Congress, NASA

Smith: Congress supports the JWST

On the final day of last week’s meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in Austin, Texas, attendees to made it to the morning plenary got a bonus speaker: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. In his brief comments he tried to assure the astronomers in the audience that, despite last year’s budget battle over the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Congress supported that mission.

“I know that some members of the AAS were upset at the prospect of the House Appropriations Committee canceling the James Webb Space Telescope,” he said. Smith explained that the move by the appropriations subcommittee chaired by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) was to “draw attention to the management and budgetary problems facing the JWST” and get the White House to respond. “I do believe that Frank Wolf has now got the Obama Administration’s attention,” he said. “Contrary to what might have been written at the time, Congress supports the James Webb Space Telescope.”

Astronomers, though, can be excused if they thought otherwise. Just a month earlier, members of the House Science Committee grilled NASA and Northrop Grumman officials about the telescope’s cost overruns and delays, putting them on notice that the latest JWST “replan” was the agency’s final chance for avoiding cancellation. “In my view, NASA’s latest replan for the James Webb Telescope is the agency’s last opportunity to hold this program together,” committee chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) said at the time.

Smith went on to say that Congressional criticism of NASA’s human spaceflight plans, particular by Hall and ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), don’t mean they’re similarly critical of the agency’s science activities. Hall and Johnson, he said, “have been unified in their criticism of the Obama Administration’s lack of planning for human spaceflight, and I share their skepticism,” he said. “However, I hope that the broad science community does not translate such criticism of NASA’s programs into a perception that arguments between Congress and the Administration mean that Congress is somehow anti-science.” Even people in Washington, he quipped, “are made humble” by various astronomical discoveries.

11 comments to Smith: Congress supports the JWST

  • MrEarl

    You can get some people’s attention by a tap on the shoulder; others need a baseball bat to the head. Since a series of taps to the shoulder, shouts and other subtle measures were ignored by the JWST team and the only attention getter left was the baseball bat of wisdom.
    NASA in general needs to become a better steward of the nation’s treasure. The cancelation of the Constellation program was a baseball bat of wisdom to the HSF side of NASA. Though there are still complaints all over this blog about the SLS and to a lesser extent the MPCV, managers of those two projects are putting affordability at the top of the priority list.
    Now government affordability and private sector affordability are two different things but NASA has made a turn in the right direction.
    With the current economic realities, congress and the executive branch are not against “big science” but the days of blank checks and runaway costs are over.

  • Byeman

    “managers of those two projects are putting affordability at the top of the priority list.”

    Proof please.

  • MrEarl

    Byeman:
    Expand you points of reference beyond the sites that just echo your prejudices and you’ll see the proof.

  • Though there are still complaints all over this blog about the SLS and to a lesser extent the MPCV, managers of those two projects are putting affordability at the top of the priority list.

    Hilarious.

  • Byeman

    MrEarl :
    Expand you points of reference beyond the internet have and you’ll see that you are wrong (again). I see that “affordability” is nothing but lip service first hand daily in dealing with these programs.
    As far as sites that I visit, they span both pro and anti SLS/MPCV. I have an open mind unlike lemming like you.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ January 18th, 2012 at 10:15 am
    Though there are still complaints all over this blog about the SLS and to a lesser extent the MPCV, managers of those two projects are putting affordability at the top of the priority list.”

    Wow you believe this? If so there is land south of Fort Crockett near Galveston that I would like to sell you RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    Let’s not forget that Congress has been accepting the JWST budget increases for a decade, so part of the blame must be shouldered by them.

    How many times does a program have to double in size before Congress figures out there is a problem?

    And I don’t believe Rep Smith when he says they were just trying to get the attention of the President – I think that’s crafting an excuse to fit the facts, with the facts being that Congress was ready to defund the JWST.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ January 18th, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Though there are still complaints all over this blog about the SLS and to a lesser extent the MPCV, managers of those two projects are putting affordability at the top of the priority list.

    Gee, it’s on a list. Kind of like putting “close the barn door” on your list after all the animals have escaped. You have to design affordability in, you can’t wish-list it into existence.

    Congress designed the SLS to use the maximum amount of labor, so how can anyone hope to make significant headway on affordability?

    Labor intensive SRB’s – Check
    Labor intensive roll-out and launch process – Check
    Largest possible design for the least amount of need – Check
    Least amount of flights for low amortization – Check

    And the MPCV? It’s not reusable right now, and it is only needed for human exploration programs – of which there are none funded, so where is the opportunity to lower costs?

    They may be making a list, and even checking it twice, but that “To-Do” item will never be completed.

  • Stargazer

    Saying that “Congress supports” or doesn’t support something, as if Congress is a monolithic entity with a single mind, is just silly. Clearly it is very often the case that some members of Congress want to fund something, and others don’t… I can easily imagine (though I have no first hand evidence for this) that Wolf might really have wanted to cancel it while Smith always was a supporter. Certainly very soon after the House committee vote to defund JWST there were statements of support from various members of that committee, so it’s not like it was a unanimous consent either way.

  • Vladislaw

    You have three commercial companies who have said 2.5 billion, 5 billion and 6 billion.

    Then you have NASA saying 18 – 32 billion with some educated and informed groups predicting that data beyond the first couple years make it impossible to predict the true cost and that it may go as high as 60 billion.

    You respond with:

    “managers of those two projects are putting affordability at the top of the priority list”

    Once again, fodder is provided for a great NASA stand up comedy routine.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Anybody hwew have a back-up for JWST, in case it proves too damn expensive or fails?

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>