Henry C. de Groh III

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Christopher C. Daniels

The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio

Joyce A. Dever and Sharon K. Miller

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Deborah L. Waters

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Joshua R. Finkbeiner, Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr., and Bruce M. Steinetz

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Space Environment Effects on

Silicone Seal Materials

NASA/TM—2010-216332

July 2010
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi 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 Offi 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 signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi 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. Scientifi c 

and technical fi 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. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi 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 scientifi 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 via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Henry C. de Groh III

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Christopher C. Daniels

The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio

Joyce A. Dever and Sharon K. Miller

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Deborah L. Waters

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Joshua R. Finkbeiner, Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr., and Bruce M. Steinetz

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Space Environment Effects on

Silicone Seal Materials

NASA/TM—2010-216332

July 2010

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge and praise the efforts of our colleagues who contributed to this work:

Daniel A. Scheiman for IR spectroscopy; Richard Tashjian for mechanical support; Bruce Banks and

Lawrence Kren for help with Tank 9 exposures; and Marta Bastrzyk for help

with presentation of adhesion data.

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://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi 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—2010-216332 iii 

Contents 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Experimental Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Space Simulations and Exposures ................................................................................................. 5

2.1.1 Vacuum and Methods to Measure and Lower Outgassing ............................................... 5

2.1.2 Atomic Oxygen ................................................................................................................. 6

2.1.3 Vacuum Ultraviolet/Near Ultraviolet Radiation ............................................................. 10

2.1.4 Particle Radiation ............................................................................................................ 12

2.2 Methods to Decrease Adhesion ................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Seal Performance ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.3.1 Seal Leak Rate ................................................................................................................ 13

2.3.2 Seal Adhesion ................................................................................................................. 13

2.3.3 Compression Set ............................................................................................................. 15

3.0 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Appearance ................................................................................................................................. 16

3.2 Leak Rate .................................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Residual Adhesion ...................................................................................................................... 20

3.4 Compression Set ......................................................................................................................... 23

3.5 Vacuum Outgassing .................................................................................................................... 25

4.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A.—Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... 27

References ................................................................................................................................................... 28

NASA/TM—2010-216332 1 

Space Environment Effects on Silicone Seal Materials 

Henry C. de Groh III 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Christopher C. Daniels 

University of Akron 

Akron, Ohio 44325 

Joyce A. Dever and Sharon K. Miller 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Deborah L. Waters 

ASRC Aerospace Corporation 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Joshua R. Finkbeiner, Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr., and Bruce M. Steinetz 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Executive Summary 

A Low Impact Docking System (LIDS) was being developed by the NASA Johnson Space Center 

(JSC) to support future missions of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). It was planned that LIDS would 

use a set of redundant silicone seals to help contain cabin air during dockings between CEV and the 

International Space Station (ISS). The NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) supported the development 

of the LIDS docking system by developing the main interface seals and determining the durability of 

candidate seal materials in the space environment. The sealing surfaces are exposed to the space 

environment when vehicles are not docked. In space, the seals will be exposed to temperatures of between 

125 and –75 °C, vacuum, atomic oxygen (AO), particle and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and 

micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD). Since silicone rubber is the only class of space flightqualified elastomeric seal material that functions across the expected temperature range, NASA GRC 

focussed on three silicone elastomers: two provided by Parker-Hannifin Corporation (S0899-50 and 

S0383-70) and one from Esterline Corporation (ELA-SA-401). 

The effects of AO, UV and electron particle radiation, and vacuum on the properties of these three 

elastomers were examined. Exposure conditions were developed to simulate the environment of lowEarth orbit (LEO) so the durability of these materials in outer space could be estimated. Exposure levels 

were set with NASA mission timelines in mind, and to determine exposure limits and material failures. 

This work supports the development of a specific seal for LIDS by relating the measured properties to 

seal performance. Critical seal properties such as leakage, adhesion, and compression set were measured 

before and after simulated space exposures. 

One challenge for elastomeric seals in such applications is that adhesion makes it difficult to separate 

spacecrafts when undocking. The elastomers exposed to AO underwent chemical and physical changes 

which resulted in a SiOx-rich layer at the surface. This layer was beneficial since it decreased the natural 

adhesive properties of the elastomer using modest levels of AO exposure. The adhesion dropped by a 

factor of 10 with an AO exposure of about 1019 atoms/cm2

, and to negligible levels (<1 psi) for S0383-70 

and ELA-SA-401 at doses of 1020 atoms/cm2

. Seal-on-seal adhesion was particularly high for S0899-50, 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 2 

and remained high (~10 psi) even after relatively high AO exposures (71021 atoms/cm2). Further AO 

exposures however result in increased leakage. All three elastomers sealed well at AO exposures <71021

atoms/cm2

; but leak rate rose extremely rapidly (increasing between 1 and 3 orders-of-magnitude) 

between AO exposure levels of 71021 and 1022 atoms/cm2

. When exposed to AO only, S0899-50 and 

ELA-SA-401 failed (leakage >10–4kg/day) at AO exposures >1022 atoms/cm2

; S0383-70 failed at AO 

exposures >31022 atoms/cm2

. The amount of compression set suffered by the elastomers also increased 

with AO exposure, but at rather high levels of AO (>1022 atoms/cm2

). Compression set about doubled at 

AO exposures of >31022 atoms/cm2

 compared to as-received. 

All UV-exposed specimens were first exposed to 5.81021 atoms/cm2

 AO. Seal leakage increased 

gradually with increasing levels of UV (combined with the constant AO exposure). The S0899-50 

elastomer was particularly sensitive to UV exposure, failing after about 500 ESH (equivalent Sun hours) 

of UV exposure (plus the AO). The other elastomers, ELA-SA-401 and S0383-70, were nearing failure 

limits when UV exposures were stopped at about 1500 ESH (plus AO). The level of adhesion for ELSSA-401 and S0383-70 were already nearly zero after the AO, but adhesion for S0899-50 was still high 

(10 psi) after AO but before the UV exposure. The subsequent UV exposure of 1500 ESH eliminated 

most S0899-50 adhesion (<1 psi). The tests indicated UV exposure also exacerbated compression set, 

which increased an average of about 40 percent for all three of the compounds after 300 ESH. 

Even though an AO treatment could mitigate adhesion, there were concerns that the AO might change 

the elastomer’s structure detrimentally thus causing more outgassing. Further investigations revealed that 

outgassing in ELA-SA-401 was unchanged after AO, and decreased slightly for S0383-70 after AO 

exposure of 1020atoms/cm2

. Braycote grease coated S0383-70 seals also passed outgassing even though 

outgassing increased slightly (TML and CVCM increasing ~0.01 percent). 

No negative consequences of exposure to up to 1.3 Mrad (Si) electron radiation were observed. 

Compression set appeared to decline a bit, decreasing the most in the S0899-50 compound. 

In conclusion, the S0899-50 silicone was determined to be inadequate for LIDS seal applications due 

to high adhesion and intolerance to UV, but both S0383-70 and ELA-SA-401 seals were adequate. 

1.0 Introduction 

In support of the development of a new docking system for NASA, concepts were explored to 

produce a leak-free seal between docking spacecraft (Ref. 1), such as the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the 

International Space Station (ISS) and NASA’s lunar module Altair. Depending on application, the LIDS 

system was designed to be either androgynous (requiring seal-on-seal interface) or standared design 

(using more typical seal-on-flange interface) (Refs. 2 to 4). This paper presents comprehensive evaluation 

of three candidate materials being considered for the LIDS. The considered materials are all siliconebased elastomers, two from Parker-Hannifin Corporation: compounds S0383-70 and S0899-50; and one 

manufactured by Esterline Corporation: compound ELA-SA-401. Figures 1 and 2 show the location of 

the main interface seal of the LIDS. 

Silicones were developed during World War II, are semi-organic, and have a wide range of physical 

forms. Silicones consist of high molecular weight chains of alternating silicon and oxygen atoms; these 

chains are modified by various organic side groups attached to the silicon atoms, and by crosslinking of 

primary chains (Ref. 5). Basic discussions of silicone o-ring elastomers relating to testing, aging, and 

properties can be found in Parker O-ring Handbook (Ref. 6). One of the primary reasons silicone-based 

elastomers were selected as candidates was their flexibility at low temperatures. Most other elastomers 

become too firm near the low temperatures the LIDS seals are required to operate. Use-temperature range 

for the main seal on LIDS was –50 to 50 °C with exposure temperatures between –75 to 125 °C. The 

behavior of elastomeric seals at low temperatures has been examined by Weise et al. (Ref. 7) who found, 

at a well defined low “critical temperature”, a sharp rise in leak rate due to shrinkage of the elastomer. 

