Could JWST stay at L2 “forever”?












7












$begingroup$


Using only reaction wheels powered by solar panel and the sunshield as a sail (in continuous active attitude control) to generate thrust from solar photon pressure in the desired direction, could JWST stay in its orbit around L2 "forever" (theoretically at least)?



In this case it couldn't fulfill it's main objective, which is to be a space telescope pointing at distant objects for long exposure time. But this is a hypothetical question asking about its orbital dynamics.



Anyway, could this be a practical way to set JWST on "pause" for say 2 years, without burning fuel/ejecting mass to keep its orbit around L2?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here are some different, but related questions whose answers may contain information that is also helpful here: How will JWST manage solar pressure effects to maintain attitude and station keep it's unstable orbit? and also What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant?.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    12 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Reaction wheels have to be desaturated occasionally. That takes fuel. Solar radiation pressure is a hindrance on JWST rather than something the vehicle can use to its advantage, more than doubling the stationkeeping costs compared to a vehicle in a similar unstable orbit but without such a huge sunshield.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen If considering an hypothetical very high sail surface/mass ratio probe, meant to solely keep orbit at one Lagrange point, could desaturation of reaction wheel be made by shifting centre of mass (reaction wheel) coplanar to sail, inducing a counter-torque allowing wheel to slow down, thereby using no fuel?
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ok I found this about solar sail attitude control and propulsion, which goes into the direction of even getting rid of reaction wheel system, and desaturation related issues.
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    5 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$


Using only reaction wheels powered by solar panel and the sunshield as a sail (in continuous active attitude control) to generate thrust from solar photon pressure in the desired direction, could JWST stay in its orbit around L2 "forever" (theoretically at least)?



In this case it couldn't fulfill it's main objective, which is to be a space telescope pointing at distant objects for long exposure time. But this is a hypothetical question asking about its orbital dynamics.



Anyway, could this be a practical way to set JWST on "pause" for say 2 years, without burning fuel/ejecting mass to keep its orbit around L2?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here are some different, but related questions whose answers may contain information that is also helpful here: How will JWST manage solar pressure effects to maintain attitude and station keep it's unstable orbit? and also What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant?.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    12 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Reaction wheels have to be desaturated occasionally. That takes fuel. Solar radiation pressure is a hindrance on JWST rather than something the vehicle can use to its advantage, more than doubling the stationkeeping costs compared to a vehicle in a similar unstable orbit but without such a huge sunshield.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen If considering an hypothetical very high sail surface/mass ratio probe, meant to solely keep orbit at one Lagrange point, could desaturation of reaction wheel be made by shifting centre of mass (reaction wheel) coplanar to sail, inducing a counter-torque allowing wheel to slow down, thereby using no fuel?
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ok I found this about solar sail attitude control and propulsion, which goes into the direction of even getting rid of reaction wheel system, and desaturation related issues.
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    5 hours ago














7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


Using only reaction wheels powered by solar panel and the sunshield as a sail (in continuous active attitude control) to generate thrust from solar photon pressure in the desired direction, could JWST stay in its orbit around L2 "forever" (theoretically at least)?



In this case it couldn't fulfill it's main objective, which is to be a space telescope pointing at distant objects for long exposure time. But this is a hypothetical question asking about its orbital dynamics.



Anyway, could this be a practical way to set JWST on "pause" for say 2 years, without burning fuel/ejecting mass to keep its orbit around L2?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Using only reaction wheels powered by solar panel and the sunshield as a sail (in continuous active attitude control) to generate thrust from solar photon pressure in the desired direction, could JWST stay in its orbit around L2 "forever" (theoretically at least)?



In this case it couldn't fulfill it's main objective, which is to be a space telescope pointing at distant objects for long exposure time. But this is a hypothetical question asking about its orbital dynamics.



Anyway, could this be a practical way to set JWST on "pause" for say 2 years, without burning fuel/ejecting mass to keep its orbit around L2?







orbital-mechanics lagrangian-points station-keeping james-webb-telescope






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







qq jkztd

















asked 12 hours ago









qq jkztdqq jkztd

918315




918315








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here are some different, but related questions whose answers may contain information that is also helpful here: How will JWST manage solar pressure effects to maintain attitude and station keep it's unstable orbit? and also What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant?.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    12 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Reaction wheels have to be desaturated occasionally. That takes fuel. Solar radiation pressure is a hindrance on JWST rather than something the vehicle can use to its advantage, more than doubling the stationkeeping costs compared to a vehicle in a similar unstable orbit but without such a huge sunshield.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen If considering an hypothetical very high sail surface/mass ratio probe, meant to solely keep orbit at one Lagrange point, could desaturation of reaction wheel be made by shifting centre of mass (reaction wheel) coplanar to sail, inducing a counter-torque allowing wheel to slow down, thereby using no fuel?
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ok I found this about solar sail attitude control and propulsion, which goes into the direction of even getting rid of reaction wheel system, and desaturation related issues.
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    5 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here are some different, but related questions whose answers may contain information that is also helpful here: How will JWST manage solar pressure effects to maintain attitude and station keep it's unstable orbit? and also What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant?.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    12 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Reaction wheels have to be desaturated occasionally. That takes fuel. Solar radiation pressure is a hindrance on JWST rather than something the vehicle can use to its advantage, more than doubling the stationkeeping costs compared to a vehicle in a similar unstable orbit but without such a huge sunshield.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen If considering an hypothetical very high sail surface/mass ratio probe, meant to solely keep orbit at one Lagrange point, could desaturation of reaction wheel be made by shifting centre of mass (reaction wheel) coplanar to sail, inducing a counter-torque allowing wheel to slow down, thereby using no fuel?
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ok I found this about solar sail attitude control and propulsion, which goes into the direction of even getting rid of reaction wheel system, and desaturation related issues.
    $endgroup$
    – qq jkztd
    5 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Here are some different, but related questions whose answers may contain information that is also helpful here: How will JWST manage solar pressure effects to maintain attitude and station keep it's unstable orbit? and also What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant?.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
12 hours ago






