Comments on: Smith: Congress supports the JWST http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=smith-congress-supports-the-jwst Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: E.P. Grondine http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359923 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:15:00 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359923 Anybody hwew have a back-up for JWST, in case it proves too damn expensive or fails?

]]> By: Vladislaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359918 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:35:25 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359918 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.

]]> By: Stargazer http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359911 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:21:46 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359911 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.

]]> By: Coastal Ron http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359903 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:39:13 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359903 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.

]]> By: Coastal Ron http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359902 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:29:23 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359902 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.

]]> By: Robert G. Oler http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359899 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:33:10 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359899 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

]]> By: Byeman http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359898 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:59:25 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359898 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.

]]> By: Rand Simberg http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359897 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:21:18 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359897 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.

]]> By: MrEarl http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359896 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:38:59 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359896 Byeman:
Expand you points of reference beyond the sites that just echo your prejudices and you’ll see the proof.

]]> By: Byeman http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/01/18/smith-congress-supports-the-jwst/#comment-359892 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:57:08 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5291#comment-359892 “managers of those two projects are putting affordability at the top of the priority list.”

Proof please.

]]>