Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: James Webb Space Telescope - replaceable mirrors?
spinjector
Harmless
*




Posts: 10
Registered: 15-1-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 27-8-2022 at 16:29
James Webb Space Telescope - replaceable mirrors?


Since one of the JWST mirrors was damaged by a micrometeorite, the internet is aflame with angst. Because of this, it's nearly impossible to search Google for useful information about the mirrors that's not related to the damage.

And so I find myself coming here to the science-heads of Science Madness to ask: are the individual mirror segments of JWST replaceable? Did NASA already have a plan to replace them periodically, or as a result of specific damage such as what happened recently?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
j_sum1
Administrator
********




Posts: 6229
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline

Mood: Organised

[*] posted on 27-8-2022 at 19:20


YT channel Anton Petrov has all your answers and more. As does DrBecky (I can't remember her yt handle and I like her presentations less.)

In short.
Damage to mirrors from micrometeoroids was expected and planned for.
This particular hit was statistically quite big and not expected this early on.
Having before and after data enables image correction using software. This is happening.
The effect is still really small.
JWST is working better than expected overall even with this hit.
Replacement of parts is well outside design parameters. This thing is a long way away. One of the reasons for the delayed launch is that the team knew that no repairs or hardware adjustments would be possible and so they needed to get everything right before launch. Repair would be slightly easier than replacing the power supply on Voyager 1 but not by much.

[Edited on 30-8-2022 by j_sum1]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
spinjector
Harmless
*




Posts: 10
Registered: 15-1-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 28-8-2022 at 08:51


Wow, that's an answer I wasn't expecting. I had no idea JWST was a one-shot deal. No wonder it took so long. Thank you for the information.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: PhD candidate!

[*] posted on 28-8-2022 at 21:14


Yeah, while Hubble is in low Earth orbit and thus easy to access and repair, JWST is at the L2 Lagrange point- beyond the orbit of the moon! So a mission to go out and repair it would likely require resources akin to a full lunar mission, unless it was possible for it to fly itself closer in and meet in the middle somewhere.



Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
j_sum1
Administrator
********




Posts: 6229
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline

Mood: Organised

[*] posted on 29-8-2022 at 19:03


Quote: Originally posted by Texium  
Yeah, while Hubble is in low Earth orbit and thus easy to access and repair, JWST is at the L2 Lagrange point- beyond the orbit of the moon! So a mission to go out and repair it would likely require resources akin to a full lunar mission, unless it was possible for it to fly itself closer in and meet in the middle somewhere.

L2 is five times the distance of the moon.
L2 is not a particularly stable point and is perturbed by the presence of the moon. For this reason, JWST is carefully positioned so that it orbits an empty point in space. This is the most stable state for it to be. Nevertheless, it still requires course corrections that consume fuel.

For this reason, it would not be sensible to drop it to a lower elevation and then reposition it. The cost in fuel (even if possible, which I doubt) would seriously shorten the life of the telescope.

If a repair was to be done my assumption is that it would be done robotically. A service vehicle would be sent to the location, docked, repairs done, and then jettisoned: probably via impact on the moon.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Tsjerk
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mood

[*] posted on 29-8-2022 at 21:04


The telescope could never fly towards earth, all trusters are pointing towards earth. If the telescope would turn around the equipment would be fried.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PirateDocBrown
National Hazard
****




Posts: 570
Registered: 27-11-2016
Location: Minnesota
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-8-2022 at 08:23


It would be cheaper to build a new one than repair this one.



Phlogiston manufacturer/supplier.

For all your phlogiston needs.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: PhD candidate!

[*] posted on 30-8-2022 at 17:11


Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk  
The telescope could never fly towards earth, all trusters are pointing towards earth. If the telescope would turn around the equipment would be fried.
Wasn’t sure if it had the capability of flying backwards, keeping the instruments pointed away from the Earth/sun. If it could, I figured refueling could also be accomplished on rendezvous. Either way, I also didn’t realize that L2 was 5x the distance of the moon’s orbit! I knew it was further than the moon but I didn’t think that it was THAT far. Definitely puts the impracticality into perspective.



Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
j_sum1
Administrator
********




Posts: 6229
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline

Mood: Organised

[*] posted on 30-8-2022 at 18:05


I am really surprised that they were able to do it at all. The L2 is a feature of the sun-earth system and is not the most stable of the Lagrange points.
But then you have an additional orbiting body, the moon varying in distance on its monthly orbit: varying between roughly 800000 miles at its closest point and 1800000 miles at its furthest. That exerts a considerable gravitational tug that fluctuates. Trying to find any stable locus within those constraints I would have guessed to be impossible. (Turns out I was wrong. There's plenty good brains behind this project.)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
woelen
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: interested

[*] posted on 30-8-2022 at 23:16


Well, actually they sometimes need small corrections. There is some fuel, which can keep the telescope in the right place. Only little fuel is needed and there is enough for its entire expected life time plus some extra.

Of the Lagrange points, only L4 and L5 are stable (provided the ratio of masses, which determine the position of the Lagrange points is sufficiently large, appr. 25). For L1, L2, and L3, one needs some control system to keep objects in the right position.


[Edited on 31-8-22 by woelen]




The art of wondering makes life worth living...
Want to wonder? Look at https://woelen.homescience.net
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Tsjerk
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mood

[*] posted on 31-8-2022 at 02:21


Actually, JWST orbits a point a bit away from L2, this way it falls towards earth. Because it falls towards earth it only needs trustors directed towards it, otherwise soot would contaminate the mirrors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybn8-_QV8Tg&t=601s&a...
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top