the support to analyze the data from them and stop building anything else, just so JWST can continue to overrun?” Stern said. “That’s the question that the astrophysics community has to ask of itself, and that NASA should be asking.”

According to the independent review panel, Congress will need to add about $250 million to NASA’s $444 million request for the JWST in 2011 alone just to maintain the newly projected 2015 launch date. Another $250 million will be needed in 2012, in addition to the agency’s current projection of $380 million for the program in that year.

“Even at the best case, the $1.5 billion upper will virtually wipe out the inspirations of the newly released decadal survey in astrophysics for 2010-2020,” said Stern, who currently is associate vice president of the Southwest Research Institute’s Space Science and Engineering Division in Boulder, Colo.

Stern was referring to the National Research Council report, released Aug. 13, that laid out the science community’s top priorities in astrophysics research for the next decade. Formally titled “New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics,” the survey designated the $1.6 billion Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope as the top priority for large missions and also recommended that NASA continue to spend about $100 million per year on more modestly priced missions.

NASA's manned program became extinct when the shuttle establishment killed off the X-33 in 2001. The last ten years have been an exercise in retrofuture wish-fulfillment.

SpaceX and/or Scaled Composites will fly a guy into space before NASA does.

^^^OTM

will be awhile before non-NASA commercial enterprise gets to the Moon though, much less Mars

I'm counting on Andy Griffith to get us there.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0aGGYTJxkYs/TRwAkbvIvYI/AAAAAAAAAjQ/nRjYUzMIh3E/s1600/salvage_1.jpg

This is a neat sorta-NASA-related thing:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2011/06/q-a-nichelle-nichols-aka-lt-uhura-and-nasa/

...I’ve decided to form the Nichelle Nichols Youth Foundation for Space Sciences—technology, engineering, math and attending performing arts. I want to further careers and interest in young people and bring back the majesty that the United States once held in education. So, for me, that is what I want to give. That is what I want to be known for. That is what I hope is my legacy.

ok here's the proper aas response

http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-July/000216.html

Apart from needing to be split into smaller paragraphs, that's a huge improvement over the talking points email you posted yesterday.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lolvo9PPX01qz4vjro1_400.pnghttp://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lolvo9PPX01qz4vjro2_400.pnghttp://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lolvo9PPX01qz4vjro3_400.png

want these prints

http://designarchives.aiga.org/#/entries/%2Bid%3A21333/_/detail/relevance/asc/0/7/21333/going-to-work-in-space/1

After reading this, I'm convinced that the US no longer deserves a space program. Certainly NASA (outside of JPL) doesn't.

A new schedule, created by NASA, has provided a “preliminary, budget restricted” manifest which places the first flight of the fully evolved Space Launch System (SLS) in the year 2032. The information includes details on the chosen configuration and hardware, but provides a depressing schedule, with a flight rate of just one mission per year, after a staggered opening which results in SLS-2 waiting until 2021 to launch.

As admitted by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, the decision on the configuration of the Space Launch System (SLS) was made on June 15, a decision based on the winning Design Reference Vehicle (DRM) out of the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) hosted RAC (Requirements Analysis Cycle) study effort.

Memos on the decision, based around the utilization of a Shuttle Derived (SD) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) – as requested in the Authorization Act – soon circulated at the main NASA centers, with references to an official announcement to be made on July 8, the launch date for STS-135.

In a sign of how widespread the information was, Atlantis’ commander Chris Ferguson told the media to expect the announcement on the next vehicle to be made on launch day, following his arrival at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) from Houston. His statement wasn’t retracted, nor was it corrected, by NASA Public Affairs.

July 8 came and went, as Atlantis launched on the final NASA shuttle mission – and most likely the last domestic manned mission for several years.

General Bolden was then called in front of a “Full Committee Hearing – A Review of NASA’s Space Launch System“, where lawmakers were given the chance to ask questions about the delay in pressing on with the SLS.

After a tough opening question, the General gave arguably his most impressive public performance to date, holding firm on why he was not able to reveal specifics on the vehicle’s configuration. His defence was related to industry restrictions and an ongoing independent cost analysis effort by Booz Allen.

That costing effort – which began on July 5 – is likely to be completed by mid-August, while an announcement on the configuration of the vehicle, is expected “soon”.

An attempt to request NASA push on with making a public statement on the SLS configuration to the media – to coincide with Atlantis’ landing at the Kennedy Space Center – was turned down by NASA’s leadership.

The continued delays to the announcement are now causing numerous managers and workers – at least those remaining after the massive jobs losses shortly after Atlantis’ return – to question if the delay is based on politically-aligned tactics to kill the SLS.

Of course much of this is worst-case scenario FUD from NASA's part, but I'm sick of NASA's institutional nihilism.

By way of comparison, this is almost the same amount of time between Explorer 1 and Apollo 11.

Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen

here's some more inside baseball on the us astronomy community's response to the jwst defunding

http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-August/000222.html

this editorial contains the sunk costs fallacy, but is otherwise pretty good: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bullock-hubble-telescope-20110906,0,4761128.story. ET, it's by the guy i was visiting when you and ned took me out in costa mesa.

Thanks for the heads up on that... worth reading.

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/sep/07/lets-bring-astronauts-home/

uh oh http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/planetary_scientists_webb_tele.html

uh oh http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-September/000226.html