3 ms·
> JWST does the same job much, much better. Close: JWST is near-infrared. SOFIA was the last and remaining far-infrared telescope. There's debate though if far
by exabrial 4y ago
> JWST does the same job much, much better.
Close: JWST is near-infrared. SOFIA was the last and remaining far-infrared telescope. There's debate though if far-infrared was worth it though.
- cycomanic 4y agoNot sure what you call near IR but JWST has a range from 600nm to 28micrometers. Typicaly people start talking about mid-air from 2 micrometers. So I would say JWST definitely covers beyond near IR
- privong 4y ago> Not sure what you call near IR but JWST has a range from 600nm to 28micrometers. Typicaly people start talking about mid-air from 2 micrometers. So I would say JWST definitely covers beyond near IR. JWST covers the mid-infrared too, as you implied. But @exabrial's point still stands, that SOFIA's coverage included much longer wavelengths than JWST does. SOFIA had instruments that could observe wavelengths as long as 1600 microns[0]. [0] https://www.sofia.usra.edu/about-sofia/sofia-overview https://www.sofia.usra.edu/about-sofia/sofia-overview
- cycomanic 4y agoInteresting 1600microns is mm waves, so that must be a different instrument? I don't think you could use the same "telescope* for imaging optical and what is essentially rf waves. Unfortunately the website doesn't give enough details without diving into the abbreviated instruments.
- privong 4y ago> There's debate though if far-infrared was worth it though. I don't think there's debate about whether the far-infrared is valuable. The far-infrared has unique diagnostic power for some astrophysical phenomena, and the 2020 Decadal Survey for Astronomy specifically called for the far-infrared to be considered for a $1B "probe-class" mission. What was debated was the specific role and cost of SOFIA.