Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

James Webb, Hubble space telescopes face reduction in operations

devjab

Can someone help a Danish person understand these cuts? I dislike the current government of USA, but it's not like I can't see the motivation behind wanting Greenland and all the other things they do. Reductions on USA space supremacy is the one area I really can't see a reason behind. Like who benefits from this? In the grander scheme of the entire USA budget these cuts aren't going to be meaningful, if anything, it seems like a waste to not utilize something you've already spend the majority of it's life time cost to get up there.

Hopefully it will lead to a situation where the freed time will be rented out. I mean, xuntian won't be capable of replacing James Webb since it's meant to complement rather than rival.

Is it part of the anti-science? Do they hope they can contract stuff out to the private sector? Or what?

burnt-resistor

Dumb, rich Americans don't know how government works and don't understand what anything is for, even if it's critical for their survival or for the survival of millions of others, or crucial for future economic investment and prosperity. They just want to Retire All Government Employees (RAGE) because this is a utopian libertarian belief that "government is bad" and "costs money for no benefit". That, somehow, everything would be "perfect without government". They feel they are entitled to change everything according to their (uninformed) ideas because they are special and important by being rich. It's way past neoliberal austerity by reckless leadership making massive changes without being careful.

They've never heard of the problems with utopias or throwing out babies with the bathwater.

maxglute

Time to spin up a patreon... or onlyfans.

aitchnyu

IIRC Carl Sagan saw a spacecraft which had a potentially long life had it not run out of fuel. If he knew it was a Mercedes-level of money in advance, he would have raised it out of pocket.

maxglute

Yeah, as non American, only indirect way I can contribute to NASA is to buy some official merch, but I would not mind throwing some $ to sustain/extend some ongoing programs operation costs.

minraws

I would pay for Hubble cam videos lmao

ta8645

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross

> focus on feeding and housing our fellow countrymen, shouldn't have our money diverted to such things

This has to be parody. JWST isn’t being cut to feed and house anyone. It’s being cut to give folks like me a tax break, so I can finish renovating my deck and buying artwork, and my neighbour so he can build a ski villa in Selkirk.

ta8645

[flagged]

preisschild

So it should also be voluntary to "feeding and housing our fellow countrymen" and not having your money automatically "diverted"?

ta8645

Ideally yes. But if you're going to have a government with forced taxation, it should at least take care of the fucking people before it starts spending billions of dollars on non-essential activities.

raccomandoo

[flagged]

ta8645

[flagged]

derektank

Talk about penny wise, pound foolish. We spent $10B putting the JWST in space and now we're going to underutilize it to save .4% of that? Dumb.

october8140

This is dumb that it's even an issue. But in lieu of an administration change, could they "rent" them out? Like rich institutions could either pay for what they were already planning to do or they could request a different mission/objective.

somenameforme

There's far less interest in this than you'd expect. The Arecibo Telescope [1] was as famous as they come and was the largest single aperture telescope (> 300m) until 2016 when China surpassed it with FAST, which is just real life having some artistic foreshadowing. Opened in 1963, it was iconic and show up in various major movies like James Bond Goldeneye, Species, and contact. Yet it was nonetheless left to rot for a lack of interest in paying the low millions of dollars it'd cost to maintain it, all the while we spend trillions of dollars on wars half-way around the world.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Telescope

Sammi

Wow there are actual videos of the collapse at the end of the history section.

bravesoul2

The idiocracy is a playbook.

stogot

Why are the budgets for operating these so expensive? The numbers in the article are staggering

cosmotic

We have multiple single humans with net worths over a thousand times their budget. The only thing that's staggering is what's getting priority over these monumental scientific achievements.

minebreaker

This comment makes me wonder, why don't those rich people make space telescopes just for fun? That's definitely what I would do. Besides, it must be a way funnier than buying Twitter.

somenameforme

Both Bezos and Musk have grand visions for space and humanity which they're pursuing in their own way.

The space based telescopes are useful and valuable projects that I think should be supported, but they also offer sharply diminishing returns paired with sharply rising costs. JWST is advancing humanity's knowledge far less than Hubble did at twice the cost (comparing at-launch to at-launch), and the successor to JWST will advance our knowledge far less than the JWST is at probably again some multiple of cost of JWST.

By contrast Musk seeks to make humanity a multiplanetary species, and Bezos wants to create an industrial ecosystem in space, not to just exploit resources in space but to move e.g. highly polluting industries into space. These are visions that will, sooner or later, come to fruition - and will completely reshape humanity.

In our economic and political system, I also think this is the more logical way forward. Government is no longer particularly good at long term projects and these sort of visions may come to fruition in a decade, or it may take a century. Left to government, the programs would 100% end up getting scrapped sooner or later. Either by fiscal rhetoric claiming they're wasting money, or by emotional appeal rhetoric claiming that it's unreasonable to indulge in space fantasies when a kid is starving in Africa.

AngryData

Anyone who has billions of dollars to spend is obviously treating their wealth like some sort of highscore and don't give a shit about anybody or anything else, otherwise they would have been spending their money once they were already in the 100 million dollar level because they are already so far beyond any needs or material desires for them or their next 6 generations of family.

vjvjvjvjghv

I often wonder about this too. Fund nuclear fusion to a level that it can succeed. Or fund newspapers that do truly independent journalism. It seems a lot of these things would be perfectly in reach for quite a few billionaires. Musk could probably pay for a Mars mission out of his own pocket.

jay_kyburz

If I had to guess, I would say they _are_ building space telescopes and other big projects, but they just aren't telling us all about it.

tayo42

Do they have real money to spend or is it all stock valuations that would destroy the value if they converted it to cash?

atoav

Because people that rich usually are sociopaths and if they are not they spend their money directly on humanity like Bill Gates.

tiahura

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross

> Couldn’t the geniuses debating whether the universe is expanding at 50 or 51 mph be put to work doing something a little more useful?

You do know that musing about the useless photoelectric effect is how we got a lot of modern technology?

At what point did we miss that civilisations that uncover milestones in basic physics tend to reap the rewards thereof?

Larrikin

Like optimizing and making sure people see ads?

This comment has to be sarcasm

hliyan

This is one of the most harmful attitudes to come out of otherwise smart people in Silicon Valley. Dismissing any effort that does not bear immediate, tangible fruit, failing to follow a chain of causality to long term benefits and discounting the intellect of people working on such efforts.

For example, a similar attitude would have dismissed J.J. Thompson's work on cathode rays and electrons in the late 1800's, and would have seen his intellect directed to steam engines and steel work. That would have seen a delay in the very technology ecosystem that enabled the parent to post their comment.

preisschild

What is "more useful" than understanding how the universe, we all live in, works at a fundamental level?

mastermage

Because these are some of the most complicated and technically advanced pieces of technology that we have ever created.

To communicate with them we have a worldwide array of massive satellite dishes (Deep Space Network) which needs to be operated part of the cost is operating that. Then there is the scientist using the data. These are some of the greatest scientists in the world they are getting paid well enough. Then there is the engineers which make sure the spacecraft operates correctly which are expensive good engineers are expensive.and obviously all the other costs associated with it like facility, technology electricity etc.

thangalin

In March, 2024 the US Department of Defense fiscal year 2025 budget request was $849.8 billion. The 2024 JWST budget was 0.022% of that.

https://nasawatch.com/exploration/ernst-stuhlinger

micah94

I think like they said, it's people. The JWST has "17 different modes" (yeah, I wish I knew what that meant exactly), but it sounds complicated. For all our tech, the bottom line is it requires humans to calibrate this thing and keep it that way (or one of 17 different ways) depending on the science that needs done.

magicalhippo

> The JWST has "17 different modes" (yeah, I wish I knew what that meant exactly)

It's explained in the user documentation[1]. You did read the documentation right?

For example[2]:

JWST Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) has 5 observing modes: imaging, coronagraphy, grism wide field slitless spectroscopy, time-series imaging, and grism time series.

With further details for each in subsections.

[1]: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/

[2]: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam...

mastermage

Peak comment right here.

_Algernon_

A failure is highly costly to NASA in terms of public support, so everything is incredibly over-engineered. That's also why failures are rare.

bravesoul2

It is incredible value for money. It's one of the few non-bullshit industries.

madaxe_again

$60M a year goes to Northrop just to ensure they’ll answer the phone if they’re needed.

madaxe_again

You’re being downvoted for asking a reasonable question, sadly.

The numbers are staggering. The answer is mostly “Northrop Grumman”, “cost plus”, and “cover your ass”.

The sunk costs are >$10bn. Nobody wants to be the guy who cut the flight operations team from 200 people (!) and have the thing go offline and unrecoverable.

While the cuts are very much in the category of “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”, if there’s a silver lining it’s that perhaps it will lead to a more cost-conscious approach for future missions - ie “how can we automate station keeping”, or “do we really need six people to watch a thermal map”, or “perhaps we should look at alternatives to DSN”.

It’s an artefact of a system evolved to never take risks, to shelter congressional pork, and to externalise liability onto padded contracts, born out of Cold War thinking - when JWST was conceived (1992), the Berlin Wall had only just fallen. It was meant to launch in 2005.

UltraSane

Lots of highly paid people are needed to run them.

jeisc

so when the space invaders arrive we won't see them coming