Live data from Hacker News

The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

asc-csa.gc.ca

51–60 of 301 posts

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#51
post #23

I was watching a presentation given by the MGT project manager at cal tech and he mentioned that the MGT has a lower diffraction limit than the JWST. I think “diffraction limit” was the term he used, I don’t remember. The idea was that the images are supposed to be sharper. I was very confused about that. Why build JWST if MGT is going to maker cleaner images?

The diffraction limit is the fundamental resolution limit of a telescope. This is the size of "spot" that will be created on the camera sensor for a single point of light like a star [1].

Its easy to calculate, just take the wavelength of the of light you want to observe and divide it by the diameter of the primary mirror (and multiply by ~1.2).

For example, for JWST observing in the mid-infrared, say 4micron, with a 6.5 meter diameter mirror, has a resolution limit of: 4e-6 / 6.5 = 6.15e-7 Or about 0.6 micro-radians (astronomers would normally use arcseconds but leaving in radians for clarity).

This is just the theoretical limit though, it's reduced by any imperfections in the optics, and for telescopes on the ground, it's limited by the blurring of the Earth's atmosphere to about 4 micro-radians.

For narrow fields of view, however, ground-based telescopes can use adaptive optics to compensate for this shimmering/blurring in real time and reach close to their theoretical diffraction limit. Plus, they can be much bigger since we don't have to launch them into space. I'm not familiar with the MGT but this might be how it will surpass JWST in terms of resolution (which again also depends on the wavelength).

For infrared observations though, a huge effect that can't be compensated for is sensitivity. At mid-infrared wavelengths, the Earth's atmosphere actually glows and makes it much harder to see faint sources. This is one of the ways JWST will really shine.

[1] Note however that you can still do things like measure the position of an object to less than the diffraction limit using e.g. centroiding. But you can't tell if there are two objects or one below this limit.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#52
On a related note, I highly, highly recommend watching this well-made documentary on JWST, released around 3 and a half years ago -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLD9LKq0u9E

This documentary was produced by Northrop Grumman Corporation -- the builders of JWST under a NASA contract.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#54
If the JWST survives launch but has a subsequent mechanical problem that prevents it deploying properly (and it’s the kind of problem that would have been fixable on Hubble, using a shuttle mission) would it be feasible to mount a robotic rescue mission to chase it down and remote-hands it back to life? For less than the cost of just launching another JWST?

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#55

Going to be amazing if this thing can actually unfurl, but I'm scared.

I don't know why, but I've had this gut-wrenching feeling for a couple of years now that Something Terrible is going to happen to this before it gets into position at L2. I really hope not, obviously, but this seems like an All Your Eggs In One Basket lesson in the making. We need to commodify this tech, make them somewhat disposable, and sent oodles of them up on Starships.

The material requirements are extreme to what we typically us on earth. Handling temperature extremes, radiation, low outgassing, low weight.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#56
post #54

If the JWST survives launch but has a subsequent mechanical problem that prevents it deploying properly (and it’s the kind of problem that would have been fixable on Hubble, using a shuttle mission) would it be feasible to mount a robotic rescue mission to chase it down and remote-hands it back to life? For less than the cost of just launching another JWST?

The JWST will not orbit Earth. It will be located near the second Lagrange point (L2) over 1,500,000 km away (The Moon is just 405,000 km from the Earth).

Space Shuttle could not have reached it.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#57
post #54

If the JWST survives launch but has a subsequent mechanical problem that prevents it deploying properly (and it’s the kind of problem that would have been fixable on Hubble, using a shuttle mission) would it be feasible to mount a robotic rescue mission to chase it down and remote-hands it back to life? For less than the cost of just launching another JWST?

It has a docking clamp, though that's for future-proofing. Apparently the initial type of mission envisioned was a crewed Orion vehicle, though I'm sure a wide variety of missions could attach.

My guess was that the clamp was mainly for possible future replenishment of consumables, though presumably some sort of robotic-arm-equipped repair mission could attach as well. A crewed mission seems possible, too, assuming one of the planned Lunar craft could be modified to go to the Lagrange point.

https://www.space.com/3833-nasa-adds-docking-capability-spac...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_Bus_(JWST)#Docking_...

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#58
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why, but I've had this gut-wrenching feeling for a couple of years now that Something Terrible is going to happen to this before it gets into position at L2. I really hope not, obviously, but this seems like an All Your Eggs In One Basket lesson in the making. We need to commodify this tech, make them somewhat disposable, and sent oodles of them up on Starships.

The material requirements are extreme to what we typically us on earth. Handling temperature extremes, radiation, low outgassing, low weight.

We Can Do This™

- ed. For clarification, I imagine that I personally can't, so instead:

It Can Be Done™

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#59
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why, but I've had this gut-wrenching feeling for a couple of years now that Something Terrible is going to happen to this before it gets into position at L2. I really hope not, obviously, but this seems like an All Your Eggs In One Basket lesson in the making. We need to commodify this tech, make them somewhat disposable, and sent oodles of them up on Starships.

Using 3 COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) components with 90% reliability can ensure 99.9% redundancy instead of having a Unique very reliable and even costlier 99.9% custom component can really lower costs. But it can happen only if mass is not a constraint. From Casey Handmer's blog: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/03/04/sls-what-now/ The Perseverance Mars rover cost $2.4 billion, which works out to a few tho…

They should put that team to work on next-generation tech, the stuff that's not yet a commodity. They can start working on habitat construction materials and hardware, for instance.

Although it is interesting to consider that we've put a lot of expense into optimizing payloads that, in retrospect, would have been smarter to put into better launch vehicles. SpaceX probably isn't going to spend $2 billion developing Starship (even if Boeing would have.)

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#60
post #54

If the JWST survives launch but has a subsequent mechanical problem that prevents it deploying properly (and it’s the kind of problem that would have been fixable on Hubble, using a shuttle mission) would it be feasible to mount a robotic rescue mission to chase it down and remote-hands it back to life? For less than the cost of just launching another JWST?

The JWST orbits out beyond the Moon, so I don't know if the Orion capsule and European Service Module even has the Delta-V to make it to that Lagrange point and back. Plus, I'm also unsure about the life support and duration requirements for such a mission.

I imagine the only realistic repair mission would be with a Starship crew, seeing as Orion and all the other Commercial Crew vehicles would probably require some additional components to make it out that far and to sustain their crews. Starship seems big enough and far enough along in development to be viable.

Edit: The JWST has a docking ring to let Orion service it. But I don't know if the SLS in it's available configurations can get it up there. It seems like a contingency but I don't see any solid information about an Orion service mission.

Post reply on HN