- #176
bland
- 146
- 43
This one is also pretty good with some 3D topography.
This may not seem like much, but to me this is a huge step. It means the detectors are working and they are able to read out the data from the detectors and send it back to Earth.mfb said:NASA released an alignment picture. 18 images of a star, one from each segment. They already know which image is from which segment. The alignment will put the star in focus in each of them and then move them all to the same spot.
They must be able to identify each mirror without 'turning off' the others. Wobbling it a bit is the only way I could think of. No wonder it's all taking a long time. It's going to be even more of a problem when all the images are in one place; wobbling will have a much more subtle effect when an image is in amongst all the others. A very painstaking system and (yet again) very impressive. Unlike Apollo, there is no room for any seat of the pants stuff here.phyzguy said:This may not seem like much, but to me this is a huge step. It means the detectors are working and they are able to read out the data from the detectors and send it back to Earth.
There are too many factors for us to speculate on the optimum choice. Mass, simplicity, reliability, contamination (as @hutchphd suggests), plus more I can't think of.sophiecentaur said:My question is, though, why didn't they use an electrical propulsion system, powered by PV panels, for station keeping?
Yikes - I never thought of that - however, the ions would be traveling much faster than rocket ejecta so would they not disperse more?hutchphd said:My guess: ions would condense out on mirror. Just a guess.
If I understand correctly, mostly they just adjust the telescope's pointing, not so much the mirrors to get the initial state. I could be wrong, but it is a reasonable proposition that none of the primary mirrors have the same aim prior to alignment. It only took a handful of captures to identify which mirror corresponded to which target. Don't be so pessimistic.sophiecentaur said:They must be able to identify each mirror without 'turning off' the others. Wobbling it a bit is the only way I could think of. No wonder it's all taking a long time. It's going to be even more of a problem when all the images are in one place; wobbling will have a much more subtle effect when an image is in amongst all the others. A very painstaking system and (yet again) very impressive. Unlike Apollo, there is no room for any seat of the pants stuff here.
Not “pessimistic”, just saying that it’s easier to spot one image moving about on its own and one image moving amongst 17 others when they are all on the same basic spot. Wouldn’t you also expect an interference pattern?valenumr said:If I understand correctly, mostly they just adjust the telescope's pointing, not so much the mirrors to get the initial state. I could be wrong, but it is a reasonable proposition that none of the primary mirrors have the same aim prior to alignment. It only took a handful of captures to identify which mirror corresponded to which target. Don't be so pessimistic.
I dunno, seems like a pretty hard problem to me unless you can cover up individual mirrors somehow (which they can't). Anybody know how often they plan to re-calibrate the alignments? Once a "day", once a year, etc.?valenumr said:Don't be so pessimistic.
The alignment of each optical axis seems almost "easy". If fact at first cosideration the most difficult part if this design would seem to me to get the distance to the center of each mirror exactly adjusted. Each of those (d~1m) mirrors will produce a Rayleigh limit $$\theta =1.22\frac \lambda d$$ but for the coherently adjusted group of 18 where $$D\approx 4d$$ then the diffraction spot gets smaller by 4. How do they get that distance correct?sophiecentaur said:Wouldn’t you also expect an interference pattern?
berkeman said:I dunno, seems like a pretty hard problem to me unless you can cover up individual mirrors somehow (which they can't). Anybody know how often they plan to re-calibrate the alignments? Once a "day", once a year, etc.?
hutchphd said:The alignment of each optical axis seems almost "easy". If fact at first cosideration the most difficult part if this design would seem to me to get the distance to the center of each mirror exactly adjusted. Each of those (d~1m) mirrors will produce a Rayleigh limit $$\theta =1.22\frac \lambda d$$ but for the coherently adjusted group of 18 where $$D\approx 4d$$ then the diffraction spot gets smaller by 4. How do they get that distance correct?
Well now I know and that is indeed a very nicely presented synopsis. I'm pleased I was asking the right questions: it makes the answers more satisfying ! First time I've seen the term "piston difference" which is very descriptive.Motore said:This site (the Webb blog) was referred here several times already, so if you are interested I would advise you to look it up every once in a while.
hutchphd said:First time I've seen the term "piston difference" which is very descriptive.
Great news ! I posted on TIL regarding cooling. EDIT, also..Oldman too said:It just keeps getting better!
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...ignment-milestone-optics-working-successfully
Which bit is what here?fresh_42 said:
It was said to be the first sharp image from Webb in the article.pinball1970 said:Which bit is what here?
Circled the whole image conventional? On the right, same area with Webb?
Not the image you posted. That's Gaia taking a picture of JWST. Note the different diffraction pattern: JWST has 6+2 spikes, not 4.fresh_42 said:It was said to be the first sharp image from Webb in the article.