They're collecting observational data, not science. I wouldn't normally be bitter about it, but the Trust The Science™ religion already has a terrible struggle with the basics so we shouldn't make it any harder for them.
It is amazing the blatant nonsense people will believe if you dress a pig in a lab coat and call it science. There's been instances of politicians unironically calling to ban the dangerous drug 'dihydrogen monoxide' for example, the general public's understanding of the scientific method is probably far worse than most on HN think it is.
There really needs to be a term for this widespread inability to differentiate between 'the science' as in the correct application of the scientific method to arrive at empirical conclusions about the world around us and 'The Science' as in the socio-political institution of various experts and technocrats. One is a powerful tool in humanity's toolbox for getting shit done, the other is subject to all the fallibility of human social institutions - perhaps even moreso because people will blindly trust it meaning there's fewer checks on it than other social institutions. Usually people going up against 'The Science' are cranks which means there's a tendency for people to believe anyone who goes up against the status quo is a crank.
You see this in commentary about climate change, people blindly trust 'The Science' to fix everything in a glorious deus ex machina without the tiniest scrap of evidence 'The Science' even has the power do to such a thing in one fell swoop. That's not saying we shouldn't pursue efforts like geo-engineering etc but we should at least keep things in the realm of what the current scientific evidence is saying which is we need to heavily cut our emissions no matter what rather than relying entirely on speculative mega-projects.
Ultimately you should never trust anyone who claims to have a monopoly on truth or that $group or $profession has a monopoly on truth.
>There really needs to be a term for this widespread inability to differentiate between 'the science' as in the correct application of the scientific method to arrive at empirical conclusions about the world around us and 'The Science' as in the socio-political institution of various experts and technocrats.
The issue is that, at least in the US, it has become politically advantageous to claim that the socio-political institution of 'The Science' has given its imprimatur to the policies they wish to enact. It's advantageous to combine the institution with the process, so why would anyone stop?
Couple that with a media environment that seems fundamentally incapable of reading beyond the headline of any scientific publication, and the proliferation of p-hacking and less then replicable studies being churned out by academics who need N articles to have a chance at tenure this decade and...you get a situation where 'The Science' is whatever a bureaucrat in a lab coat says it is.
Making 'science' a fungible unit allows scientists in one domain to leach off the reputation earned by scientists in another domain. Accomplishments in physics lend credibility to accomplishments in social science, due to the commonality of both using the scientific method, even though the scientific method is not uniformly effective across all domains of inquiry.
It's a "term of art" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_art) specifying that the data collected is passed through the scientific pipelines and being served out to researchers, rather than being used for testing/calibrations/commissioning. Similar phrasing include "science operations" and "science frames". There are lots of odd jargon in astronomy, but no weirder than say "firewall" (as given in the wikipedia article).
"They're collecting observational data, not science."
I suspect that pretty much everybody who does experimental physics, a whole lot of astronomers, and a multitude of other observational scientists might like to have a word with you regarding the scientific method.
Science by definition cannot discover the truth. The essential property of a scientific theory is falsifiability. I.e. it should be possible to carry out experiment that can disprove the theory or it is not a scientific theory.
Religion on the other hand can have true statements because they are deduced from a priory axioms that a matter of beliefs. For example, given some axioms about God, one can deduce that the world is such because God is made it so. This will be similar to Banach–Tarski theorem [1] which is true as long as one believes in the Axiom of Choice. But such statements are not a scientific theories precisely because it is not possible to design an experiment that will disproof them.
The science is about making inferences and checking how good such predictions match reality. Religion, on the other hand, can at best explain, not predict in any verifiable way. That is, it is about deducting consequences from one’s beliefs.
This is remarkably close minded and I hope someone with more time than me takes the time to respond.
In the meantime, I recommend the book The Evolution of Religion by Robert Wright, a very sane author that's written a lot of great books, in my opinion.
I'm talking about people who make a religion out of science. They can be identified with their chants of "Trust The Science", "You mustn't question The Science", etc.
If you haven't encountered this kind of fanatic, consider yourself lucky. These days I'd feel safer drawing a picture of Mohammed than blaspheming The Science by asking heretical questions or making unholy observations. You never know when the secular-inquisition will come for you, but you always expect it.
The post you replied to did not claim that science was a religion but that blindly following "Science" (read: those that claim to represent science) often is.