$begingroup$
Here are some different, but related questions whose answers may contain information that is also helpful here: How will JWST manage solar pressure effects to maintain attitude and station keep it's unstable orbit? and also What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant?.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
12 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
Reaction wheels have to be desaturated occasionally. That takes fuel. Solar radiation pressure is a hindrance on JWST rather than something the vehicle can use to its advantage, more than doubling the stationkeeping costs compared to a vehicle in a similar unstable orbit but without such a huge sunshield.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Reaction wheels have to be desaturated occasionally. That takes fuel. Solar radiation pressure is a hindrance on JWST rather than something the vehicle can use to its advantage, more than doubling the stationkeeping costs compared to a vehicle in a similar unstable orbit but without such a huge sunshield.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
9 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@DavidHammen If considering an hypothetical very high sail surface/mass ratio probe, meant to solely keep orbit at one Lagrange point, could desaturation of reaction wheel be made by shifting centre of mass (reaction wheel) coplanar to sail, inducing a counter-torque allowing wheel to slow down, thereby using no fuel?
$endgroup$
– qq jkztd
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@DavidHammen If considering an hypothetical very high sail surface/mass ratio probe, meant to solely keep orbit at one Lagrange point, could desaturation of reaction wheel be made by shifting centre of mass (reaction wheel) coplanar to sail, inducing a counter-torque allowing wheel to slow down, thereby using no fuel?
$endgroup$
– qq jkztd
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
Ok I found this about solar sail attitude control and propulsion, which goes into the direction of even getting rid of reaction wheel system, and desaturation related issues.
$endgroup$
– qq jkztd
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Ok I found this about solar sail attitude control and propulsion, which goes into the direction of even getting rid of reaction wheel system, and desaturation related issues.
$endgroup$
– qq jkztd
5 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

According to Wikipedia, the delta-v requirements to stay at L1 or L2 are about 30-100 m/s. That seems quite high, however, more likely is around 5-16 m/s. The sun shield has an area of about 300 m^2. The thrust possible is about 0.00279664 N, assuming purely reflective. Mass of JWST is about 6200 kg. Putting all of that together, the possible acceleration is around 14 m/s per year, not quite enough to station keep. Also, this assumes fully reflective sun shields, and pointed straight at the sun. I'm not sure what the actual direction of thrust that would be required to keep it at L2, but it probably wouldn't be straight on, thus reducing this further.



Bottom line, it might work, but would require some very careful placement of the shield to maintain the proper orientation.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 8




    $begingroup$
    That value of 30 to 100 m/s per year is a bogus number. Perhaps that's for EML1/EML2? This paper claims that "In recent years, typical annual station-keeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO." This paper, which addresses JSWT directly, estimates stationkeeping costs for JWST to be 2.43 m/s per year.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    9 hours ago








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Double checking, that "30 - 100 m/s per year" is completely bogus, even for EML1/EML2. Per this paper, the ARTEMIS satellites experienced stationkeeping costs in the range of 5 to 16 m/s per year.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I left the links under the question to provide resources for those who'd like to answer. My answer to the 2nd one What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant? quotes another Wikipedia article that states the delta-v required for station-keeping is only about 2 to 4 m/s per year. It is surprisingly low, but it is achieved by choosing the initial orbit carefully, and executing a carefully determined propulsive correction every 21 days. So I think your answer needs a partial reversal.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    8 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's only about 80 m/s available for the entire life of the JWST once it is inserted into orbit. So I think the answer is yes, if it went into non-telescope mode, it could stay at L2 without using propellant, at least for quite a while. The question now is if it could even do momentum unloading through clever maneuvers, so as not to even use propellant for attitude control!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    8 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Good feedback, have improved. Now we just need to fix Wikipedia...
    $endgroup$
    – PearsonArtPhoto
    7 hours ago



















5












$begingroup$

This paper by Heiligers et al. explores Earth-moon libration point orbits with the addition of solar sail thrusting. While it is of course not directly translateable to Sun-Earth L2 (JWST) the dynamics of libration point orbits in both systems are at least comparable. The study shows that an increase in stability can be acquired for some orbits (lunar L2 halo being one of them).



JWST is however not a typical solar sail spacecraft. These have much higher area/mass ratios and will produce more acceleration, together with a lower mass (I'm assuming also lower inertia) which means they can steer their sails much more effectively.



I would assume that the conclusions from the paper can be applied to the JWST as well, but the impact on the stability will probably be much smaller than in the case of a regular solar sail spacecraft.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    tl;dr: I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!





    This answer has several errors even after corrections. Let's look at this systematically using well-sourced facts.



    Thrust from photon pressure on sunshield



    A photon's momentum $p$ is just its energy divided by the speed of light $E/c=hnu/c$, so the force resulting in the perfect absorption of photons would be



    $$F=frac{dp}{dt}=frac{1}{c}frac{dE}{dt} or frac{P}{c}$$



    where $P$ is the total power of the light hitting the absorber, in units of Watts for example.



    Since the sail is reflective rather than absorbing, there's a second beam of reflected light and a second force, and this one has a direction based on the orientation of the mirror. Let's just look at the magnitudes for now though.



    Wikipedia gives the shape of the diamond-shaped sunshield as about 21 by 14 meters (the diagonals). That will have an area equal to half the product of the diagonals, or 147 m^2, agreeing nicely with Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope and a factor of two lower than what the other answer estimates.




    As shown in Figure 6, the effective area of the Sunshield in the Sunward direction can vary between 105 and 163 m², the range of allowed spacecraft attitudes that prevent the telescope from being exposed to stray light.




