<p>Mars was a (possibly de facto) requirement. The JW attitude control system was given slew rates compatible with observations that far. Some limit had to be stated, and faster slew would cost more, either outright, or in impacts to other spacecraft elements (systems engineering), or in programmatic impacts (e. g., test requirements or lifetime or image jitter or whatever).</p>
<p>Slew rates are important because targets move, and JW moves. For extragalactic work etc., exposures measured in many seconds do not produce relevant motions (&gt;PSF). For Solar-System work, motions are not just relevant but 3D- targets produce not just streaks but arcs if close enough (therefore fast enough).</p>
<p>In flight, part of the delay of several months (before first science light) was as-built, as-flown testing and demonstration. Ops has now reported that the attitude and slewing functions, of science-grade (not merely transit from one observing field to the next) have come in better than spec. This means JW can see closer than Mars.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-10T14:21:08.607Z
A temporary, reversible -1 for complete lack of supporting sources. There's no way for readers to verify if "slewing rate" is really the limiting factor beyond "take my word for it". Good Stack Exchange answers need to support their facts with verifiable sources. *Thanks!*
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-15T12:12:18.353Z
And what would readers do with that? Finish their Cycle 3 proposals (more likely Cycle 4 at this point)? A qualified, working astronomer would have already known the answer, because they already read the necessary documentation on submissions, because they need not waste their time submitting notions instead of viable work. i. e., the act of asking belies not already knowing…even knowing who to speak to. Verify…why? If an internet commenter were qualified, they would not be _an internet commenter_ . What work will be left undone?
caInstrument
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-15T12:36:56.507Z
*Welcome to Stack Exchange!* This site works a little differently than others you may have used. It's not for everyone; SE may not be your cup of tea.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-10T13:24:14.697Z
2022-09-10T13:24:14.697Z
caInstrument
<p>How close to us can we see with JWST, would we be able to look at our neighbor planets and/or their moons (when in the right place logically) or would things that close be out of focus?
I tried looking it up, but it seems everyone is (understandably) more into how far away it can see.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-07T20:08:56.743Z
I think there’s a very similar question somewhere, where the answer is calculated that everything farther away than 1.5 km is “infinitely far away”. There has already been [images of Jupiter](https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/08/22/webbs-jupiter-images-showcase-auroras-hazes/).
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-07T20:50:27.523Z
@pela $$\frac{1}{f} = \frac{1}{d_1} + \frac{1}{d_2}$$ and a focal length of 0.13 km suggest otherwise; you'd have to move the focal plane by a dozen meters to do that! I think your number applies to 60 mm f/15 refractor in the back yard. If you could move the focal plane back by 10 cm for example you'd be focused at 172 kilometers. So the challenge here is to find out what the range of motion is for JWST's "focus knob". Related in Space SE [Has Hubble ever focused on something close enough that it had to move away from being focused at infinity?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/50904/12102)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-07T20:52:28.080Z
and [How does the JWST change focus when it goes from looking at a near subject to looking at a far subject? (Does it even change focus?)](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/58765/12102) and [Can James Webb take pictures of our solar system? In what ways will they differ from/compliment those from Hubble?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/57492/12102) and [Could Hubble observe the night side of the Moon?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/33790/12102) (answer is it did, but not to see it)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-07T21:00:41.933Z
@uhoh Ah, thanks! Good thing I'm not an observer 
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-07T21:13:28.603Z
On a related note, objects near the JWST are likely to be bright and hot.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-07T22:13:21.370Z
@PM2Ring Not necessarily: JWST will also observe [asteroids and comets](https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/methods-and-roadmaps/jwst-moving-target-observations).
pela
<james-webb-space-telescope>
How close to itself can the JWST see? Inside our own system, or must it look beyond like it is far sighted? Essentially, can JWST see Mars or others?
Wiggles43
# How close to itself can the JWST see? Inside our own system, or must it look beyond like it is far sighted? Essentially, can JWST see Mars or others?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-09-07)

How close to us can we see with JWST, would we be able to look at our neighbor planets and/or their moons (when in the right place logically) or would things that close be out of focus?
I tried looking it up, but it seems everyone is (understandably) more into how far away it can see.

**Tags:** james-webb-space-telescope
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think there’s a very similar question somewhere, where the answer is calculated that everything farther away than 1.5 km is “infinitely far away”. There has already been [images of Jupiter](https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/08/22/webbs-jupiter-images-showcase-auroras-hazes/).  
> **username_2**: @pela $$\frac{1}{f} = \frac{1}{d_1} + \frac{1}{d_2}$$ and a focal length of 0.13 km suggest otherwise; you'd have to move the focal plane by a dozen meters to do that! I think your number applies to 60 mm f/15 refractor in the back yard. If you could move the focal plane back by 10 cm for example you'd be focused at 172 kilometers. So the challenge here is to find out what the range of motion is for JWST's "focus knob". Related in Space SE [Has Hubble ever focused on something close enough that it had to move away from being focused at infinity?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/50904/12102)  
> **username_2**: and [How does the JWST change focus when it goes from looking at a near subject to looking at a far subject? (Does it even change focus?)](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/58765/12102) and [Can James Webb take pictures of our solar system? In what ways will they differ from/compliment those from Hubble?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/57492/12102) and [Could Hubble observe the night side of the Moon?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/33790/12102) (answer is it did, but not to see it)  
> **username_1**: @uhoh Ah, thanks! Good thing I'm not an observer   
> **username_3**: On a related note, objects near the JWST are likely to be bright and hot.  
> **username_1**: @PM2Ring Not necessarily: JWST will also observe [asteroids and comets](https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/methods-and-roadmaps/jwst-moving-target-observations).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-09-10. Score: -1

Mars was a (possibly de facto) requirement. The JW attitude control system was given slew rates compatible with observations that far. Some limit had to be stated, and faster slew would cost more, either outright, or in impacts to other spacecraft elements (systems engineering), or in programmatic impacts (e. g., test requirements or lifetime or image jitter or whatever).

Slew rates are important because targets move, and JW moves. For extragalactic work etc., exposures measured in many seconds do not produce relevant motions (>PSF). For Solar-System work, motions are not just relevant but 3D- targets produce not just streaks but arcs if close enough (therefore fast enough).

In flight, part of the delay of several months (before first science light) was as-built, as-flown testing and demonstration. Ops has now reported that the attitude and slewing functions, of science-grade (not merely transit from one observing field to the next) have come in better than spec. This means JW can see closer than Mars.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: A temporary, reversible -1 for complete lack of supporting sources. There's no way for readers to verify if "slewing rate" is really the limiting factor beyond "take my word for it". Good Stack Exchange answers need to support their facts with verifiable sources. *Thanks!*  
> **username_4**: And what would readers do with that? Finish their Cycle 3 proposals (more likely Cycle 4 at this point)? A qualified, working astronomer would have already known the answer, because they already read the necessary documentation on submissions, because they need not waste their time submitting notions instead of viable work. i. e., the act of asking belies not already knowing…even knowing who to speak to. Verify…why? If an internet commenter were qualified, they would not be _an internet commenter_ . What work will be left undone?  
> **username_2**: *Welcome to Stack Exchange!* This site works a little differently than others you may have used. It's not for everyone; SE may not be your cup of tea.  

---

