Skip to content

James Webb Space Telescope – But What About the Cost (And Schedule)?

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), launched on Christmas Day last year, has started producing some spectacular images:

However, the successor to Hubble spent 25 years in development and cost over $11 billion. Initial development of JWST began in 1996, with a planned launch date of 2007 and a budget equal to $1 billion. The planned 11 year schedule stretched 14 years and the actual cost has exceeded the initial budget by an order of magnitude. One of the reasons for this time and money is the sheer amount of technology and complexity in the system. Hubble’s single mirror is 2.4 meters wide, while JWST’s segmented honeycomb shape mirror is much larger at 6.2 meters. JWST includes included a sunshield the size of a tennis court. Something this large cannot be launched in that configuration, so the sunshield had to be folded and deployed after launch. JWST includes several technology advances. Including technological advances as part of a major project is very expensive and is a leading contributor to cost growth.

I heard a former NASA Chief once say that once a space mission is launched, no one remembers how much it cost or how long it took, they only remember how well it performed. That statement is problematic and represents just how much senior government leaders do not appreciate resource risk and the impact it has on other projects. Even though government projects may not suffer a risk of bankruptcy, the cost growth and schedule delays have had a negative impact on several other projects and potential projects.

A more efficient way to achieve JWST’s performance would have been to break down these multiple technological leaps into a series of individual technology advances. Lockheed’s Skunk Works division is renowned for completing missions quickly and on budget. One of their mottos is “one miracle per program.” By incrementally improving the state of the art in space telescopes, the end result likely would be lower cost and have taken less time. When evaluating project performance, we can’t forget cost growth and schedule delays as well.