The effects of temperature on leakage and compression set were found to be reversible, and the critical 

temperature for the silicone rubber examined was –63 °C (Ref. 7). 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 3 

LIDS primary seal 

Metal flange 

Location of LIDS 

main interface seal 

Figure 1.—The LIDS assists the coupling of two vehicles in space; elastomer 

seals between vehicles prevent air loss from inside the cabin. 

Figure 2.—Drawing of a manned capsule docking with ISS; LIDS enables the coupling of the 

two together; the elastomer of the LIDS primary seal stops air from leaking out after docking. 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 4 

While a particular space vehicle is not docked, the seal material is exposed, either to various 

atmospheric conditions at the launch pad or to outer space. We have examined as-received properties, as 

well as the effects of various space environments which include vacuum, atomic oxygen, ultraviolet and 

electron particle radiations, and micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD). The effects of MMOD are 

presented elsewhere (Refs. 8 and 9). Use specifications defining the exposure environments were taken 

from the Constellation Program Design Specifications (Ref. 10). Other factors which helped define the 

specific exposures used in this study included the capabilities of the facilities and the response of the 

elastomer. 

Several NASA missions have suffered from the effects of volatile materials condensing on sensitive 

parts of spacecrafts. For this reason strict outgas specifications in terms of total mass loss (TML) and 

collected volatile condensable materials (CVCM) in a vacuum are required on materials bound for space. 

Outgassing data for various spacecraft materials has been collected by Campbell and Scialdone (Ref. 11). 

Banks et al. have examined the effects of the AO present in low-Earth orbit on silicone elastomers 

and found that AO oxidizes the surface of the silicone, creating a thin layer of silica and that glassy SiOxbased contaminant coatings result on nearby surfaces (Refs. 12 and 13). Banks et al. showed synergistic 

effects between UV radiation and AO with respect to silicone contamination effects, with the UV 

exacerbating deleterious AO induced silicone contamination (Ref. 13). With sufficient AO exposure, 

tensile strains were shown to lead to cracking and further, deeper oxidation (Refs. 14 and 15). The 

development of an SiOx-rich surface layer due to AO in space and subsequent cracking was confirmed by 

the Spacecraft Silicones Experiments flown on Materials International Space Station Experiments 

(MISSE) 2 and 4 (Ref. 16). Dever and de Groh examined the effects of UV, AO, and thermal cycling on 

Teflon (DuPont) and aluminized Teflon thermal shield materials being considered for the Hubble Space 

Telescope; they found that rapid thermal cycling caused delamination of the aluminum coating, that UV 

embrittled the surface of uncoated Teflon, and AO eroded uncoated Teflon (Ref. 17). 

Dever, Banks and Yan, have examined how irradiance spectra and light intensity of vacuum UV 

exposures effect a rubbery silicone adhesive (DC93-500); showing degradation increases with increases 

in UV wavelength at equivalent incident energy fluence and that degradation was largely insensitive to 

vacuum UV light intensity for intensities up to 5.5 times that of the Sun in the 115 to 200 nm wavelength 

range (Ref. 18). Christensen et al. simulated the combined effects of AO and vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) 

on S383 silicone in preparations for its use as a sealant between Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) 

elements on ISS. Exposures in this work were up to 181 equivalent on orbit hours; subsequent helium 

leak tests made at moderate seal compressions resulted in low leak rates, which ultimately led to the S383 

silicone’s qualification for use on the CBM-to-CBM molded seals on Space Station (Ref. 19). In August 

1997 the Shuttle mission STS-85 included a group of experiments known as the Evaluation of Space 

Environment and Effects on Materials. Included among these experiments were specimens of Parker’s 

silicone S383-70 which were exposed to an AO fluence of approximately 1020 atoms/cm2

 (Ref. 20). Postflight silicone had a slight mass increase, reported to be due to contamination from other specimens, and 

emittance and absorptance values of 0.91 and 0.75, respectively (Ref. 20). 

Radiation can cause the formation of free radicals and ions in polymers and adhesives; inducing 

cross-linking, chain scission, chain polymerization, block copolymerization, unsaturation, and chain 

transfer. According to (Ref. 21), plastics less resistant to radiation, such as Teflon, are severely damaged 

at radiation levels of 106

 rad. The more radiation durable plastics, such as polystyrene and polyimide 

(Kapton) (DuPont), are usable with exposures up to 1010 rad (Ref. 21). Natural rubber looses about half of 

its tensile strength after about 2107

 rad. Electrical breakdown exposure dose for silicone rubber was 

found to be 41018 n/cm2

; this neutron fluence is approximately equivalent to about 1010 rad. Changes in 

elongation in silicone began after 106

 rad; changes in the tensile strength of silicone resin began at about 

5107

rad (Ref. 21). The data from the literature indicate that the docking seal will not be damaged by 

exposures less than 106

 rad; noticeable damage is likely to begin at 107 rad. The durability of rubbers to 

radiation is highly dependent on the presence of fillers added to the compound (Ref. 21). 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 5 

The effects of the space environment at synchronous orbit on Kapton and Teflon were considered by 

TRW’s Defense and Space Systems Group (Ref. 22). Synchronous orbit is about 36,000 km from the 

Earth’s surface (Space Station altitude is ~350 km). At this altitude Reference 22 divides the proton 

environment into: plasma-sheet protons; geomagnetically trapped (radiation belt) protons; and solar flare 

protons. Electron exposures of significance are noted as high energy geomagnetically trapped (Van Allen 

belt) electrons; and plasma-sheet electrons. To simulate a 5 year mission, Reference 22 used exposures of 

Van Allen belt: 21015 e/cm2, 80 keV electrons, plus 1.51015 e/cm2, 200 keV electrons; 

Plasma–Sheet electrons: 1017 e/cm2

, 7 keV electrons; 

Plasma–Sheet protons: 1.61016 p/cm2

, 27 keV protons; 

Radiation belt and Solar Flare electrons: too small to include. 

According to Reference 22, fluxes for protons in the radiation belt and due to solar flares are 

~107 p/cm2sec (<0.25 MeV) and ~104 p/cm2sec (<10 MeV) respectively; much less than the plasma sheet 

proton and electron fluxes noted above. Thus radiation belt and solar flare protons were omitted. The 

details of TRW’s analysis are being mentioned to emphasize that various doses are highly dependent on 

the characteristics of the mission. The lunar missions we are considering in this work spend less than 5 hr 

at altitudes near the synchronous orbit altitude TRW was considering. Using the synchronous orbit 

conditions laid out in Reference 22, the radiation dose for a 12-year mission would be about 

600,000 Mrad. The 12-year mission we consider in this work, following the protocols from Reference 10, 

results in a radiation dose of only 0.6 Mrad because radiation levels are much lower in LEO compared to 

synchronous orbit. 

The space environment imposes a very high vacuum level. In general, the effects of vacuum on a 

material should be examined before its use in space. Prior work with silicone-based elastomers has shown 

these materials to be highly durable in vacuum environments, (Refs. 2, 6, and 23) thus the effects of 

vacuum where not directly examined in this study. 

Another aspect of space is the threats imposed by micrometeoroids and orbital debris (MMOD). 

Small pieces of orbiting trash and galactic ice traveling at speeds between 7 and 25 km/s are typical. The 

level of damage that these hypervelocity particles can cause can be devastating. An extensive campaign to 

examine the level of damage, and expected frequency of such impacts on LIDS seals is underway by the 

authors, with results to date reported in References 8 and 9. 

2.0 Experimental Procedures 

Tests were done on three elastomers: two from Parker with compound designations of S0383-70 and 

S0899-50, and one from Esterline made from ELA-SA-401. Compound and processing details are 

proprietary; however, all are peroxide cured silicone-based elastomers. Materials in the forms of 

#2-309 o-rings and 0.21 in. thick sheet were procured. O-rings were used for seal leak and compression 

set testing, and short 0.36 in. diameter cylindrical buttons were made from the sheet material and used to 

test elastomer-to-elastomer adhesion. 