    The solar constant is about 1360 W/m^2 at 1 AU, but the L2 area is 1% farther, so let's use



    $$P_{max}=A times text{1330 W/m^2} approx 196 text{kW}$$



    to get



    $$F_{max} = 2 frac{P_{max}}{c} approx 1.3 text{mN}.$$



    Acceleration is force/mass. Using 6500 kg from Wikipedia:



    $$a_{max} = frac{F_{max}}{m} approx 2.7 times 10^{-7} text{m/s²}.$$



    A year has about 31.6 million seconds, so that's 6.3 m/s per year of delta-v available in the +z direction if the shade points mostly back towards the Sun, and somewhat less if a bit of tilt is used if perpendicular acceleration is needed.



    JWST's known station-keeping budget



    Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




    The results of the analysis show that the SK delta-V budget for a 10.5 year mission is 25.5 m/sec, or 2.43 m/sec per year. This SK budget is higher than the typical LPO SK budget of about 1 m/sec per year, but JWST presents challenges that other LPO missions do not face. The Endof-Box analysis was critical to the JWST mission, because it provided a realistic value for the SK delta-V budget when it was needed to establish a complete spacecraft mass budget.




    So the sail provides more than double the magnitude of the station-keeping delta-v.



    SOHO is an example of a spacecraft in a halo orbit (around L1) and per Roberts 2002 (from Is this what station keeping maneuvers look like, or just glitches in data? (SOHO via Horizons)) it uses a station-keeping strategy of only thrusting in the z direction (toward or away from the Sun). However, Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




    In LPO dynamics is known that the x-y plane contains the stable and unstable directions, while the z direction is neutrally stable. Because JWST does not need to remain near a reference orbit, during SK maneuvers there is no need to thrust in the z direction, and the thrust vector is chosen to lie in the x-y plane.




    This doesn't mean that in our non-telescope-mode, survival holding pattern we would also need the station-keeping (SK) thrust vector in the perpendicular x-y plane though, and I propose that in survival mode one could use some combination of modulation of the z-component and adding the x-y component by tilting and angling the sunshield within its safe limits will provide enough delta-v and flexibility in its direction to perform the station-keeping.



    Conclusions




    • JWST will experience a steady delta-v of about 6 m/s per year due to the constant photon pressure of sunlight reflecting back from its sunshield.

    • While this is of course already figured into it's orbit, this will mostly result in a halo orbit just slightly in front of (sunward-of) the halo orbit about L1 calculated without the effects of photon pressure. Here "slightly in front of" is probably of the order of a few kilometers or tens of kilometers only.

    • Aggressive tilting of the sunshield within safe limits can both modulate the +z acceleration, and add a component in the x-y plane

    • Rotating the spacecraft about the +z axis of the orbit in the rotating frame with a tilted sunshield will direct the component of the thrust within the x-y plane, though probably not enough to make up the full 2.4 m/s per year currently obtained from propulsive maneuvers every 21 days.


    Momentum unloading



    I haven't even begun to think about how to do momentum unloading of JWST's momentum wheels using only solar photon pressure. The wheels will be needed to not only maintain attitude but also to execute regular tilts and rotations needed to direct the photon pressure for station-keeping. It is possible that these attitude maneuvers can be designed in pairs to be angular momentum-neutral such that they naturally cancel each other in terms of rotations of the wheels over time.



    Opinion



    I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "508"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35404%2fcould-jwst-stay-at-l2-forever%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      10












      $begingroup$

      According to Wikipedia, the delta-v requirements to stay at L1 or L2 are about 30-100 m/s. That seems quite high, however, more likely is around 5-16 m/s. The sun shield has an area of about 300 m^2. The thrust possible is about 0.00279664 N, assuming purely reflective. Mass of JWST is about 6200 kg. Putting all of that together, the possible acceleration is around 14 m/s per year, not quite enough to station keep. Also, this assumes fully reflective sun shields, and pointed straight at the sun. I'm not sure what the actual direction of thrust that would be required to keep it at L2, but it probably wouldn't be straight on, thus reducing this further.



      Bottom line, it might work, but would require some very careful placement of the shield to maintain the proper orientation.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 8




        $begingroup$
        That value of 30 to 100 m/s per year is a bogus number. Perhaps that's for EML1/EML2? This paper claims that "In recent years, typical annual station-keeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO." This paper, which addresses JSWT directly, estimates stationkeeping costs for JWST to be 2.43 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago








      • 6




        $begingroup$
        Double checking, that "30 - 100 m/s per year" is completely bogus, even for EML1/EML2. Per this paper, the ARTEMIS satellites experienced stationkeeping costs in the range of 5 to 16 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I left the links under the question to provide resources for those who'd like to answer. My answer to the 2nd one What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant? quotes another Wikipedia article that states the delta-v required for station-keeping is only about 2 to 4 m/s per year. It is surprisingly low, but it is achieved by choosing the initial orbit carefully, and executing a carefully determined propulsive correction every 21 days. So I think your answer needs a partial reversal.
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        There's only about 80 m/s available for the entire life of the JWST once it is inserted into orbit. So I think the answer is yes, if it went into non-telescope mode, it could stay at L2 without using propellant, at least for quite a while. The question now is if it could even do momentum unloading through clever maneuvers, so as not to even use propellant for attitude control!
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Good feedback, have improved. Now we just need to fix Wikipedia...
        $endgroup$
        – PearsonArtPhoto
        7 hours ago
















      10












      $begingroup$

      According to Wikipedia, the delta-v requirements to stay at L1 or L2 are about 30-100 m/s. That seems quite high, however, more likely is around 5-16 m/s. The sun shield has an area of about 300 m^2. The thrust possible is about 0.00279664 N, assuming purely reflective. Mass of JWST is about 6200 kg. Putting all of that together, the possible acceleration is around 14 m/s per year, not quite enough to station keep. Also, this assumes fully reflective sun shields, and pointed straight at the sun. I'm not sure what the actual direction of thrust that would be required to keep it at L2, but it probably wouldn't be straight on, thus reducing this further.



