James Webb Telescope

Thrilled about the launch of the Webb Telescope! What a beautiful thing! Kinda wish I'd been born yesterday to see the next 90 years of space exploration.

As a graphic artist I geek out on this but I don't fully understand L2. I see animations of the Webb "orbiting" what looks like an empty piece of space. Can someone explain (in simple language) how it moves around effectively nothing. Totally lost on this one and not even sure if I'm asking the right question.
 

Anacher

Ars Praefectus
5,178
Subscriptor++
Thrilled about the launch of the Webb Telescope! What a beautiful thing! Kinda wish I'd been born yesterday to see the next 90 years of space exploration.

As a graphic artist I geek out on this but I don't fully understand L2. I see animations of the Webb "orbiting" what looks like an empty piece of space. Can someone explain (in simple language) how it moves around effectively nothing. Totally lost on this one and not even sure if I'm asking the right question.

Lagrange points are a balance of gravitational forces between large objects. While the moon orbits around the earth, it's not exactly at the center of the earth. The earth partially orbits around the moon. Everything in orbit is affected by large masses in the solar system, based on how far you are from them.

So basically, JWST is orbiting around one of those balance points. The reason why you don't just stay at the point itself (and orbit around the sun), is that it tends to be a little unstable (you'll drift one way and then the other), and other things tend to end up there too, which you don't want to hit.

Does that help?
 

ABDoradus

Smack-Fu Master, in training
99
This NASA article has good explanation of the Lagrange points. Webb can't naturally orbit around the L2 point because it is a saddle point. The on-board thrusters will keep it in an orbit around the L2 point.
From the animations I have seen Webb's orbit around L2 is perpendicular to the ecliptic. I'm not sure L2 is a saddle point over that plane.
 
This NASA article has good explanation of the Lagrange points. Webb can't naturally orbit around the L2 point because it is a saddle point. The on-board thrusters will keep it in an orbit around the L2 point.
From the animations I have seen Webb's orbit around L2 is perpendicular to the ecliptic. I'm not sure L2 is a saddle point over that plane.
You can have orbital behavior in that plane if you limit the problem to that plane. When the object is away from the line directly through the sun and the earth there is a component of the force from the earth that is pointing back towards the L2 point. I don't think those orbits are circular or elliptical around the line connecting the sun to L2 because of the behavior of the centrifugal force component as it goes around the plane. I'll try to look around and find a figure that shows that behavior. Ultimately the global behavior is still not stable and needs correction to stay in the vicinity of the L2 point.
 

halse

Ars Praefectus
3,876
Subscriptor
Update: there is a nifty NASA ‘where is Webb’ page which updates in real time
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunc ... sWebb.html


NASA is posting updates
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/12/25/ ... tion-burn/

At 7:50 pm EST, Webb’s first mid-course correction burn began. It lasted 65 minutes and is now complete. This burn is one of two milestones that are time critical — the first was the solar array deployment, which happened shortly after launch.

This burn adjusts Webb’s trajectory toward the second Lagrange point, commonly known as L2. After launch, Webb needs to make its own mid-course thrust correction maneuvers to get to its orbit. This is by design: Webb received an intentional slight under-burn from the Ariane-5 that launched it into space, because it’s not possible to correct for overthrust. If Webb gets too much thrust, it can’t turn around to move back toward Earth because that would directly expose its telescope optics and structure to the Sun, overheating them and aborting the science mission before it can even begin.

Therefore, we ease up to the correct velocity in three stages, being careful never to deliver too much thrust — there will be three mid-course correction maneuvers in total.

After this burn, no key milestones are time critical, so the order, location, timing, and duration of deployments may change.

