Three prevailing themes in the discussion
| Theme | What users said | Representative quotes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Technical limits of lower‑frequency (radio) astronomy | Users repeatedly pointed out that as wavelength grows, the required aperture becomes huge, making space‑based radio telescopes impractical. The engineering and thermal challenges of a large, cold mirror are far greater than for infrared. | “The lower the frequency, the larger the wavelength and thus the larger the cupola needed to detect it.” – jacques_morin “Focusing radio waves, especially when the source is distant requires a massive structure and to keep that structure sufficiently cool and structurally rigid is a major challenge.” – jacquesm |
| 2. Existing ground‑based and space facilities already cover the radio/infrared gap | Several users listed the Square Kilometre Array, LOFAR, Herschel, SOFIA, and Planck as the current instruments that probe the long‑wavelength regime, making a new space‑infrared telescope the logical next step. | “We already have the square kilometer array.” – XorNot “For far IR/submillimeter observations we had Herschel in space, SOFIA in the stratosphere … but there are likely many astronomers who would love nothing more than a new spaceborne FIR telescope.” – Sharlin |
| 3. Scientific payoff of infrared observations | The discussion highlighted how JWST’s infrared sensitivity has already revealed unexpected, very early galaxies, motivating further investment in infrared space telescopes to probe the re‑ionization era and beyond. | “JWST has revealed a stunning population of bright galaxies at surprisingly early epochs, z > 10.” – 317070 “Every time a new class of telescope is built, it discovers fundamentally new phenomena.” – watersb |
These themes capture the main concerns—engineering feasibility, the role of existing instruments, and the scientific breakthroughs driving the push for more infrared space telescopes.