17 Apr 2024, 23:00 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 24 Jan 2022, 14:13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 30692 Post Likes: +10713 Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: FYI it has been designed to be refueled if we want to. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... space.htmlThe Lockmart page you linked didn't mention James Webb, does JW actually have the LockMart refueling port on it already? Even if it does, the L2 orbit doesn't sound like an easy place to send fuel to.
_________________ -lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 24 Jan 2022, 15:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/12 Posts: 6826 Post Likes: +7937 Company: Minister of Pith Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
|
|
Username Protected wrote: FYI it has been designed to be refueled if we want to. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... space.htmlThe Lockmart page you linked didn't mention James Webb, does JW actually have the LockMart refueling port on it already? Even if it does, the L2 orbit doesn't sound like an easy place to send fuel to. Probably matching the orbit to dock is the hardest part.
_________________ "No comment until the time limit is up."
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 24 Jan 2022, 17:35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 30692 Post Likes: +10713 Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Lockmart page you linked didn't mention James Webb, does JW actually have the LockMart refueling port on it already? Even if it does, the L2 orbit doesn't sound like an easy place to send fuel to. Probably matching the orbit to dock is the hardest part. Probably would use a lot of fuel.
_________________ -lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 24 Jan 2022, 19:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Probably matching the orbit to dock is the hardest part. Especially with the thruster blasts of the supply ship wrecking the sunshield. After Webb proves out, they should build 3 or 4 more of them and amortize the development with much more data collected and having redundant units. Might even be able to build a telescope array with 4 of them at 90 degree orbit points for a huge baseline to measure distances to objects. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 24 Jan 2022, 19:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/14 Posts: 2470 Post Likes: +2460 Location: KOMN
Aircraft: Bonanza V35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Probably matching the orbit to dock is the hardest part. After Webb proves out, they should build 3 or 4 more of them and amortize the development with much more data collected and having redundant units. Might even be able to build a telescope array with 4 of them at 90 degree orbit points for a huge baseline to measure distances to objects. Mike C. As incredible as the JWT is, it is already obsolete. Much of the electronics and computerization is decades old. They already have upgrades in the pipeline.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 24 Jan 2022, 22:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/26/13 Posts: 19900 Post Likes: +19618 Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Probably matching the orbit to dock is the hardest part. Especially with the thruster blasts of the supply ship wrecking the sunshield. I’m imagining very small thrusters on the approach side and a long grappling arm.
_________________ My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 25 Jan 2022, 09:01 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/22/09 Posts: 2563 Post Likes: +1958 Location: KLOM
Aircraft: J35, L-19, PT17
|
|
Here's NASA's visual of the flight path and orbit. Attachment: trajectoryMapping2.41-NoText-1800px.jpg https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... 1800px.jpgand the animation of the orbit [youtube]https://youtu.be/6cUe4oMk69E[/youtube]
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 25 Jan 2022, 09:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As incredible as the JWT is, it is already obsolete. Much of the electronics and computerization is decades old. They already have upgrades in the pipeline. It is not obsolete. Just being built not from the latest stuff isn't the same as being useless. Even though it may have a 20 year useful life, that's not enough time for it to look everywhere it could. Everywhere it looks, it will discover something new. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 26 Jan 2022, 10:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/18/11 Posts: 1031 Post Likes: +587
Aircraft: Seabee Aerostar 700
|
|
Username Protected wrote: FYI it has been designed to be refueled if we want to. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... space.htmlThe Lockmart page you linked didn't mention James Webb, does JW actually have the LockMart refueling port on it already? Even if it does, the L2 orbit doesn't sound like an easy place to send fuel to.
the report I read about the Webb just said it was designed to be refueled. I assume with docking latches etc. when you look at the cost of putting a new satellite into orbit refueling the old one would be dramatically cheaper.
I heard the part of complexity of the Lockheed Martin system was that it was able to refuel satellites that were not designed to be refueled. they actually have a robot arm on it with grapples designed to grab the engine somehow and then maneuver the refueling nozzle into position.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 26 Jan 2022, 12:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/26/13 Posts: 19900 Post Likes: +19618 Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: the report I read about the Webb just said it was designed to be refueled. I assume with docking latches etc. when you look at the cost of putting a new satellite into orbit refueling the old one would be dramatically cheaper.
I heard the part of complexity of the Lockheed Martin system was that it was able to refuel satellites that were not designed to be refueled. they actually have a robot arm on it with grapples designed to grab the engine somehow and then maneuver the refueling nozzle into position. On-orbit refueling would save the cost of putting a new satellite up to replace an otherwise functional instrument, but it comes at the cost of the refueling vehicle and its launch system. So, you don't pay for, say, a new weather satellite, but you still have to launch the tanker sat. That cost, plus fuel, plus the cost of the tanker either to retrieve, or discard, offsets some of the cost of the replacement satellite. Is it dramatically less expensive? I think it depends a lot on the cost of the launch vehicle and tanker. If you can put a relatively small tanker sat on a Rocket Lab Electron or Firefly Alpha, then the savings could be dramatic. Fueling a satellite that isn't designed for it sounds pretty impossible to me. Grabbing the recipient isn't the issue, it's the "maneuvering the refueling nozzle into position" part that I don't get. Exactly what position is that? You either have a refueling port or you don't. I can't imagine punching holes in the side of the satellite and pumping fuel and oxidizer in.
_________________ My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 26 Jan 2022, 13:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Is it dramatically less expensive? I think it depends a lot on the cost of the launch vehicle and tanker. Reusable rockets dramatically lowers cost of launch so the satellite dominates the total budget. Arianne 5 launch cost: $185M. Falcon 9 launch cost: $62M. Webb telescope: $10B. GPS satellite: $314M. Comm/weather satellite: $300-500M. Sending another satellite to refuel Webb is pennies on the dollar, especially if SpaceX does the launch. Even for "mundane" satellites, on orbit refuel might make sense. What might make even more sense are tanker sats that stay with the main satellite for long periods of time. They could have enormous fuel capacity, refuel the main sat tanks periodically, then when dry, undock, deorbit, next one comes up and docks. Alternatively, at EOL of main sat, the tanker sat can deorbit both of them together and reduce orbital junk. Basically, this is what SpaceX does with cargo Dragon already, carrying supplies periodically, it just isn't sat fuel. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: James Web Telescope Posted: 26 Jan 2022, 14:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Seems like the "fuel" itself is a payload that could easily tolerate the extremely high g load of a rail gun launch. I wonder if some day fuel delivery sats will be resupplied with that method? Tell me how you rail gun something into orbit. If you shoot it "up", it goes away from the planet and then falls back towards it. If you shoot it "out", it goes horizontally through a lot of atmosphere and the drag prevents it from reaching escape velocity. If it changes direction in mid flight, well, then that's not a rail gun any more, you need rocket engines. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|