2.1 Space Simulations and Exposures 

2.1.1 Vacuum and Methods to Measure and Lower Outgassing 

Upon delivery from the manufacturer, all in coming elastomers were outgas tested. Outside vendors 

are used for these tests, which follow ASTM Standard Designation: E 595-93 (Ref. 24). Some incoming 

material failed outgas testing and was returned to the manufacturer. Problems with outgassing have been 

tracked back to improper curing and rectified. Basic outgas results are being presented elsewhere 

(Ref. 25). The combined effects of vacuum and the other exposures are also tested since UV exposures 

impose a high vacuum. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 6 

When elastomer seals are used in space, it is important for them to be stable, and have a low Total 

Mass Loss (TML) and a low level of Collected Volatile Condensable Materials (CVCM). The outgassing 

requirements for the LIDS seal are TML <1 percent and CVCM <0.1 percent. Since it is desirable for 

TML and CVCM to be as low as possible, an experiment was done to lower the TML and CVCM of the 

two primary elastomers being considered for LIDS (Parker’s S0383-70 and Esterline’s ELA-SA-401). 

The treatments mentioned next were done in specimens already post-cured per manufacturer 

specifications. 

A set of eight o-rings were used in a campaign to lower TML and CVCM for Parker S0383-70 and 

Esterline ELS-SA-401 materials: one #2-309 o-ring and three #2-106 o-rings of each compound were 

tested. The #2-309 o-rings were for post-treatment leak flow testing in the Small Scale Flow Fixture 

(SSFF). The #2-106 o-rings were used for post-treatment outgas testing at Orange County Material Test 

Laboratories. The treatment used to increase compound stability was: a four-day bake under vacuum 

(810–6 torr) at 205 °C, then an AO treatment of 4.91020 atoms/cm2

. The four-day vacuum bake was to 

draw off volatiles from the compounds; the AO treatment was then used to seal the surface, encasing the 

bulk of the material in a thin SiOx-rich shell. 

Another set of #2-106 o-rings were coated with space flight-qualified grease (Braycote) to determine 

if the greased elastomers could pass outgas testing. First the o-rings were cleaned, dried, and weighed, 

then, while wearing gloves, were coated with Braycote * 601 EF perfluoroether grease; Lot #137452, 

DOM: 062608, made by Castrol, and reweighed. The amount of grease on the o-rings was 121 g/m2

 of 

o-ring surface. Another set of #2-106 o-rings was exposed to 1020 atoms/cm2

 AO to determine the effect 

of AO alone on outgassing. 

2.1.2 Atomic Oxygen 

The atomic oxygen present in low-Earth orbit was simulated using three facilities. SPI Plasma Prep II 

etchers (known as “plasma ashers”) which provide an isotropic AO plasma, were used for longer 

exposures; the Directed Beam Facility was used for shorter exposures; and the Tank 9 facility was used to 

exposure large-scale LIDS seals. Each candidate elastomer was exposed three times in the plasma ashers; 

various tests of leak rate, adhesion, and compression set were accomplished between most of the 

exposures. Target fluences for these plasma asher exposures were 11022, 1.51022, and 

3.51022 atoms/cm2

. A series of two exposures in the Directed Beam Facility yielded exposures of 

between 1.51021 and 7.61021 atoms/cm2

. Several exposures were performed in Tank 9 at levels between 

11018 and 11020 atoms/cm2

. In general, specimens were laying down, so that the underside of the 

specimen was not exposed to AO. Kapton witness coupons were used to measure the level of AO fluence 

and calibrate the AO exposure facilities. The specific exposures of the various buttons and o-rings used in 

this study to examine the effects of space on the elastomers are provided in Tables 1 to 3. The uncertainty 

of fluence measurements for exposures >91018 atoms/cm2

 was 10 percent; uncertainty was 20 percent 

for AO exposures <91018 atoms/cm2

. 

Atomic oxygen exposure fluences can be converted to “simulated years of space atomic oxygen” 

using the fluence to time in LEO at ISS altitude conversion factor of 1 year AO = 51021 atoms/cm2

. This 

conversion is from Reference 10; other experts in this area have determined the conversion between AO 

fluence and time in LEO during solar maximum (2013) to be closer to 3.41021 atoms/cm2

 (Ref. 26). 

The AO in space frequently erodes materials, causing mass loss. Silicones however do not usually 

lose much mass since adhering SiO2 phases typically form; but for completeness, mass measurements 

before and after AO exposures made. 

2.1.2.1 Measurement of Sample Mass 

All of the isotropic AO-exposed seal samples and the polyimide Kapton fluence witnesses were fully 

dehydrated for at least 48 hr in a vacuum of 8 to 13 Pa (60 to 100 mtorr) prior to weighing and subsequent 

exposure to atomic oxygen. Post-exposure samples also were dehydrated for the same length of time prior 

to weighing. The Kapton witness coupon was quickly weighed on a Mettler M3 microbalance after 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 7 

dehydration to minimize errors in mass due to water absorption (Ref. 27) and the seal samples were 

weighed in the same manner using a Sartorius balance. The change in mass of the polyimide Kapton was 

used to calculate the effective fluence (number of atoms of oxygen arriving per square centimeter over the 

test duration) by inserting the value of the mass change into Equation (1): 

E

M A F */

  (1)

where: 

F = Fluence (atoms/cm2

) 

M = Mass loss of polyimide Kapton H (g) 

A = Area of polyimide Kapton H exposed to atomic oxygen (cm2

) 

 = Density of polyimide Kapton H (1.42 g/cm3) 

E = Erosion yield for polyimide Kapton H in LEO (310–24 cm3

/atom) 

A more detailed description of this procedure is described in ASTM E-2089-00 for Standard Practices 

for Ground Laboratory Atomic Oxygen Interaction Evaluation of Materials for Space Applications 

(Ref. 28). Mass loss due to AO exposure is typically very low in silicone-based rubbers, thus elastomer 

specimens exposed using the directed beam were not weighed. 

2.1.2.2 Isotropic Radio Frequency Atomic Oxygen Plasma 

Two SPI Supplies Plasma Prep II facilities operated in a partial air pressure environment were used to 

provide the isotropic atomic oxygen arrival. The facilities operate by using radio frequency (RF) 

(13.56 MHz) to create a discharge between two electrodes which surround a glass reaction chamber. A 

thermal plasma is produced which is at an energy of approximately 0.1 eV. The plasma contains atomic 

and excited species as well as molecules, ions, electrons and UV radiation. The amounts and intensity of 

these have not been determined. Typical vacuum chamber pressure during operation was 16 to 27 Pa 

(120 to 200 mtorr). Temperature measured in past experiments was 65 °C (Ref. 29). The two facilities 

were operated in parallel. One contained an aluminum machined sample tray containing the ParkerHannifin S0383-70 seal samples and the other contained a similar tray with the Parker-Hannifin S0899-50 

seal samples. Each tray contained in addition to the seals its own polyimide Kapton fluence witness and a 

sapphire window (2.54 cm diameter) for a contamination witness. Fluences resulting from exposures of 

S0899-50 were estimated from Kapton witness coupons exposed alone in a rate test prior to the exposure; 

this was done because sapphire and Kapton witnesses indicated significant contamination and outgassing 

during AO exposure of S0899-50 (negligible levels of contamination and outgassing were observed 

during the exposures of S0383-70 and ELA-SA-401). The transmittance and reflectance as a function of 

wavelength from the sapphire contamination witness samples were measured prior to and after exposure 

using a Perkin-Elmer Lambda-19 spectrophotometer. The measurements were made to look for evidence 

of a coating being deposited on the surface (changing of the reflectance or transmittance) which would be 

indicative of a contaminant being deposited on the surface from outgassing seals. Sapphire witnesses 

were only used in the initial AO exposures in the ashers to determine the level of contamination and 

outgassing from the different compounds. 

Figure 3 shows the Al plate with the specimens and witness coupons loaded in the isotropic AO 

facility. 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 8 

Figure 3.—Photograph of candidate elastomers loaded on the 7.6 cm wide 

aluminum plate in the SPI Plasma Prep II isotropic AO facility. 

Figure 4.—Specimens loaded on the 20.3 cm diameter aluminum plate in the directed 

beam AO facility. 