      Bottom line, it might work, but would require some very careful placement of the shield to maintain the proper orientation.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 8




        $begingroup$
        That value of 30 to 100 m/s per year is a bogus number. Perhaps that's for EML1/EML2? This paper claims that "In recent years, typical annual station-keeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO." This paper, which addresses JSWT directly, estimates stationkeeping costs for JWST to be 2.43 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago








      • 6




        $begingroup$
        Double checking, that "30 - 100 m/s per year" is completely bogus, even for EML1/EML2. Per this paper, the ARTEMIS satellites experienced stationkeeping costs in the range of 5 to 16 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I left the links under the question to provide resources for those who'd like to answer. My answer to the 2nd one What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant? quotes another Wikipedia article that states the delta-v required for station-keeping is only about 2 to 4 m/s per year. It is surprisingly low, but it is achieved by choosing the initial orbit carefully, and executing a carefully determined propulsive correction every 21 days. So I think your answer needs a partial reversal.
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        There's only about 80 m/s available for the entire life of the JWST once it is inserted into orbit. So I think the answer is yes, if it went into non-telescope mode, it could stay at L2 without using propellant, at least for quite a while. The question now is if it could even do momentum unloading through clever maneuvers, so as not to even use propellant for attitude control!
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Good feedback, have improved. Now we just need to fix Wikipedia...
        $endgroup$
        – PearsonArtPhoto
        7 hours ago














      10












      10








      10





      $begingroup$

      According to Wikipedia, the delta-v requirements to stay at L1 or L2 are about 30-100 m/s. That seems quite high, however, more likely is around 5-16 m/s. The sun shield has an area of about 300 m^2. The thrust possible is about 0.00279664 N, assuming purely reflective. Mass of JWST is about 6200 kg. Putting all of that together, the possible acceleration is around 14 m/s per year, not quite enough to station keep. Also, this assumes fully reflective sun shields, and pointed straight at the sun. I'm not sure what the actual direction of thrust that would be required to keep it at L2, but it probably wouldn't be straight on, thus reducing this further.



      Bottom line, it might work, but would require some very careful placement of the shield to maintain the proper orientation.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      According to Wikipedia, the delta-v requirements to stay at L1 or L2 are about 30-100 m/s. That seems quite high, however, more likely is around 5-16 m/s. The sun shield has an area of about 300 m^2. The thrust possible is about 0.00279664 N, assuming purely reflective. Mass of JWST is about 6200 kg. Putting all of that together, the possible acceleration is around 14 m/s per year, not quite enough to station keep. Also, this assumes fully reflective sun shields, and pointed straight at the sun. I'm not sure what the actual direction of thrust that would be required to keep it at L2, but it probably wouldn't be straight on, thus reducing this further.



      Bottom line, it might work, but would require some very careful placement of the shield to maintain the proper orientation.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 4 hours ago

























      answered 12 hours ago









      PearsonArtPhotoPearsonArtPhoto

      84.5k16243468




      84.5k16243468








      • 8




        $begingroup$
        That value of 30 to 100 m/s per year is a bogus number. Perhaps that's for EML1/EML2? This paper claims that "In recent years, typical annual station-keeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO." This paper, which addresses JSWT directly, estimates stationkeeping costs for JWST to be 2.43 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago








      • 6




        $begingroup$
        Double checking, that "30 - 100 m/s per year" is completely bogus, even for EML1/EML2. Per this paper, the ARTEMIS satellites experienced stationkeeping costs in the range of 5 to 16 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I left the links under the question to provide resources for those who'd like to answer. My answer to the 2nd one What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant? quotes another Wikipedia article that states the delta-v required for station-keeping is only about 2 to 4 m/s per year. It is surprisingly low, but it is achieved by choosing the initial orbit carefully, and executing a carefully determined propulsive correction every 21 days. So I think your answer needs a partial reversal.
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        There's only about 80 m/s available for the entire life of the JWST once it is inserted into orbit. So I think the answer is yes, if it went into non-telescope mode, it could stay at L2 without using propellant, at least for quite a while. The question now is if it could even do momentum unloading through clever maneuvers, so as not to even use propellant for attitude control!
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Good feedback, have improved. Now we just need to fix Wikipedia...
        $endgroup$
        – PearsonArtPhoto
        7 hours ago














      • 8




        $begingroup$
        That value of 30 to 100 m/s per year is a bogus number. Perhaps that's for EML1/EML2? This paper claims that "In recent years, typical annual station-keeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO." This paper, which addresses JSWT directly, estimates stationkeeping costs for JWST to be 2.43 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago








      • 6




        $begingroup$
        Double checking, that "30 - 100 m/s per year" is completely bogus, even for EML1/EML2. Per this paper, the ARTEMIS satellites experienced stationkeeping costs in the range of 5 to 16 m/s per year.
        $endgroup$
        – David Hammen
        9 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I left the links under the question to provide resources for those who'd like to answer. My answer to the 2nd one What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant? quotes another Wikipedia article that states the delta-v required for station-keeping is only about 2 to 4 m/s per year. It is surprisingly low, but it is achieved by choosing the initial orbit carefully, and executing a carefully determined propulsive correction every 21 days. So I think your answer needs a partial reversal.
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        There's only about 80 m/s available for the entire life of the JWST once it is inserted into orbit. So I think the answer is yes, if it went into non-telescope mode, it could stay at L2 without using propellant, at least for quite a while. The question now is if it could even do momentum unloading through clever maneuvers, so as not to even use propellant for attitude control!
        $endgroup$
        – uhoh
        8 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Good feedback, have improved. Now we just need to fix Wikipedia...
        $endgroup$
        – PearsonArtPhoto
        7 hours ago








      8




      8




      $begingroup$
      That value of 30 to 100 m/s per year is a bogus number. Perhaps that's for EML1/EML2? This paper claims that "In recent years, typical annual station-keeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO." This paper, which addresses JSWT directly, estimates stationkeeping costs for JWST to be 2.43 m/s per year.
      $endgroup$
      – David Hammen
      9 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      That value of 30 to 100 m/s per year is a bogus number. Perhaps that's for EML1/EML2? This paper claims that "In recent years, typical annual station-keeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO." This paper, which addresses JSWT directly, estimates stationkeeping costs for JWST to be 2.43 m/s per year.
      $endgroup$
      – David Hammen
      9 hours ago






