Bruce A. Banks

Science Application International Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Christian A. Kneubel

BAB Technology, LLC, Olmsted Township, Ohio

Kim K. de Groh

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Comparison of the Results of MISSE 6 Atomic

Oxygen Erosion Yields of Layered Kapton H

Films With Monte Carlo Computational Predictions

NASA/TM—2014-218411

November 2014
NASA STI Program . . . in Pro¿ le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scienti¿ c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Of¿ cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signi¿ cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signi¿ cant 

scienti¿ c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scienti¿ c 

and technical ¿ ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scienti¿ c and 

technical ¿ ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scienti¿ c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scienti¿ c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scienti¿ c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443–757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Bruce A. Banks

Science Application International Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Christian A. Kneubel

BAB Technology, LLC, Olmsted Township, Ohio

Kim K. de Groh

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Comparison of the Results of MISSE 6 Atomic

Oxygen Erosion Yields of Layered Kapton H

Films With Monte Carlo Computational Predictions

NASA/TM—2014-218411

November 2014

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identi¿ cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an of¿ cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 1 

Comparison of the Results of MISSE 6 Atomic Oxygen Erosion 

Yields of Layered Kapton H Films With Monte Carlo 

Computational Predictions 

Bruce A. Banks 

Science Application International Corporation 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Christian A. Kneubel 

BAB Technology, LLC 

Olmsted Township, Ohio 44138 

Kim K. de Groh 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

A space experiment flown as part of the Materials International Space Station Experiment 6B 

(MISSE 6B) was designed to compare the atomic oxygen erosion yield (Ey) of layers of Kapton H 

polyimide with no spacers between layers with that of layers of Kapton H with spacers between layers. 

The results were compared to a solid Kapton H (DuPont, Wilmington, DE) sample. Monte Carlo 

computational modeling was performed to optimize atomic oxygen interaction parameter values to match 

the results of both the MISSE 6B multilayer experiment and the undercut erosion profile from a crack 

defect in an aluminized Kapton H sample flown on the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). The 

Monte Carlo modeling produced credible agreement with space results of increased Ey for all samples 

with spacers as well as predicting the space-observed enhancement in erosion near the edges of samples 

due to scattering from the beveled edges of the sample holders. 

Introduction 

MISSE 6 Stacked Layer Experiment 

The Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) series consisted of flight experiment 

trays that were mounted to the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS) (Ref. 1). As part of the 

Stressed Polymers Experiment, a set of multilayer samples of Kapton H polyimide were located on the 

ram side of MISSE 6 Passive Experiment Carrier B (PEC 6B, see Figs. 1 and 2) (Ref. 2). It was deployed 

on the exterior of the ISS during the STS-123 shuttle mission on March 22, 2008. The experiment was 

oriented to receive directed AO exposure during the majority of the mission. The experiment remained in 

low Earth orbit (LEO) for approximately 1.45 years, until it was retrieved during the STS-128 shuttle 

mission on September 1, 2009. Figure 1 shows MISSE 6A and 6B on the exterior of the Columbus 

Laboratory, as imaged in March 2008 during the STS-123 mission. 

The set of multilayered samples flown on MISSE 6B was designed to compare the atomic oxygen 

erosion yield, Ey, (volume removed by oxidation per incident atom) of layers of Kapton H polyimide 

with no spacers between layers with that of layers of Kapton H with spacers between layers. It was 

theorized and confirmed by the tests in this paper that as atomic oxygen begins to erode through the layers 

of Kapton H, the erosion yield increases for layers that are spaced compared to that of a solid, thick, 

single layer or for a stacked sample with no or minimal spacing between the layers, because of trapping of 

atomic oxygen after it begins to penetrate through the layers of Kapton (Ref. 1). 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 2 

Figure 1.—The International Space Station (photographed in March 2008) with a close-up photo of MISSE 6A and 6B 

on the Columbus Laboratory (Ref. 3). 

Figure 2.—MISSE 6B on the Columbus Laboratory showing the location of the W6 tray and the multilayer samples 

(Ref. 2). 

