Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Conceptual Opto-Mechanical design of SHARP: a near-infrared multi-mode spectrograph conceived for the next-generation telescopes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read SHARP's conceptual design keeps more than 90% of a diffraction-limited source's flux inside one 35-mas pixel at 2.19 µm while covering 0.95–2.45 µm at R>1000, using an all-spherical, modular cryogenic layout.

desk verdict A genuinely useful conceptual opto-mechanical design for an ELT/MORFEO near-IR spectrograph, but the performance claims lean on an idealized Gaussian PSF and should be treated as feasibility, not proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07057 v1 pith:T2OT2SAJ submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.IM

H. Mahmoodzadeh , P. Saracco , P. Conconi , B- Saggin , D- Scaccabarozzi , I. Di Antonio , M. Riva , E. Molinari
show 13 more authors
C. Arcidiacono I. Arosio E. Cascone V. Cianniello V. De Caprio G. Di Rico B. Di Francesco C- Eredia P. Franzetti M. Fumana D. Greggio E. Portaluri M. Scalera
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords near-infraredspectrographmulti-objectspectroscopyintegralfieldunitadaptiveopticsExtremelyLargeTelescopecryogenicopto-mechanicsencircledenergyconfigurableslitmask
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents a conceptual opto-mechanical design for SHARP, a near-infrared spectrograph intended for the second port of the ELT's MORFEO adaptive-optics system. The authors claim that one cryogenic instrument can deliver both multi-object and multi-integral-field spectroscopy over 0.95–2.45 µm at spectral resolution R>1000, while resolving 30-mas structures. NEXUS splits its field into four simultaneous wavelength bands with a dedicated camera per band, so the full range is covered without reconfiguring; VESPER uses movable field-selector probes and an image slicer to map 12 small patches. Simulated encircled energy puts more than 90% of a diffraction-limited source's flux inside one 35-mas pixel at 2.19 µm, and VESPER's image quality is dominated by the incoming AO-corrected beam rather than by SHARP itself. The whole instrument fits in a 2-m-diameter cryostat with an all-spherical, modular cold structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the optical train from the MORFEO second port through a Unit Selector System that switches between two front ends. NEXUS uses a configurable slit system and three dichroics to split light into four bands, each feeding a dedicated camera with a grism wheel; VESPER uses 12 movable field-selector probes, arranged in two modules, whose constant optical path is maintained by pairs of mirrors moving at half the probe displacement, feeding an image slicer with 72 micro-mirrors per stripe and four cameras per module. These mechanisms, plus an all-spherical lens prescription and modular cast-aluminum cold structure, carry the argument that the instrument can meet resolution and

What would settle it

Use the real MORFEO second-port PSF, from on-sky measurements or end-to-end AO simulations, and recompute the fraction of flux within a 35-mas pixel and the VESPER spot sizes; if the 90% encircled-energy figure drops below the requirement or the corrected field cannot cover 1 arcmin, the conceptual design's main performance claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a single cryogenic instrument, SHARP, can exploit the AO-corrected field of MORFEO at the ELT to perform both multi-object and multi-integral-field spectroscopy in the near-infrared. The design splits NEXUS light into four simultaneous bands, each with its own camera and grism wheel, so the full 0.95–2.45 µm range is covered without reconfiguring; VESPER uses 12 movable field-selector probes and an image slicer to feed eight cameras. Encircled-energy simulations at 2.19 µm show >90% of the flux from a diffraction-limited Gaussian source falls inside one 35-mas NEXUS pixel, and VESPER spot diagrams are dominated by the input AO optics rather than SHARP itself, so both m

