James Webb may be much more powerful than Hubble, but its aperture is not 800 kilometers. The only way to get that kind of aperture is to use speckle interferometry with two or more widely spaced, ground based telescope. AFAIK, the necessary resolution hasn't come close to being achieved in practice with that method either.
Distribution of heavier element from a supernova and the basic rules of chemistry is not nearly enough. All sorts of very complex chemistry and planetary geology factors can readily get rid of a planet’s entire initial inventory of liquid water despite it staying in Goldilocks zone. Look at Venus. Many other extra-solar planetary system we've discovered also shows signs that planetary orbits were quite unstable. So any planets now in the Goldilocks zone might well have been well outside of it in the past, or have moved in and out of it several times in the past and giving any desiccating exterminatory factor plenty of opportunities to work.
Distribution of heavier element from a supernova and the basic rules of chemistry is not nearly enough. All sorts of very complex chemistry and planetary geology factors can readily get rid of a planet’s entire initial inventory of liquid water despite it staying in Goldilocks zone. Look at Venus. Many other extra-solar planetary system we've discovered also shows signs that planetary orbits were quite unstable. So any planets now in the Goldilocks zone might well have been well outside of it in the past, or have moved in and out of it several times in the past and giving any desiccating exterminatory factor plenty of opportunities to work.
