#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
Lets not go down that road.

Why not...

:RnR1:

I've got 25 add-ons on my workbench...

:lol:

#### gattispilot

I have heard of people getting paid to do add-on work. I have even been offered but turn it down. That is just me. As I don't deserve it. But I guess people offer take it?

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
I have heard of people getting paid to do add-on work. I have even been offered but turn it down. That is just me. As I don't deserve it. But I guess people offer take it?

I am just kidding there, but of course, getting paid to develop add-ons might mean spending less time working to get paid elsewhere. In the end, you are right: You also pay a high price, if you start taking money. More money, more problems.

#### GLS

##### Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor

2026 then... :shifty:

#### Unstung

##### New member
As much as I like telescopes, both ground-based and spaceborne, I say cancel this project and call it a day. Build something that actually works.

They won't though because its a shelter for jobs. And no nasa administrator wants to launch this on his watch and have it fail anyways.. If it’s ever completed, the builders won’t be able to suck money from the government anymore. JWST makes more money on the ground than it ever could in space.

Unlike a planetary mission, a single astronomy mission can support many different kinds of scientists. JWST will study planets, exoplanets, astrobiology, cosmology, and stellar physics off the top of my head. So I think it's still worth the price tag and I'm sure the engineers are testing everything conceivable extremely thoroughly to give the telescope the best chance of working as planned straight out-of-fairing. If Webb is canceled or tragically thinks it's a submarine, a lot of science will be lost.

The risk of failure is an inherent part of any space mission, and the greatest NASA missions are the most audacious. The agency is at its best when it pushes boundaries. Webb may have been too complicated, but it will do amazing things that are only possible far away in space.

NASA is making sure future flagship astronomy missions won't have such a tumultuous development. WFIRST is a lot less groundbreaking and the agency is working to keep its budget close to $3 billion. The following flagship mission is capped at$5 billion, making scientists rethink some crazier proposals. Even the cost for more modest missions is more on the ground than in space. It's cheaper to fly a mission than to develop one (at least one that hasn't been flying for many years).

All the money JWST makes is on the ground anyway. Just think of all the families of scientists, engineers, and technicians that this mission feeds, before launch and after launch. At least the R&D money before launch is going to good jobs. Maybe some of the technologies developed will have further applications. Maybe that has already happened.

#### Thunder Chicken

Donator

2026 then...

https://xkcd.com/2014/

#### Notebook

News Reporter
Donator
Everybody likes a graph.

N.

#### Unstung

##### New member
This thread gave me an idea.

I fixed the patch.

Last edited:

#### mahdavi3d

##### Active member
Is it right to say this graph tells me "NOW: 2026" ? :hmm:

#### barrygolden

##### Active member
At the hearing last week the $500 million dollar JWST was over$ 8 billion as of now and Northrop Grumman was asking for another \$1.5 billion and 3 more years. Might should have called Space X.

#### escorpio

##### New member
When will the launch be?

News Reporter
Donator