It only takes 300 units of science to research Nuclear Propulsion and 10,000 kerbucks to unlock the LV-N "Nerv" Atomic Rocket Motor. I say go for it. :)
After all, we all know scientific progress can literally be distilled down into various colored liquid and poured into an erlenmeyer flask for easy consumption.
Factorio science packs kind of make sense though. E.g. military science packs are made of bullets, grenades and walls, and you spend them to get better bullets and grenades and such. It's like an abstraction of spending some capacity to experiment on improving designs.
But research labs would consume raw materials like wood, metal, Vespene gas, etc., and produce science units that could then be spent to climb the tech tree, no?
It also makes me think of Portal: "And the science gets done, and we built a neat gu--er, telescope..."
Hubble has been accomplished completely without SpaceX, as is James Webb and almost all other amazing advances in space. What do you think about the organizations and people that actually accomplished these things?
Not the OP but are you talking about Lockheed, Rockwell, etc.? I think they're criminal arms traffickers and war profiteers who did achieve some amazing things, but only as a means to extract vast amounts of the nation's wealth. In other words, they did as little constructive work as they could with each tax dollar given to them.
SpaceX at least doesn't appear to be building a business model based on being a barrel for pork with a board that functions as a pension fund for military generals.
SpaceX has been doing a number of NRO secret launches and wouldn't exist without NASA contracts like CRS and Crew Dragon. They may not be boarded by ex military but they're part of the same industry surviving the same way.
Great, they're destroying the pork barrel industry's monopoly in space and providing a service at competitive prices that's exactly what we want.
From my comment, you didn't suppose I believed government space capabilities and projects should be entirely shut down, or that they should be left to old space companies to continue extorting taxpayers, did you?
Providing a service to the government is not a problem. This is not some kind of libertarian purity test I'm concerned about. It is about ripping off tax payers with lobbyists and the military industrial political revolving doors.
Because they are the first company to significantly decrease launch costs in decades. In addition, they are the first company working on massively increasing payload sizes in decades.
I mean it really is a pretty bad question because you've not taken even 60 seconds to learn the first thing about SpaceX
Have you done any research of your own on this? I'm trying to get an idea of where to start. If yes, then in what way do you believe they are similar contrary to what my comment said or implied?
> There isn't enough history yet to compare them fairly.
I compare them on what they provide for what cost right now, and the kind of company that they appear to be building as of now. Hopefully it was clear that I wasn't making predictions about the future.
If you think Spacex isn't in bed with the US military, and won't be increasingly so in future for the usual reasons, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
I haven't seen much indication that their business model relies on lobbying for war or pushing for gargantuan "aid" into unstable regions which may only be used for buying weapons, or buying politicians and generals so they can sell sub standard and over priced projects.
Maybe SpaceX does, maybe it will. But providing launch services to the military and undercutting the companies that definitely do those things is not a problem to me. This wasn't a military = bad rant.
Yes, that is how they fund their operations. No one else is giving out billions of dollars to build rockets.
At the same time they are using that money to
1. Create full reusabilty.
2. Drop launch costs 10 to 100 fold.
3. Massively increase payload and launch capability.
Which is the point of this particular thread. The other launch groups have pocketed (hundreds of) billions of dollars and changed almost nothing over the past few decades.
I think what GP is mostly referring to is that since the shuttle retired, we have no way to return payloads to the ground without "lithobraking". Starship may potentially have enough return capacity to place the Hubble telescope inside a payload bay and safely land it. No other vehicle being developed right now has that capability (that I'm aware of); it has nothing to do with the politics of NASA and Spacex.
So what? Lots of organizations deliver lots of unique capabilities. Hubble is actually up there, real things are happening, people have accomplished amazing things, yet again we hear SpaceX promoted - a hypothetical capability about a hypothetical need of dubious value.
Sure lots of organizations have unique capabilities, and SpaceX is one of those! Better to bring home Hubble than let it burn up once it's no longer operational. I definitely rate inspiration much higher than 'dubious' :)
Maybe the comment would have been better off just saying "Wouldn't it be great if at the end of it's life we could bring Hubble back to earth to put it in a museum". Because that's how I read it, it's something I completely support (just like putting ISS into a parking orbit instead of letting it burn up when that decision comes). Hubble is an important part of history and deserves to be preserved; to inspire current and future generations.
Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.
> Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.
Without pointing out that it could theoretically be done (that rocket isn't ready yet, and may never be), the assertion that it should be done is seriously devalued.
