What We Could Lose if the James Webb Telescope Is Killed - PC Magazine

NASA's next space-based observatory is on the chopping block due to budget cuts. If it dies, a whole universe of discovery could die with it.

NASA's James Webb telescope, the successor to the Hubble, is on the chopping block. With the U.S. Congress arguing over fiscal matters, one of the things that may get cut is NASA's budget, with the expensive James Webb telescope potentially getting the ax. If that happens, a generation of scientific discoveries about the nature of the universe may need to be put on hold.

Right now the future of the Webb telescope, scheduled to launch in 2018, is uncertain. Congress is looking to cut costs, and NASA's budget could be cut by as much as $1.6 billion (or about nine percent of its overall budget). Such a big cut would certainly be the death knell for the Webb telescope, which has so far cost $3 billion but whose final price is expected to hit the $6.8-billion mark.

"The cost overruns are driven by a couple things," says Rick Howard, the program director of the James Webb Space Telescope at NASA. "We've had ten or so technologies that needed to work in order to have this kind of telescope—mirrors actuators, the sunshade. We've made great progress, but it's taken longer and it's been harder than we thought. We've hand to invent new adhesives for carbon fiber because what we thought was the right chemical equation didn't work at all. Another source was inadequate early funding of reserves."

Seeing in Infrared

With the Webb in jeopardy, its mission to find out more about the nature of the universe may be postponed. The telescope is fundamentally different from Hubble, scanning the infrared spectrum rather than visual light. Being able to see in infrared is the key to the Webb making new discoveries. For example, it will be able to penetrate dust clouds that are opaque to normal telescopes.

But seeing in infrared is also one of the reasons the Webb is so expensive. Since all objects emit some infrared light, the telescope needs to be positioned much farther from the earth than normal satellites to shield it from potential interference. In fact, the Webb will ultimately be four times further from the earth than the moon. At such a long distance, servicing the telescope will be impossible, says NASA, so it cannot afford any screw-ups or design flaws. As such, testing the Webb's components is extremely detailed.

"We are very concerned about that," says Howard. " There's a huge amount of testing that goes on. We've gone to great lengths to build both sub-scale and full-scale prototypes in order to be able to make sure we fully understand this design. In addition to that we have a lot of testing going on of the flight unit."

What We'll Lose With the Webb

Once it's in place, though, the Webb is quite literally expected to unlock a universe of discoveries. Positioned so far from the Earth and shielded from outside infrared interference, the telescope will be able to see things the Hubble never could. Chief among them: seeing back in time. Since light only travels so fast, the further you look out, the further you look back. The Webb is expected to be able to peer into some of the universe's earliest moments, before even stars existed. This could give insight into how the cosmos came into being.

On top of that, the Webb is going to be looking at how the first galaxies were formed. From observations from Hubble and other telescopes, we know know most galaxies have huge black holes at their centers, but questions remain about how this symbiotic pairing of black holes and stars emerges. The answer likely has to do with "dark matter," the term for the missing matter in the universe that scientists can observe the gravitational effects of, but can't see directly. By looking into the formation of galaxies, the Webb may unlock the secrets of this mysterious substance.

"We'll be looking at the very first stars and galaxies in the universe, which right now are very fuzzy little blobs on the deepest images with Hubble," says Howard. "Not just seeing them, but getting [good] resolution on them. Because it'll be able to look back at the earliest galaxies, it'll be able to see how dark matter has affected light as it travels to us."

Finally, the Webb may help answer the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. The telescope will be able to see better than ever before planets in other star systems and more importantly—which ones have water. A planet with large amounts of water is a prime candidate for life, and the Webb could point us right to them.

"[We'll] be able to look at those planets and look at the spectra, the composition of the atmosphere, the composition of water— it's something only the [James Webb telescope] will be able to do," Howard says. "It'll be able to tell water in the atmosphere, maybe even on the surface."

Looking Back at Hubble

All of its potential discoveries come at a price, however, and it may be one Congress isn't willing to pay. The risk factor is high, too, since the telescope must set itself up perfectly at a vast distance from the earth. If anything goes wrong, it's billions in wasted taxpayer dollars.

In considering the fate of the Webb, it's informative to look back at Hubble, which led to almost two decades of cosmological discovery. Besides finding those galactic black-hole nuclei, Hubble's observations revealed the age of the universe, the repulsive force known as "dark energy," and that planets are common.

"When we launched Hubble, no one thought that it would be able to make the observations and discoveries that it has," Howard says. "Hubble's the only telescope that has ever made an actual observation of a planet orbiting another star. Nobody else has done that. When we launched Hubble, no one had even thought dark energy existed.

"The discovery space is huge for this observatory."

For more from Peter, follow him on Twitter @petepachal.

For the top stories in tech, follow us on Twitter at @PCMag.

View the original article here

Could Ratings Firms Become Irrelevant? - Fox Business

Europe wants to do what the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill so far has not – curb the influence of the big three credit rating firms.

