Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 22 references

WST, the Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope: dispersing elements

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that the grating technologies under consideration for WST's three instruments are feasible with existing or near-term fabrication routes, with no major showstopper identified so far, and that the preferred split is…

desk verdict Honest, well-scoped feasibility review of WST grating options; the central claim holds as a status report but rests on vendor curves and one R&D-grade efficiency number that need prototype validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07284 v1 pith:2JX4TTCW submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.IM physics.ins-det

Andrea Bianco , Michele Frangiamore , Anna Brucalassi , Dimitri Buffat , Corentin Cudennec , Kjetil Dohlen , Alexandre Jeanneau , David Lee
show 2 more authors
Will Saunders Andrea Tozzi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.ins-det
keywords Wide-fieldSpectroscopicTelescopediffractiongratingsVPHGbinarylithographymulti-objectspectroscopyintegralfieldspectrographdesign
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

The Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST) is a proposed 12-meter facility whose three spectrographs will need hundreds of large diffraction gratings, so the question is not only whether each grating can reach its diffraction-efficiency target but whether the whole set can be fabricated in time and at acceptable cost. This paper argues that, based on vendor designs and quotes, the answer is yes for most candidates: no major feasibility showstopper has emerged. The proposed baseline splits technologies: Volume Phase Holographic Gratings (VPHGs) for the integral-field spectrograph, binary lithographic gratings for the high-resolution multi-object spectrograph, and either technology, or a band-by-band mix, for the low-resolution multi-object spectrograph. The remaining central risk is production logistics: hundreds of units, several substrate types, and characterization throughput, not single-grating performance.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a technology trade matrix comparing two disperser types. VPHGs record a refractive-index modulation $\Delta n$ in a holographic layer of thickness $d$ between glass substrates; their efficiency peak and spectral width are set by these two material parameters, and a slanted fringe geometry shifts the peak away from Littrow. Binary gratings are lithographically patterned, etched rectangular grooves in fused silica, where duty cycle and groove depth control efficiency, and backfilling can tune index mismatch. The paper uses vendor-supplied diffraction-efficiency curves for each instrument arm as the load-bearing evidence, and couples them with production-capability information: grating size, line density, angle of incidence, and the trend that higher angular dispersion favors binary profiles while lower dispersion favors VPHGs.

What would settle it

Measure a pilot batch of production-representative gratings for each instrument arm, at least ten units per type, and compare their absolute diffraction efficiency across the full spectral band to the quoted curves; if, for example, enhanced binary gratings in MOS-HR fail to approach the predicted 95% average or the bluest IFS VPHGs fall below the instrument budget, the feasibility conclusion would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its conclusions, is that most of the candidate gratings appear feasible with existing or near-term technology, with no major showstopper identified so far. The evidence is the set of diffraction-efficiency curves and feasibility feedback supplied by vendors for each instrument arm. For the IFS, 200 blue and 200 red VPHGs with roughly 200 mm beams show average efficiencies of 75–78% in the INAF design and flatter, slightly lower curves from Wasatch, both judged mature. For MOS-LR, binary gratings from Plymouth reach about 82% average efficiency in the bluer bands while the IZ band favors VPHGs, leaving the technology choice open across the four GRISM arms. For MOS-HR, binary gratings are the more promising route: with a standard etching process the 8M16D design achieves about 65% average efficiency, and an enhanced process promises about 95%, while the compact 16M4D design reaches above 90% with Fraunhofer IOF; VPHGs in the same high-dispersion regimes are more peaked and drop below 30% at short wavelengths.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that vendor-supplied diffraction-efficiency curves, several of them nominal simulations rather than measurements, will hold across hundreds of mass-produced units, with wavefront and stray-light performance left unconstrained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the feasibility conclusion holds, the IFS can keep its VPHG baseline; the 400-unit production at roughly one spectrograph per day will require dedicated manufacturing and characterization setups.
  • MOS-HR binary gratings can deliver higher efficiency than VPHGs in the high-dispersion regime, with enhanced etching raising the 8M16D design from about 65% to about 95% average efficiency.
  • MOS-LR does not need a single-technology decision: a band-by-band mix, with binary gratings for UB/V/R and VPHGs for IZ, is explicitly plausible.
  • The large 8M16D binary gratings require an upgrade of vendor etching facilities beyond the current 450 mm transmission-grating limit; that upgrade is judged straightforward and aligned with the WST timeline.
  • The next consolidation step is to convert nominal vendor efficiency curves into guaranteed production performance, including wavefront and stray-light requirements that were deliberately not set in this study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the comparison currently rests on nominal vendor curves; if measured pilot units show lower efficiency, especially for the enhanced binary process, the MOS-HR preference for binary gratings could shift back toward VPHGs.
  • Editorial inference: a testable next step is to fabricate a small pilot batch of each grating type and measure absolute diffraction efficiency and polarization splitting across the full band, which would directly validate or invalidate the feasibility claim.
  • Editorial inference: cost and schedule may end up deciding the MOS-LR choice more than efficiency, since the paper gives only indicative production-rate estimates and notes multiple AR-coating substrate types raise cost.
  • Editorial inference: the same technology trade matrix could inform other wide-field spectroscopic facilities needing hundreds of large dispersers, since the scaling argument from telescope diameter to grating size is generic.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes the disperser trade-off study for the three WST instruments (IFS, MOS-LR, MOS-HR), comparing Volume Phase Holographic Gratings (VPHGs) and binary (lithographic, surface-relief) gratings. It presents baseline grating parameters and vendor-supplied diffraction-efficiency (DE) curves from INAF, Wasatch, Plymouth, Horiba, and Fraunhofer IOF, and concludes in Section 4 that most candidate gratings are feasible with existing or near-term technology, with VPHGs preferred for the IFS, binary gratings more promising for MOS-HR, and both technologies viable for MOS-LR. The paper also identifies mass production of hundreds of units as the main open challenge.