2.1.2.3 Directed Atomic Oxygen Beam 

The atomic oxygen Directed Beam Facility (Fig. 4) uses an Electron Cyclotron Resonance Plasma 

Source from Applied Science and Technology Inc. (ASTeX) operated on pure oxygen to generate a 

directed thermal energy beam of atomic oxygen with less than 1 percent ions at energies of typically 15 to 

18 eV. The source operates at microwave energy (2.45 GHz, 1000 W) and uses two large electromagnets 

for both dissociation of oxygen through electron collision and for beam focusing. The vacuum chamber 

used for exposure is 71 cm in diameter by 1.71 m long. Pumping is provided by a diffusion pump, 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 9 

mechanical pump and roots-type blower that operate on Fomblin (perfluorinated polyether) oil. The base 

pressure of the vacuum chamber is typically 2e-6 to 5e-5 torr, but during operation can range from 2e-4 to 

8e-4 torr depending on the oxygen gas flow rate. In addition to producing atomic oxygen, the source also 

produces VUV radiation at 130 nm at an intensity of approximately 150 Suns. Seal samples were inserted 

into recessed grooves cut into a circular plate that was mounted in the facility for exposure. Five 

polyimide Kapton fluence witness samples were also included on the plate to provide information on the 

atomic oxygen fluence as well as the spatial distribution. A more detailed description of the facility is 

contained in Reference 30. Figure 4 shows a batch of specimens loaded on the exposure plate in the 

Directed Beam Facility. 

2.1.2.4 Full-Scale Seal Tank 9 Exposures 

Another atomic oxygen plasma generator at NASA GRC is located in a large steel rectangular 

vacuum chamber known as Tank 9, and is shown in Figure 5. An RF power supply is used to create an 

oscillating potential between two large vertical plates in the presence of a partial pressure of air, usually 

about 7 mtorr, thereby generating the oxygen-rich plasma shown in Figure 5(b). Tank 9 delivers a flux of 

approximately 1.261019 atoms/cm2

 per hour. This flux is not homogeneous throughout the tank. Prior to 

exposures the flux in Tank 9 is characterized using Kapton witness coupons. A map of iso-flux lines is 

made to better estimate flux levels for particular specimens located in different places within the tank, and 

to plan rotation cycles for large specimens to insure even levels of exposure. A test of Tank 9 using 

temperature-sensitive adhesive strips indicated a peak temperature of 853 °C for a 24 hr exposure. The 

peak temperature during full-scale exposures is expected to be much less than this since exposures last for 

less than 7 hr each; after the first 6.4 hr exposure, the system is powered down, allowed to cool, and the 

seal rotated 90° and exposed for another 6.4 hr for a total exposure of 1020 atoms/cm2

. 

When exposing full-scale seals in Tank 9 many button specimens were also exposed to verify 

expected decreases in adhesion with AO treatment. Seals for MMOD studies were exposed in Tank 9. 

 (a) (b)

Figure 5.—Tank 9, about 5 ft tall by 3 ft wide, Tank 9 is used to expose large items to atomic oxygen; (a) 

Tank 9 exterior, (b) a view into the tank through one of the round ports during an exposure, showing the 

reddish glow of the plasma and various specimens attached to the vertical plate. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 10 

2.1.3 Vacuum Ultraviolet/Near Ultraviolet Radiation 

The VUV/Near Ultraviolet (NUV) exposure facility (Fig. 6) uses a cryogenic vacuum pumping 

system in order to conduct exposure of samples under high vacuum conditions. VUV and NUV light 

beams are orthogonal to one another, illuminating a sample plate tilted 30° from vertical to receive 

simultaneous exposure to both beams (Fig. 6(b)). 

The light source for VUV exposure was a 30-W deuterium lamp with a magnesium fluoride endwindow (Hamamatsu Model L7293) which provided a lower cut-off wavelength of 115 nm. This VUV 

source is situated on a vacuum port that can be isolated from the sample chamber. Every 48 to 72 hr, 

exposures were briefly interrupted while the VUV source was removed from the facility, cleaned, and 

re-calibrated. Cleaning is required because even very small amounts of contaminants in a vacuum system 

can build up, or “fix,” on the lamp’s magnesium fluoride windows (where the highest intensity VUV is 

present) significantly decreasing the lamp output over time. The samples remained under vacuum during 

this ~1 hr lamp cleaning/calibration procedure. Calibration was conducted in vacuum using a cesium 

iodide (CsI) phototube sensitive in the 115 to 200 nm wavelength band. The calibration was conducted at 

the same distance from the light source as the samples and was corrected for the exposure angle. 

Although calibration is done in the 115 to 200 nm range, the VUV source also produces output 

throughout the near ultraviolet wavelength range (up to 400 nm); however, its output is a small fraction of 

the Sun’s intensity at wavelengths greater than 200 nm. Based on previous characterizations, the VUV 

source does not produce sample heating above room temperature. 

The light source for NUV exposure was a 500-W mercury (xenon) arc source (Oriel Model 66142) 

which provided NUV of wavelengths in the 220 to 400 nm range. Because wavelengths above 220 nm 

transmit through air, the light source is located outside of the vacuum system and transmitted through a 

quartz feedthrough window. This NUV source was calibrated outside the facility (in air) before and after 

each exposure using a pyroelectric detector system (Oriel Model 70362) and a 260 nm narrow bandpass 

filter. The manufacturer’s spectral output curve for the NUV source and the 260 nm data were used to 

calculate the integrated intensity over the 220 to 400 nm wavelength range. Intensity experienced by the 

samples was corrected for the transmittance through the quartz feed-through window and for the sample 

angle. A separate test determined that the temperature at the sample holder during NUV exposure rises to 

approximately 60 °C. 

The ratio of lamp intensity compared to the Sun’s air mass zero intensity in the same wavelength 

range is referred to as “equivalent Suns”. Equivalent space exposure, referred to as “equivalent Sun 

hours,” (ESH) is obtained by multiplying the number of test hours by “equivalent Suns” for the NUV and 

the VUV wavelength ranges, 220 to 400 nm and 115 to 200 nm, respectively. Figure 6 shows the 

ultraviolet exposure facility and the plate holding the samples. The NUV and VUV exposures are not 

uniform over the plate thus exposures are mapped across the plate and the exposure of each specimen 

tracked. A bright spot located near the center of the plate is avoided (Fig. 6). Table 4 shows the average 

UV exposure for the UV exposures. Actual NUV and VUV exposures for each sample are provided in 

Tables 1 to 3 and Tables 6 to 11. All of the specimens exposed to UV were first exposed to atomic 

oxygen in the Directed Atomic Oxygen Beam (Section 2.1.2.3). All specimens were exposed to about the 

same average AO fluence of 5.771021 atoms/cm2

, or about what would be expected due to 1.2 years in 

low-Earth orbit. UV exposures were done in approximate increments of 300 ESH; which is about equal to 

31 days of flight time in space, depending on orientation. 

For each test, all samples were installed in the facility and the chamber brought to high vacuum for 

approximately 24 hr to achieve an operating pressure of approximately 5×10–6 torr prior to commencing 

NUV/VUV exposure. The test chamber was brought to atmosphere using gaseous nitrogen to remove 

samples at the conclusion of each test. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 11 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 6.—Vacuum Ultraviolet/Near Ultraviolet Radiation Facility is a 

cryopumped vacuum chamber which runs at ~510–6 torr, uses a 

deuterium lamp (115 to 200 nm) and a mercury-xenon arc lamp 

(220 to 400 nm), shown in (a), to enable simultaneous NUV/VUV 

exposures; (b) shows specimens loaded on an aluminum exposure 

plate in the chamber prior to being raised into the exposure area. 

NUV 

Lamp 

VUV Lamp 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 12 

2.1.4 Particle Radiation 

While in space the seals are expected to be exposed to Solar Energetic Particles (SEP). SEPs have 

energies in the range of 10 keV to >10 GeV and consist of mainly protons (H, He, and Li) (Ref. 31). It is 

stated in (Ref. 10) that the estimated mission dose is a “Worst Case Mission Dose” for spacecraft outside 

the Earth’s magnetic field and includes one worst case solar event. Large SEP events are sporadic; there 

have been at least three large events since1972 (Ref. 31). Thus it is possible to have two large events over 

the 10-year design specification for the LIDS seals. 

