Also unclear to me that this will automatically happen. But one way to look at it is that JWST has perhaps actually become a bad thing for space astrophysics, not a good thing. If it is continued, it will kill off other equally deserving projects for a decade, wiping out not only their science potential but the technology and engineering creativity that would be exercised in building them. It almost certainly will steal money from other accounts that will eventually come looking for payback. It will provide data not much less than ten years from now. Ten years! In principle, other high quality science missions could be producing well before then. Perhaps most damaging is that it will be a standing reminder that good science should forgive bad management. So if JWST is continued, this is what will happen.

If JWST is terminated, then one could at least rebuild the NASA astrophysics program. Perhaps the JWST money, which will have to include the effects of contract close out costs, will be rolled back over into the astrophysics account (from which it was recently removed). I suspect that will happen gradually, as the division creates a new strategic plan that doesn’t include JWST.

Please understand that I’m not insisting that JWST be cancelled. I’m just saying that the reflexive “keep it at all costs!” argument can be shot full of holes, and that some very serious deliberation should happen before a decision about the fate of JWST is made.

“If JWST goes, the money will likely go back into the science budget to fund an alternative / replacement.”

Unclear to me during these times. It may or not. But if Congress and the WH are looking for cuts then it becomes a candidate for cuts. And therefore the money might not be reallocated.

“however just what would they do with the JWST money?”

That would be up to Congress and NASA, not contractors.

“I think if funding for the JWST ends, NO ONE will get it, except maybe the politicians.”

I think you need to go look at how our system of government works.

Politicians don’t get to keep budget money. They can direct money to programs & projects in their home district, but otherwise they just get their paycheck. If Congress spends more than what comes in tax wise, then they are running a deficit, and the Treasury has to borrow money for any shortfalls. If Congress spends less than what comes in, then that’s a surplus that hopefully goes towards paying down our debt.

Congress could cancel the JWST and just eliminate that amount of money from NASA’s budget. Or they could cancel the program and replace it with a new program that fits within NASA’s budget profile. Or they could allow the JWST to go over budget, but take money from other NASA programs to cover the shortfall. I don’t think it’s likely that NASA will be allocated extra money to cover any budget overages.

“First I do understand Boeing and the rest are commercial, however just what would they do with the JWST money? What would SpaceX do with it? I think if funding for the JWST ends, NO ONE will get it, except maybe the politicians.”

???? Who said either would get the JWST money? If JWST goes the money goes with it. Same for SLS. MPCV.

Just watch.

“What sense does it make to study the cosmic dark ages with JWST if it leads to a space exploration dark age in its wake?”

Difficult to grasp this right? Existentialism and all that. Why would it make sense to understand the beginning of our Universe if so doing prevents our species to send a handful of astronauts to the Moon? Why would it make sense to build particle accelerators to understand the founding of the Universe if so doing prevents our species to see golfers on the Moon? Why would it make sense to observe the Earth and its climate when so doing prevents our species from building a huge rocket with no purpose?

Why ah why… All those difficult questions with no good answer.

“but when some of you claim: What could commercial do with the money from the JWST, I think you are jumping the gun here.”

You’re misreading and making up false arguments.

And in any case, NASA is mainly a contracting organization, and doesn’t do much real work itself beyond research and management. The vast majority of NASA’s budgets go to contracts with, you guessed it, commercial companies. Here’s the top four from 2010:

1 Lockheed Martin Corp. – $3,586,946,390 20.49%
2 Boeing Co. – 2,742,231,083 15.67
3 California Institute of Technology – 1,748,922,856 9.99
4 Alliant Techsystems Inc. – 710,967,241 4.06

Now that reflects Shuttle program spending, so the mix is changing now, but LM and Boeing are pretty big recipients of NASA’s money, and that wouldn’t change much with or without the SLS. #3 is for JPL, since it is a Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and managed under contract to NASA.

The biggest loser would be #4 Alliant (aka ATK), since without the Shuttle SRB’s and SLS SRB’s their share of contracts will be drastically reduced, but they are a pretty diversified company, so they will survive just fine.