Significance. If the stated feasibility conclusions are validated, the paper provides a useful component-level basis for WST's instrument design and for engaging grating vendors at an early stage. Its strengths include the involvement of multiple independent vendors, explicit tabulation of grating parameters and architectures, and candid acknowledgment of several limitations (nominal efficiencies, unset wavefront/straylight requirements, R&D-dependent performance). The central claim, however, is currently supported only by vendor-declared model curves without measured uncertainties, and in the strongest binary-grating case by an R&D projection not yet demonstrated at full size. The paper is therefore a valuable status report whose quantitative conclusions remain conditional on further measurement and disclosure.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2 (MOS-LR, Fig. 5) and Section 4] The feasibility conclusion in Section 4 rests on vendor-supplied DE curves that are largely nominal simulations. The text itself states in Section 3.2 that 'these efficiencies are the nominal one and they don't consider possible discrepancies from the theory.' Without either estimated uncertainties, a measured pilot-lot comparison, or an explicit statement that the conclusion is a simulation-based feasibility screening, the claim that 'most of the candidate gratings appear feasible' is stronger than the evidence supports.
  2. [Section 3.3 (MOS-HR, Fig. 7)] The 95% average DE quoted for the 8M16D binary grating is attributed to 'enhanced etching based on R&D activity,' and the text immediately notes that an upgrade of the etching facility is necessary for the 450 mm transmission size. This is a projected capability, not a demonstrated one, and it is the basis for declaring binary gratings 'the more promising option for MOS-HR.' The comparison should be rerun with a sensitivity analysis over the realistically achievable DE range (e.g., from the current ~65% standard process to the R&D target), and the maturity level of the enhanced-etch process should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 3.3 (MOS-HR, Fig. 8)] For the 16M4D binary gratings, IOF provided DE curves for only the two bluest spectral ranges, and the text assumes the remaining ranges behave similarly because 'the AOIs are similar.' This extrapolation is load-bearing for the statement that binary gratings 'increase the total throughput of the HR spectrographs,' but it is not supported by shown curves or modeling. The authors should provide at least modeled DE curves for all four ranges, or state the assumption as a placeholder that requires vendor confirmation.
  4. [Sections 3.1 and 3.3 (Fig. 3 and Fig. 6)] INAF is both an author institution and a VPHG vendor, and its DE curves are systematically higher than Wasatch's, with the difference attributed to 'different coefficients' used to correct for residual absorption and non-idealities. Since these correction coefficients are not disclosed, the cross-vendor comparison is not fully reproducible, and the reader cannot assess whether the INAF curves are optimistic or Wasatch's are conservative. The paper should report the applied correction coefficients or reframe the comparison as vendor-specific without claiming a relative performance advantage.
  5. [Section 2.4 (design drivers)] The statement that 'No requirements were set on the wavefront distortion and straylight' means that the current feasibility conclusion is scoped to diffraction efficiency only. This scope should be restated in Section 4, and the paper should note whether the candidate gratings are expected to meet typical wavefront and stray-light budgets based on prior experience, or whether those remain open items that could affect the feasibility ranking.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1 (Eq. 1)] Equation (1) is referenced in the text but does not appear in the manuscript; please ensure the equation is actually included and typeset.
  2. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'the inclination angle is difficult to control' would be clearer as 'the sidewall angle of the binary grooves is difficult to control,' since inclination is not otherwise defined.
  3. [Section 3.3 (16M4D)] The sentence 'the first order of diffraction cannot propagate in air' is cryptic; please explain the physical reason (e.g., the diffraction angle exceeds 90° or total internal reflection at the grating-air interface) so that the GRISM choice is self-contained.