Dose generally drops rapidly as radiation penetrates a material. The ability to seal however is highly 

dependent on the seal surface. Reference 10 provides SEP and galactic cosmic rays (GCR) estimates as a 

function of depth in aluminum. In an effort to estimate the dose at the sensitive surface, the surface dose 

is defined to be that at 0.01 mm depth Al. Reference 10 indicates a dose of about 300,000 rad (Si) at 

0.01 mm depth Al. This amount is doubled to 0.6 Mrad, to account for two solar events. These estimates 

omit electron, Bremsstrahlung, and Van Allen Belt sources and assumes open exposure to space during 

the events. If the seals were in use during these events, the expected dose would be about 20,000 rad (Si) 

according to (Ref. 10) specifications. Galactic cosmic rays are negligible (of the order of 10 rad). 

Particle radiation exposures where done at E-Beam Services in Lebanon, Ohio using a 150 kW DC 

Electron Beam Accelerator which produced 4.5 MeV electrons and a dose of 0.5 Mrad (water) per pass. 

Candidate elastomers were exposed to 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 Mrad (water) exposures. 

The radiation provided by E-Beam Services is composed of electrons and exposures are reported in 

units of Mrad (water). This source is expected to give an indication of damage from particle sources in 

space, even though most SEPs are protons, because damage is primarily determined by energy absorbed 

and by penetration of the radiation. Sufficiently high fluences were used so that equivalent energy was 

absorbed and thus hopefully damage equivalent to proton particles. Indications are that below surface 

doses were slightly higher than noted surface doses due to secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation (Ref. 32). 

Electrons penetrate into water and rubber about 100 times deeper than equivalent energy protons. The 

penetration depth of electrons into Si appears to be of the same order as electron penetration into water 

and rubber (Ref. 21), and the approximate conversion of rad dose in Si to rad dose in water in this case, 

based on stopping power only, is ~0.9 rad(Si)/rad(water) (Refs. 32 and 33). Thus our three dose levels 

were 0.45, 0.9, and 1.3 Mrad (Si). 

Specimens were secured on an aluminum plate and the plates placed in nitrogen-filled bags and 

sealed prior to exposures. Figure 7 shows the specimens on their plates at E-Beam Services just prior to 

bagging. The tall screws kept the o-rings in place, and kept the aluminized bag from touching the 

specimens. Small temperature recording tape strips were placed on two of the plates. Temperature 

maximum during electron radiation exposures was about 41 °C. 

2.2 Methods to Decrease Adhesion 

Elastomers typically used to fabricate seals often have inherent adhesive properties. This adhesion 

can cause problems when trying to separate items. To decrease the release loads for LIDS, several 

countermeasures were explored. Atomic oxygen was of primary interest, but a few other methods were 

also examined. Two of these other methods were additional air heat treatments (or curing) and hydrogen 

peroxide treatments. The silicone compounds being considered for LIDS undergo a proprietary cure/postcure procedure involving heating for various time periods before shipment. Only Parker’s S0899-50 and 

S0383-70 were included in the annealing and hydrogen peroxide treatments performed herein. The heat 

and hydrogen peroxide treatments used are listed in Table 5. 

The treatments received by particular specimens are provided in the Tables 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, and 11. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 13 

Figure 7.—Photograph of the specimens prior to bagging and 

electron radiation exposure; the square plate is 18.2 cm wide. 

2.3 Seal Performance 

The performances of candidate materials were monitored as various simulated space exposures were 

imposed. The ability of the elastomers to achieve a satisfactory seal was measured using a facility called 

the SSFF. The level of seal-on-seal and seal-on-metal sticking was measured using equipment which 

presses and holds two pieces together, with instrumentation which measures the force needed to pull them 

apart. The amount of recovery, or spring-back, after being compressed was measured and quantified as 

the level of compression set. 

2.3.1 Seal Leak Rate 

Figure 8 shows a photograph of the SSFF which was used to measure the leakage of size 2-309 

o-rings composed of the candidate elastomers. SSFF tests use #2-309 o-rings which have an outer 

diameter of 2.11 cm and cord diameter of 0.533 cm. O-rings made of a candidate material were placed in 

a groove and compressed 25 percent by a flat steel plate (not seal-on-seal). The inner area between the 

plates and o-ring was brought to 14.7 psia. The volume between the plates, outside the test o-ring, and 

inside the two black o-rings (see Fig. 8) was evacuated. In this way a pressure difference of about one 

atmosphere was induced across the test 2-309 o-ring. As air leaks past the test o-ring, the pressure in the 

inner section drops. This pressure drop was measured over a span of 2 hr (or until a 1 percent pressure 

loss) and the average leak rate determined (Refs. 34 to 36). The system has an accumulative inherent 

uncertainty of about 4.710–6 kg/day (110–5 lbm/day). 

2.3.2 Seal Adhesion 

The level of sticking for seal-on-seal and seal-on-metal contact was measured using the system 

pictured in Figure 9. Button specimens were cut from a 0.53 cm (0.21 in.) thick sheet using a drill press 

and a custom made core drill lubricated with soap. The bottom surface of the buttons were roughened 

with sandpaper and cleaned before using LOCTITE 4502 instant adhesive to bond them to a metal anvil. 

The glue was allowed to cure for 24 hr. The anvils were threaded into the stage and force transducer.

Specimens were brought together at a rate of 0.127 cm/s (0.05 in./s), compressed 25 percent, and held 

together for 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 hr with 30 min breaks between each compression hold cycle. At the end 

of each hold the stage was moved away from the force transducer, at a rate of 0.127 cm/s, pulling the 

specimens apart; any sticking between the elastomer surfaces resulted in tension being measured by the 

transducer. In seal-on-metal adhesion tests metal mating surfaces had a 0.4 m (15 in.) surface finish. 

Adhesion test procedures and results are also presented in Reference 37. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 14 

Figure 8.—Photograph of the SSFF. The pressure drop across a 2-309 

o-ring is measured and scaled-up to estimate the leakage of the fullsize LIDS seal. 

Figure 9.—Photographs of the rig used to measure elastomer specimen adhesion. (a) The stage on the 

left moves to the right compressing the elastomer 25 percent. (b) Specimen close-up: the buttons are 

pulled apart after a set time and any tension is measured by the force transducer. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 15 

2.3.3 Compression Set 

Compression set measurements quantify the amount an elastomer springs back to its original shape 

after being compressed for a specific time, i.e., the compression set is a measurement of the ratio of 

elastic to viscous components of an elastomer’s response to a given deformation. The compression set 

measurements made to date have been at room temperature and follow ASTM Standards D395 

(Method B) and D1414. The average thickness of the size 2-309 o-ring was measured and defined as to; 

shims with a total thickness of 75 percent of to were placed on the bottom compression set plate, as shown 

in Figure 10. The top plate was placed over of the o-rings and screwed down to the shims, thereby 

compressing the o-rings to 25 percent compression. After 70 hr the top plate was removed; following a 

30 min recovery period, the o-ring thickness was measured again. Compression set was calculated using 

the formula: 

    CB 100% to  t f / to  tshim (2) 

where: to = original specimen thickness, tf = final specimen thickness, and tshim = shim thickness 

(tshim = 0.75 to). 

Figure 10.—Photograph of the stainless steel plates used to test the compression 

set of LIDS candidate elastomers. The plates have a diameter of 35.6 cm. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 16 

3.0 Results 

3.1 Appearance 

The general appearance of the silicone rubbers tested are shown in Figure 11. Normally all three 

compounds have a matt (non-glossy) surface in the as-received condition. As doses of atomic oxygen 

increase, all become more glossy and slightly darker. Darkening increases substantially with exposures to 

UV radiation. This is most noticeable in the Esterline material, as seen in Figure 11. Other characteristic 

changes in the elastomers are noticeable as well. In the as-received condition, all of the elastomers have a 

soft, slightly sticky feel to them. Dust sticks easily to the as-received material, especially S0899-50, and is 

not easily blown off. With increasing amounts of AO exposure, tackiness is reduced, seal materials have a 

higher gloss and feel harder, and surface dust is more easily blown off. 