      6




      6




      $begingroup$
      Double checking, that "30 - 100 m/s per year" is completely bogus, even for EML1/EML2. Per this paper, the ARTEMIS satellites experienced stationkeeping costs in the range of 5 to 16 m/s per year.
      $endgroup$
      – David Hammen
      9 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Double checking, that "30 - 100 m/s per year" is completely bogus, even for EML1/EML2. Per this paper, the ARTEMIS satellites experienced stationkeeping costs in the range of 5 to 16 m/s per year.
      $endgroup$
      – David Hammen
      9 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      I left the links under the question to provide resources for those who'd like to answer. My answer to the 2nd one What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant? quotes another Wikipedia article that states the delta-v required for station-keeping is only about 2 to 4 m/s per year. It is surprisingly low, but it is achieved by choosing the initial orbit carefully, and executing a carefully determined propulsive correction every 21 days. So I think your answer needs a partial reversal.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      8 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      I left the links under the question to provide resources for those who'd like to answer. My answer to the 2nd one What happens to JWST after it runs out of propellant? quotes another Wikipedia article that states the delta-v required for station-keeping is only about 2 to 4 m/s per year. It is surprisingly low, but it is achieved by choosing the initial orbit carefully, and executing a carefully determined propulsive correction every 21 days. So I think your answer needs a partial reversal.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      8 hours ago






      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      There's only about 80 m/s available for the entire life of the JWST once it is inserted into orbit. So I think the answer is yes, if it went into non-telescope mode, it could stay at L2 without using propellant, at least for quite a while. The question now is if it could even do momentum unloading through clever maneuvers, so as not to even use propellant for attitude control!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      8 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      There's only about 80 m/s available for the entire life of the JWST once it is inserted into orbit. So I think the answer is yes, if it went into non-telescope mode, it could stay at L2 without using propellant, at least for quite a while. The question now is if it could even do momentum unloading through clever maneuvers, so as not to even use propellant for attitude control!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      8 hours ago






      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      Good feedback, have improved. Now we just need to fix Wikipedia...
      $endgroup$
      – PearsonArtPhoto
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Good feedback, have improved. Now we just need to fix Wikipedia...
      $endgroup$
      – PearsonArtPhoto
      7 hours ago











      5












      $begingroup$

      This paper by Heiligers et al. explores Earth-moon libration point orbits with the addition of solar sail thrusting. While it is of course not directly translateable to Sun-Earth L2 (JWST) the dynamics of libration point orbits in both systems are at least comparable. The study shows that an increase in stability can be acquired for some orbits (lunar L2 halo being one of them).



      JWST is however not a typical solar sail spacecraft. These have much higher area/mass ratios and will produce more acceleration, together with a lower mass (I'm assuming also lower inertia) which means they can steer their sails much more effectively.



      I would assume that the conclusions from the paper can be applied to the JWST as well, but the impact on the stability will probably be much smaller than in the case of a regular solar sail spacecraft.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        5












        $begingroup$

        This paper by Heiligers et al. explores Earth-moon libration point orbits with the addition of solar sail thrusting. While it is of course not directly translateable to Sun-Earth L2 (JWST) the dynamics of libration point orbits in both systems are at least comparable. The study shows that an increase in stability can be acquired for some orbits (lunar L2 halo being one of them).



        JWST is however not a typical solar sail spacecraft. These have much higher area/mass ratios and will produce more acceleration, together with a lower mass (I'm assuming also lower inertia) which means they can steer their sails much more effectively.



        I would assume that the conclusions from the paper can be applied to the JWST as well, but the impact on the stability will probably be much smaller than in the case of a regular solar sail spacecraft.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          This paper by Heiligers et al. explores Earth-moon libration point orbits with the addition of solar sail thrusting. While it is of course not directly translateable to Sun-Earth L2 (JWST) the dynamics of libration point orbits in both systems are at least comparable. The study shows that an increase in stability can be acquired for some orbits (lunar L2 halo being one of them).



          JWST is however not a typical solar sail spacecraft. These have much higher area/mass ratios and will produce more acceleration, together with a lower mass (I'm assuming also lower inertia) which means they can steer their sails much more effectively.



          I would assume that the conclusions from the paper can be applied to the JWST as well, but the impact on the stability will probably be much smaller than in the case of a regular solar sail spacecraft.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          This paper by Heiligers et al. explores Earth-moon libration point orbits with the addition of solar sail thrusting. While it is of course not directly translateable to Sun-Earth L2 (JWST) the dynamics of libration point orbits in both systems are at least comparable. The study shows that an increase in stability can be acquired for some orbits (lunar L2 halo being one of them).



          JWST is however not a typical solar sail spacecraft. These have much higher area/mass ratios and will produce more acceleration, together with a lower mass (I'm assuming also lower inertia) which means they can steer their sails much more effectively.



          I would assume that the conclusions from the paper can be applied to the JWST as well, but the impact on the stability will probably be much smaller than in the case of a regular solar sail spacecraft.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 11 hours ago









          Alexander VandenbergheAlexander Vandenberghe

          60129




          60129























              1












              $begingroup$

              tl;dr: I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!





              This answer has several errors even after corrections. Let's look at this systematically using well-sourced facts.



              Thrust from photon pressure on sunshield



              A photon's momentum $p$ is just its energy divided by the speed of light $E/c=hnu/c$, so the force resulting in the perfect absorption of photons would be



              $$F=frac{dp}{dt}=frac{1}{c}frac{dE}{dt} or frac{P}{c}$$



              where $P$ is the total power of the light hitting the absorber, in units of Watts for example.