  4. [Section 3.3 (8M16D)] The claim that the etching-facility upgrade to 450 mm is 'straightforward' would benefit from a reference to a vendor statement or a technical cost/schedule estimate; as written it is an unsupported optimism.
  5. [Section 3.1] The target production rate of '1 equivalent spectrograph per day' is quoted without yield assumptions; given that yield is a major cost driver for hundreds of units, please state the assumed or required yield explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the feasibility survey is anchored to external vendor diffraction-efficiency inputs; the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that most candidate gratings appear feasible—is a synthesis of vendor-supplied DE curves and production-size feedback, not a derivation from the paper's own assumptions. Section 3.2 explicitly flags that binary LR efficiencies 'are the nominal one and they don't consider possible discrepancies from the theory,' and Section 2.4 states 'No requirements were set on the wavefront distortion and straylight.' These are acknowledged limitations rather than circular reductions; they lower confidence but do not make the conclusion equivalent to its inputs. The only self-related feature is that INAF authors are also a VPHG vendor whose in-house curves are used alongside independent Wasatch curves; the paper itself discloses that 'INAF and Wasatch apply different coefficients in this sense,' so the difference is attributed to correction conventions rather than a hidden fit. The INAF 450-mm facility claim is supported by a self-citation ([19]), but because Wasatch independently provides large-format VPHGs and the binary-grating conclusions come from external vendors (Plymouth, IOF, Horiba), the citation is not load-bearing for the overall feasibility result. Section 3.3's 95% average DE for MOS-HR binary gratings is explicitly tied to 'enhanced etching based on R&D activity' and an 'upgrade of the etching facility,' i.e., near-term rather than demonstrated capability; this is a correctness caveat, not a circular step. No equation or fitted parameter is reused as its own prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Verdict: no significant circularity, with the score of 1 reflecting minor self-citation and in-house vendor involvement.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central feasibility claim is an engineering assessment, not a derivation. Its quantitative content is supplied by vendor models and by the authors' own INAF VPHG designs, with correction coefficients and R&D projections acting as hidden degrees of freedom. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Vendor DE correction coefficients for residual absorption and non-idealities = Not disclosed; varies by vendor
    INAF and Wasatch apply different coefficients to convert theoretical DE to realistic curves, causing average DE differences of about 64 to 67 percent versus 71 to 74 percent for the same 8M16D gratings. The central comparison depends on these adjusted curves.
  • Plymouth enhanced etching R&D efficiency gain = 65% standard to 95% average DE, claimed
    The conclusion that binary gratings dominate MOS-HR rests partly on an R&D-improved profile not yet in standard production; this is a projected, not measured, parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Vendor-provided diffraction efficiency curves accurately represent manufactured grating performance.
    The feasibility conclusion is built on Figures 3 to 8 supplied by vendors; the paper itself notes Plymouth curves are nominal and do not include discrepancies from theory in Section 3.2.
  • standard math The spectrograph size scaling relation in eq. (1) is valid for the WST instrument trade-offs.
    Used to set the trade-off between grating line density, collimated beam size, and resolving power in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption VPHG efficiency is governed by refractive index modulation and layer thickness, and binary grating efficiency by duty cycle and groove depth.
    Adopted from cited literature in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 to interpret vendor curves and compare technologies.
  • ad hoc to paper The two MOS-HR architectures, 8M16D and 16M4D, bracket the feasible range of grating size and angular dispersion for WST.
    The 16M4D design is still under review, yet the recommendation for binary gratings in MOS-HR depends on this architecture being consolidated; stated in Section 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WST, the Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope: dispersing elements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JX4TTCW

