pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19159 · v1 · pith:NZWTWKFCnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM

Guiding Design Choices for Wide-Field IFS: Trade-Offs Between Replication and Complexity for WST

C. Cudennec , A. Jeanneau , R. Bacon , T. L\'epine , M. Lehnert , R. Giroud , J-E. Migniau , D. Lee
show 2 more authors
R. de Jong L. Fr\'eour
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM
keywords integral field spectroscopyspectrograph designtrade studydetector formatcarbon footprintreplicationimage qualitythroughput
0
0 comments X

The pith

Replicating simpler spectrographs outperforms using fewer complex units for wide-field integral field spectroscopy.

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

The paper conducts a trade study on spectrograph architectures for a large panoramic integral field spectrograph. It varies parameters such as pixel pitch, detector format, and camera design to assess impacts on throughput, image quality, volume, cost, and carbon footprint. The analysis finds that architectures with many simpler spectrographs tend to exceed those with fewer complex ones in both technical performance and economic measures. This result informs design decisions for instruments that must cover large fields efficiently. A sympathetic reader would care because such choices affect the feasibility and environmental impact of future large spectroscopic facilities.

Core claim

The IFS concept uses field splitters and image slicers to reformat a large field into pseudo-slits feeding spectrographs with two optimized spectral channels. The integrated design approach focuses on a trade study of spectrograph architectures. Design choices such as pixel pitch, detector format, and camera optical design are evaluated against throughput, image quality, error budgets, volume, cost, and the carbon footprint of building each spectrograph. Early results suggest that many simpler spectrographs outperform fewer complex units technically and economically.

What carries the argument

The trade study of spectrograph architectures that ranks replication versus complexity by throughput, image quality, cost, and carbon footprint as functions of parameters such as pixel pitch and detector format.

If this is right

  • Architectures relying on replication of simpler units achieve better overall system performance in throughput and image quality.
  • Lower per-unit complexity reduces manufacturing costs and error risks across the instrument.
  • Accounting for carbon footprint as a metric favors designs with more but simpler spectrographs.
  • Exploration of curved detectors can be incorporated into the same ranking process to refine the preferred architecture.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar trade studies could guide design choices for other wide-field instruments where the number of units is scalable.
  • Validating the performance models against real hardware would strengthen in the ranking of architectures.
  • The preference for simplicity might influence development of detector formats that support easier replication.

Load-bearing premise

The models that predict throughput, image quality, cost, and carbon footprint from design parameters such as pixel pitch and detector format are accurate enough to rank the different spectrograph architectures.

What would settle it

Construction and testing of prototype spectrographs based on the modeled designs to compare actual measured throughput, image quality, cost, and carbon footprint against the model predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19159 by A. Jeanneau, C. Cudennec, D. Lee, J-E. Migniau, L. Fr\'eour, M. Lehnert, R. Bacon, R. de Jong, R. Giroud, T. L\'epine.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cross-section of the facility’s current layout. The IFS is located in the bottom part of the facility; showing 192 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: IFS spectrographs trade-off flowchart. 2.1 Geometrical etendue and number of spectrographs The characteristics of the design options explored in this study fall into three categories: spectrograph camera de￾sign, detector characteristics and sampling. Two camera designs have been identified: dioptric and catadioptric. Eight detector options are considered, as listed in Tab. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Arrangement of the spectra of the 48 slitlets on the MUSE detectors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometric ´etendue of the camera for the different detector options, normalised to the minimum value obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral resolution across both arms for the four pixel counts along the dispersion axis, assuming a spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral resolution at 370 nm (blue channel) and 575 nm (red channel) as a function of the spectral sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detector error budget (PSF, flatness and positioning) projected on sky, as a function of the camera f-number. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As-built MUSE and BlueMUSE spectrograph image quality budget as a function of camera f-number. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Maximum number of lenses in a dioptric design yielding the same throughput as a catadioptric design with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Maximum number of lenses in a dioptric design before a catadioptric design becomes preferable on throughput [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Total volume of the spectrographs as a function of the number of spectrographs, grouped by camera design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Estimated volume occupied by the spectrographs within the current IFS room for four representative dioptric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Layout of the selected reflective collimator design, consisting of a spherical mirror, a conic mirror, a dichroic, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Examples of draft camera optical designs at the same scale: (a) 6k-15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Pupil diameters of the designed cameras overlaid on the empirical fit from Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Marginal-to-first delivery time ratio for DESI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example cost distribution from the Monte Carlo simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Cost estimates from the toy model for all viable design options, showing spectrograph-only costs and total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Carbon footprint of the construction (blue) and operation (green) for different design options. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Weight distribution for the seven criteria used in the trade-off matrix. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Fitting of the dioptric pupil diameters as a function of the modified geometrical ´etendue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Fitting of the catadioptric pupil diameters as a function of the modified geometrical ´etendue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Additional obstruction induced by a square aperture containing a 60 mm detector with varying margins, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Paraxial layout of a spectrograph used as the basis for the volume toy model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_24.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST) is a proposed 12-meter segmented facility optimized for seeing- and Ground Layer Adaptive Optics-limited observations in the visible and designed to operate both a high-multiplex multi-object spectrograph and a panoramic integral field spectrograph (IFS). The WST IFS concept builds on instruments such as MUSE at the VLT (Very Large Telescope), using field splitters and image slicers to reformat a large field into pseudo-slits feeding spectrographs with two optimized spectral channels. This paper presents the integrated design approach adopted for the IFS, focusing on a trade study of spectrograph architectures. We explore design choices such as pixel pitch, detector format, and camera optical design against throughput, image quality, error budgets, volume, cost. The study adds one ecological metric: the carbon footprint of building each spectrograph, to inform design sustainability. The study also explores the potential of curved detectors. Early results suggest that many simpler spectrographs outperform fewer complex units technically and economically.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript outlines an integrated design approach for the panoramic IFS on the proposed 12-m WST, building on MUSE-style field splitters and image slicers. It presents a trade study evaluating spectrograph architectures through parametric choices (pixel pitch, detector format, camera design, curved detectors) against throughput, image quality, error budgets, volume, cost, and carbon footprint, with the central suggestion that replicating many simpler spectrographs outperforms fewer complex units.