              Since the sail is reflective rather than absorbing, there's a second beam of reflected light and a second force, and this one has a direction based on the orientation of the mirror. Let's just look at the magnitudes for now though.



              Wikipedia gives the shape of the diamond-shaped sunshield as about 21 by 14 meters (the diagonals). That will have an area equal to half the product of the diagonals, or 147 m^2, agreeing nicely with Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope and a factor of two lower than what the other answer estimates.




              As shown in Figure 6, the effective area of the Sunshield in the Sunward direction can vary between 105 and 163 m², the range of allowed spacecraft attitudes that prevent the telescope from being exposed to stray light.




              The solar constant is about 1360 W/m^2 at 1 AU, but the L2 area is 1% farther, so let's use



              $$P_{max}=A times text{1330 W/m^2} approx 196 text{kW}$$



              to get



              $$F_{max} = 2 frac{P_{max}}{c} approx 1.3 text{mN}.$$



              Acceleration is force/mass. Using 6500 kg from Wikipedia:



              $$a_{max} = frac{F_{max}}{m} approx 2.7 times 10^{-7} text{m/s²}.$$



              A year has about 31.6 million seconds, so that's 6.3 m/s per year of delta-v available in the +z direction if the shade points mostly back towards the Sun, and somewhat less if a bit of tilt is used if perpendicular acceleration is needed.



              JWST's known station-keeping budget



              Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




              The results of the analysis show that the SK delta-V budget for a 10.5 year mission is 25.5 m/sec, or 2.43 m/sec per year. This SK budget is higher than the typical LPO SK budget of about 1 m/sec per year, but JWST presents challenges that other LPO missions do not face. The Endof-Box analysis was critical to the JWST mission, because it provided a realistic value for the SK delta-V budget when it was needed to establish a complete spacecraft mass budget.




              So the sail provides more than double the magnitude of the station-keeping delta-v.



              SOHO is an example of a spacecraft in a halo orbit (around L1) and per Roberts 2002 (from Is this what station keeping maneuvers look like, or just glitches in data? (SOHO via Horizons)) it uses a station-keeping strategy of only thrusting in the z direction (toward or away from the Sun). However, Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




              In LPO dynamics is known that the x-y plane contains the stable and unstable directions, while the z direction is neutrally stable. Because JWST does not need to remain near a reference orbit, during SK maneuvers there is no need to thrust in the z direction, and the thrust vector is chosen to lie in the x-y plane.




              This doesn't mean that in our non-telescope-mode, survival holding pattern we would also need the station-keeping (SK) thrust vector in the perpendicular x-y plane though, and I propose that in survival mode one could use some combination of modulation of the z-component and adding the x-y component by tilting and angling the sunshield within its safe limits will provide enough delta-v and flexibility in its direction to perform the station-keeping.



              Conclusions




              • JWST will experience a steady delta-v of about 6 m/s per year due to the constant photon pressure of sunlight reflecting back from its sunshield.

              • While this is of course already figured into it's orbit, this will mostly result in a halo orbit just slightly in front of (sunward-of) the halo orbit about L1 calculated without the effects of photon pressure. Here "slightly in front of" is probably of the order of a few kilometers or tens of kilometers only.

              • Aggressive tilting of the sunshield within safe limits can both modulate the +z acceleration, and add a component in the x-y plane

              • Rotating the spacecraft about the +z axis of the orbit in the rotating frame with a tilted sunshield will direct the component of the thrust within the x-y plane, though probably not enough to make up the full 2.4 m/s per year currently obtained from propulsive maneuvers every 21 days.


              Momentum unloading



              I haven't even begun to think about how to do momentum unloading of JWST's momentum wheels using only solar photon pressure. The wheels will be needed to not only maintain attitude but also to execute regular tilts and rotations needed to direct the photon pressure for station-keeping. It is possible that these attitude maneuvers can be designed in pairs to be angular momentum-neutral such that they naturally cancel each other in terms of rotations of the wheels over time.



              Opinion



              I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                tl;dr: I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!





                This answer has several errors even after corrections. Let's look at this systematically using well-sourced facts.



                Thrust from photon pressure on sunshield



                A photon's momentum $p$ is just its energy divided by the speed of light $E/c=hnu/c$, so the force resulting in the perfect absorption of photons would be



                $$F=frac{dp}{dt}=frac{1}{c}frac{dE}{dt} or frac{P}{c}$$



                where $P$ is the total power of the light hitting the absorber, in units of Watts for example.



                Since the sail is reflective rather than absorbing, there's a second beam of reflected light and a second force, and this one has a direction based on the orientation of the mirror. Let's just look at the magnitudes for now though.



                Wikipedia gives the shape of the diamond-shaped sunshield as about 21 by 14 meters (the diagonals). That will have an area equal to half the product of the diagonals, or 147 m^2, agreeing nicely with Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope and a factor of two lower than what the other answer estimates.




                As shown in Figure 6, the effective area of the Sunshield in the Sunward direction can vary between 105 and 163 m², the range of allowed spacecraft attitudes that prevent the telescope from being exposed to stray light.




                The solar constant is about 1360 W/m^2 at 1 AU, but the L2 area is 1% farther, so let's use



                $$P_{max}=A times text{1330 W/m^2} approx 196 text{kW}$$



                to get



                $$F_{max} = 2 frac{P_{max}}{c} approx 1.3 text{mN}.$$



                Acceleration is force/mass. Using 6500 kg from Wikipedia:



                $$a_{max} = frac{F_{max}}{m} approx 2.7 times 10^{-7} text{m/s²}.$$



                A year has about 31.6 million seconds, so that's 6.3 m/s per year of delta-v available in the +z direction if the shade points mostly back towards the Sun, and somewhat less if a bit of tilt is used if perpendicular acceleration is needed.