Figure 12 shows a close up of as-received S0899-50. Figure 13 shows micrographs of S0383-70 and 

S0899-50 after AO exposures of 1.31022 atoms/cm2

. The surface of the S0899-50 specimen appears 

more glassy. There was some concern that these SiO2 based phases at the surface might crack and lead to 

leaks, but no cracking could be seen. The chemistry of the elastomers’ surface and changes induced by 

AO were examined using infrared spectroscopy and are reported in Reference 37. 

Figure 11.—General appearance of the silicone rubbers: Parker S0383-70 and S0899-50, and Esterline ELA-SA-401 

in the as-received condition are shown in the upper left; the same compounds after an exposure of about 

5.81021 atoms/cm2

 AO fluence are shown in the lower left; the samples in the upper right have been exposed to 

an approximate AO fluence of 5.81021 atoms/cm2

 and 660 ESH NUV/450 ESH VUV. The as-received Esterline 

o-ring has been compression set tested, thus has a 0.32 cm (1/8 in.) section cut out per ASTM standards. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 17 

Figure 12.—As-received size 2-309 o-ring, Parker 

Hannifin S0899-50, with fine human hair for scale 

and contrast, micron marker is 300 m. 

 (a) (b)

Figure 13.—Parker size 2-309 o-rings, both have been exposed to 1.31022 atoms/cm2 atomic oxygen (AO), (a) 

compound S0383-70 which appears unchanged from its as-received condition; (b) S0899-50, which appears 

glassy due to the AO. Micrographs taken with a fine human hair draped across the o-rings for scale and contrast, 

micron marker is 300 m. 

As the UV exposure of the Parker S0899-50 specimens is increased, the sheen of the specimens goes 

from glossy, back towards matte. An attempt to show this observation is presented in Figure 14, which 

shows S0899-50 o-rings after AO only exposures (5.71021 atoms/cm2

), AO plus about 300 ESH of UV 

exposure, and finally AO plus about 1170 ESH of UV. 

Figures 15 and 16 show the elastomers after AO and UV exposures of approximately 

5.71021 atoms/cm2

 and 1170 ESH. Close examination of the S0899-50 material after this exposure 

indicated some fine crazing had taken place at the surface. This crazing likely causes the decline in 

glossiness, and the observed increase in leak rate. Crazing was not seen in the other elastomers at this 

point in the exposure cycles. 

No visible changes were seen in the heat- and hydrogen peroxide-treated specimens treated per 

Table 5. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 18 

Figure 14.—Parker S0899-50 o-rings after AO fluence exposures of about 5.71021 atoms/cm2 shown in the top row; 

AO plus about 300 ESH of VUV/NUV exposure shown in the second row, and AO plus about 1200 ESH UV on 

the bottom. 

 

 (a) (b)

Figure 15.—Parker Hannifin size 2-309 o-rings, both have received atomic oxygen fluence exposures of 

5.71021 atoms/cm2 and after that UV exposures of about 1170 ESH in the VUV/NUV ranges; (a) S0899-50 

(b) S0383-70. 

Figure 16.—Esterline size #2-309 o-ring after atomic 

oxygen fluence exposure of 5.71021 atoms/cm2

and UV exposures of about 1170 ESH in the 

VUV/NUV ranges. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 19 

3.2 Leak Rate 

Tables 1 to 3 list the individual leak rate measurements of the elastomers in the as-received condition 

and after various exposures designed to simulate the space environment. Leak rate measurements for 

Parker’s S0899-50 compound are presented in Table 1; Parker’s S0383-70 are listed in Table 2; and 

Esterline’s ELA-SA-401 are given in Table 3. In these and subsequent tables, results are summarized in 

the following order: as-received materials are listed first; AO exposed; electron particle radiation 

exposed; combined AO plus UV radiation exposed; then materials receiving in series exposure of all three 

(AO + UV + electron radiation). Leakage results after various treatments to lower either adhesion or 

outgassing are listed at the end of these tables. 

The air leak rates of various o-ring samples are plotted against average AO and UV + AO exposures 

in Figures 17 and 18, respectively. All of the elastomers showed good sealability up to about 

81021 atoms/cm2 AO. At AO exposures greater than 1022 atoms/cm2

 all of the elastomers showed signs 

of degradation, with leak rates rapidly rising. Esterline’s leak rate rose the most, S0383-70 the least. 

Figure 18 shows the sensitivity of the materials to the combined effects of UV and AO, with the 

S0899-50 leak rate rising more than the others elastomers, S0383-70 the least. The sealability of the 

elastomers was unaffected by the electron particle radiation. 

Presently, the leak rate goal for LIDS is <0.01 kg/day. If we ignore the effects of the LIDS double 

seal, we can scale this leak rate goal down to a 2-309 o-ring that we can compare to our SSFF tests. The 

leak rate maximum of 0.01 kg/day for a 58 in. seal scales down to approximately 110–4 kg/day for a 

#2-309 o-ring. For 110–4 kg/day, it can be seen that S0899-50 and ELA-SA-401 are unsuitable after an 

AO fluence of about 1022 atoms/cm2

 (2 to 4 years of space AO exposure) and that S0899-50 fails after a 

combined exposure of about 61021 atoms/cm2

 plus 500 ESH of UV. Figure 18 shows that both the 

Parker S0383-70 and Esterline ELA-SA-401 materials appear adequate after combined AO and UV 

exposures of about 61021 atoms/cm2

 and 1400 ESH. 

Figure 17.—Air leak rate of the candidate elastomers from Parker and Esterline in the 

as-received condition and after treatments of atomic oxygen. 

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

0 1E+22 2E+22 3E+22 4E+22 5E+22 6E+22 7E+22

Leakage, kg/cm-cm

Atomic Oxygen Exposure, atoms/cm-cm

S0899-50

S0383-70

ELA-SA-401
NASA/TM—2010-216332 20 

Figure 18.—Average leak rate of size #2-309 o-rings tested in the SSFF after 

exposure to about 5.81021 atoms/cm2 atomic oxygen, then various amounts 

of ultra-violet radiation in the 115 to 400 nm wavelength range. VUV and NVU 

exposures were approximately equal, thus were averaged. Leak rates of 

about 110–4 kg/day in these smaller seals are about equivalent to the 

maximum allowed for the full-scale seal. 

3.3 Residual Adhesion 

Tables 6 to 8 present the results of adhesion tests on the elastomers in the as-received condition, and 

after various simulated space exposures to AO, UV, and ionizing electron radiation. Adhesion 

measurements are presented in Tables 6 to 8 for Parker’s S0899-50, S0383-70, and for Esterline’s ELASA-401, respectively. In these tables adhesion results are summarized for various exposure conditions 

similar to those of leak rate data: as-received materials listed first; then measurements made after various 

amounts of AO, electron particle radiation, combined AO and UV radiation; and finally adhesion after the 

combined, in series exposure of all three (AO + UV + electron radiation). Adhesion after various other 

treatments to lower either adhesion or outgassing are listed last. Adhesion between pairs of elastomer 

buttons was measured, as well as between one button mated against an aluminum plate. Adhesion results 

between elastomer and aluminum plates are shaded gray in Tables 6 to 8. The adhesion data from these 

tables are shown in Figure 19. Below is shown the average seal-on-seal and seal-on-aluminum adhesion 

for the three compounds in their as-received conditions: 

 Average, as-received Adhesion, psi 

S0899-50 S0383-70 ELA-SA-401 

Seal-on-seal 81.6 38 22 

Seal-on-aluminum 38.4 12 4.6 

For as-received materials, seal-on-aluminum adhesion was on average 53, 68, and 79 percent lower 

than seal-on-seal adhesion for S0899-50, S0383-70, and ELA-SA-401, respectively. The contact surface 

area of LIDS on the aluminum flange on ISS is expected to be about 100 in2

. Thus the expected release 

force during undocking for as-received ELA-SA-401 would be about 460 lb (3,840 lb for S0988-50). The 

seal-on-aluminum adhesion is much lower than seal-on-seal adhesion because the intermolecular forces in 

0.0E+00

1.0E-04

2.0E-04

3.0E-04

4.0E-04

5.0E-04

6.0E-04

7.0E-04

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Air Leak Rate, kg/day

Simulated Space UV, ESH

S0899-50 w/ AO

S0383-70 w/ AO

ELA-SA-401 w/AO
NASA/TM—2010-216332 21 

Figure 19.—Adhesion of as-received and atomic oxygen-treated silicone elastomers. 

the seal-on-seal case are relatively high due to the like molecular architecture and thus the opportunity for 

higher valance forces compared to the seal-on-aluminum case (Ref. 38). The seal-on-seal adhesion of 

S0383-70 dropped to about 1 psi at an AO exposure of about 1020 atoms/cm2

; the seal-on-seal adhesion of 

S0899-50 remained high (10 psi) even after relatively high levels of AO exposure 7×1021 atoms/cm2

). 

