First the Superconducting Super Collider, now the James Web Space telescope?

Meanwhile, the odious ISS still flies.

BBC;
22 August 2011 Last updated at 19:50 ET
JWST price tag now put at over $8bn
Jonathan Amos By Jonathan Amos BBC science correspondent

Nasa says it will now cost $8.7bn to launch the James Webb Space
Telescope in 2018 and operate it for five years.

The assessment - some $2bn higher than previous estimates - has
emerged from documents sent to the US Congress.

James Webb is regarded as the successor to Hubble and will carry
technologies capable of detecting the light from the first stars to
shine in the Universe.

But delays and cost overruns have dogged the project, and now some
politicians want JWST cancelled.

The House Appropriations Committee put forward a draft 2012 budget for
the US space agency last month that would terminate funding for the
observatory.

The equivalent Senate body has yet to have its say, however.

Nasa itself has fiercely defended the telescope, with senior officials
describing JWST as one of their top priorities.

The observatory is supposed to be the next great undertaking in space
astronomy, incorporating the biggest mirror ever sent into orbit. Its
near-infrared detectors promise a swathe of remarkable discoveries
about the early cosmos.

But getting the observatory ready for flight has proved to be a major
technological challenge.

An independent assessment last year suggested the telescope's total
cost had ballooned from $3.5bn to $5bn, and that continued delays
would inflate the final bill well beyond $6bn.

In parallel with the price escalation, the probable launch date has
slipped deeper and deeper into the decade with some commentators
wondering whether JWST might not even be ready to fly this side of
2020.

Nasa responded to the all criticism by making management changes and
ordering a "bottoms-up review" of the project.

It is this review that has now established the $8.7bn figure as the
new baseline price tag for JWST, a Nasa spokesman told BBC News. It is
the full life-cycle cost - to build, launch and operate the
observatory.

The agency would explain how to fund the revised baseline in the US
President's 2013 budget request to Congress made at the beginning of
next year, the spokesman added.

One complicating factor for US politicians as they move to decide the
future of JWST is the international fall-out that would result from
cancellation.

JWST is being prepared in partnership with Europe and Canada. Europe,
for example, is providing two of the telescope's four instruments and
the rocket to put it in orbit. This commitment would guarantee its
astronomers 15% of the observing time on the observatory.

It's not what they think they will see, with the JWST, but the stuff
they don't yet even know about. Hubble provided much more science than
was ever imagined before it became operational.

I encourage young scientists I know who are just finishing school to
seriously consider starting their careers outside the U.S., and two
have done just that (one in Belgium, one in China). Opportunities for
doing serious science are on the decline in the U.S., and either
stable or improving in many other countries. Just another sign of the
possibly terminal decline of the U.S.

On Aug 24, 8:45*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I encourage young scientists I know who are just finishing school to
seriously consider starting their careers outside the U.S., and two
have done just that (one in Belgium, one in China). Opportunities for
doing serious science are on the decline in the U.S., and either
stable or improving in many other countries. Just another sign of the
possibly terminal decline of the U.S.

Canada certainly hasn't done well in this regard, since the 1970s.

But to choose to live and work in China instead of the United
States... the movie "Ship of Fools" comes to mind.

John Savard

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

But to choose to live and work in China instead of the United
States... the movie "Ship of Fools" comes to mind.

Why? It has a high standard of living and is making huge investments
in science and technology. It's a good place to work if you're in
certain sciences. Its star is certainly on the rise.

On Aug 24, 10:17*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

But to choose to live and work in China instead of the United
States... the movie "Ship of Fools" comes to mind.

Why? It has a high standard of living and is making huge investments
in science and technology. It's a good place to work if you're in
certain sciences. Its star is certainly on the rise.

If you will recall where the ship in the 1965 movie "Ship of
Fools" (and the 1962 novel by Katherine Anne Porter on which it was
based) was headed, you will realize what aspect of the People's
Republic of China it is that I consider an overriding concern.

John Savard

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:09:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

If you will recall where the ship in the 1965 movie "Ship of
Fools" (and the 1962 novel by Katherine Anne Porter on which it was
based) was headed, you will realize what aspect of the People's
Republic of China it is that I consider an overriding concern.

Having never seen the movie or read the book, I don't really
understand your concern. I did read a synopsis online, but if I
understand it (and you) correctly, I can't really agree with your
assessment.

On Aug 24, 11:34*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:45*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I encourage young scientists I know who are just finishing school to
seriously consider starting their careers outside the U.S., and two
have done just that (one in Belgium, one in China). Opportunities for
doing serious science are on the decline in the U.S., and either
stable or improving in many other countries. Just another sign of the
possibly terminal decline of the U.S.

Canada certainly hasn't done well in this regard, since the 1970s.

But to choose to live and work in China instead of the United
States... the movie "Ship of Fools" comes to mind.

John Savard

Why? Pretty soon, the U.S. will employ nothing but lawyers,
politicians and service industry personnel.

On Aug 24, 9:45*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I encourage young scientists I know who are just finishing school to
seriously consider starting their careers outside the U.S., and two
have done just that (one in Belgium, one in China). Opportunities for
doing serious science are on the decline in the U.S., and either
stable or improving in many other countries. Just another sign of the
possibly terminal decline of the U.S.

The dominance of Tera Party thinking is not a long term thing. We have
gone thru this before, for instance during the Hoover era. A prominent
economics scholar has said that you really have two choices, either do
not tax rich people and allow the money to float upward, or tax them
and use it to advance the economy thru public expenditures.

In the first case, the money floats up and gets concentrated in
unproductive monetary vehicles with a resultant unemployment of around
25% (basically what we have right now). In the second case the money
is kept in circulation and used to fund all kinds of stuff, including
advanced science. With money constantly circulating, there is full
employment. There is also a multiplier effect, for every dollar spent
on science research we get back between 3 and 5 dollars of future
economic growth.

Those who advocate austerity do not realize the effect of this kind of
thinking. The rich have no need for science. They have all the money
and comfort that money can provide, plus they have cheap labor at
their beck and call. They really do not want any sort of egalitarian
society where everyone has equal opportunity. They feel rightfully and
biblically entitled to their earned or inherited wealth and resent any
sort of spreading of the goods.

At some point, however, the masses get resentful and will demand more
equity, sometimes with disasterous results. So, do we want stability
or do we want a new society of kings and commoners?

Illinois Uncle

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0700 (PDT), uncarollo
wrote:

The dominance of Tera Party thinking is not a long term thing...

I see the Tea Party as a symptom of the decline, not the cause. Our
country has never gone through such a period of focused
anti-intellectualism, especially as directed towards science. Our
Constitution locks us into an inoperable governance model, and there
appears no practical way to change it. Education declines, producing
an increasingly ignorant populace, which is happy being manipulated by
corporations, the media, and segments of the government.

I'm not optimistic this is something the country can really recover
from- at least, not in a way that I'd call "recovery". I hope I'm
wrong.