Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Ubiquitous Interstellar Neutral Helium Detected with JWST

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST's NIRSpec spectra almost always contain a diffuse 1.0833 micron sky line that peaks when the telescope crosses the Sun's gravitational focusing cone of interstellar neutral helium.

desk verdict A credible, well-analyzed serendipitous detection of diffuse He I at L2 that still needs an instrument-artifact null test before I'd call the interstellar attribution definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09587 v1 pith:SNNDWU7S submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.GA

Jane R. Rigby , D. Koutroumpa , M. Galeazzi , T. Hutchison , K. D. Kuntz , Rosalia O'Brien , Marshall Perrin , F. S. Porter
show 3 more authors
Yu. Ralchenko B. M. Walsh Brian Welch
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarneutralheliumfocusingconeHeI1.0833micronJWSTNIRSpecskyemissionlocalmediumsolaractivityexoplanetatmospherecontamination
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

JWST's NIRSpec spectra, taken to study distant galaxies, almost always contain a faint emission line at 1.0833 microns. The paper assembles 22 days of archival exposures and argues that this line is sunlight resonantly scattered by neutral helium atoms flowing into the Solar System from the Milky Way's interstellar medium, making it a diffuse sky signal rather than light from any target. The strongest evidence is timing: intensities peak each year in a 37-day window centered within two days on when JWST crosses the Sun's gravitational focusing cone of interstellar helium, and the peak intensity drops at solar maximum, when more helium is ionized before it can scatter. If the attribution is correct, JWST accidentally provides a high-time-resolution, pencil-beam observatory for the very local interstellar medium, and a variable sky line that future NIRSpec background subtraction and exoplanet helium measurements must handle.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neutral helium focusing cone: the Sun's gravity bends the trajectories of cold (~26 km/s) interstellar helium atoms flowing through the Solar System, concentrating them in a cone downwind of the Sun. The emission mechanism is resonant scattering: solar 1.0833 µm photons are scattered by helium atoms that are already in the metastable $2\,{}^3S$ state, so the measured surface brightness tracks the column density of neutral helium along the line of sight. The paper also uses the NIRSpec fixed slits as narrow pencil beams, with angular areas of a few square arcseconds, to measure this gas on scales and timescales no previous helium detector could resolve. The instrumental line-spread function for uniformly illuminated slits, computed by convolving the point-source LSF with the slit width, is what lets the paper show the line is unresolved and therefore cold.

What would settle it

The decisive check would be to take NIRSpec spectra with the same grating and pointing but with the target placed at different positions in the slit, with different roll angles, and with darks or internal calibration exposures: if the 1.0833 µm feature persists in darks or changes with roll angle or slit position, it is instrumental. Failing that, an independent observatory at a different location in the outer Solar System measuring the same sky direction at the same time should see the same intensity and variability; if it does not, the interstellar attribution fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ubiquitous diffuse emission at 1.0833 µm in NIRSpec fixed-slit spectra is the $1s2s\,{}^3S$–$1s2p\,{}^3P$ triplet of neutral helium in the local interstellar medium. The line fills the slit in two-dimensional spectra, is detected in 80% of combined spectra and 53% of individual exposures, and has a narrow, spectrally unresolved width whose median redshift ($19\pm14$ km/s) matches the expected ~26 km/s flow of the interstellar wind through the Solar System. The seasonal behavior is decisive for the paper: elevated intensity occurs only in a Nov. 17–Dec. 24 window, whose center agrees with the predicted L2 crossing of the neutral helium focusing cone, and cone-crossing intensity anti-correlates with sunspot number (Pearson $r = -0.985$). The paper explicitly concludes: 'We identify the ubiquitous diffuse 1.0833 micron line emission seen in JWST NIRSpec spectra as arising from neutral helium in the interstellar medium, and we identify the periods of elevated line intensity as caused by JWST passing through the cone of this helium that is gravitationally focused by the Sun.'