Significance. If the underlying models are shown to be reliable, the work could usefully inform architecture decisions for future wide-field IFS instruments by incorporating sustainability metrics alongside conventional performance and cost criteria.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'many simpler spectrographs outperform fewer complex units technically and economically' is presented as an 'early result' yet the manuscript supplies no figures, tables, numerical rankings, error budgets, or derivation details that would allow verification of the models or the ranking.
  2. [Abstract] Trade-study description (Abstract and implied methods): the parametric models that convert design parameters (pixel pitch, detector format, camera design) into throughput, image quality, cost, and carbon footprint are not calibrated or compared against measured performance of reference instruments such as MUSE; without such validation, unmodeled effects (alignment tolerances, coating variations, QE deviations) could systematically alter the architecture rankings.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it briefly enumerated the specific spectrograph architectures that were compared.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and the recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications on the content of the full manuscript and outlining targeted revisions to improve verifiability and validation of the trade-study models.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'many simpler spectrographs outperform fewer complex units technically and economically' is presented as an 'early result' yet the manuscript supplies no figures, tables, numerical rankings, error budgets, or derivation details that would allow verification of the models or the ranking.

    Authors: The full manuscript (Sections 3–5) contains the parametric models, figures comparing throughput/image quality/cost/carbon footprint across architectures, tables with numerical rankings, and explicit error budget derivations. The abstract labels these 'early results' to reflect the preliminary nature of the ongoing WST design study. To improve accessibility, we will revise the abstract to reference the key quantitative outcomes and add explicit cross-references to the relevant figures and tables. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Trade-study description (Abstract and implied methods): the parametric models that convert design parameters (pixel pitch, detector format, camera design) into throughput, image quality, cost, and carbon footprint are not calibrated or compared against measured performance of reference instruments such as MUSE; without such validation, unmodeled effects (alignment tolerances, coating variations, QE deviations) could systematically alter the architecture rankings.

    Authors: The models are built from first-principles ray-tracing and published component specifications, with conservative margins applied for throughput and image quality. A direct calibration against MUSE on-sky data is not included in the current version. We will add a dedicated subsection comparing model outputs for a MUSE-equivalent configuration to the instrument's published requirements and available performance metrics, explicitly discussing sensitivity to the listed unmodeled effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: parametric trade study uses independent external metrics

full rationale

The paper performs a comparative trade study of IFS spectrograph architectures by mapping design parameters (pixel pitch, detector format, camera design) to independent performance metrics (throughput, image quality, error budgets, volume, cost, carbon footprint) via parametric models. No derivation chain reduces the central claim—that many simpler units outperform fewer complex ones—to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation load-bearing step. The models are presented as forward evaluations against external criteria rather than quantities defined by the ranking outcome itself, and the provided text contains no equations or citations that close a loop back to the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an engineering trade study that relies on standard optical and cost-modeling assumptions rather than new physical axioms or fitted parameters; no invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Optical performance metrics such as throughput and image quality can be predicted from design parameters including pixel pitch, detector format, and camera optics.
    This modeling assumption underpins the entire trade study of spectrograph architectures described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5755 in / 1164 out tokens · 24005 ms · 2026-06-26T19:10:30.581522+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The MUSE second-generation VLT instrument,

