News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on James Webb Space Telescope.

Re:James Webb Space Telescope by freshyill on Friday January 23, 2015 @08:55AM (#8934791)
As excellent has Hubble has been, the JWST is going to put it to shame. The potential risk, however is that it won't be serviceable, as Hubble famously needed to be very early in its life. If all goes as planned, we're all going to have some really nice new desktop wallpapers in a few years. And, I suppose, a better understanding of the universe will be a nice side benefit.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by furyofantares on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:07AM (#8934844)
Until this post I didn't realize it wasn't going to orbit Earth in roughly the same spot as Hubble -- it's going to be roughly 4 times further away from Earth than the Moon is, orbiting L2!

http://jwst.nasa.gov/orbit.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by mrfusion on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:52AM (#8935084)
I never understood how we can launch something into an L2 orbit. Does the rocket just fly out there and stop? Just it get caught at that location?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by loudmax on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:35AM (#8935697)
If you're curious about orbital space mechanics, try Kerbal Space Program. You'll get a much better idea how NASA puts things into orbit after you've done it a few times yourself.

Basically, the rocket doesn't just fire in a straight line away from the Earth all the way into orbit. It starts arcing very soon into the ascent, and the thrust is nearly parallel to the Earth's surface for much of the journey.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by arrrg on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:56AM (#8935851)
That’s all well and good for most of the stuff humans do in space (and it really, really helps to get a sort of general, very basic and intuitive understanding of orbital mechanics), but KSP does not do Lagrange points at all. You cannot use it to get a basic understanding of how those work with KSP.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by xenophonf on Friday January 23, 2015 @01:54PM (#8936523)
That's why our correspondent needs to install the Principia mod!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68502-WIP-Princi...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by cmsmith on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:16PM (#8935960)
The same way that you can push a ball just to the top of a hill. Very carefully, because if you push it too hard it will roll down the other side.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by xenophonf on Friday January 23, 2015 @02:56PM (#8936887)
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball and http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/go-for-launch/2009-05-28/how-t.... To fly to the L2 point, you have to get your rocket into (an elliptical) orbit around the Sun that intersects with the L2 point. Once you get to L2, you have to match its velocity, which you do by firing your engines to speed up (or slow down) such that your rocket and the L2 point have zero velocity relative to one another.

While Kerbal Space Program's physics simulation doesn't have Lagrange points, you can get a pretty good feel for how they work by performing any kind of in-orbit rendezvous.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by noselasd on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:14AM (#8935194)
Here's the main reasoning for placing it at L2: http://jwst.nasa.gov/orbit.html
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by mrfusion on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:15AM (#8935197)
Right I understand the reason. But as my question says, I don't understand how a rocket inserts it into that orbit.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by josePhoenix on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:19AM (#8935221)
This video shows the steps that take it from a folded-up thing stuffed into a rocket to a deployed telescope at L2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTxLAGchWnA The rocket is out of the picture fairly early on in the timeline.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by gokhan on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:35AM (#8935310)
Whoa. A deployment sequence to put Curiosity's one to shame. Too many moving parts, over the course of a month. I hope all goes well.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by sjburt on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:08PM (#8935923)
It's easier to think of it not as "stopped", but in an orbit around the earth that takes exactly 1 year to complete. So it does have some tangential velocity.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by sanxiyn on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:17AM (#8934892)
Interesting tidbit: JWST can't see blue. While Hubble could see entire visible light spectrum, astronomically infrared is more interesting. So JWST can see infrared, but not blue.

Astronomical images always have been heavily edited and it never was "what you may see", but it is more so for JWST.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by sp332 on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:29AM (#8934963)
It's not just that IR is "more interesting" (maybe it is), but it's much more difficult to see through the atmosphere. It's obviously cheaper and easier to build huge optical telescopes on the ground, but to see into the infrared, you need to get above the atmosphere.

Edit: source http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutor...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by spdustin on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:17AM (#8935589)
IR is profoundly more interesting, precisely because it is able to penetrate all sorts of media, most especially interstellar dust and gasses, allowing JWST (and others) to see stars that can't be seen by their visible light.

Regarding our atmosphere filtering IR: do you feel the heat of the sun when it shines on you? That's light. Infrared.

Edit: Additional point of fact: our atmosphere interferes with light by scattering it away from its angle of incidence. Light with a longer wavelength is able to get through without scattering (IR, red, orange, yellow, etc) light with a shorter wavelength (blue) is more likely to collide with a molecule of something on the way in, and it gets bounced around so frantically that all those blue light waves seem to kind of pile up and come from everywhere. No, our atmosphere's light transmission woes are much more deleterious to the smaller wavelengths of light than to IR.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by spdustin on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:25AM (#8935635)
True enough to the "notch filter" and the fact that the matter in the air emits IR radiation as well. IR still penetrates, visible light is scattered.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:James Webb Space Telescope by Florin_Andrei on Friday January 23, 2015 @01:57PM (#8936540)
Aren't the mirrors coated with gold? If so, then they do reflect some blue, just not as much as the lower frequencies.

Perhaps the sensors are discarding that frequency.

[ Parent | on HN ]