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 1.0833 µm feature is genuine diffuse sky emission arriving from outside the instrument, rather than an NIRSpec artifact, internal scattered light, or residual terrestrial airglow reaching L2; the paper infers diffuse origin from the line filling the slit and from spatial-median extraction, but it does not present a dark exposure, an independent-instrument comparison, or a roll-angle variation that would rule out an instrumental origin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NIRSpec now has a known, time-variable sky line at 1.0833 µm; background subtraction residuals will be worst at that wavelength, although the feature spans less than 1% of the disperser range for most programs.
  • Future NIRSpec fixed-slit observations, especially exoplanet transmission spectroscopy using narrow slits, should model a diffuse He I foreground with the extended-source line-spread function rather than treating 1.0833 µm as pure target light.
  • The proposed use of He I 1.0833 µm to measure the Milky Way halo's ionization state becomes much harder, because the bright, variable interstellar foreground dominates the signal.
  • Archival fixed-slit spectra, passively collected during ordinary observations, become a growing dataset for the local interstellar medium: 22 days of exposure across 46 programs already show hour-to-day variability of interstellar neutral helium that has not been reported before.
  • Cone-crossing intensity anti-correlating with solar activity confirms that photoionization by the Sun at solar maximum removes neutral helium before it can scatter, so the line is a live monitor of the solar-interstellar interaction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • [Editorial inference] If the interstellar attribution holds, the same resonant-scattering sky line should appear in any space observatory near L2 or beyond that observes at 1.0833 µm; checking NIRISS slitless or future mission spectra against the same seasonal curve would confirm the effect is environmental, not unique to NIRSpec.
  • [Editorial inference] The hour-scale variability, if real, implies either clumpiness in the interstellar wind on scales below an AU or rapid changes in the excitation rate from solar EUV and solar-wind electrons; correlating the JWST line intensity with contemporaneous solar wind data could separate the two.
  • [Editorial inference] A clean test of the instrumental hypothesis would be to compare spectra of the same sky taken with different fixed-slit widths and at different roll angles; if the line's intensity and spatial profile change with slit width or roll, scattered light inside the instrument is implicated rather than interstellar gas.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes 22 days of archival JWST NIRSpec fixed-slit G140M/G140H spectra and reports a diffuse emission line at 1.0833 µm, coincident with the He I 1s2s 3S–1s2p 3P triplet. The line is detected in ~80% of combined spectra and ~53% of individual exposures at S/N>8. Its intensity varies by factors of several on day timescales, peaks in a Nov–Dec window that brackets the predicted Earth crossing of the heliospheric neutral-helium focusing cone, is anti-correlated with sunspot number within the cone, and is spectrally unresolved with low (tens of km/s) redshift. The authors attribute the line to interstellar neutral helium resonantly scattering solar 1.0833 µm photons, argue against solar-wind and pickup-ion origins, and discuss implications for JWST background subtraction and exoplanet He I observations. The paper publishes its measurements and notebooks.