You can track where Webb is in the process and read about upcoming deployments. NASA has a detailed plan to deploy the Webb Space Telescope over a roughly two-week period.The deployment process is not an automatic hands-off sequence; it is human-controlled. The team monitors Webb in real-time and may pause the nominal deployment at any time. This means that the deployments may not occur exactly in the order or at the times originally planned.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,093
Subscriptor++
Apparently JWST can't thrust in the sunward direction. The launch therefore intentionally supplied somewhat less than the necessary impulse, and each of the several trajectory adjustments will also have to fall short. That might be another reason it can't position itself precisely at L2, it has to always remain on the sunward side of L2 and use gravitational adjustments.

That seems like a pretty bad failure mode. Even if thrusters on the mirror side aren't possible it seems like it would be better to have thrusters on the sunward side able to thrust sunward. Even with extremely severe cosine losses it would be better than the catastrophic failure mode if they go slightly too far. Maybe they have that and it's just so inefficient they'd use all their propellant to correct a minor overthrust.

https://twitter.com/EuropeSpace360/stat ... 9702718468
 

halse

Ars Praefectus
3,876
Subscriptor
Probably not a good idea to have a rocket burn on the side of the mirrors & instruments


Apparently JWST can't thrust in the sunward direction. The launch therefore intentionally supplied somewhat less than the necessary impulse, and each of the several trajectory adjustments will also have to fall short. That might be another reason it can't position itself precisely at L2, it has to always remain on the sunward side of L2 and use gravitational adjustments.

That seems like a pretty bad failure mode. Even if thrusters on the mirror side aren't possible it seems like it would be better to have thrusters on the sunward side able to thrust sunward. Even with extremely severe cosine losses it would be better than the catastrophic failure mode if they go slightly too far. Maybe they have that and it's just so inefficient they'd use all their propellant to correct a minor overthrust.

https://twitter.com/EuropeSpace360/stat ... 9702718468
 
This NASA article has good explanation of the Lagrange points. Webb can't naturally orbit around the L2 point because it is a saddle point. The on-board thrusters will keep it in an orbit around the L2 point.
From the animations I have seen Webb's orbit around L2 is perpendicular to the ecliptic. I'm not sure L2 is a saddle point over that plane.
You can have orbital behavior in that plane if you limit the problem to that plane. When the object is away from the line directly through the sun and the earth there is a component of the force from the earth that is pointing back towards the L2 point. I don't think those orbits are circular or elliptical around the line connecting the sun to L2 because of the behavior of the centrifugal force component as it goes around the plane. I'll try to look around and find a figure that shows that behavior. Ultimately the global behavior is still not stable and needs correction to stay in the vicinity of the L2 point.
I found this article with a diagram showing the how the force vectors can create an orbit around a Lagrange point. In this case the illustration is for the L1 point but a similar situation exists for the L2 point.

This link has figures showing planar projections of an orbit representative of the 3D JWST orbit.
 

continuum

Ars Legatus Legionis
96,287
Moderator
I'm assuming they did all the math, modeled it out, found the penalty for over-thrusting to be so significant they likely wouldn't be able to recover from it? Given the structure of the JWST I would assume there's not much structure outside of the very central spacecraft bus so maybe a more significant structural penalty than is obvious?
 

dio82

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9,934
Subscriptor
I'm assuming they did all the math, modeled it out, found the penalty for over-thrusting to be so significant they likely wouldn't be able to recover from it? Given the structure of the JWST I would assume there's not much structure outside of the very central spacecraft bus so maybe a more significant structural penalty than is obvious?

No. The problem is that JSWT would need to swing around and expose the top side to the sun. It only has thrusters on bottom. The sensors would get irreparably damaged if they were exposed to direct sunlight.

I also believe that the cooling system would struggle really hard to get rid of that dash of heat being deposited into the spacecraft.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,093
Subscriptor++
Once it's near L2 it won't be necessary to point its thrusters toward the sun or away from it, ever. It will only need to apply thrust perpendicular to the sun, or nearly so, for station keeping.
Good visualization here:

dX4QNXX.gif

I think it's actually primarily unstable along the Earth-Sun axis. So combined with its inability to thrust back towards Earth I think it will have to balance just short of the L2 point and regularly apply delta-v to keep from falling back toward Earth. It's a tricky balance. Getting closer would save propellant but increase the risk of ending up on the wrong side of L2, where they won't be able to correct.
 