Load-bearing premise

The performance numbers assume the adaptive-optics system actually delivers a star image as sharp as the ELT diffraction limit across at least a 1×1 arcmin field; if the real corrected image is softer or the corrected field smaller, the claimed resolution and encircled energy would not be reached.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single NEXUS exposure can cover the full 0.95–2.45 µm range without swapping gratings, avoiding the configuration changes needed by existing near-infrared multi-object spectrographs.
  • Up to 30 configurable slits can be placed on a 1.2×1.2 arcmin field, giving multiplexed spectroscopy at R≈300, 2000, or 6000 depending on grism choice.
  • VESPER's 12 probes return spatially resolved spectra over a 24×70 arcsec patrol area with 0.031-arcsec slices, matching the scales of giant molecular clouds at high redshift.
  • The 2-m cryostat and modular cast-aluminum structure keep cryogenic power and assembly effort manageable, with front/rear cap access for maintenance.
  • Because VESPER's images are limited by the input AO PSF, further improvement of SHARP's own optics will not sharpen VESPER data until the upstream adaptive-optics system improves.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The >90%-in-one-pixel figure is an end-to-end estimate for a Gaussian input PSF; a real AO PSF with broader wings will reduce that fraction even if the FWHM matches, so the margin should be tested against realistic PSF profiles.
  • The design implies a large detector count (16 2k×2k for NEXUS and 8 4k×4k for VESPER); the paper does not estimate detector cost, data volume, or readout time, which could dominate project feasibility.
  • Removing the ADC for VESPER observations is proposed to gain sensitivity, but the gain is not quantified; computing it would be a natural next step.
  • If the modular all-spherical design meets its goals at the ELT port, the same architecture could be offered to other ELT-class MCAO instruments with similar focal ratios, though the 1×1 arcmin corrected-field assumption would need rechecking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the conceptual opto-mechanical design of SHARP, a near-infrared multi-mode spectrograph conceived for the ELT/MORFEO second port. SHARP consists of two subsystems: NEXUS, a multi-object spectrograph covering 0.95–2.45 µm in four simultaneous bands using 30 configurable slits and four cameras, and VESPER, a multi-integral-field unit with 12 field-selector probes, image slicers, and eight cameras. The design uses only spherical surfaces, fits in a 2 m diameter, 3 m tall cryostat, and includes mechanisms for slit configuration, field selection, and unit selection. The paper reports optical performance from ray-tracing simulations: encircled energy plots for NEXUS at 2.19 µm claim more than 90% of flux within one 35 mas pixel, and VESPER simulations are used to argue that image quality is dominated by pre-SHARP optics. The mechanical architecture is described at a conceptual level, with finite element analysis, tolerance analysis, stray-light analysis, and prototype validation deferred to future work.