After issuing a sharp chorus of criticism of Moody’s Investors Service for downgrading Portuguese debt earlier this week, European bankers on Thursday said they would accept Portuguese-backed debt regardless of its rating.

The European Central Bank’s decision to waive a minimum rating required to accept collateral for credit from Portugal is a clear slap at Moody’s, but also at the two other big U.S.-based rating firms, Fitch and Standard & Poor’s.

In effect, Europe is telling the firms that their services may no longer be required.

Germany, seeking to take things a step further, has called for the creation of a European rating agency.

It’s been a long time coming. Criticism of the broad influence wielded by the three firms has grown louder since the financial crisis of 2008. That criticism has now escalated to a full-throated roar in Europe.

“They don’t want to be held hostage by credit rating agencies’ decisions,” said Brian Dolan, chief currency strategist at Forex.com.

The pushback by European bankers is understandable for a couple of reasons. First, there was a widespread perception in Europe that the timing of Moody’s decision to downgrade Portuguese debt only served to exacerbate an already-bad situation.

Furthermore, the decision seemed to confirm suspicions held by many European fiscal decision-makers that the credit firms are harder on European-issued debt than they are on debt issued in the U.S.

“It seems strange that there is not a single rating agency coming from Europe. It shows there may be some bias in the markets when it comes to the evaluation of the specific issues of Europe,” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters shortly after the Moody’s downgrade.

Other European leaders described the big three U.S. credit rating firms as an “oligopoly,” defined as a market or society ruled by a small powerful group of elites.

European Central Bank President Jean Claude Trichet said “a small oligopolistic structure is not what is ... desirable at the level of global finance.”

James Gellert, CEO of Rapid Ratings International, explained that the firms have been targeted by critics in both the U.S. and Europe for several years, but “the rhetoric in Europe has been a little more emotional, and lately even more so.”

Indeed, the criticism in Europe borders on “xenophobic,” he said.

Gellert said he doubts the big three ratings firms are biased against European issued debt. Rather, Gellert sees “a greater speed to act on potential downgrades,” which he views as a likely reaction to criticism that the firms were too slow to downgrade ahead of the 2008 crisis.

Gellert sees some irony in calls for a European ratings firm that would ostensibly view European issued debt more favorably than U.S. ratings firms. Such a move would merely replace one form of bias with another, he noted.

The backlash from Europe seems to be bringing to a head an issue that has faded somewhat in the U.S. as the 2008 financial crisis has slipped further into the rearview mirror.

The U.S. credit ratings firms were widely cited as significant and active players in the years leading up to the collapse of the global housing market. Without their approval in the form of AAA ratings, Wall Street could never have packaged and sold trillions of dollars worth of mortgage-back securities chock full of loans that would eventually go sour.

To most bond investors, a AAA rating by Moody’s, Fitch’s or Standard & Poor’s is virtually a guarantee that the security is safe.

But they badly misjudged the subprime mortgage market and their critics believe it was no mistake. A lot of evidence suggests the firms knowingly rubber stamped risky securities with their highest ratings because it was profitable to do so.

Dolan said there is legitimate cause to wonder “why anybody should listen to them any more” given their failure to “detect the earlier crisis.”

He said skeptics of the firms point to their business model in which the firms are paid by the very companies whose debt they are rating.

“They get paid by the issuers of debt,” he said. “The ECB views that as a conflict of interest.”

So do a lot of other people.

A key aspect of the Dodd-Frank bill passed last summer was legislation that called for an overhaul of how debt is rated. Broadly, the bill sought to make the ratings firms more accountable for the accuracy of their ratings, making them potentially liable if they screw up again as badly as they did on the millions of subprime mortgages on which they bestowed their highest ratings. 

One idea floating around recently was to create a model in which the firms were paid by investors rather than issuers. The profits wouldn’t be nearly as healthy but it would eliminate obvious conflicts of interest and perhaps help prevent another financial crisis.

A curious aspect of the Dodd-Frank bill, however, is that it’s a fluid piece of legislation, meaning it set goals whose details still have to be wrangled over by regulators and law makers.

Not only has that dulled momentum in favor of reform but it’s given the ratings firms time to fight back against significant changes. All three have reportedly hired armies of lobbyists, and the SEC has since backtracked on some of its tougher rhetoric regarding oversite of the firms.

So is the current European backlash a watershed moment in how global debt is issued and rated?

Dolan said there’s no question the credibility of the big three U.S. firms “was irreparably damaged” during the 2008 crisis. “But until a viable alternative is established, they’re still the primary voice on credit risk,” he said.

In any case, Dolan said the controversy will likely cause competitors to enter the market, which will be beneficial over the long-term but only after those new firms earn their stripes and gain credibility.

“In the beginning it could be cacophonous so we’ll need to find out later who the best reviewers are, and that’s probably a multi-year process,” he said.

View the original article here