Once it's near L2 it won't be necessary to point its thrusters toward the sun or away from it, ever. It will only need to apply thrust perpendicular to the sun, or nearly so, for station keeping.
Good visualization here:

dX4QNXX.gif

I think it's actually primarily unstable along the Earth-Sun axis. So combined with its inability to thrust back towards Earth I think it will have to balance just short of the L2 point and regularly apply delta-v to keep from falling back toward Earth. It's a tricky balance. Getting closer would save propellant but increase the risk of ending up on the wrong side of L2, where they won't be able to correct.
I think you're misinterpreting what that potential is that you showed. It's not a real potential. It comes from transforming the problem into a rotating coordinate system and it is velocity dependent. The spacecraft is not in danger of falling down the hill to infinity if it goes outside the L2 point. The instability in the L2 position would cause a drift in the orbit with respect to L2 in the angular direction around the sun and would not stay locked into the same rotational angular frequency of the earth's orbit around the sun. The orbit corrections keep it from drifting. There are other observatories that have operated in orbits in the vicinity of L2. Herschel, Planck, and WMAP all operated there.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,093
Subscriptor++
I think you're misinterpreting what that potential is that you showed. It's not a real potential. It comes from transforming the problem into a rotating coordinate system and it is velocity dependent. The spacecraft is not in danger of falling down the hill to infinity if it goes outside the L2 point.
I know that, I was mostly trying to express the directionality. In my head the frame of reference is the Earth-Sun axis. Perhaps I should refer to the directions as nadir and zenith. Haven't looked into it but my inclination is to think a fall to zenith from L2 would end up in a heliocentric orbit with approximately 1 year period, and a fall to nadir would do the same, subject to possible encounters with Earth or the Moon. I am guessing the fall to nadir would be quite sensitive to the precise starting conditions and could hit Earth, the Moon, or be ejected from the Earth-Moon system into a heliocentric orbit. Any of the above heliocentric orbits would likely be pretty close to Earth's orbit around the sun, hence have the possibility of future encounters.

JWST has a stationkeeping problem with several constraints:

-It, apparently, cannot thrust or cannot thrust very much in the nadir direction.
-While not tending to fall to infinity, an object at L2 is, as far as I can tell, stable in the directions normal to the Earth-Sun axis, and unstable along the Earth-Sun axis.
-Stationkeeping propellant is limited so the most efficient stationkeeping position compatible with other constraints must be used.

This to me suggests JWST must remain slightly to nadir of L2, even though this is a less efficient use of stationkeeping propellant. It would then maintain its position with delta-v to zenith, which it can do, rather than delta-v to nadir, which it cannot do (since nadir is always aligned to the Earth-Sun axis and JWST cannot expose its instruments to direct sunlight.

The tradeoff I describe is that the closer they get to L2 the more efficient stationkeeping will be, so there are competing requirements: efficient use of propellant, and not overshooting L2 to zenith.

I believe there's also an elliptical orbit about L2 on a plane normal to the Earth-Sun axis, though there's no problem using thrusters in that direction so that's less of an issue. And, with my understanding of the gravitational potentials at work, the spacecraft would tend to move back towards L2 rather than away in that plane.
 

Happysin

Ars Legatus Legionis
100,795
Subscriptor++
The sensors would get irreparably damaged if they were exposed to direct sunlight.
++;

That I thought NASA had made pretty clear, but seemed like Megalodon still has questions?
Orbital dynamics questions, I don't doubt the sensors would be damaged as described.

My (extremely layperson) understanding was the trade for what you're talking about was a cost in operational time of the telescope itself. Basically, underthrusting was cheaper fuel-wise than correcting, so of the constraints they had, they chose the one that would take longer to put the telescope in place, but also prep for a longer operational time.