Significance. If the quantitative performance claims are correct, the SHARP concept would demonstrate that a compact, all-spherical, multi-mode cryogenic spectrograph can simultaneously cover 0.95–2.45 µm at R>1000 over the MORFEO-corrected field, using a single 2 m-class cryostat. The modular opto-mechanical layout, the use of two moving mirrors for optical-path compensation in the field selectors, and the simultaneous four-band MOS design are genuinely useful concepts for next-generation instrumentation. However, the current performance evidence rests heavily on idealized PSF assumptions and lacks tolerance, thermal, and stray-light analyses. The potential significance is high, but the paper in its present form is a conceptual study with limited validation rather than a demonstrated design that meets all requirements.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 6] The encircled-energy result for NEXUS is obtained with an input 'Gaussian with FWHM equal to the ELT diffraction limit.' This is not the diffraction-limited PSF of the ELT: the actual Airy pattern, including the central obscuration and spiders, has substantial flux outside the first dark ring. At 2.19 µm, λ/D is about 12 mas, and one NEXUS pixel is 35 mas; the encircled energy of a pure Airy pattern within a radius of about 1.5λ/D is approximately 88%, before any SHARP aberrations are added, whereas a Gaussian with the same FWHM contains essentially all of its flux in the same radius. Therefore the claim that 'more than 90% of the flux falls within one NEXUS pixel' is primarily a property of the assumed input PSF, not a demonstrated performance of the NEXUS optical design. Please recompute the EE with a realistic ELT/MORFEO PSF (including obscuration, spiders, and an AO residual halo) an
  2. [Sec. 3, Figs. 8–10] The conclusion that VESPER's image quality is 'dominated by the optical systems that precede SHARP' is based on comparing an ideal point source (Fig. 8) with a Gaussian input whose FWHM equals the ELT diffraction limit (Fig. 9). A real MORFEO-corrected PSF is broader and contains a seeing-limited halo, so the comparison does not establish that the pre-SHARP optics dominate in real operating conditions. The authors should repeat the comparison with a more representative MORFEO PSF, or at least quantify the effect of adding a halo component with a plausible contrast ratio, before drawing this conclusion.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 2.2] The throughput values stated for NEXUS ('~90% in K, neglecting the grism') and VESPER ('~75% in K, neglecting the grism') are presented without any supporting calculation, transmission budget, or reference. Given that each channel includes multiple lenses, dichroics, and folding mirrors, these values are not self-evident. Provide a throughput budget with assumed coating reflectances/transmittances, or cite the source of the numbers. This is load-bearing because the scientific motivation (e.g., sensitivity to OH-line subtraction and faint continuum) depends on preserving throughput.
  4. [Sec. 5] The paper explicitly defers finite element analysis, tolerance analysis, stray-light analysis, and prototype validation to future work. This is acceptable for a conceptual design, but the abstract's claim that the design is 'engineered to meet project specifications' is stronger than what is demonstrated. In particular, no tolerance sensitivity is presented, so it is unknown whether the all-spherical optical design remains diffraction-limited after manufacturing and cooldown. At minimum, a tolerance allocation or a sensitivity study for the most critical alignments (e.g., lens centering and despace, folding-mirror orientation) would be needed to support the 'meet specifications' wording.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical inconsistencies: 'James Web Space Telescope' in the introduction (and 'James Web' in Sec. 1) should be 'James Webb Space Telescope'; decimal commas appear inconsistently in Tables 2 and 3 (e.g., '3017,1', '358,3', '20,10'), which should be unified to decimal points.
  2. [Table 3] The entries for camera lenses C-L5 and C-L6 list '20,10 ZNSE, SILICA' and '10,20 SILICA, ZNSE' without clarifying which thickness corresponds to which material or whether these are cemented doublets or separated elements. Please define the notation.
  3. [References] Reference [8] is cited as a SPIE conference series but the entry contains an arXiv identifier and formatting that does not match the other references. Please convert to a consistent citation style.
  4. [Figs. 6–10] The captions for the spot diagrams and encircled-energy plots do not state which field positions and wavelengths are used, nor whether the plots include the pre-SHARP optics. Adding these details would make the figures interpretable without searching the text.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence describing the VESPER field selector movement says the FSs 'can be deployed over a range of ∼70" along the y-axis' and later says the probed area is 'approximately 24"×70"'; this geometry is not fully clear. A sketch or explicit statement of how 12 FSs (6 per module) map to the 24"×70" field would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EE and image-quality claims are conditional on an explicitly stated input PSF and a concrete optical design, not on the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that scientific requirements are external inputs, the optical design is a constructive engineering layout with explicit lens prescriptions, and the performance simulations propagate a stated input PSF through that design. The 'more than 90% within one pixel' statement is presented as a simulation result with the input 'a Gaussian with FWHM equal to the ELT diffraction limit' (Sec. 3, Fig. 6); this is an assumption about the delivered PSF, not a fitted parameter or a restatement of the conclusion. The VESPER comparison between a point-source simulation and a diffraction-limited Gaussian input is a controlled comparison showing that the assumed input dominates over the instrument's own blur; it does not define the conclusion into the premise. The only self-citation (Saracco et al.) is used for scientific drivers and a future slit-rotation concept, not as proof of the optical performance. The identified weakness—using an idealized Gaussian PSF instead of an Airy/MORFEO PSF—is a robustness/correctness concern about the realism of the assumed input, not circularity. Per the rules, unrealistic assumptions are not circular, so the score remains minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design rests on several free parameters (lens prescriptions, slit length, operating temperature) chosen by the designers, and on assumptions about MORFEO's delivered PSF and sky background. These are stated in the paper but not independently validated. No invented natural entities are introduced; SHARP, NEXUS, and VESPER are the instrument and subsystems being designed, not postulated physical phenomena.

free parameters (5)
  • Optical prescriptions for 12 cameras (lens radii, thicknesses, materials)
    Chosen through optical design optimization to meet EE and spot size requirements; not derived from first principles. See Tables 2 and 3.
  • Slit length 2.4 arcsec and maximum 30 slits = 2.4 arcsec, 30 slits
    Set by SHARP Science Team recommendations, not derived; directly limits multiplexing capability. See Section 4.7.
  • Operating temperature range 70-80 K = 70-80 K
    Chosen to make thermal background negligible; derived from a back-of-envelope Planck calculation, but the range is a design choice. See Section 4.1.
  • VESPER field selector deployment range ~70 arcsec = 70 arcsec
    Set to cover the target area of approximately 24x70 arcsec; not independently derived. See Section 2.2 and Figure 5.
  • Gear ratio 0.5 for folding mirror compensation = 0.5
    Imposed by the optical path length compensation geometry; a design choice for the scanning mechanism. See Section 4.6.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Diffraction limit for ELT at 2.1 µm is approximately 12 mas
    Used to compute theoretical resolving power and to define the input PSF for simulations. See Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption MORFEO provides an AO-corrected field of approximately 1.8x1.8 arcmin with a PSF approximated by a Gaussian with FWHM equal to the diffraction limit
    This is loaded into the encircled energy calculations in Figures 6 and 9. If the real PSF is broader or the corrected field smaller, the claimed performance fails. The assumption is stated in the descriptions of these figures.
  • standard math Sky brightness in K band is about 13 mag/arcsec^2 and the thermal background model follows Planck's law with Poisson noise statistics
    Used to derive the cryogenic operating temperature requirement in Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption Materials such as CaF2, silica, sapphire, and Cleartran have known cryogenic optical properties
    The lens prescriptions in Tables 2 and 3 assume these materials perform as specified at 70-80 K; no thermal-optical or tolerance analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conceptual Opto-Mechanical design of SHARP: a near-infrared multi-mode spectrograph conceived for the next-generation telescopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2OT2SAJ