 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 3 

The space experiment consisted of a 1 in. (2.54 cm) square Kapton H fluence witness sample (W6-5) 

consisting of three 0.005 in. (0.0127 cm) thick layers and two sets of 1 in. (2.54 cm) square samples each 

consisting of 10 layers of 0.0005 in. (0.00127 cm thick) Kapton H with one (W6-10) or two (W6-9) 5 mil 

thick Kapton H samples at the bottom. The purpose of the thick Kapton H layers on the bottom of the thin 

layered samples was simply to make sure that some Kapton H remained in case of a high fluence 

exposure due to delayed retrieval of the MISSE-6 carrier. One sample (W6-10) was flown with no 

intentional spacing between each layer even though the sample probably contained some random small 

gaps due to the wavy nature of the very thin sample layers. The other sample was flown with 0.014 in. 

(0.0356 cm) thick aluminum spacers between each of the 0.0005 in. (0.00127 cm thick) layers of 

Kapton H. Both samples were exposed in the ram direction on MISSE 6B for 1.45 years and were 

exposed to an atomic oxygen fluence of 1.90r0.05u1021 atoms/cm2

 as determined by the Kapton H 

fluence witness sample (Ref. 2). Because of the mission fluence, only the top layer of the 0.005 in. 

Kapton H fluence witness sample experienced erosion. Table 1 compares the atomic oxygen erosion 

yields of a 0.005 in. (0.00127 cm) single sheet of Kapton H (i.e., the Kapton witness fluence sample 

W6-5), along with the thin layered samples W6-9 and W6-10 based on post-flight weight measurements 

(Refs. 2 and 4). 

The slightly higher erosion yield (2.67 percent) of the layered sample with no spacers 

(3.08u10–24 cm3

/atom) compared to the thick single layer (3.00u10–24 cm3/atom) is thought to be due to 

random small gaps due to the wavy shape of the samples. Figure 3 compares post- flight photographs 

which show the differences between the tightly-spaced and widely-spaced layered MISSE 6B Kapton H 

samples (Ref. 2). 

As can be seen from Figure 3, the atomic oxygen eroded completely through the top four layers of 

Kapton H, and the fifth layer down shows indications that there was a locally higher flux at the perimeter 

of the samples. Such enhanced edge erosion has also been observed on many samples on this and other 

MISSE missions (Ref. 5). This phenomenon is thought to be due to scattered atomic oxygen from the 45q

chamfered edges of the sample holder which added to the direct ram atomic oxygen flux. A MISSE 

Atomic Oxygen Scattering Chamber Experiment with atomic oxygen scattering off an aluminum base has 

been found to not scatter in a cosine distribution but predominantly at 45q from the arriving direction 

which may contribute to some enhancement of oxidation in the vicinity of the chamfered edges (Ref. 6). 

The intent of this paper is to improve the interaction parameter values used for Monte Carlo atomic 

oxygen interaction modeling to determine if the erosion yield results of the space exposure can be 

predicted. 

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF ATOMIC OXYGEN EROSION YIELDS OF MISSE 6 LAYERED KAPTON H SAMPLES 

Sample configuration Measured atomic oxygen erosion yields, 

cm3/atom 

1 to 0.005 in. thick layer 

(MISSE 6 Sample W6-5) 

3.00r0.07u10–24

10 to 0.0005 in. thick layers with no spacers 

(MISSE 6 Sample W6-10) 

3.08u10–24

10 to 0.0005 in. thick layers with 0.014 in. spacers 

(MISSE 6 Sample W6-9) 

3.25u10–24

 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 4 

(a) (b) 

Figure 3.—Schematics and post-flight photos of thin stacked Kapton H samples, showing individual sample layers: 

(a) Kapton H (10 to 0.5 mil layers plus two 5 mil layers at bottom) with no spacers and (b) Kapton H (10 to 0.5 mil 

layers plus one 5 mil layer at bottom with 0.014 in. thick Al spacers in between each layer). 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 5 

Monte Carlo Computational Model 

A Monte Carlo computational model has been developed to mathematically simulate the erosion of 

polymers by modeling atomic oxygen interaction on and oxidation of Kapton H (Refs. 7 to 9) using a 

finite array of cells to represent the polymer. The model is a two dimensional array of simulated polymer 

square cells (1000u1000 cells) that are removed when atomic oxygen oxidizes them. The model allows 

great flexibility in assumptions so that the interaction parameters can be tuned to replicate observed 

erosion in a variety of atomic oxygen environments including ram or sweeping hyperthermal low Earth 

orbital atomic oxygen, or isotropic thermal energy oxygen representative of radio frequency plasma 

ashers. Atoms are mathematically impinged upon a test surface in random locations upon a polymer 

surface or a surface that adjoins a polymer. 