@misc{pith2026260807284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WST, the Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope: dispersing elements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JX4TTCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07284}
}
read the original abstract

The Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST) is a proposed 12-m class facility entirely dedicated to spectroscopic surveys, combining a high-multiplex multi-object spectrograph operating at low (MOS-LR) and high (MOS-HR) spectral resolution with a giant panoramic integral-field spectrograph (IFS), all three operating in parallel. Diffraction gratings are the key dispersing elements of all three instruments and, given the very large number and size of the units required, drive critical trade-offs in throughput, feasibility and production cost. This paper reviews the two grating technologies under consideration for WST, Volume Phase Holographic Gratings (VPHG) and binary (lithographic, surface-relief) gratings, summarizing their working principles and the parameters that control their diffraction efficiency. We then present the current baseline grating parameters and vendor results for each instrument: low-dispersion, VPHGs for the IFS; a four-arm GRISM layout for MOS-LR; and two competing high-resolution disperser architectures (8M16D and 16M4D) for MOS-HR, where binary gratings show a promising path to diffraction efficiencies beyond what is achievable with VPHGs. We conclude with the main open challenges, chiefly the mass production of hundreds of grating units within cost and schedule and the next steps foreseen to consolidate the disperser baseline for WST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07284 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scheme of the best technology of the diffr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scheme of a VPHG (left) and a binary grat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. IFS gratings. On the left: Diffraction eff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LR gratings. On the left: Diffraction effi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LR gratings, binary gratings by Plymouth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HR VPHGs for 8M16D. On the left: diffraction efficiency curves of the four VPHGs by INAF. On the right: diffraction efficiency curves by Wasatch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HR binary gratings for 8M16D by Plymouth, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gratings for 16M4D. On top: DE curves of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    WST – Widefield Spectroscopic Tel escope: Motivation, science drivers and top-level requirements for a new dedicated facility

    Bacon, R., Maineiri, V., Randich, S., Cimatti, A., Kneib, J.-P., Brinchmann, J., Ellis, R., Tolstoi, E., Smiljanic, R., Hill, V., Anderson, R., Saez, P. S., Opitom, C., Bryson, I., Dierickx, P., Garilli, B., Gonzalez, O., Jong, R. de, Lee, D., et al., “WST – Widefield Spectroscopic Tel escope: Motivation, science drivers and top-level requirements for a n...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    The Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST) Science White Paper

    Mainieri, V., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., Cimatti, A., Ellis, R. S., Hill, V., Kneib, J.-P., McLeod, A. F., Opitom, C., Roth, M. M., Sanchez-Saez, P., Smiljanic, R., Tolstoy, E., Bacon, R., Randich, S., Adamo, A., Annibali, F., Arevalo, P., Audard, M., et al., “The Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST) Science White Paper” arXiv:2403.05398v2 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    and Foy, F.-C., eds., [Optics in Astro physics], Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2005)

    Foy, R. and Foy, F.-C., eds., [Optics in Astro physics], Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Materials for VPHGs: practical consider ations in the case of astronomical instrumentation,

    Bianco, A., Pariani, G., Zanutta, A. and Berta relli, C., “Materials for VPHGs: practical consider ations in the case of astronomical instrumentation,” Proc. SPIE 8450, 84502W (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Volume Phase Ho lographic Gratings: Polarization Properties and Diffraction Efficiency,

    Baldry, I. K., Bland ‐Hawthorn, J. and Robertson, J. G., “Volume Phase Ho lographic Gratings: Polarization Properties and Diffraction Efficiency,” Publication s of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 116 (819), 403 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Volume ‐Phase Holographic Gratings and the Efficiency of Three Simple Volume ‐Phase Holographic Gratings,

    Barden, S. C., Arns, J. A., Colburn, W. S. and Williams, J. B., “Volume ‐Phase Holographic Gratings and the Efficiency of Three Simple Volume ‐Phase Holographic Gratings,” PUBL ASTRON SOC PAC 112 (772), 809– 820 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    VPHGs for astr onomy: what we learnt in OPTICON EU and manufacturing perspectives,