@misc{pith2026250907057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conceptual Opto-Mechanical design of SHARP: a near-infrared multi-mode spectrograph conceived for the next-generation telescopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2OT2SAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07057}
}
read the original abstract

The next generation of Extremely Large Telescopes (ELTs), with their wide apertures and advanced Multi-Conjugate Adaptive Optics (MCAO) systems, will provide unprecedented sharp and deep observations, even surpassing the capabilities of James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). SHARP, a near-infrared (0.95-2.45 {\mu}m) spectrograph, is designed to optimally exploit the collecting area and angular resolution of these forthcoming ELTs, and specifically optimized for the MCAO unit MORFEO at the ELT. SHARP includes two main units: NEXUS, a Multi-Object Spectrograph (MOS), and VESPER, a multi-Integral Field Unit. This paper outlines the opto-mechanical design of SHARP based on the scientific requirements of the project. The optical design is engineered to meet project specifications, featuring a compact mechanical structure that minimizes the required cryogenic power while ensuring ease of access for maintenance and straightforward assembly procedures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates the key components along the optical path from the port of MORFEO to SHARP and the optical path of the light within SHARP and through its key components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Field of View (FoV) of NEXUS (blue square, 1.2’×1.2’) and the area probed by the IFSs of VESPER (red rectangle, ∼24”×70”) are shown on the MORFEO 2nd port corrected area (black circle, diameter D∼160”). For comparison, the FoV of MICADO (green dashed square) is also shown. The purple filled circles represent the wavefront sensors for the 6 Laser Guide Stars used by MORFEO, while the yellow circles are those for … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The optical design of NEXUS, including the optical path from the focal plane of MORFEO down to the individual cameras. four distinct wavelength bands, approximately [0.95-1.15] μm, [1.15-1.45] μm, [1.45-1.9] μm, and [1.9-2.45] μm, using three dichroic filters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: VESPER optical design from the focal plane of MORFEO to the four detectors. The integral field selector (IFS), not shown in the figure. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic view of the Integral Field Selector system feeding one channel of VESPER. Left - The 6 FSs are aligned along the x direction and separated by 0.33” each other. The small gaps between the FSs are masked on the focal plane to cancel out their contribution to th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Encircled Energy (EE) distribution as a function of radial distance at wavelength 2.19 μm (fourth channel) for the central position and four positions offset by ±36” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spot diagram for the different positions on the field for the NEXUS subsystem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fraction of Encircled Energy (EE) as a function of radial distance for an ideal point source seen by VESPER. The three curves are for three different positions of the source on one of the 288 mirrors of the slicer, namely at the center (red) and at two corners (blue an…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spot diagram measured for the three different positions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SHARP equipment arrangements and conceptual design To minimize heat transfer through conductivity, all internal equipment are installed in one structure that is only connected with the outer shell through only an insulated bar mechanism (composite arm depicted in [PI…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: SHARP’s main structure, cast from 7000-series aluminum and precision-machined for accurate assembly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The first (a) and second (b) NEXUS optical modules, pre-assembled and calibrated before integration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Structure of the image Slicer 4.4 External structure Once all the components have been assembled on the internal structure, the entire system is mounted within the cylindrical tank using a specially designed composite arm. This composite arm serves to significantly re…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: final assembly of main structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Assembled upper surface subsystem of SHARP. The components are individually assembled, calibrated, and mounted onto the main plate, which is precisely machined with reference points for accurate installation. 4.5 Unit Selector System A mechanism is required to switch …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Fully assembled internal structure of SHARP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Conceptual design of the switching mechanism between NEXUS and VESPER optical paths (Unit Selector System) It comprises two tables (one fixed and one movable), rails, and a linear guided actuator. The fixed plate is mounted on the upper floor of the spectrograph, prec…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Conceptual Design of The Integral Field Selector (IFS) system In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Proposed scanning mechanism for the VESPER focal panel. While the stepper motor is equipped with a position sensor to enable closed-loop position control, an additional location sensor is installed on the guide rail for the folding mirrors to ensure precise control. F…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Conceptual view of the masking mechanism. Pairs of bars move from each side of the focal plane to form a slit and mask the targets. When the bars move back toward their fully open position, the focal plane is unobstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The configurable slit-mask unit for the Keck telescope designed and manufactured by CSEM co. to the recommendations of the SHARP Science Team, the minimum length of the configurable slit is ∼2.4”, assuring a good sky sampling also for extended sources, namely for high…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Grism wheel mechanism To ensure the mechanical integrity and precision of the system, a single angular contact bearing is employed as a radial constrainer. This bearing works in tandem with a friction plain bearing, which serves a dual purpose: it constrains the axial…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MAORY/MORFEO at ELT: general overview up to the preliminary design and a look towards the final design,