LIDS will be used first to dock with ISS. The mating surface on ISS is aluminum. To examine the 

effect of AO on the adhesion between the elastomers and aluminum, the average adhesion between 

Parker’s S0383-70 elastomer, and bare and anodized 6061–T651 aluminum alloy mating surfaces are 

plotted and presented in Figure 20. Adhesion dropped rapidly to about 2 psi with an AO exposure of 

approximately 31019 atoms/cm2

 and then to nearly zero with AO exposures near 11020 atoms/cm2 or 

greater. The adhesion measurements at similar AO exposures had an average standard deviation of 

43 percent (with standard deviation calculated using the “n” method, also known as the root-mean-square 

deviation) (Ref. 39). This variation is shown in the error bars of Figure 20. 

The effects of simulated space UV radiation combined with AO exposure are presented in Figure 21, 

which shows the seal-on-seal adhesion for the three elastomers after an AO exposure and no UV 

exposure, and then with the same AO exposure and then about 1520 ESH of radiation exposure. There 

was no adhesion for S0383-70 and ELA-SA-401 after the AO exposure, and the addition of the 

VUV/NUV radiation had no effect on this post-AO adhesion. Had the AO exposures for these specimens 

been much less, such as 11019 atoms/cm2

, a decrease in adhesion would have probably occurred as a 

result of the UV exposure. Such a decrease in adhesion was seen for the S0899-50 compound after UV 

exposure. The standard deviation of the S0899-50 adhesion measurements prior to UV exposure was 

0.95 psi, or about 10 percent of the 10.5 psi average. The standard deviation among all other 

measurements presented in Figure 21 was zero since adhesion had dropped below our limits of detection. 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 22 

Figure 20.—Average adhesion between metal and Parker’s S0383-70 silicone 

elastomer with increasing levels of atomic oxygen exposure. 

Figure 21.—Adhesion with combined AO and VUV/NUV exposures. 

Adhesion after in-series exposure to first, on average, 5.81021

atoms/cm2

 AO, then either zero or on average 1523 ESH radiation. 

Figure 22 shows the seal-on-seal adhesion of the elastomers after exposure to electron beam, ionizing 

radiation. Electron radiation did not significantly change the adhesive properties of S0899-50 or ELA-SA401; a slight decrease in adhesion was observed for S0383-70 at the higher electron exposure levels. As 

shown in Tables 6 to 8, no synergistic affects on adhesion were observed due to the combined exposure of 

first AO (~31021atoms/cm2

) and then electron radiation. Also, no change in adhesion was observed when 

AO, UV, and electron radiation were combined; the adhesion was dominated by the AO exposure, which 

eliminated adhesion in the S0383-70 and ELA-SA-401 materials. Examining the adhesion data for 

S0899-50, it can be seen that the addition of UV to the AO exposure enhanced the decline in adhesion, 

but when electron radiation was included with AO exposure, adhesion remained the same (no synergistic 

effect on adhesion was observed). No duplicate, or repeat tests were available for the electron radiation 

exposed specimens. The standard deviations of adhesion measurements of as-received materials were 8.4, 

15, and 2 percent for S0899-50, S0383-70, and ELA-SA-401, respectively. 

0

5

10

15

20

0 5E+19 1E+20 1.5E+20 2E+20 2.5E+20

Adhesion, psi

Atomic Oxygen Exposure, atoms/cm2

Seal-Al

Seal-Anodized

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Adhesion, psi

VUV/NUV exposure, ESH

S0899-50

S0383-70

ELA-SA-401
NASA/TM—2010-216332 23 

Figure 22.—Seal-on-seal adhesion with increasing levels of electron particle radiation. 

The deviation in as-received adhesion measurements for the Parker compounds were assumed for the 

electron-exposed measurements and shown as error bars in Figure 22. 

At the bottom of Tables 6 and 7 are adhesion results after high temperature and hydrogen peroxide 

treatments. Exposure of S0899-50 and S0383-70 to high temperature annealing in air did not decrease 

adhesion. A decrease in adhesion of about 50 percent was achieved for S0899-50 by soaking the 

elastomer in 3 or 30 percent hydrogen peroxide for 142 hr. Hydrogen peroxide treatments did not appear 

to influence adhesion for the S0383-70 compound. 

3.4 Compression Set 

Compression set results are presented in Tables 9 to 11. The effect of AO on the elastomers is 

presented in Figure 23, which shows that the compression set of all three compounds tested increases with 

increasing levels of AO exposure, with the compression set of ELA-SA-401 increasing the most. 

Compression set increases were moderate for AO exposures less than 1022 atoms/cm2

. Compression set 

increased slightly when approximately 300 ESH of UV exposure was added to the AO exposure, as 

shown by the data marked by the x, + and solid square in Figure 23. Figure 24 shows that the electron 

radiation had little effect on compression set. A slight decrease in compression set was found with 

increasing levels of electron radiation exposure. This may be due to additional cross-linking of the 

elastomers’ long polymer chains. The data near the bottom of Tables 9 and 10 indicate that the air curing 

anneals increased compression set slightly at the lower temperature of 204 °C, and more at the higher 

temperature with compression set about doubling after the 24 hr, 225 °C anneal. Soaking in hydrogen 

peroxide increased the compression set of S0899-50 by about 50 percent. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 0.5 1 1.5

Adhesion, psi

Electron particle radiation, Mrad

S0899-50

S0383-70

ELA-SA-401
NASA/TM—2010-216332 24 

Figure 23.—Compression set of silicone elastomers with increasing levels of atomic oxygen 

exposure; X, +, and solid square show the effect of adding about 300 ESH of UV radiation 

after AO exposure. 

Figure 24.—Compression set of silicone elastomers with increasing levels of ionizing 

radiation from electrons; the height of the error bars was set equal to the average 

standard deviation for each group. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1E+22 2E+22 3E+22 4E+22 5E+22 6E+22 7E+22

Compression Set, %

Atomic oxygen, atoms/cm2

S0899-50

S0383-70

ELA-SA-401

S0899-50 + UV

S0383-70 + UV

ELA-SA-401 + UV

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 0.5 1 1.5

Compression Set, %

Electron Radiation, Mrad

S0899-50

S0383-70

ELA-SA-401
NASA/TM—2010-216332 25 

3.5 Vacuum Outgassing 

To lower outgassing of the elastomer seals in space, a vacuum heat treatment and AO exposure 

procedure was examined. Listed below are outgas test results of as-received material and after a four-day 

vacuum bake under 810–6 torr at 205 °C and AO treatment 

Condition Parker S0383-70 Esterline ELA-SA-401

 TML, % CVCM, % TML, % CVCM, %

As-received 0.105 0.047 0.12 0.043

Post-treatment 0.118 0.074 0.041 0.019

The vacuum bake and AO treatment did not significantly affect the outgassing characteristics of the 

Parker compound S0383-70; TML and CVCM were in fact slightly higher post-treatment. The Esterline 

compound ELA-SA-401 responded better to the treatment, with both TML and CVCM being cut in about 

half due to the vacuum bake and AO treatment. 

The effects of AO alone, and coating S0383-70 with Braycote grease are shown in Figure 25. The 

1020 atoms/cm2

 AO treatment imposed on the #2-106 o-rings caused a decrease in outgassing for 

S0383-70; and had no significant effect on ELA-SA-401. The Braycote grease caused a slight increase in 

both TML and CVCM, but both were still below the required <1 percent TML and <0.1 percent CVCM 

levels necessary for space flight. 

Figure 25.—Outgassing results for as-received material, and after AO and coating with Braycote grease. 

TML is total mass loss, CVCM is collected volatile condensable materials. 