Significance. If the attribution holds, this is a genuinely new and inexpensive probe of the very local interstellar medium: JWST's small beam and high time resolution sample the focusing cone on scales far smaller than previous particle or 584 Å measurements, and the reported hour-scale variability is new. The analysis is non-circular in its core: the detection is a direct spectral measurement, the cone geometry relies on the external wind direction of Möbius et al. (2004), and the redshift and linewidth arguments are direct observables. The paper also follows good reproducibility practice with published notebooks and data products. The principal weakness is that the central inference rests on the feature being genuine sky emission rather than an NIRSpec artifact or residual terrestrial signal, and no null or control test is presented; in addition, the seasonal and solar-cycle correlations rest on a manually selected window and four annual points, respectively. With those controls added or the claims tempered, the result would be suitable for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Section 3] The central claim that the 1.0833 µm feature is diffuse sky emission from interstellar neutral helium requires excluding instrumental and terrestrial alternatives, but the paper presents no null test. The evidence that the line fills the slit (Figure 1) and that a spatial median removes point sources (§2.4) does not rule out an internal scattered-light path, a detector persistence or fixed-pattern residual, or a residual geocoronal/exospheric helium signal at L2. The redshift argument in §3.7 excludes a wavelength-calibration artifact tied to JWST's barycentric velocity, but not other artifact classes. I request at least one control: for example, a search for the feature in NIRSpec MSA or IFU exposures (different aperture, same detector), a check of dark or calibration frames, a roll-angle variation test, or a comparison with another JWST instrument. If no such test is currently possible, the paper should explicitly state what observation would distinguish the interstellar interpretation from an instrumental origin, and the conclusion should be correspondingly tempered.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 6] The anti-correlation between He I intensity in the focusing cone and the sunspot number is based on four annual binned points (Pearson r = −0.985). With N=4, the correlation is fragile; a single point (especially the high-SSN 2024 point) can dominate. Please report the p-value, show the correlation after removing each year, and preferably use a regression that treats the sunspot number as a continuous covariate with per-exposure uncertainties rather than annual binning. The 2024 cone-crossing null is used in §4.3 as evidence for the solar-cycle modulation, so this needs a more quantitative basis.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 5] The seasonal peak is identified by a manually chosen 37-day window (DOY 321–358), and the match to the externally predicted cone-crossing date (Dec 7, Appendix C) is quoted as 'within 2 days.' Because the window was selected from the same data, the significance of this match is not established; a fixed window would be expected to contain some bright points even in a null model with random variability. Please provide a statistical test, for example comparing the observed concentration of high-intensity points near the predicted cone center against a bootstrap distribution using all observations, or use an a priori window based on the cone geometry and wind parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4] The sentence 'we mask the 5 highest and 5 lowest 5 rows' contains an extra '5'; it should read 'the 5 highest and 5 lowest rows.'
  2. [Section 3.6, Section 3.7] Section 2.8 states that subsample B contains N=31 G140H spectra, while §3.7 reports N=23 for the G140H redshift measurement; please explain the difference (for example, failed fits or an additional quality cut) so the sample numbers are consistent.
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'SPHEREx detect highly periodic intensities' should be 'SPHEREx detects...' and should specify whether the comparison is in the same intensity units used elsewhere in the paper.
  4. [Section 4.5] The equivalent widths quoted as 8–20 Å are not listed in Table 1 or derived in the text; please give the calculation or add the values to the table so the reader can reproduce them.
  5. [Section 5.1] The statement that the simple model 'predicts He I 1.0833µm intensities of the same order of magnitude as what is measured' is not meaningful without an estimate of the metastable-state population fraction, which the paper explicitly does not compute; please label the model as illustrative of the geometric cone enhancement only, not as a flux prediction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detection, cone-crossing timing, wind speed, and linewidth arguments are direct measurements checked against external references; the co-authored cone model is illustrative and not fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks in all load-bearing places. (1) The detection and ubiquity statistics are direct Gaussian fits to extracted NIRSpec spectra; the interstellar interpretation is an inference drawn afterward, not an input to the fits. (2) The cone-crossing timing is the key test, and it is genuinely external: the seasonal window (DOY 321-358) was hand-marked on the data, but the predicted crossing date (UT Dec 7) is computed from the ecliptic wind direction of Mobius et al. (2004), with an independent consistency check against eROSITA (Dennerl et al. 2026). Nothing in that derivation uses the JWST intensities, so the alignment of the prediction with the hand-marked window is real evidence. (3) The measured wind speed (42 +/- 16 km/s after 1/cos(theta) correction) is compared to the external 26 km/s value rather than adjusted to match it. (4) The linewidth test uses an LSF computed from published point-source LSFs (Shajib et al. 2025) convolved with the known slit width; the measured width matches the extended-source LSF and rejects a point-source interpretation, providing an independent cross-check of the slit-filling argument from Figure 1. (5) The Koutroumpa et al. (2009) focusing-cone model, which shares two authors with this paper, appears only as an illustrative schematic (Figure 12) and a deliberately labeled toy model (Section 5.1, Figure 14); its inputs (wind parameters, solar flux, scattering cross-section) do not include the measured He I intensities, and the paper explicitly does not fit it to the data, so the self-citation is real evidence rather than load-bearing. (6) The solar-activity anti-correlation is a post-hoc observation on binned data and is not used to fit any model. No uniqueness theorem is invoked and no ansatz is imported through citation. The absence of a null test excluding an NIRSpec artifact or residual geocoronal signal is a falsifiability/correctness risk, not circularity, because no equation or fitted parameter reduces the conclusion to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the line identification, the assumption that the feature is diffuse astronomical sky emission rather than an instrumental artifact, the assumption that L2 is free of terrestrial He I contamination, and external interstellar wind parameters. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The main gaps are the absence of an instrumental null test and the lack of a quantitative excitation model.