    P. Ciliegi, G. Agapito, M. Aliverti, et al., “MAORY/MORFEO at ELT: general overview up to the preliminary design and a look towards the final design,” in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, L. Schreiber, D. Schmidt, and E. Vernet, Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12185, 1218514 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    MAORY: A Multi-conjugate Adaptive Optics RelaY for ELT,

    P. Ciliegi, G. Agapito, M. Aliverti, et al., “MAORY: A Multi-conjugate Adaptive Optics RelaY for ELT,” The Messenger 182, 13–16 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    MICADO: The Multi-Adaptive Optics Camera for Deep Observations,

    R. Davies, V. H¨ormann, S. Rabien, et al., “MICADO: The Multi-Adaptive Optics Camera for Deep Observations,” The Messenger 182, 17–21 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    The MICADO first light imager for the ELT: overview, operation, simulation,

    R. Davies, J. Alves, Y. Cl´enet, et al., “The MICADO first light imager for the ELT: overview, operation, simulation,” in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, C. J. Evans, L. Simard, and H. Takami, Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 10702, 107021S (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    http://sharp.brera.inaf.it 25

    work page

  6. [6]

    The Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) on the JamesWebb Space Telescope. I. Overview of the instrument and its capabilities,

    P. Jakobsen, P. Ferruit, C. Alves de Oliveira, et al., “The Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) on the JamesWebb Space Telescope. I. Overview of the instrument and its capabilities,” 661, A80 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    The James Webb Space Telescope Mission,

    J. P. Gardner, J. C. Mather, R. Abbott, et al., “The James Webb Space Telescope Mission,” 135, 068001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Saracco, P

    P. Saracco, P. Conconi, C. Arcidiacono, E. Portaluri, H. Mahmoodzadeh, et al,” SHARP - A near-IR multi-mode spectrograph conceived for MORFEO@ELT” Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 2407.06264v2. 11 Jul 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 15 references
  1. [9]

    EMIR the GTC NIR multi object imager spectrograph

    F. Garzón, D. Abreu, S. Barrera, S. Correa, J. J. Díaz, et al, “EMIR the GTC NIR multi object imager spectrograph” Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5492,(2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Status of the EMIR mechanical system

    V. Sánchez, S. Barrera, S. Becerril, S. Correa, et al, “Status of the EMIR mechanical system”, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, edited by Ian S. McLean, Masanori Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6269, 626955, (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Antonio Manescau, Ana Fragoso-López, Francisco Garzón, Jesús Patrón, ” Status of the EMIR optical system” Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, Masanori Iye, Alan F. M. Moorwood, Editors, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4841 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    An extremely metal-poor star complex in the reionization era: Approaching Population III stars with JWST,

    E. Vanzella, F. Loiacono, P. Bergamini, et al., “An extremely metal-poor star complex in the reionization era: Approaching Population III stars with JWST,” A& A 678, A173 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Mechanical slit mask mechanism for the James Webb Space Telescope spectrometer,

    S. Henein, P. Spanoudakis, P. Schwab, et al., “Mechanical slit mask mechanism for the James Webb Space Telescope spectrometer,” in Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Space Telescopes, J. C. Mather, Ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series...

    2004

  6. [14]

    Design and development of MOSFIRE, the Multi-Object Spectrometer For Infra-Red Exploration at the Keck Observatory

    Ian S. McLean, Charles C. Steidel, Harland Epps, Keith Matthew, et al, “Design and development of MOSFIRE, the Multi-Object Spectrometer For Infra-Red Exploration at the Keck Observatory” SPIE Vol 7735, 77351E-77351E-12 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Configurable slit-mask unit of the Multi- Object Spectrometer for Infra-Red Exploration for the Keck telescope: Integration and Tests

    Peter Spanoudakis, Laurent Giriens, Simon Henein, et al., “Configurable slit-mask unit of the Multi- Object Spectrometer for Infra-Red Exploration for the Keck telescope: Integration and Tests” Advanced Optical and Mechanical Technologies in Telescopes and Instrumentation, edi...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.