                JWST's known station-keeping budget



                Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




                The results of the analysis show that the SK delta-V budget for a 10.5 year mission is 25.5 m/sec, or 2.43 m/sec per year. This SK budget is higher than the typical LPO SK budget of about 1 m/sec per year, but JWST presents challenges that other LPO missions do not face. The Endof-Box analysis was critical to the JWST mission, because it provided a realistic value for the SK delta-V budget when it was needed to establish a complete spacecraft mass budget.




                So the sail provides more than double the magnitude of the station-keeping delta-v.



                SOHO is an example of a spacecraft in a halo orbit (around L1) and per Roberts 2002 (from Is this what station keeping maneuvers look like, or just glitches in data? (SOHO via Horizons)) it uses a station-keeping strategy of only thrusting in the z direction (toward or away from the Sun). However, Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




                In LPO dynamics is known that the x-y plane contains the stable and unstable directions, while the z direction is neutrally stable. Because JWST does not need to remain near a reference orbit, during SK maneuvers there is no need to thrust in the z direction, and the thrust vector is chosen to lie in the x-y plane.




                This doesn't mean that in our non-telescope-mode, survival holding pattern we would also need the station-keeping (SK) thrust vector in the perpendicular x-y plane though, and I propose that in survival mode one could use some combination of modulation of the z-component and adding the x-y component by tilting and angling the sunshield within its safe limits will provide enough delta-v and flexibility in its direction to perform the station-keeping.



                Conclusions




                • JWST will experience a steady delta-v of about 6 m/s per year due to the constant photon pressure of sunlight reflecting back from its sunshield.

                • While this is of course already figured into it's orbit, this will mostly result in a halo orbit just slightly in front of (sunward-of) the halo orbit about L1 calculated without the effects of photon pressure. Here "slightly in front of" is probably of the order of a few kilometers or tens of kilometers only.

                • Aggressive tilting of the sunshield within safe limits can both modulate the +z acceleration, and add a component in the x-y plane

                • Rotating the spacecraft about the +z axis of the orbit in the rotating frame with a tilted sunshield will direct the component of the thrust within the x-y plane, though probably not enough to make up the full 2.4 m/s per year currently obtained from propulsive maneuvers every 21 days.


                Momentum unloading



                I haven't even begun to think about how to do momentum unloading of JWST's momentum wheels using only solar photon pressure. The wheels will be needed to not only maintain attitude but also to execute regular tilts and rotations needed to direct the photon pressure for station-keeping. It is possible that these attitude maneuvers can be designed in pairs to be angular momentum-neutral such that they naturally cancel each other in terms of rotations of the wheels over time.



                Opinion



                I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  tl;dr: I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!





                  This answer has several errors even after corrections. Let's look at this systematically using well-sourced facts.



                  Thrust from photon pressure on sunshield



                  A photon's momentum $p$ is just its energy divided by the speed of light $E/c=hnu/c$, so the force resulting in the perfect absorption of photons would be



                  $$F=frac{dp}{dt}=frac{1}{c}frac{dE}{dt} or frac{P}{c}$$



                  where $P$ is the total power of the light hitting the absorber, in units of Watts for example.



                  Since the sail is reflective rather than absorbing, there's a second beam of reflected light and a second force, and this one has a direction based on the orientation of the mirror. Let's just look at the magnitudes for now though.



                  Wikipedia gives the shape of the diamond-shaped sunshield as about 21 by 14 meters (the diagonals). That will have an area equal to half the product of the diagonals, or 147 m^2, agreeing nicely with Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope and a factor of two lower than what the other answer estimates.




                  As shown in Figure 6, the effective area of the Sunshield in the Sunward direction can vary between 105 and 163 m², the range of allowed spacecraft attitudes that prevent the telescope from being exposed to stray light.




                  The solar constant is about 1360 W/m^2 at 1 AU, but the L2 area is 1% farther, so let's use



                  $$P_{max}=A times text{1330 W/m^2} approx 196 text{kW}$$



                  to get



                  $$F_{max} = 2 frac{P_{max}}{c} approx 1.3 text{mN}.$$



                  Acceleration is force/mass. Using 6500 kg from Wikipedia:



                  $$a_{max} = frac{F_{max}}{m} approx 2.7 times 10^{-7} text{m/s²}.$$



                  A year has about 31.6 million seconds, so that's 6.3 m/s per year of delta-v available in the +z direction if the shade points mostly back towards the Sun, and somewhat less if a bit of tilt is used if perpendicular acceleration is needed.



                  JWST's known station-keeping budget



                  Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




                  The results of the analysis show that the SK delta-V budget for a 10.5 year mission is 25.5 m/sec, or 2.43 m/sec per year. This SK budget is higher than the typical LPO SK budget of about 1 m/sec per year, but JWST presents challenges that other LPO missions do not face. The Endof-Box analysis was critical to the JWST mission, because it provided a realistic value for the SK delta-V budget when it was needed to establish a complete spacecraft mass budget.




                  So the sail provides more than double the magnitude of the station-keeping delta-v.



                  SOHO is an example of a spacecraft in a halo orbit (around L1) and per Roberts 2002 (from Is this what station keeping maneuvers look like, or just glitches in data? (SOHO via Horizons)) it uses a station-keeping strategy of only thrusting in the z direction (toward or away from the Sun). However, Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




                  In LPO dynamics is known that the x-y plane contains the stable and unstable directions, while the z direction is neutrally stable. Because JWST does not need to remain near a reference orbit, during SK maneuvers there is no need to thrust in the z direction, and the thrust vector is chosen to lie in the x-y plane.




                  This doesn't mean that in our non-telescope-mode, survival holding pattern we would also need the station-keeping (SK) thrust vector in the perpendicular x-y plane though, and I propose that in survival mode one could use some combination of modulation of the z-component and adding the x-y component by tilting and angling the sunshield within its safe limits will provide enough delta-v and flexibility in its direction to perform the station-keeping.



                  Conclusions




                  • JWST will experience a steady delta-v of about 6 m/s per year due to the constant photon pressure of sunlight reflecting back from its sunshield.