You're frustrated that the limelight is stolen from other deserving organizations, which is fair. I think what you're bumping in to is the unusual overlap between a commercial venture and a religious feeling. People who "believe in SpaceX" do so because it gives them more than just a "capability". When they believe in the future & far-future ideas seeded by Musk, they get a feeling of excitement, significance, purpose, etc. which bleeds over into all sorts of unrelated things. I don't know of many companies that succeed at this level. Disney, maybe?
> You're frustrated that the limelight is stolen from other deserving organizations
Keep your fantasies about my emotional state to yourself. I meant precisely what I wrote.
> religious feeling
I'm well aware of it, but it's not the basis of posts to HN. Such religions - cults of personality - inevitably do a lot of harm to society and the followers. Musk, of course, will make out very well.
Zealousness never has paid off; its purpose is to override reason and good judgement. How can that turn out well? Why would Musk want to encourage that, unless there is something to hide?
> I don't know of many companies that succeed at this level.
It's success to manipulate people? Apple and Steve Jobs succeeded in having an enthusiastic following without narcissim, setting a good example, without manipulating the followers, without undermining and harming others, and without undermining, apparently intentionally, the rule of law. Disney I think is the same.
Who cares that Starship is a SpaceX property. Focus on the capability - which no one else has - and the ends - Hubble sitting in a museum instead of burning up in the lithosphere. You want to dislike SpaceX then go ahead, I don’t think anyone here would strongly discourage you from exploring that. But I truly challenge you to find another more economical solution to bring Hubble home.
Because inspiring people fucking matters. Bringing Hubble back and having it in a museum would (like it or not) do a lot more inspiring up and coming scientists/engineers than some random recent picture Hubble took.
Look at the number of views the falcon heavy double booster landing got. It’s entirely irrelevant to science but it’s still inspiring nonetheless.
Why does that matter? People without a 4 year+ degree in physics need to be inspired as well because statistically they are the ones who make the decisions.
I am fully aware that both you and I are in the minority on this website, but I agree. The promotion of SpaceX at the expense of other organizations that have been doing work besides LV development for decades is very disappointing, and it's moreso disappointing that SpaceX keeps getting injected into conversations about NASA's scientific work, something SpaceX is not interested in besides advancing rocketry.
I think it's warranted when we're, say, comparing the costs of SLS vis-a-vis something like Starship but it's really silly to constantly suggest SpaceX and other commercial space entities are some sort of savior figure for space exploration. I think it's actually a cautionary tale of again sacrificing a commons (space) for the sake of profit.
tbh you're all missing the point. It's about bringing Hubble back on terra firma at the end of it's useful life, I doubt GP cares too much who does it. _However_ the reality is that SpaceX is the only organisation that appears to have the capability to do that.
it's moreso disappointing that SpaceX keeps getting injected into conversations about NASA's scientific work
Why are you getting hung up on Starship being the current best choice for a return mission at Hubble's EOL? If I was making the comment in 2010 I'd've said returning Hubble is worth the cost of a shuttle launch. If Hubble miraculously lasts another decade I'll make the argument returning it is worth the cost of whatever vehicle is best suited at that time, possibly if unlikely a vehicle coming from the France 2030 development drive.
>really silly to constantly suggest SpaceX and other commercial space entities are some sort of savior figure for space exploration.
Why?
"It will cost you 1 billion to launch 100 tons to orbit"
or
"It will cost you 100 million to launch 100 tons to orbit"
or
"It will cost you 10 million to launch 100 tons to orbit"
Guess which one of those is going to 'save' space exploration? Not only that, cheap launches will massively increase the size of the market giving all those good little boys and girls that are interested in space a chance of getting a job in the market. NASA is the market too. If they can drop launch costs 10x, they can launch that much more science.
The space market has been dead for years, it's time to bring it back to life.
I can only speak for myself, but as someone who worked at NASA, my question is, how does working together with SpaceX in any way detract from the amazing things humanity has accomplished by working together? NASA doesn't have exclusive bragging rights on accomplishing things in space, and I for one am happy to celebrate and cooperate with others. In fact, one of the most inspiring things about NASA's accomplishments is how people from all over the world have come together and cooperated for the betterment of humanity.
> how does working together with SpaceX in any way detract from the amazing things humanity has accomplished by working together?
Who said it did? I'm not sure what you are responding to.