Upon impact with a non-reactive surface such as aluminum or silicon dioxide, the atomic oxygen can 

recombine to become chemically inactive or remain atomic and scatter with reduced energy in either a 

specular, random cosine (Lambertian) direction, or a prescribed direction relative to the local surface 

normal. After scattering, the atoms then have another chance of reacting, recombining, or scattering. 

If the atomic oxygen impacts a polymer with volatile oxides it can react causing the removal of a 

computational cell or it can be ejected without reaction in a similar manner as scattering off nonreactive 

materials. An energy dependent reaction probability, PE, was assumed given by 

ܲா ൌ ܿ݁

ିாಲ ாൗ

Where c = 3.178u10–24

EA = activation energy = 0.26 eV based on optimization (Ref. 10) 

E = atomic oxygen impact energy, eV = 4.5 eV 

In addition to energy dependence of reaction there appears to be a reaction probability dependence on 

the arriving direction relative to the local surface normal direction. This reaction probability dependence, 

PC is given by 

ܲ஼ = ሺ ߠሻ௡

Where ߠ = the angle between the arriving atomic oxygen direction and the local surface normal 

݊ = cosine exponent = 0.5 based on optimization (Ref. 10). 

Because the Monte Carlo model is two dimensional, the arriving atomic oxygen can be assumed to be 

in the horizontal or vertical plane relative to the Earth’s surface. There is a slightly different angular 

distribution in arriving atoms for each plane due to the combined effects of co-rotation of the Earth’s 

atmosphere, orbital inclination, and the hot Maxwell Boltzman distribution of the thermospheric atomic 

oxygen (Ref. 10). 

An analysis of the results of the LEO reaction of atomic oxygen with protected Kapton H at coating 

defect sites, allowed the Monte Carlo interaction parameters to be optimized to produce erosion prediction 

results that replicated LEO results (Ref. 8). These interaction parameters are listed in Table 2. It is the 

differences in erosion yield of atomic oxygen interacting with multilayer films that may help optimize the 

Monte Carlo interaction parameter values to improve the model's ability to replicate space results. 

 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 6 

TABLE 2.—MONTE CARLO INTERACTION PARAMETERS (REF. 10) 

Interaction parameter Value 

Atomic oxygen initial impact reaction probability 0.09 

Activation energy, EA, in eV for energy dependent reaction probability 0.26 

Atomic oxygen reaction probability dependence exponent upon angle of impact, n, where the reaction 

probability = PE•(cos T

n where T is the angle between the arrival direction and the local surface normal and 

PE is the energy dependent reaction probability at normal incidence 

0.5 

Probability of atomic oxygen recombination upon impact with protective coating 0.25 

Probability of atomic oxygen recombination upon impact with polymer 0.35 

Fractional energy loss, f, upon impact with polymer 0.45 

Fractional energy loss upon impact with protective coating 0.28 

Degree of specularity as opposed to diffuse scattering of atomic oxygen upon non-reactive impact with 

protective coating where 1 = fully specular and 0 = fully diffuse scattering 0.045 

Degree of specularity as opposed to diffuse scattering of atomic oxygen upon non-reactive impact with 

polymer where 1 = fully specular and 

0 = fully diffuse scattering 

0.5 

Temperature for thermally accommodated atomic oxygen atoms, K 300 

Limit of how many bounces the atomic oxygen atoms are allowed to make before an estimate of the 

probability of reaction is assigned 25 

Thermally accommodated energy/actual atom energy for atoms assumed to be thermally accommodated 0.9 

Initial atomic oxygen energy, eV 4.5 

Thermospheric atomic oxygen temperature, K 1000 

Atomic oxygen arrival plane relative to Earth for a Maxwell-Boltzmann atomic oxygen temperature 

distribution and an orbital inclination of 28.5q Horizontal 

Results and Discussion 

Due to the finite size of the Monte Carlo model simulation, atomic oxygen erosion of five layers of 

Kapton H was not possible for the current model. However the simulation of four layers was possible. 

Simulation of multiple layers of Kapton with no spacers between the layers would appear to a 

computational model as identical to a single sheet of Kapton. Thus a minimum spacing of one Monte 

Carlo cell (equivalent to 0.056 mills) was used to represent a gap with no spacers between layers. For 

modeling consistency with the space experiment, the ratio of the polymer thickness to the spacer 

thickness was made to be the same for both the space experiment and the Monte Carlo model. The 

number of Monte Carlo atoms entered was the same (400,000) for each configuration simulated. Use of 

the Table 2 Monte Carlo interaction parameters resulted in slightly higher erosion yields for the single 

thick polymer layer than either of the two thin multilayer configurations. As a result computational tests 

were conducted with various modifications to the values of the Table 2 interaction parameters in an effort 

to more closely match the relative erosion yields of Table 1 as well as the undercut cavity data from 

Reference 10. Figure 4 compares the erosion from a crack defect in an aluminized Kapton H sample 

retrieved from the Long Duration Exposure Facility (Ref. 10). The modified Monte Carlo interaction 

parameter values are listed in Table 3. 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 7 

(a) (b) 

(c) (d) 

Figure 4.—Comparison of the erosion profiles from a crack defect in an aluminized Kapton H sample 

retrieved from the LDEF (Ref. 10) and Monte Carlo results from using the interaction parameters of 

Table 3: (a) Scanning electron microscope image showing crack defect in the aluminum coating, 

(b) Scanning electron microscope normal incident image showing undercut cavity below crack with 

aluminum coating chemically removed, (c) Scanning electron microscope tilted image showing undercut 

cavity below crack with aluminum coating chemically removed, and (d) Monte Carlo simulation using 

Table 3 interaction parameters. 

TABLE 3.—MODIFIED MONTE CARLO INTERACTION PARAMETERS 

Interaction parameter Value 

Atomic oxygen initial impact reaction probability 0.062 

Activation energy, EA, in eV for energy dependent reaction probability 0.26 

Atomic oxygen reaction probability dependence exponent upon angle of impact, n, where the reaction 

probability = PE•(cos Tn where T is the angle between the arrival direction and the local surface normal 

and PE is the energy dependent reaction probability at normal incidence 

0.5 

Probability of atomic oxygen recombination upon impact with protective coating 0.33 

Probability of atomic oxygen recombination upon impact with polymer 0.3 

Fractional energy loss, f, upon impact with polymer 0.4 

Fractional energy loss upon impact with protective coating 0.05 

Degree of specularity as opposed to diffuse scattering of atomic oxygen upon non-reactive impact with 

protective coating where 1 = fully specular and 0 = fully diffuse scattering 

0.2 

Degree of specularity as opposed to diffuse scattering of atomic oxygen upon non-reactive impact with 

polymer where 1 = fully specular and 0 = fully diffuse scattering 

0.5 

Temperature for thermally accommodated atomic oxygen atoms, K 300 

Limit of how many bounces the atomic oxygen atoms are allowed to make before an estimate of the 

probability of reaction is assigned 

25 

Thermally accommodated energy/actual atom energy for atoms assumed to be thermally accommodated 0.9 

Initial atomic oxygen energy, eV 4.5 

Thermospheric atomic oxygen temperature, K 1000 

Atomic oxygen arrival plane relative to Earth for a Maxwell-Boltzmann atomic oxygen temperature 

distribution and an orbital inclination of 28.5q

Horizontal 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 8 

TABLE 4.—COMPARISON OF RELATIVE ATOMIC OXYGEN EROSION YIELDS 

Space sample configuration Measured atomic 

oxygen erosion 

yields, cm3/atom 

Model sample 

configuration 

Monte Carlo model 

predicted erosion 

yield, cm3/atom 

One thick layer 3.00r0.07u10–24 One thick layer 3.00r0.07u10–24

10 thin layers with no spacers 3.08r0.07u10–24 4 thin layers with 0.056 mil spacers 3.205r0.08u10–24

10 thin with 14 mil spacers 3.25r0.07u10–24 4 thin layers with 14 mil spacers 3.253r0.08u10–24

These interaction parameters produce the relative erosion yields shown in Table 4 which are 

compared to those resulting from the in-space experiment. As one can see, the modified Monte Carlo 

model predicted erosion yield for the sample configuration with 14 mil spacers is in agreement with that 

measured from the space exposure. However, the modified Monte Carlo model prediction for the sample 

configuration with no spacers is only slightly less than that for the widely spaced sample. The Monte 

Carlo modeling indicated that the sample with 14 mil spacers would have an 8.4 percent increase over 

solid Kapton H (compared to the space data showing 8.3 percent increase). However the sample with no 

spacers (simulated by 0.056 mil spacers) was predicted to have 6.8 percent increase over solid Kapton H 

(compared to space data showing 2.7 percent increase). A possible explanation for this result may be that 

the multilayer sample without spacers may have been closer together than the 0.056 mil gap assumed by the 

Monte Carlo model or that further refinement of the model may better predict the results for a small gap. 

Figure 5 compares a schematic of a three layer polymer showing the erosion at three different fluence 

levels indicating how the diffuse scattering of the atomic oxygen off the polymer tends to trap the atoms 

contributing to increased opportunity to react either at a layer above or below. This results in greater 

erosion yields for polymers with space between layers. 

When cones become completely eroded such that they could be free standing, they may loosely attach 

themselves by means of van derWaals forces to adjoining polymer until they are completely oxidized 

(Ref. 1). As the fluence is increased, there is trapping of unreacted and scattered atoms for both single and 

multiple layer films as shown in Figure 6. 

As can be seen from Figure 6, there is a gradual increase in erosion yield due to trapping of scattered 

atoms between the left-standing surface cones as directed erosion gradually increases. This occurs as the 

number of Monte Carlo atoms is increased to the extent that valleys of cones on the textured surface form 

holes in the second film layer, then additional trapping of unreacted atoms between the layers of films 

begins to occur (after ~60,000 atoms have been entered) and continues as another layer is gradually 

penetrated. Figure 7 shows holes at cone valleys of a thin film layered Kapton H sample (3 to 5 mil 

(127 Pm) thick layers) exposed to LEO ram AO for 4 years on MISSE 2 (Ref. 1). The enhancement in 

atomic oxygen erosion yield is dominated by only two layers of polymer films and becomes a constant 

erosion yield with fluence after that. It is not clear to what degree the enhancement in Ey would occur for 

different polymers or different thicknesses of a polymer. 

The indication of locally higher flux at the perimeter of the samples shown in Figure 3 was found to 

be consistent with Monte Carlo simulation using the optimized interaction values listed in Table 3. The 

average depth of perimeter erosion was found to be 6 percent greater than the erosion at the center of the 

samples based on averaging 10 Monte Carlo simulations. Based on the enhanced erosion observed near 

the edge and predicted Monte Carlo results it is recommended that samples used for erosion yield 

evaluation under normal incidence atomic oxygen use a reverse bevel (largest opening facing space) on 

sample holders and with the smallest opening used for defining the effective exposure area. 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 9 

(a) (b) (c) 

Figure 5.—Comparison of Monte Carlo predicted erosion patterns for a three layer polymer sample 

exposed to atomic oxygen in LEO at three different fluence levels: (a) Low fluence, (b) Medium 

fluence, (c) High fluence. 

Figure 6.—Erosion yield dependent fluence for single and multilayer space 

films. The error bars on the right of each plot represents the span of 

r one standard deviation for the respective data points which also includes 

the uncertainty of the erosion yield of Kapton H (r7.41u10–26 atoms/cm2

from Ref. 12). 

(a) (b) 

Figure 7.—Images of cone morphologies and holes at cone valleys observed from the back surface 

of the second layer of a multi-layered sample flown on MISSE 2: (a) An isolated cone cluster 

(1 kX, 45q tilt), and (b) A crack in the film where the cone structure is visible (1 kX, 45° tilt). 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 10 

Summary 

A space experiment flown as part of the Materials International Space Station Experiment 6B 

(MISSE 6B) was designed to compare the atomic oxygen erosion yield (Ey) of tightly spaced thin layers 

of Kapton H polyimide (no spacers between layers) with slightly spaced layers of Kapton H (thin spacers 

between layers). The flight results indicated that there was a 2.7 and 8.3 percent increase in erosion yield 

respectively for tightly stacked (no spacers) and loosely stacked (with spacers) Kapton H films compared 

to a solid Kapton H sample. Monte Carlo computational modeling was performed to optimize atomic 

oxygen interaction parameter values to match the results of both the MISSE 6B multilayer experiment 

and the erosion profile from a crack defect in an aluminized Kapton H sample retrieved from the LDEF. 

This resulted in the Monte Carlo modeling producing close agreement with space results for the layered 

sample with spacers compared to solid Kapton (8.4 percent increase for Monte Carlo predictions 

compared to 8.3 percent increase for space results) but a higher than expected (6.8 percent increase for 

Monte Carlo predictions compared to 2.7 percent increase for space results) for the stacked sample 

without spacers. The Monte Carlo results also predicted the observed space results that scattering from the 

beveled edges of the sample holders caused a slight (6 percent) enhancement in erosion of samples near 

their perimeters. 

References 

1. de Groh K.K. and Banks, B.A.,“MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers Erosion Morphology Studies,” 

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Materials in a Space Environment (ISMSE-11), 

September 15-18, 2009, Aix-en-Provence, France. 

2. de Groh, K.K., Banks, B.A., Mitchell, G.G., Yi, G.T., Guo, A., Ashmead, C.C., Roberts, L.M., 

McCarthy, C.E. and Sechkar, E.A., “MISSE 6 Stressed Polymers Experiment Atomic Oxygen 

Erosion Data,” Proceedings of the “12th International Symposium on Materials in the Space 

Environment (ISMSE 12),” Noordwijk, The Netherlands (ESA SP-705, March 2013); also 

NASA/TM—2013-217847 and NASA/TM—2013-217847, March 2013. 

3. McCarthy, C.E., Banks, B.A. and de Groh, K.K., “MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers Experiment Atomic 

Oxygen Erosion Yield Error Analysis,” NASA/TM—2010-216903, Nov. 2010. 

4. Banks, B.A., de Groh, K.K., Miller, S.K., and Waters, D.L., “Lessons Learned from Atomic Oxygen 

Interaction with Materials in Low Earth Orbit,” NASA/TM—2008-215264 July 2008, Proceedings 

of the 9th International Conference on Protection of Materials and Structures from Space 

Environment, Toronto, Canada May 20-23, 2008. 

5. Banks, B.A., de Groh, K.K., and Miller S.K., “MISSE Scattered Atomic Oxygen Characterization 

Experiment,” TM-2006-214355, May 2006, paper presented at the 2006 MISSE Post-Retrieval 

Conference sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Orlando, Florida, June 26–30, 2006. 

6. Banks, B.A., Auer, B.M., Rutledge, S.K., Gebauer, L., and Sechkar, E.A., “Monte Carlo Modeling 

of Atomic Oxygen Interaction With Protected Polymers for Projection of Materials Durability in 

Low Earth Orbit,” Proceedings of the MRS 1992 Spring Meeting, San Francisco, California, April 

27-May 1, 1992. 

7. Banks, B.A. and Stueber, T.J., “Monte Carlo Computational Techniques for Prediction of Atomic 

Oxygen Erosion of Materials,” presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Computer 

Modeling of Electronic and Atomic Processes in Solids, Wroclaw, Poland, May 20-23, 1996, 

published in Computer Modeling of Electronic and Atomic Processes in Solids, Proceedings of the 

NATO Workshop, edited by R.C. Tennyson & A.E. Kiv, Kluwer Academic Publishing, 1997. 

8. B. Banks, T. Stueber, and M. Norris, “Monte Carlo Computational Modeling of the Energy 

Dependence of Atomic Oxygen Undercutting of Protected Polymers,” NASA TM 1998-207423, 

Fourth International Space Conference, ICPMSE-4, Toronto, Canada, April 23-24, 1998. 

 
NASA/TM—2014-218411 11 

9. Banks, B., Miller, S., de Groh, K., and Demko, R., “Atomic Oxygen Effects on Spacecraft 

Materials,” NASA/TM—2003-212484, June 2003 and Proceedings of the 9th International 

Symposium on Materials in a Space Environment, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 16-20, 2003, 

ESA SP-540, September 2003. 

10. Banks, B.A., de Groh, K.K., Rutledge, S.K., and DiFilippo, F.J., “Prediction of In-space Durability 

of Protected Polymers Based on Ground Laboratory Thermal Energy Atomic Oxygen,” NASA TM 

107209, presented at the Third International Space Conference, Toronto, Canada, April 25-26, 1996. 

11. McCarthy, C.E., Banks, B.A. and de Groh, K.K., “MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers Experiment Atomic 

Oxygen Erosion Yield Error Analysis,” NASA/TM—2010-216903, Nov. 2010.