                  • While this is of course already figured into it's orbit, this will mostly result in a halo orbit just slightly in front of (sunward-of) the halo orbit about L1 calculated without the effects of photon pressure. Here "slightly in front of" is probably of the order of a few kilometers or tens of kilometers only.

                  • Aggressive tilting of the sunshield within safe limits can both modulate the +z acceleration, and add a component in the x-y plane

                  • Rotating the spacecraft about the +z axis of the orbit in the rotating frame with a tilted sunshield will direct the component of the thrust within the x-y plane, though probably not enough to make up the full 2.4 m/s per year currently obtained from propulsive maneuvers every 21 days.


                  Momentum unloading



                  I haven't even begun to think about how to do momentum unloading of JWST's momentum wheels using only solar photon pressure. The wheels will be needed to not only maintain attitude but also to execute regular tilts and rotations needed to direct the photon pressure for station-keeping. It is possible that these attitude maneuvers can be designed in pairs to be angular momentum-neutral such that they naturally cancel each other in terms of rotations of the wheels over time.



                  Opinion



                  I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  tl;dr: I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!





                  This answer has several errors even after corrections. Let's look at this systematically using well-sourced facts.



                  Thrust from photon pressure on sunshield



                  A photon's momentum $p$ is just its energy divided by the speed of light $E/c=hnu/c$, so the force resulting in the perfect absorption of photons would be



                  $$F=frac{dp}{dt}=frac{1}{c}frac{dE}{dt} or frac{P}{c}$$



                  where $P$ is the total power of the light hitting the absorber, in units of Watts for example.



                  Since the sail is reflective rather than absorbing, there's a second beam of reflected light and a second force, and this one has a direction based on the orientation of the mirror. Let's just look at the magnitudes for now though.



                  Wikipedia gives the shape of the diamond-shaped sunshield as about 21 by 14 meters (the diagonals). That will have an area equal to half the product of the diagonals, or 147 m^2, agreeing nicely with Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope and a factor of two lower than what the other answer estimates.




                  As shown in Figure 6, the effective area of the Sunshield in the Sunward direction can vary between 105 and 163 m², the range of allowed spacecraft attitudes that prevent the telescope from being exposed to stray light.




                  The solar constant is about 1360 W/m^2 at 1 AU, but the L2 area is 1% farther, so let's use



                  $$P_{max}=A times text{1330 W/m^2} approx 196 text{kW}$$



                  to get



                  $$F_{max} = 2 frac{P_{max}}{c} approx 1.3 text{mN}.$$



                  Acceleration is force/mass. Using 6500 kg from Wikipedia:



                  $$a_{max} = frac{F_{max}}{m} approx 2.7 times 10^{-7} text{m/s²}.$$



                  A year has about 31.6 million seconds, so that's 6.3 m/s per year of delta-v available in the +z direction if the shade points mostly back towards the Sun, and somewhat less if a bit of tilt is used if perpendicular acceleration is needed.



                  JWST's known station-keeping budget



                  Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




                  The results of the analysis show that the SK delta-V budget for a 10.5 year mission is 25.5 m/sec, or 2.43 m/sec per year. This SK budget is higher than the typical LPO SK budget of about 1 m/sec per year, but JWST presents challenges that other LPO missions do not face. The Endof-Box analysis was critical to the JWST mission, because it provided a realistic value for the SK delta-V budget when it was needed to establish a complete spacecraft mass budget.




                  So the sail provides more than double the magnitude of the station-keeping delta-v.



                  SOHO is an example of a spacecraft in a halo orbit (around L1) and per Roberts 2002 (from Is this what station keeping maneuvers look like, or just glitches in data? (SOHO via Horizons)) it uses a station-keeping strategy of only thrusting in the z direction (toward or away from the Sun). However, Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope tells us:




                  In LPO dynamics is known that the x-y plane contains the stable and unstable directions, while the z direction is neutrally stable. Because JWST does not need to remain near a reference orbit, during SK maneuvers there is no need to thrust in the z direction, and the thrust vector is chosen to lie in the x-y plane.




                  This doesn't mean that in our non-telescope-mode, survival holding pattern we would also need the station-keeping (SK) thrust vector in the perpendicular x-y plane though, and I propose that in survival mode one could use some combination of modulation of the z-component and adding the x-y component by tilting and angling the sunshield within its safe limits will provide enough delta-v and flexibility in its direction to perform the station-keeping.



                  Conclusions




                  • JWST will experience a steady delta-v of about 6 m/s per year due to the constant photon pressure of sunlight reflecting back from its sunshield.

                  • While this is of course already figured into it's orbit, this will mostly result in a halo orbit just slightly in front of (sunward-of) the halo orbit about L1 calculated without the effects of photon pressure. Here "slightly in front of" is probably of the order of a few kilometers or tens of kilometers only.

                  • Aggressive tilting of the sunshield within safe limits can both modulate the +z acceleration, and add a component in the x-y plane

                  • Rotating the spacecraft about the +z axis of the orbit in the rotating frame with a tilted sunshield will direct the component of the thrust within the x-y plane, though probably not enough to make up the full 2.4 m/s per year currently obtained from propulsive maneuvers every 21 days.


                  Momentum unloading



                  I haven't even begun to think about how to do momentum unloading of JWST's momentum wheels using only solar photon pressure. The wheels will be needed to not only maintain attitude but also to execute regular tilts and rotations needed to direct the photon pressure for station-keeping. It is possible that these attitude maneuvers can be designed in pairs to be angular momentum-neutral such that they naturally cancel each other in terms of rotations of the wheels over time.



                  Opinion



                  I think there could be room to do this. However, I don't think a conclusive answer can be had through analyses of magnitudes on envelope-backs. A real answer would only come from even more detailed Monte Carlo calculations than those already outlined in Stationkeeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope. Sounds like a fun project!







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 16 mins ago









                  uhohuhoh

                  40.6k18151515




                  40.6k18151515






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35404%2fcould-jwst-stay-at-l2-forever%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown