It's extremely worrisome.' NASA's James Webb Space Telescope faces potential 20% budget cut just 4 years after launch

[Admin]

Such a dramatic cut to a flagship space telescope still in its prime will be felt across the mission's entire operations, affecting science.

It's extremely worrisome.' NASA's James Webb Space Telescope faces potential 20% budget cut just 4 years after launch : Read more

 

[Moonwatcher]

Considering that the JWST was 10X overbudget and likely should have been cancelled, astronomers should be looking at the glass as being 80% full, not 20% empty. Any data we get from JWST is lucky gravy at this point. In the future, hopefully NASA will do a better job at staying on time and on budget - like they used to do. All research will depend on that. And given new launch assets coming online in the near future allowing larger payloads, telescopes even more capable than the JWST can be fielded without being so complex and costly.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Such a dramatic cut to a flagship space telescope still in its prime will be felt across the mission's entire operations, affecting science.

It's extremely worrisome.' NASA's James Webb Space Telescope faces potential 20% budget cut just 4 years after launch : Read more

In view of NASA having sunk 24 billion dollars into the development of the Space Launch System and has effectively nothing to show for that huge expenditure one might argue the James Webb Telescope is in comparison a resounding success story and as such a relative bargain to boot.

 

[Startseq]

I would love to see the budget to look at how the $317m is to be spent. Something tells me that with an annual "lottery win" of that much money there are lots of funds directed away from the real expenses for the observatories! Something also tells me that if the funds are spent honestly, the 80% is more than enough to fully extract all the science out of the telescopes. Maybe DOGE looked at the budget??

 

[Startseq]

And yes - the SLS project is sinful. What a waste!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I would love to see the budget to look at how the $317m is to be spent. Something tells me that with an annual "lottery win" of that much money there are lots of funds directed away from the real expenses for the observatories! Something also tells me that if the funds are spent honestly, the 80% is more than enough to fully extract all the science out of the telescopes. Maybe DOGE looked at the budget??

What makes you think that DOGE has actually looked at the details of the budget? If they had, and had actually found wasteful spending, I am sure we would hear about it.

So far, DOGE has only acquired agency data, and various parts of the administration have forced percentage cuts without actually knowing what they are cutting (except "DEI").

Having actually worked in a Federal agency, I can tell you that there is waste, and I can tell you that dismissing all of the probationary employees and urging others to resign is the worst way to trim agencies - it removes the real workers while leaving the "fat" in place. The ones who are willing to leave are the ones who are good enough to get other jobs outside the government, while the probationary employees are the ones who, despite limitations on hiring, are approved and selected to fill gaps in the workforce that need to be addressed to fulfil the agencies mission. The way this is being done, waste will increase, and the effectiveness will decrease - worst possible choice.

 

[Startseq]

What makes you think that DOGE has actually looked at the details of the budget? If they had, and had actually found wasteful spending, I am sure we would hear about it.

So far, DOGE has only acquired agency data, and various parts of the administration have forced percentage cuts without actually knowing what they are cutting (except "DEI").

Having actually worked in a Federal agency, I can tell you that there is waste, and I can tell you that dismissing all of the probationary employees and urging others to resign is the worst way to trim agencies - it removes the real workers while leaving the "fat" in place. The ones who are willing to leave are the ones who are good enough to get other jobs outside the government, while the probationary employees are the ones who, despite limitations on hiring, are approved and selected to fill gaps in the workforce that need to be addressed to fulfil the agencies mission. The way this is being done, waste will increase, and the effectiveness will decrease - worst possible choice.

I'm sure they're doing it all wrong, but there have been many administrations and personnel over the past years that knew how to do it correctly, but didn't. Time to put out the fire and regroup.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I'm sure they're doing it all wrong, but there have been many administrations and personnel over the past years that knew how to do it correctly, but didn't. Time to put out the fire and regroup.

Well, that opinion is completely illogical.

Doing it wrong and making things worse isn't justified because others did not do it right.

It is DOGE's responsibility to do it right. They are supposed to cut "waste, fraud and abuse", not leave the waste fraud and abuse in-place and cut agencies' abilities to actually do their legislated missions.

 

[Moonwatcher]

In view of NASA having sunk 24 billion dollars into the development of the Space Launch System and has effectively nothing to show for that huge expenditure one might argue the James Webb Telescope is in comparison a resounding success story and as such a relative bargain to boot.

SLS was never about getting back to the moon. It was just a jobs program to keep people in jobs in powerful Senators' and Congressmen's states. If it had been about going back to the moon, we would have built SLS as Block 2 from the get-go and never done these anemic payload versions at such exorbitant costs. And if NASA had actual project managers who knew what they were doing we wouldn't have allowed a mobile launch tower for SLS to balloon from $250 million to over $2 BILLION - and it still isn't finished.

 

[Classical Motion]

I was drafted when I was a kid. My first experience with a gov agency. Excluding the DMV.

Later I worked for a company whose bread and butter was several gov agencies. Very nice bread and butter.

One should be able to trim 20% from any gov agency. Without loss of time or service.

Just a personal observation.

 

[losgatos_dale]

An honest examination of the requested budget will show you that Webb is NOT facing a 20% cut to actual operating expenses. For example, funding extensive grant programs for graduate degrees. Whether you think that is part of NASA's mission or not it is certainly NOT "operating expense." Perhaps its more debateable that NASA should also be paying the science community to do it's science?
Try this: using a round estimate of 1/4 million dollars per year for an FTE can show how bloated the STSci request really is. It breaks my heart that unfettered spending can put so much at risk, and that otherwise lucid individuals can overlook attempting to fund the equivalent of 750 FTEs on the ledger of one operational gov't paid science mission. If the 2011 estimates for mission ops were woefully underestimated, then what would YOU call requesting the equivalent of 750 full time employee's salaries for mission ops?