NASA mentioned that assuming everything succeeds with deployment, fuel is almost certainly going to be the limiting factor for the Webb, and they're already working on refueling missions for a decade from now.
 

PsionEdge

Ars Legatus Legionis
21,384
Subscriptor
The sensors would get irreparably damaged if they were exposed to direct sunlight.
++;

That I thought NASA had made pretty clear, but seemed like Megalodon still has questions?
Orbital dynamics questions, I don't doubt the sensors would be damaged as described.

How much more mass would be required for the additional thrusters, piping, and fuel associated with the anticipated larger maneuvers?

That subtracts from the rocket performance, where is the line to add in the additional complexity vs the undershoot?

Orbital dynamics has a lot of questions to ask, esp. when looking at launch masses and vehicle capabilities.
 

dio82

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9,934
Subscriptor
The sensors would get irreparably damaged if they were exposed to direct sunlight.
++;

That I thought NASA had made pretty clear, but seemed like Megalodon still has questions?
Orbital dynamics questions, I don't doubt the sensors would be damaged as described.

Let's establish a nominal coordinate system for JWST:

It is a rotational coordinate system wrt. to the sun and the back is always pointing directly at the sun.

Sun <- | JWST

If the JWST would tilt wrt to this position, say like this: sun <- /

the mirrors need to remain at all times within the shade of the sunshield. This puts some HEAVY limits on the amount of maximum allowable tilt. Going by the pictures and some rough measurements, I'd say around 45° left and right and 60° fore and aft wrt to the line connecting to the sun.

The JWST can DEFINITELY NOT go perpendicular to the sun to decelerate should it overshoot the L2 point. That would certainly fry the sensors and bathe the sheet cavities with direct sunlight, absolutely killing any established cryo state.
 

halse

Ars Praefectus
3,876
Subscriptor
It is good to see something going well & ‘the where is webb’ website is quite well done
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/12/

After a successful launch of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope Dec. 25, and completion of two mid-course correction maneuvers, the Webb team has analyzed its initial trajectory and determined the observatory should have enough propellant to allow support of science operations in orbit for significantly more than a 10-year science lifetime. (The minimum baseline for the mission is five years.)

The analysis shows that less propellant than originally planned for is needed to correct Webb’s trajectory toward its final orbit around the second Lagrange point known as L2, a point of gravitational balance on the far side of Earth away from the Sun. Consequently, Webb will have much more than the baseline estimate of propellant – though many factors could ultimately affect Webb’s duration of operation.
 

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
63,830
Subscriptor
I think you're misinterpreting what that potential is that you showed. It's not a real potential. It comes from transforming the problem into a rotating coordinate system and it is velocity dependent. The spacecraft is not in danger of falling down the hill to infinity if it goes outside the L2 point.
I know that, I was mostly trying to express the directionality. In my head the frame of reference is the Earth-Sun axis. Perhaps I should refer to the directions as nadir and zenith. Haven't looked into it but my inclination is to think a fall to zenith from L2 would end up in a heliocentric orbit with approximately 1 year period, and a fall to nadir would do the same, subject to possible encounters with Earth or the Moon. I am guessing the fall to nadir would be quite sensitive to the precise starting conditions and could hit Earth, the Moon, or be ejected from the Earth-Moon system into a heliocentric orbit. Any of the above heliocentric orbits would likely be pretty close to Earth's orbit around the sun, hence have the possibility of future encounters.

JWST has a stationkeeping problem with several constraints:

-It, apparently, cannot thrust or cannot thrust very much in the nadir direction.
-While not tending to fall to infinity, an object at L2 is, as far as I can tell, stable in the directions normal to the Earth-Sun axis, and unstable along the Earth-Sun axis.
-Stationkeeping propellant is limited so the most efficient stationkeeping position compatible with other constraints must be used.