    Bacon, R. et al., “The MUSE second-generation VLT instrument,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instru- mentation for Astronomy III],Proc. SPIE7735(773508) (July 14, 2010). DOI:https://doi.org/10. 1117/12.856027

    2010

  2. [2]

    The wide-field spectroscopic telescope (WST) science white paper,

    Mainieri, V. et al., “The wide-field spectroscopic telescope (WST) science white paper,” DOI:https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.05398

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.05398

  3. [3]

    Replicated Spectrographs in Astronomy

    Hill, G., “Replicated spectrographs in astronomy,” DOI:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1408.4625

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1408.4625

  4. [4]

    VIRUS: production and deployment of a massively replicated fiber integral field spectrograph for the upgraded hobby-eberly telescope,

    Hill, G. et al., “VIRUS: production and deployment of a massively replicated fiber integral field spectrograph for the upgraded hobby-eberly telescope,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V],Proc. SPIE9147(91470Q) (July 10, 2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2056911

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056911 2014

  5. [5]

    2012, A&A, 543, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    Noll, S. et al., “An atmospheric radiation model for cerro paranal,”Astronomy and Astrophysics543, 23 (2012). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219040 2012

  6. [6]

    2013, A&A, 560, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    Jones, A. et al., “An advanced scattered moonlight model for cerro paranal,”Astronomy and Astro- physics560, 11 (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322433 2013

  7. [7]

    IFS spectrograph designs for the wide-field spectroscopic telescope: Architecture and performance gains from curved sensors,

    Cudennec, C. et al., “IFS spectrograph designs for the wide-field spectroscopic telescope: Architecture and performance gains from curved sensors,” in [Optical Design and Engineering X],Proc. SPIE14106(141060L) (May 26, 2026). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3098300

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3098300 2026

  8. [8]

    Highly curved image sensors: a practical approach for improved optical performance,

    Guenter, B. et al., “Highly curved image sensors: a practical approach for improved optical performance,” Opt. Express25(12), 13010–13023 (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.25.013010

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.25.013010 2017

  9. [9]

    The challenge of highly curved monolithic imaging detectors,

    Iwert, O. and Delabre, B., “The challenge of highly curved monolithic imaging detectors,” in [High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IV],Proc. SPIE7742(774227) (July 19, 2010). DOI:https: //doi.org/10.1117/12.856719

    work page doi:10.1117/12.856719 2010

  10. [10]

    Design of optical systems with toroidal curved detectors,

    Muslimov, E. et al., “Design of optical systems with toroidal curved detectors,”Opt. Lett.43, 3092–3095 (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.43.003092

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.43.003092 2018

  11. [11]

    Space Systems Cost Modeling

    Miller, D. W., Keesee, J., and Jilla, C., “Space Systems Cost Modeling.” MIT Open- CourseWare,https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/16-851-satellite-engineering-fall-2003/ 48d9bf8fdee0a10cafa7578bac23d73f_l15_costmodellec.pdf(2003)

    2003

  12. [12]

    Space Mission Analysis and Design

    Wertz, J. R. and Larson, W. J., “Space Mission Analysis and Design.” Book,https://www.abebooks.com/ Space-Mission-Analysis-Design-3rd-edition/31966898595/bd(1999)

    arXiv 1999

  13. [13]

    Testing the 10 spectrograph units for DESI: approach and results,

    Perruchot, S. et al., “Testing the 10 spectrograph units for DESI: approach and results,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII],Proc. SPIE11447(1144786) (December 13, 2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2561275

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2561275 2020

  14. [14]

    The construction, alignment, and installation of the VIRUS spectrograph,

    Tuttle, S. et al., “The construction, alignment, and installation of the VIRUS spectrograph,” in [Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V],Proc. SPIE9147(91470R) (July 14, 2014). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2056503

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056503 2014

  15. [15]

    The MUSE instrument detector system,

    Reiss, R. et al., “The MUSE instrument detector system,” in [Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV], Proc. SPIE8446(84462P) (Sept 24, 2012). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.925388

    work page doi:10.1117/12.925388 2012

  16. [16]

    Sustainability as a design parameter in the early development of the wide-field spectro- scopic telescope,

    Fr´ eour, L. et al., “Sustainability as a design parameter in the early development of the wide-field spectro- scopic telescope,” in [This conference],Proc. SPIE(2026)

    2026

  17. [17]

    The blue multi unit spectroscopic explorer (blueMUSE) on the VLT: science drivers and overview of instrument design,

    Richard, J. et al., “The blue multi unit spectroscopic explorer (blueMUSE) on the VLT: science drivers and overview of instrument design,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X],Proc. SPIE13096(1309622) (July 18, 2024). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3019831

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3019831 2024

  18. [18]