    Bianco, A., Frangiamore, M., Zanutta, A., Gall i, P., Garzón, F. and Insausti, M., “VPHGs for astr onomy: what we learnt in OPTICON EU and manufacturing perspectives,” Proc. SPIE 12188 , 1218823 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    VPH transmission grating design considerations for spectrograph designers,

    Elroy L. Pearson and Cicely A. Rathmell., “VPH transmission grating design considerations for spectrograph designers,” Proc. SPIE 12188 , 1218822 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Characteriz ation of two ultraviolet-blue volume-phase holographic gratings based on dichromated gelatin and photopolymer recording materials,

    Jeanneau, A., Bianco, A., Clawson, A., Frangia more, M., Pearson, E., Pinard, L., Schmoll, J., Richard, J., Giroud, R., Laurent, F. and Bacon, R., “Characteriz ation of two ultraviolet-blue volume-phase holographic gratings based on dichromated gelatin and photopolymer recordi...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Recombination Ghosts in Li ttrow Configuration: Implications for Spectrographs Using Volume Phase Holographic Gratings,

    Burgh, E. B., Bershady, M. A., Westfall, K. B . and Nordsieck, K. H., “Recombination Ghosts in Li ttrow Configuration: Implications for Spectrographs Using Volume Phase Holographic Gratings,” Publications o f the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 119 (859), 1069–1082 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    High-efficiency binary pha se-transmission- grating using e-beam lithography,

    Glaser, T., Schröter, S., Pöhlmann, R., Fuchs , H.-J. and Bartel, H., “High-efficiency binary pha se-transmission- grating using e-beam lithography,” Journal of Moder n Optics 45 (7), 1487–1494 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Reactive ion beam etchi ng of highly dispersive, high-efficiency transmission gratings for the VIS range,

    Finzel, A., Koch, F., Dornberg, G., Lehr, D., Frost, F. and Glaser, T., “Reactive ion beam etchi ng of highly dispersive, high-efficiency transmission gratings for the VIS range,” Opt. Eng. 58 (09), 1 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Surface relief gratings manufactured by lithographic means being a candidate for VLT MOONS instrument’s main dispersers,

    Harzendorf, T., Michaelis, D., Flügel-Paul, T ., Bianco, A., Oliva, E. and Zeitner, U., “Surface relief gratings manufactured by lithographic means being a candidate for VLT MOONS instrument’s main dispersers,” Proc . SPIE 10706 , 1070621 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    High effi ciency transmission grating for the ESO CUBES UV spectrograph,

    Zeitner, U., Dekker, H., Burmeister, F., Flüg el-Paul, T., Bianco, A. and Zanutta, A., “High effi ciency transmission grating for the ESO CUBES UV spectrograph,” EXPERIMENTAL ASTRONOMY 55 (1), 281–300 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    https://wasatchphotonics.com/

  8. [16]

    https://www.horiba.com/fra/scientific/product s/diffraction-gratings-for-industrial-oem-and-scientific-research

  9. [17]

    https://www.plymouthgrating.com/

  10. [18]

    https://www.iof.fraunhofer.de/en/competences/ micronano/grating.html

  11. [19]

    VPHG@IN AF: toward large size and diffraction efficiency

    Andrea Bianco, Michele Frangiamore, Andrea Va nella, Luca Oggioni, and Giorgio Pariani., “VPHG@IN AF: toward large size and diffraction efficiency" Proc. SPIE, 13100 , 131001U (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Guiding design choices for wide-field IFS: trade-off between replication and complexity for WST,

    Cudennec, Corentin., “Guiding design choices for wide-field IFS: trade-off between replication and complexity for WST,” presented at Proc. SPIE, 14149 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    The Wide-field Spectroscop ic Telescope (WST): design trade-offs for the low-resolution multiobject spectrograph instrument,

    Buffat, Dimitri., “The Wide-field Spectroscop ic Telescope (WST): design trade-offs for the low-resolution multiobject spectrograph instrument,” presented at Proc. SPIE, 14149 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    Current status of the high-r esolution multiobject spectrograph (MOS-HR) for the wide-field spectroscopic telescope,

    Tozzi, Andrea., “Current status of the high-r esolution multiobject spectrograph (MOS-HR) for the wide-field spectroscopic telescope,” presented at Proc. SPIE, 14149 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.