This to me suggests JWST must remain slightly to nadir of L2, even though this is a less efficient use of stationkeeping propellant. It would then maintain its position with delta-v to zenith, which it can do, rather than delta-v to nadir, which it cannot do (since nadir is always aligned to the Earth-Sun axis and JWST cannot expose its instruments to direct sunlight.

The tradeoff I describe is that the closer they get to L2 the more efficient stationkeeping will be, so there are competing requirements: efficient use of propellant, and not overshooting L2 to zenith.

I believe there's also an elliptical orbit about L2 on a plane normal to the Earth-Sun axis, though there's no problem using thrusters in that direction so that's less of an issue. And, with my understanding of the gravitational potentials at work, the spacecraft would tend to move back towards L2 rather than away in that plane.

I'm certainly no expert on orbital mechanics but once you're on station, I don't see why you would ever need to point your thrust at or away from the sun. Doesn't pointing your thruster in (towards the sun) takes you back (lag the Earth) and pointing it out (away from the sun) takes you forward (lead the Earth)? If you point it back, it takes you to a higher orbit (out) and if you point if forward it moves you to a lower orbit. There's three directions you can point your thruster (besides orthogonal to the ecliptic) because of your delicate sensors.

I don't know what that restriction does with respect to keeping you near L2. Obviously too much push and you're no longer synched to the Earth's orbit. Could you get back to L2 if you left it?
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,093
Subscriptor++
I don't know what that restriction does with respect to keeping you near L2. Obviously too much push and you're no longer synched to the Earth's orbit. Could you get back to L2 if you left it?
The L2 thing is the issue. Because of the way the gravitational potentials work you can balance there but it's not dynamically stable. Even the smallest disturbance, for example Jupiter moving around, will knock you out of balance. That's what creates the need for stationkeeping, which is then subject to the limitations of the spacecraft.
 

dio82

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9,934
Subscriptor
I'm certainly no expert on orbital mechanics but once you're on station, I don't see why you would ever need to point your thrust at or away from the sun. Doesn't pointing your thruster in (towards the sun) takes you back (lag the Earth) and pointing it out (away from the sun) takes you forward (lead the Earth)? If you point it back, it takes you to a higher orbit (out) and if you point if forward it moves you to a lower orbit. There's three directions you can point your thruster (besides orthogonal to the ecliptic) because of your delicate sensors.

I don't know what that restriction does with respect to keeping you near L2. Obviously too much push and you're no longer synched to the Earth's orbit. Could you get back to L2 if you left it?

All of these rotating reference frames are deeply unintuitive ... This is I believe one of those cases where the phrase "shut up and claculate" is very appropiate.
 

halse

Ars Praefectus
3,876
Subscriptor
vastly simplified answer: Lagrange point 2 is unstable (drift away in months) so orbit perpendicular to the axis connecting the earth & sun
L4 and L5 are stable but far away, this is where the space based LIGO may go someday

math & nifty images of paths orbiting Lagrange points
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~marsden/old ... enroth.pdf

Some math on Lagrange points
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/lagrange.pdf

unfortunately the excellent Gereshes page for orbiting Lagrange points is mostly not working
https://gereshes.com/2019/11/04/periodi ... ge-points/

how to rendevous at a Lagrange-- this is needed for the future transfer of hydrolyzed moon water to spacecraft
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00045/full
 

Skoop

Ars Legatus Legionis
32,782
Moderator
How cold does it have to get
NASA":xsj25cb5 said:
The sunshield will allow the telescope to cool down to a temperature below 50 Kelvin (-370°F, or -223°C) by passively radiating its heat into space. The near-infrared instruments (NIRCam, NIRSpec, FGS/NIRISS) will work at about 39 K (-389°F, -234°C) through a passive cooling system. The mid-infrared instrument (MIRI) will work at a temperature of 7 K (-447°F, -266°C), using a helium refrigerator, or cryocooler system.