free parameters (4)
  • Detection significance thresholds = I/δ(I) = 5, 8, 15
    User-selected cutoffs define the full sample, subsample A, and subsample B in Section 2.8. The ubiquity percentages and the linewidth/redshift analyses depend on these choices, though the paper states conclusions are insensitive to them.
  • Manual high-intensity seasonal window = Day of year 321 to 358, November 17 to December 24
    The 37-day window is identified by eye in Section 3.3 to match the helium focusing cone. The annual recurrence claim and the association with the cone depend on this hand-selected interval.
  • Angular radius for 'inside the focusing cone' = 20 degrees from the cone center, measured from the Sun
    This threshold in Section 3.3 and Figure 6 determines which observations enter the anti-correlation with sunspot number. It is chosen ad hoc and is not derived from a model.
  • Exposure-time cutoff = Effective exposure time greater than 500 seconds
    Chosen after experimentation in Section 2.3. It affects the sample composition and therefore the reported detection statistics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 1.0833 micron feature is the 1s2s 3S - 1s2p 3P triplet of neutral helium, identified via NIST wavelengths.
    Section 1 relies on helium being by far the most abundant of the elements with transitions between 1.083 and 1.084 micron.
  • domain assumption JWST at L2 is far enough from Earth that terrestrial or exospheric He I airglow does not contaminate the measured line.
    Stated in Section 1 as 'a vantage point far from terrestrial emission sources', but no geocoronal model or L2 contamination check is presented.
  • domain assumption The feature uniformly fills the fixed slit and is diffuse sky emission, so the extended-source line spread function applies.
    Inferred from two-dimensional spectra in Figure 1 and used for linewidth analysis in Section 3.6 and Appendix B. No independent artifact test is given.
  • domain assumption The NIRSpec barycentric velocity correction is correctly applied to all spectra.
    Section 3.7 interprets measured redshifts as heliocentric velocities using pipeline-applied barycentric corrections and assumes no systematic wavelength calibration error.
  • ad hoc to paper Solar He I 1.0833 micron photons are resonantly scattered by neutral helium in the focusing cone, with no explicit metastable-state population fraction computed.
    The toy model in Section 5.1 assumes all interplanetary helium is available to scatter 1.0833 micron photons; the paper states that detailed excitation modeling is beyond its scope.
  • domain assumption The interstellar wind direction and speed from Möbius et al. (2004), 74.5 degrees ecliptic longitude, -5.7 degrees ecliptic latitude, and 26 km/s, are accurate external inputs.
    Used in Section 3.7 and Appendix C to compute cone crossing dates and wind angles. The seasonal correlation depends on this externally measured wind vector.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ubiquitous Interstellar Neutral Helium Detected with JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNNDWU7S