However, working with an entity that perverts merit-based decision-making with public pressure could certainly be harmful, and Musk acts by manipulationg the public. Other NASA partners don't do that. The Europa Clipper, for example, will take years longer to reach its destination - a critical milestone that will delay the exploration of life on Europa for years (if I understand correctly)- due to being switched to a SpaceX launch. It was switched for technical problems later determined to be meritless.
Officially, it was switched because SLS is unavailable. The program had been trying to get away from it due to its enormous cost, but was only able to get this change through Congress when the inability of SLS to fly more than once a year became obvious.
Lots of other capabilities are unique to lots of other systems (especially NASA - most of what they do is a unique capability!). What do you think of those?
I can't figure out what your point is. I'm saying Hubble is such an incredible achievement and pillar of the spirit of space exploration it's worth spending the money to bring it home even if doing so doesn't generate any scientific data in and of itself.
The parent comment was just that it would be cool to bring Hubble back eventually, and that Starship seems promising towards that end. It's not a diminishment of all other space-focused organizations.
Sure, SpaceX doesn't have a Hubble Space Telescope in space and NASA doesn't have the capability to return it to Earth. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Don't want to speak for OP but I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of his comment. I'm pretty sure he meant it has too much meaning and one day bringing Hubble back instead of abandoning an old friend to the abyss.
But why? Just take one of the extra satellites provided to NASA by NRO to hang in musuems. Slap a NASA and Hubble sticker on it, and the tourists will flock to it. Let the actual one burn up on re-entry and save everyone billions of dollars.
That's a great argument if it required a shuttle launch at 1.5 billion a pop. But modern rockets like Starship are a lot cheaper. Musk's $2 million number is probably horseshit but according to David Todd, the Seradata satellite market analyst, Starship launch cost could come in at $10 million. I'd say $10 million to bring Hubble home is worth it.
>What do you think about the organizations and people that actually accomplished these things?
Presumably the OP thinks of them what they wrote about them in the comment - that they explore and inspire.
To address your later comments as well, there was no specific promotion of SpaceX in the OPs comment, no implied criticism of any other space tech company or reason to believe the OP thinks anything but good things about them. Just a space enthusiast enthusing about space. But no, you have to turn it into an argument.
Why are you mentioning the (still not through launch and subsequent zillion step unfolding sequence btw) catastrophically late and utterly pork-barrelled JSWT?
I read his point to be something along the lines of 'Hubble is great, I'd love to see it one day.' I guess some people are offended because he suggested spacex might be used to retrieve Hubble instead of letting it become derelict in orbit.
To add more, Spacex's Starship is the only viable option actually, no other company in the world can offer (or even has in plans) a vehicle capable of bringing back tons of payload (Hubble space telescope weights 11 tons). Space Shuttle, which was used to lunch Hubble (and in principle Buran) was the only options capable of doing that in the past.
I assume anything remotely still classified would be ripped out, so probably only the big (outer) shell would end up in a museum, maybe some of the outdated computer boards.
It's still inspiring, but would it be more fair to go to Florida? Texas? Some state where it was built (if it weren't those)? The Smithsonian?
Of course it would go to the Smithsonian. They sometimes loan stuff out temporarily, so it could be displayed in all those places (with difficulty).
Nothing on it is modern enough to be classified, if it ever was classified. It is really old. DoD had better optics flying in space… by the time Hubble launched, maybe?
Not sure there's anything left in Hubble that would be classified. Maybe the control software but the spy sat it was based off of is decades out of use by now.
If they could carry a larger payload, we could have a Hubble with a larger primary mirror. Some of the risks/costs of the JWST is all the folding mechanisms to fit the Ariane 5 payload enclosure.
It's kind of limping along. It could gather images for a lot longer but it's hardware like gyroscopes are starting to fail. IMO the money to refurbish it would be better spent making a new instrument and cheaper too since you'd just need to build and launch not launch, capture, land, refurb, and relaunch.
That's a fun idea! I don't see how you would execute that unfortunately though. Hubble wasn't meant to be re-mounted after deployment. Starship wouldn't be able to just gobble Hubble up and have it rattle around in its fairing during re-entry
In the mean time you can visit the Kennedy Space Center, which has a full scale replica on display. (Haven't been there myself, but interested in going one day.)
Even longer for it to actually power up and start "working." Really excited for it, but feel like something akin to this hubble issue happening with the JW would be disastrous.