    4MOST low-resolution spectrograph: design and performances,

    Laurent, F. et al., “4MOST low-resolution spectrograph: design and performances,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI],Proc. SPIE9908(99087V) (August 9, 2016). DOI:https: //doi.org/10.1117/12.2231688

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2231688 2016

  19. [19]

    The design of the WEAVE spectrograph,

    Rogers, K. et al., “The design of the WEAVE spectrograph,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumenta- tion for Astronomy V],Proc. SPIE9147(91476H) (July 24, 2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12. 2055860

    work page doi:10.1117/12 2014

  20. [20]

    The DESI spectrograph system and production,

    Edelstein, J. et al., “The DESI spectrograph system and production,” in [Ground-based and Airborne In- strumentation for Astronomy VII],Proc. SPIE10702(107027G) (July 9, 2018). DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1117/12.2311821

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2311821 2018

  21. [21]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. et al., “The multi-object, fiber-fed spectrographs for SDSS and the baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey,”The Astronomical Journal146, 2 (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 2013

  22. [22]

    Optical design for MEGARA: a multi-object spectrograph for the GTC,

    Carrasco, E. et al., “Optical design for MEGARA: a multi-object spectrograph for the GTC,” in [22nd Congress of the International Commission for Optics: Light for the Development of the World],Proc. SPIE 8011(80112D) (October 25, 2011). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.903436

    work page doi:10.1117/12.903436 2011

  23. [23]

    Design and development of WFOS, the wide-field optical spectrograph for the thirty meter telescope,

    Steidel, C. et al., “Design and development of WFOS, the wide-field optical spectrograph for the thirty meter telescope,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX],Proc. SPIE12184(1218423) (August 29, 2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2629464

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629464 2022

  24. [24]

    2018, in SPIE Conference Series, Vol

    Content, R. et al., “Optical design of the highly cost optimized new hector spectrograph,” in [Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII],Proc. SPIE10702(107028I) (July 27, 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2314436

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2314436 2018

  25. [25]

    A novel design of a fibre-fed high-resolution spectrograph for WFMOS,

    Lee, H. et al., “A novel design of a fibre-fed high-resolution spectrograph for WFMOS,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II],Proc. SPIE7014(70144E) (July 11, 2008). DOI:https: //doi.org/10.1117/12.787982

    work page doi:10.1117/12.787982 2008

  26. [26]

    IMACS: the multiobject spectrograph and imager for the magellan i telescope,

    Bigelow, B. et al., “IMACS: the multiobject spectrograph and imager for the magellan i telescope,” in [Optical Astronomical Instrumentation],Proc. SPIE3355(July 9, 1998). DOI:https://doi.org/10. 1117/12.316760

    1998

  27. [27]

    Status update of LLAMAS: a wide field-of-view visible passband IFU for the 6.5m magellan telescopes,

    Furesz, G. et al., “Status update of LLAMAS: a wide field-of-view visible passband IFU for the 6.5m magellan telescopes,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII],Proc. SPIE 11447(114470A) (December 13, 2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2562803

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2562803 2020

  28. [28]

    Optical design of the suMIRe/PFS spectrograph,

    Pascal, S. et al., “Optical design of the suMIRe/PFS spectrograph,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instru- mentation for Astronomy V],Proc. SPIE9147(914747) (July 8, 2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/ 12.2055738

    2014

  29. [29]

    AAOmega: a scientific and optical overview,

    Saunders, W. et al., “AAOmega: a scientific and optical overview,” in [Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy],Proc. SPIE5492(September 30, 2004). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.550871

    work page doi:10.1117/12.550871 2004

  30. [30]

    Design, construction, and performance of VIRUS-p: the prototype of a highly replicated integral-field spectrograph for HET,

    Hill, G. et al., “Design, construction, and performance of VIRUS-p: the prototype of a highly replicated integral-field spectrograph for HET,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II], Proc. SPIE7014(701470) (July 9, 2008). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.790235

    work page doi:10.1117/12.790235 2008

  31. [31]

    Updated optical design and trade-off study for MOONS, the multi-object optical and near infrared spectrometer for the VLT,

    Oliva, E. et al., “Updated optical design and trade-off study for MOONS, the multi-object optical and near infrared spectrometer for the VLT,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V],Proc. SPIE9147(91472C) (July 28, 2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2054425

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2054425 2014

  32. [32]

    The LAMOST middle resolution spectrograph,

    Hou, Y. et al., “The LAMOST middle resolution spectrograph,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumen- tation for Astronomy VII],Proc. SPIE10702(107021I) (July 6, 2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1117/ 12.2312279

    2018

  33. [33]

    FOBOS: A Next-Generation Spectroscopic Facility at the W. M. Keck Observatory

    Bundy, K. et al., “FOBOS: A next-generation spectroscopic facility at the w. m. keck observatory,” DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.07195

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07195 1907