@misc{pith2026260809587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ubiquitous Interstellar Neutral Helium Detected with JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNNDWU7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09587}
}
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of ubiquitous neutral helium emission in sky spectra taken with JWST's NIRSpec instrument. The emission, with a wavelength of 1.0833 micron, resembles one of the "sky lines" that are seen by ground-based observatories. We examine this emission in all suitable NIRSpec spectra in the public archive, totaling 22 days of exposure time. We find that this He I emission is almost always present: it is well-detected in 80 percent of the observations, and in 53 percent of the individual exposures. The emission is highly time-variable: at a given pointing, the line intensity can vary by factors of several over the course of a day. The He I emission is strongest when JWST crosses through the cone of interstellar neutral helium that is gravitationally focused by the sun; intensity during the cone crossing is anti-correlated with solar activity. The low redshift and narrow velocity width of the He I line, and the elevated intensity when JWST crosses through the focusing cone, together indicate that origin of the He I emission is cold Milky Way gas passing through our solar system. JWST provides a new way to study this interstellar gas, revealing new insights such as extreme variability on timescales of hours to days, which has not been previously reported.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of He I 1.0833 µm emission (marked with yellow boxes) in two fairly deep JWST NIRSpec exposures. What is shown are reduced exposure–level (level 2) two-dimensional spectra (from S2D files), with wavelength increasing along the horizontal axis. The emission fills the length of the slit, indicating that the emission is diffuse rather than from discrete sources. Left panel: a spectrum taken with the G140M grat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example extracted 1D spectra and gaussian fits to the He I emission line. These are exposure-level (level 2) extractions of the two 200 mas wide fixed slits, for the exposures shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variability with time of He I line intensity over more than two years, for pointings near the Chandra Deep Field South (CDF-S), for spectra with measured I/δ(I) > 8. The x-axis is decimal year. Data are from subsample A. 2022.5 2023.0 2023.5 2024.0 2024.5 2025.0 2025.5 2026.0 year 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 I (MJy sr ¡1¹m) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time variability of He I line intensity, with a unique color assigned to each unique sky position. At a given sky position, the He I line intensity varies by factors of several on timescales of a day. Data are from subsample A. observation is real, not measurement unce…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: He I intensity versus day of year of observation; data are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: He I intensity versus solar activity. He I data are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time variability of He I intensity on hour-long timescales, for pointings in the Extended Groth Strip (EGS) (top panel) and COSMOS (bottom panel). Observations in the top panel were obtained 21–23 Dec. 2022; observations in the bottom panel were obtained 19–21 May 2023…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured linewidth of the He I emission, for subsample B. Blue circles show measurements made with the G140M grating, and orange squares show measurements made with the G140H grating. In the same color-coding, for each grating the dotted line shows the FWHM of the poin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measured redshifts of He I 1.0833 µm emission, as a function of day of year, for subsample B. The color-coding is blue for the G140M grating, and orange for the G140H grating. redshifts. For each observation, we calculate the angle between this wind direction and where…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measured He I redshift as a function of the ISM wind angle (defined as the angle between the telescope’s pointing direction and the wind direction as given in Appendix C.) The data subsample and color-coding are the same as in the previous figure. The grey dashed line…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: No correlation between solar elongation angle and He I 1.0833 µm intensity or redshift. Top panel: Y axis is He I line intensity; X axis is the angle between where JWST was pointed and the sun. Data are subsample A. Bottom panel: same X axis; Y axis is the redshift of…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The neutral He density within the ecliptic plane, in units of cm−3 (top colorbar). The Sun is in the center; the dotted and full circles correspond to radial distances of 1 AU and 2 AU; ecliptic longitude is marked. Short lines show JWST’s position during each observa…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: He I intensity (in cgs units) as a function of spacecraft ecliptic longitude (in ◦ ). Blue lines and red symbols indicate ecliptic longitudes for which the spacecraft is taken to be in the helium focusing cone (within 20◦ of the center of the cone as measured from the…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the data with a very simple model (black points, described in §5) that predicts He I emission for each of JWST’s sightlines, assuming that 1.0833 µm photons from the sun are resonantly scattered by neutral He from the ISM wind. The JWST data are as in […
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Level 2 (exposure-level) spectra taken with the G140H (left panels) or G140M gratings (right panels) that happen to have the He I 1.0833 µm emission line detected at significance levels of (top to bottom) I/δ(I) = 15, 8, and 5. Spectra were taken with the 200 mas wide…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example of calculating the NIRSpec LSF for a source that uniformly illuminates the fixed slits. Plotted is the LSF for a point source (black curve), and for a source that uniformly illuminates each of the fixed slits (green, yellow, and blue solid curves). Dashed line…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Left panel: Spectral resolution R versus wavelength for the NIRSpec prism, for a point source (top curve), and for a source that uniformly illuminates the NIRSpec fixed slits. Right panel: same, for a point source (black dashed lines) and for a source that uniformly i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09809

    Allart, R., Coulombe, L.-P., Carteret, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09809

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.09809 2025

  2. [2]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., Earl, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  3. [3]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    1993, Geophysical Research Letters, 20, 1027, 10.1029/93gl01117