And not just disastrous for James Webb, disastrous for the possibility of future funding of space missions in the near future. Congress would be much more hesitant to fund anything as large as the James Webb in the future if it failed.
Not if China starts funding such things as many in the US Congress would not want China to have more advanced assets in orbit and would authorize funding to make it work.
It's hard to say, but for the JWST the design and R&D seems to have been the easier part [1].
In general it's uncommon to build a replacement satellite after an issue. Either you make a backup from the start, or you start over after failure. Making a one-off component often isn't all that much simpler just because you've already done it once a decade ago (and some parts of the JWST should be about a decade old by now). And if you commit to doing that all over again, might as well update the entire design to new capabilities and requirements.
Unfortunately, even if we do develop the capability to get astronauts out there, the Webb is constructed with a lot of adhesive and layered components and is basically impossible to service in space.
I think the best we could hope for is maybe being able to drill into the liquid helium tank and refill it - which is the ultimate determinate of its useful lifetime (that and propellant, but I'm led to believe the liquid helium will run out first).
Probably a moot point though: by the time we can get people out to do such an operation, I suspect a reduction in launch costs might lead to a much cheaper space telescope you could just drop off instead.
There is no consumable liquid helium. Past space telescopes have used consumable coolant, but JWST has a closed refrigeration system to cool the one instrument that requires active cooling.
If all goes as planned, the limiting factor is propellant. And the propellant tanks have the ports for on-orbit refueling, in case there is ever a desire to develop a robotic servicing mission for the task.
If the R&D is done anyway, why not just wait and build a second telescope if the first one fails? I don't see why that would be any more expensive than building a backup ahead of time, and it means if the first one fails due to an undetected design flaw, they have a chance to correct it.
It’s cheaper to build two at the same time than shutting down production for years and trying to build another one. Tooling doesn’t last forever, and the process and skills required to build one can help you build the second one cheaper. But if you wait, that knowledge is often lost. For example, we have no way to build a Saturn V rocket today even having spent R&D and NRE decades ago.
Same reason NASA built the Space Shuttle Endeavour with spare parts left over from the others, instead of building it from scratch. People move on with their lives, and the facilities that manufacture these things do too. Assuming everything was well documented it should be possible to recreate the tooling and train new people, but that's much more expensive than building two in the first place.
One of NASA's biggest mistakes wrt the demise of the STS/Shuttle program was not leaving some way lined up to service Hubble in orbit. The current crop of launch vehicles isn't suited to this task, despite us being ten years out from STS-135.
It's proven itself an absolutely invaluable tool for research, but I think the even more impressive mission Hubble has shown itself as irreplaceable for is stimulating the public's mind for science and exploration. There's nothing like seeing photos of the universe in visual-light spectrum and thinking, "what if we went there?"
JWST is amazing and I'm so glad it's finally launching but for that second use case, it trails Hubble.
I wouldn't lay the blame on NASA. Congress ultimately decides what NASA does and does not do.
Constellation was the system that was supposed to succeed the Shuttle. It had one successful first-stage launch in October 2009. In 2010, Constellation was cancelled by Congress (at the behest of then-president Obama). In its stead, Congress essentially designed a new rocket called the Space Launch System, and tasked NASA with building it. Constellation's crewed capsule, Orion, survived as the SLS's crewed capsule. Unfortunately, the SLS is now 5 years overdue for its first launch. (It currently seems reasonably likely to launch for the first time in 2022.)
The Orion capsule could conceivably service Hubble [1], especially after lots of launches and general experience with the vehicle. If Constellation had not been cancelled, or if Congress had tasked NASA with a less-ambitious rocket to build, (or if the contractors that NASA was obliged to use to build the SLS had been able to keep to the original schedule,) we might have had a spacecraft to service Hubble right now.
I think JWST will be an amazing replacement as most space photos are doctored with visible light "interpretations" of other wavelengths already and nobody seems to notice/care as they have their minds blown. The process almost even adds to the beauty of them.
>nobody seems to notice/care as they have their minds blown
Some people do, and erroneously conclude that "space is fake". This would be laughable, if not for the part where they then persuade their friends and family to feel deceived. Artificially coloring images without disclosing it clearly upfront in a highly visible manner, ideally with some sort of watermark on the image, is the sort of white lie that contributes to the public's growing distrust of authority.
Yes, I know the caption below the image usually disclaims it. But as you say, most people don't notice or know it until somebody points it out to them, and too often the somebody who points it out is somebody who's peddling nonsense of their own.