    Bishop, J., & Link, R. 1993, Geophysical Research Letters, 20, 1027, 10.1029/93gl01117

    work page doi:10.1029/93gl01117 1993

  5. [5]

    2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 038001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acb846

    B \"o ker, T., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 038001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acb846

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acb846 2023

  6. [6]

    2014, Time-varying Excess Earth-glow Backgrounds in the WFC3/IR Channel , Hubble Space Telescope Instrument Science Report WFC3 2014-03, Space Telescope Science Institute

    Brammer, G., et al. 2014, Time-varying Excess Earth-glow Backgrounds in the WFC3/IR Channel , Hubble Space Telescope Instrument Science Report WFC3 2014-03, Space Telescope Science Institute

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    2025, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14597407

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14597407

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.14597407 2025

  8. [8]

    L., Kurt , V

    Dalaudier , F., Bertaux , J. L., Kurt , V. G., & Mironova , E. N. 1984, , 134, 171

    work page 1984

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    2026, Science, 392, 285, 10.1126/science.adt9147

    Dennerl, K., Ponti, G., Zheng, X., et al. 2026, Science, 392, 285, 10.1126/science.adt9147

    2026 doi

  2. [10]

    2014, Nature, 512, 171

    Galeazzi, M., et al. 2014, Nature, 512, 171

    2014

  3. [11]

    2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 485

    Gardner, J., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 485

    2006

  4. [12]

    P., et al

    Gardner, J. P., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 068001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Yeomans , D

    Giorgini , J. D., Yeomans , D. K., Chamberlin , A. B., et al. 1996, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 28, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#28, 25.04

    1996

  6. [14]

    2025, Verifying the NIRSpec Wavelength Calibration and Resolving Power for Multi-Object Spectroscopy , Tech

    Glidic, K., Keyes, T., Zeidler, P., et al. 2025, Verifying the NIRSpec Wavelength Calibration and Resolving Power for Multi-Object Spectroscopy , Tech. Rep. JWST-STScI-009239, SM-12, Space Telescope Science Institute. https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/jwst/...

    2025

  7. [15]

    2004, , 426, 845, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035768

    Gloeckler , G., M \"o bius , E., Geiss , J., et al. 2004, , 426, 845, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035768

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    Gombosi, T. I. 2009, Physics of the Space Environment (Cambridge University Press)

    2009

  9. [17]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 57

    Gressier, A., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 57

    2025

  10. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Hui, H., et al. 2026. 2605.00851

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 661, A80

    Jakobsen, P., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 661, A80

    2022

  14. [22]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e04

    Judge, P., Tomczyk, S., Hannigan, J., & Sewell, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e04

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Justa, A. S. 1985, Handbook of Geophysics and the Space Environment (Air Force Geophysics Laboratory)

    1985

  16. [24]

    C., Mezger , A., & Rapp , M

    Kaifler , B., Geach , C., B \"u denbender , H. C., Mezger , A., & Rapp , M. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 6042, 10.1038/s41467-022-33751-6

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, 87--90, 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P \'e rez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, 87--90, 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Kuntz , K

    Koutroumpa , D., Collier , M. R., Kuntz , K. D., Lallement , R., & Snowden , S. L. 2009, , 697, 1214, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1214

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Y., & Team, N. A. 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database, 5.12. https://physics.nist.gov/asd

    2024

  20. [28]

    M., & Ramos, A

    Kuckein, C., Collados, M., Sainz, R. M., & Ramos, A. A. 2015, arXiv, 10.48550/arxiv.1502.05505

    2015 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    R., Arnaud, J., Jaeggli, S., Lin, H., & Moise, E

    Kuhn, J. R., Arnaud, J., Jaeggli, S., Lin, H., & Moise, E. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 667, L203, 10.1086/522370

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Penn, M

    Kuhn, J. R., Penn, M. J., & Mann, I. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 456, L67, 10.1086/309864

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    Kulkarni, S. R. 2025. 2509.14499

    2025

  24. [32]

    R., Beichman, C., & Ressler, M

    Kulkarni, S. R., Beichman, C., & Ressler, M. E. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 054301