Calling it "doctored" is perhaps a stretch. Hubble (and many earth-bound astronomers) take images of emission nebulae with narrowband filters covering some of the emission lines that are important and particularly strong. The typical ones are hydrogen-alpha, oxygen-III, and sulphur-II. These are particular colours of light that are emitted by these chemical elements, and so detecting these emissions are the best way to detect these chemical elements, for science.
Then these detections are put together into a false-colour image so we can visualise it. We have three narrowband filters, so it makes obvious sense to map them to the three primary colours in the image.
It's not about using weird filters on the telescope to make "doctored" images that look impressive. It's about using weird filters on the telescope to collect the best science possible, and then using that data to make an image.
You basically use a mapping function that assigns a visible wavelength to a corresponding non-visible one. Its as if you're manually red-shifting the light "down" the spectrum.
That's a good point. Regardless of how it shakes out, I'm really excited to see the first images from Webb. The implications this spacecraft could have for understanding the question of where we came from are immense.
I thought the experience they had servicing Hubble actually meant that they generally didn’t want to have satellites that they would have to service due to costs involved.
Maybe with the new options it becomes cheaper/ more viable.
Having worked at Lockheed on the engineering side of Hubble for four summers as an intern during undergrad, the idea of the telescope reaching its end of life makes me deeply sad.
That warms my heart somehow, but I thought I had read that that was it for Hubble, like a year ago? Why the change of heart? Anyone got the full story, or did I cross my wires?
There was some equipment failure last year. I think it was later diagnosed as a power control unit that failed. Fortunately there was a backup set they could switch to. Little by little parts are failing with time but they are nursing it along.
I think one of the primary payload computers failed but they were able to flip to auxiliary/backup. That was in July though
It’s pretty much on borrowed time. I think they spent most of that outage trying to bring the main up and gave up.
Must be fun troubleshooting something at like 400 km orbit. Heck I had to tell a lady she couldn’t wfh today because her cell data tethering wasn’t up to snuff to hold a connection to our vpn or do much of anything. She was seeing spurts of 10% loss on downstream and 200+ ms latency.
Remembering what you did and what you wanted to do next takes a lot of notes! It's really amazing controlling the drones on Mars, with all the traffic routed through a constellation of satellites, where the rotation even affects the latency.
L1 is inside the Earth's orbit (relative to the sun), L2 is outside, L3 is directly opposite the Earth, L4 is on the same orbit ahead of earth and L5 is on the same orbit behind the Earth.
Making a guess based on my knowledge of photography: probably not. It's taking vast starscapes with a wide lens with a focus range (or fixed focus) made for shooting at infinity. That means the closer something is, the less in focus it'll be. Try looking at something right in front of your face. At its furthest, JWST will be at a proportional distance relative to what Hubble is equipped to focus on. Even stitching images together, it's always going to have similar focus. No amount of resolution will get past the physics of optics.
I'll add that Hubble has an angular resolution of 0.05 arcseconds, and Earth-Sun L2 is roughly 1,500,000 km away, which comes out to about 350 m resolution at that distance--fifteen times larger than JWST.
Well that actually makes it almost plausible for Hubble to capture an image of JWST
According to Wikipedia, the order is: Sun, L1, Earth, L2. So L2 is always in the night sky.
I don't see issues with focus. 1.5M km is effectively infinity. Indeed for my camera on earth, 10m resolves as pretty much as well as infinity, f stops notwithstanding.
JWST is about 20m by 14m in size. And it's out of the earth + moon shadow because of the nature of its orbit. It has a sun shield, and radio dish in the shield.
The resolving power of 0.05 arcseconds at 1,500,000 km apogee is indeed 350 m (ish), which is much bigger than the JWST. The situation is worse at perigee. An image of JWST would take up less than 1% of Hubble 'pixel'. So there may be a faint blob, depending on the albedo of the JWST. (I don't know how Hubble's the photodetector arrays' resolution compares to the maximum resolving power of the lens.)
However, Hubble's guidance systems have permitted astronomy at 0.0003 arcseconds, which comes out at a little over 2 m at JWST's range. So after a lot of computation, stacked images and fine-guidance shifting, presumably there could be an image of around 10 x 7 pixels (or whatever they are after the computation).
Reminds me of strategy games where feeding enough “science units” into opaque “research labs” unlocks branches of the technology tree.