    2024

  25. [33]

    2002, in The Century of Space Science, Volume I, ed

    Lallement , R. 2002, in The Century of Space Science, Volume I, ed. J. A. Bleeker , J. Geiss , & M. C. E. Huber , 1191

    2002

  26. [34]

    C., Bertaux , J.-L., et al

    Lallement , R., Raymond , J. C., Bertaux , J.-L., et al. 2004, , 426, 867, 10.1051/0004-6361:200400028

    2004 doi

  27. [35]

    2017, Description and Use of the JWST Science Instrument Aperture File, Tech

    Lallo, M. 2017, Description and Use of the JWST Science Instrument Aperture File, Tech. Rep. JWST-STScI-001550, Space Telescope Science Institute. https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/jwst/documentation/technical-documents/_documents/JWST-STScI-001550.pdf

    2017

  28. [36]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628490

    Leenaarts, J., Golding, T., Carlsson, M., Libbrecht, T., & Joshi, J. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628490

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 86

    Louie, D., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 86

    2025

  30. [38]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56--61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56--61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Raymond, J

    Michels, J. G., Raymond, J. C., Bertaux, J. L., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 385, 10.1086/338764

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 426, 897, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035834

    M \"o bius, E., Bzowski, M., Chalov, S., et al. 2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 426, 897, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035834

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Casini, R., Bryans, P., Berkey, B., & Tyson, K

    Molnar, M. E., Casini, R., Bryans, P., Berkey, B., & Tyson, K. 2025, arXiv, 10.48550/arxiv.2501.01009

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python . https://ascl.net/1606.014

    2016

  35. [43]

    2026, Codex

    OpenAI . 2026, Codex

    2026

  36. [44]

    2026, Python

    Python Software Foundation . 2026, Python . https://www.python.org/

    2026

  37. [45]

    2024, PASP, 136, 015001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b36

    Rauscher, Bernard, J. 2024, PASP, 136, 015001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b36

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    J., & Tufte, S

    Reynolds, R. J., & Tufte, S. L. 1995, Astrophysical Journal, 439, L17, 10.1086/187734

    1995 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 048001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 048001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Rucinski , D., Bzowski , M., & Fahr , H. J. 2003, Annales Geophysicae, 21, 1315, 10.5194/angeo-21-1315-2003

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, pysiaf , v0.5.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3516964

    Sahlmann, J., Osborne, S., Cox, C., et al. 2019, pysiaf , v0.5.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3516964

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    J., et al

    Shajib, A. J., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 702, L12

    2025

  43. [51]

    2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment

    Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory . 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment . https://ascl.net/0003.002

    2000

  44. [52]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac16dd

    Son, J., Cha, J., Moon, Y.-J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac16dd

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Dokgo, K., Sokół, J

    Starkey, M. J., Dokgo, K., Sokół, J. M., et al. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, 10.1029/2024ja033660

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Bzowski, M., et al

    Swaczyna, P., Kubiak, M. A., Bzowski, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4bde

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    The pandas development team . 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    1994, Skycalc User's Manual , Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College

    Thorstensen, J. 1994, Skycalc User's Manual , Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College. https://noirlab.edu/science/sites/default/files/media/archives/documents/scidoc0146-en.pdf

    1994

  49. [57]

    2004, , 426, 855, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035887

    Vallerga , J., Lallement , R., Lemoine , M., Dalaudier , F., & McMullin , D. 2004, , 426, 855, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035887

    2004 doi

  50. [58]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 426, 835, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035956

    Witte, M. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 426, 835, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035956

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    1993, Advances in Space Research, 13, 121, 10.1016/0273-1177(93)90401-V

    Witte , M., Rosenbauer , H., Banaszkiewicz , M., & Fahr , H. 1993, Advances in Space Research, 13, 121, 10.1016/0273-1177(93)90401-V

    1993 doi

  52. [60]

    J., M \"o bius , E., Zhang , M., et al

    Zirnstein , E. J., M \"o bius , E., Zhang , M., et al. 2022, , 218, 28, 10.1007/s11214-022-00895-2

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.