 

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

Outgas, %

TML %

CVCM %
NASA/TM—2010-216332 26 

4.0 Conclusions 

Exposure of the elastomers to AO caused chemical and physical changes in the seal’s surface 

resulting in a SiOx-rich layer at the surface. This layer decreased the natural adhesive properties of the 

elastomers. Adhesion dropped by a factor of 10 with an AO exposure of about 1019 atoms/cm2, and to 

negligible levels (<1 psi) for S0383-70 and ELA-SA-401 at doses of 1020 atoms/cm2. Seal-on-seal 

adhesion was particularly high for S0899-50, and remained high (~10 psi) even after relatively high AO 

exposures (71021 atoms/cm2

). 

Exposure to AO resulted in increased leakage. All three elastomers sealed well after AO exposures 

<71021 atoms/cm2

; leakage rose extremely rapidly (increasing between 1 and 3 orders-of-magnitude) 

between AO exposure levels of 71021 and 1022 atoms/cm2

. When exposed to AO only, S0899-50 and 

ELA-SA-401 failed (leakage >10–4kg/day) at AO exposures >1022 atoms/cm2

; S0383-70 failed at AO 

exposures >31022 atoms/cm2

. Compression set also rose with AO exposure; however, rather high levels 

of AO (>1022 atoms/cm2

) were required to induce compression set increases. Compression set was about 

double compared to as-received at AO exposures >31022 atoms/cm2

. Note that the expected AO fluence 

per year in space at ISS altitude is no more than 51021 atoms/cm2

. 

Seal leakage increased gradually with increasing levels of UV + a constant 5.81021atoms/cm2

 AO 

exposure. Parker’s S0899-50 was the most sensitive to UV exposure, failing after about 500 ESH of UV + 

AO exposure. The compounds ELA-SA-401 and S0383-70 were just reaching failure limits at UV 

exposures of about 1500 ESH + AO. The UV exposure of 1500 ESH + AO eliminated S0899-50 adhesion 

(<1 psi). The tests indicate UV exposure also exacerbated compression set, increasing it for all three of 

the compounds at 300 ESH. 

Outgassing in ELA-SA-401 was unchanged after AO, and decreased slightly for S0383-70 post-AO 

(1020atoms/cm2

). Braycote grease-coated S0383-70 passed outgassing; with outgassing increasing very 

slightly (TML and CVCM increasing ~0.01 percent). 

No negative consequences of exposures up to 1.3 Mrad (Si) electron radiation were observed. 

Compression set appeared to decline a bit, decreasing the most in the S0899-50 compound. 

Due to high adhesion, and intolerance to UV, S0899-50 was judged to be inadequate for LIDS seal 

applications. Parker’s S0383-70 and Esterline’s ELA-SA-401 were both found to be adequate for LIDS 

seal application. 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 27 

Appendix A.—Acronyms 

AO Atomic Oxygen 

ASTM American Society Test Method 

CBM Common Berthing Mechanism 

CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle 

ESH Equivalent Sun Hours 

GCR Galactic Cosmic Rays 

GRC Glenn Research Center 

ID Identification 

ISS International Space Station 

LEO Low-Earth orbit 

LVDT Linear Variable Differential Transformer 

JSC Johnson Space Center 

LIDS Low Impact Docking System 

MISSE Materials International Space Station Experiments 

MMOD Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NUV Near Ultraviolet 

RF Radio Frequency 

SEP Solar Energetic Particles 

SSFF Small Scale Flow Fixture 

UV Ultraviolet 

VUV Vacuum Ultraviolet 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 28 

References 

1. “ATV: Unmanned but everyone’s on board,” M. Klesius, Aerospace America, June 2007, pp. 38–42. 

2. “Apollo Seals: A Basis for the Crew Exploration Vehicle Seals,” J.R. Finkbeiner, P.H. Dunlap Jr., 

B.M. Steinetz, C.C. Daniels, AIAA–2006–5259, presented at the 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint 

Propulsion Conf. Sacramento CA, 2006; also available as NASA/TM—2006-214372. 

3. “Vacuum Leakage Tests of a Simulated Lightweight Spacecraft Air Lock,” O.F. Trout Jr., 

NASA TN D-5864, 1970. 

4. “Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System (APAS) Interface Definition Document (IDD),” 

Constellation Requirement Management Team, headed by O.N. Pham, Johnson Space Center, 

CXP-01013 Draft, Feb. 2006. 

5. “Environmental Effects on Polymeric Materials,” D.V. Rosato and R.T. Schwartz editors, 

Interscience Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, 1968, p. 121. 

6. Parker O-Ring Handbook, 5700 Handbook, Parker Seals, Parker Hannifin Corp. 2000, copyrighted 

1999, http://www.parker.com/o-ring/Literature/00-5700.pdf, pp. 3–20. 

7. “Behavior of Elastomeric Seals at Low Temperature,” H.P. Weise, H. Kowalewsky, R. Wenz, 

Vacuum, Vol. 43, No. 5–7, 1992, pp. 555–557. 

8. “Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Threats to NASA’s Docking Seals: Initial Assessment and 

Methodology,” H.C. de Groh III, C.A. Gallo, and H.K. Nahra, AIAA–2009–3524, 1st AIAA 

Atmospheric and Space Environments Conf., On-Orbit Spacecraft-Environment Interactions session, 

June 22, 2009, San Antonio TX; also printed as NASA/TM—2009-215835. 

9. “Effects of Hypervelocity Impacts on Silicone Elastomer Seals and Mating Aluminum Surfaces,” 

H.C. de Groh III and B.M. Steinetz, AIAA–2009–5249, 45th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conf., Advanced 

Seals Session, Denver CO, Aug. 8, 2009; also printed as NASA/TM—2009-215836. 

10. “Constellation Program Design Specification for Natural Environments,” Draft 4R, Dec. 19, 2005, 

prepared by Natural Environments Branch, EV13 Spacecraft and Vehicle Systems Dept., Marshall 

Space Flight Center, CXP-00102. 

11. “Outgassing Data for Selecting Spacecraft Materials,” W.A. Campbell Jr., J.J. Scialdone, NASA 

RP-1124, Revision 3, 1993, last updated 1996, http://outgassing.nasa.gov/og_report_document.html 

12. “Issues and Effects of Atomic Oxygen Interactions With Silicone Contamination on Spacecraft in 

Low Earth Orbit,” B. Banks, S. Rutledge, E. Sechkar, T. Stueber, A. Snyder, K. de Groh, C. Haytas, 

D. Brinker, NASA/TM—2000-210056, 2000, http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2000/TM-2000-

210056.pdf 

13. “Consequences of Atomic Oxygen Interactions With Silicone Contamination on Surfaces in Low 

Earth Orbit,” B. Banks, K.K. de Groh, S.K. Rutledge, C.A. Haytas, NASA/TM—1999-209179, 1999, 

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?1999/TM-1999-209179.html 

14. “Atomic Oxygen Interactions With FEP Teflon and Silicones on LDEF,” B.A. Banks, J.A. Dever, L. 

Gebauer, C.M. Hill, LDEF-69 Months in Space, page 801, Proceedings, NASA First Post-Retrieval 

Symp., 1991. 

15. “Low Earth Orbit Durability Evaluation of Protected Silicone for Advanced Reflective Photovoltaic 

Concentrator Arrays,” K.K. de Groh, T.A. McCollum, AIAA 94-0374, 32nd Aerospace Sci. Meeting 

& Exhibit, 1994. 

16. “NASA Glenn Research Center’s Materials International Space Station Experiments (MISSE 1-7),” 

K.K. de Groh, B.A. Banks, J.A. Dever, et al., NASA/TM—2008-215482, p. 9. 

17. “Vacuum Ultraviolet Radiation and Atomic Oxygen Durability Evaluation of HST Bi-Stem Boom 

Thermal Shield Materials,” Dever, J.A., and de Groh, K.K., NASA/TM—2002-211364, February 

2002. 

18. “Effects of Vacuum Ultraviolet Radiation on DC93-500 Silicone,” J.A. Dever, B.A. Banks, L. Yan, 

Jol. of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2006, pp. 386–392. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 29 

19. “Atomic Oxygen Effects on Seal Leakage,” J.R. Christensen, S.D. Underwood, R.R. Kamenetzky, 

J.A. Vaughn, 20th Space Simulation Conf.: The Changing Testing Paradigm NASA/CP—1999-

208598, pp. 195–206, 1999. 

20. “Final Report, United States Developed ESEM Experiments, Evaluation of Space Environment and 

Effects on Materials,” J.I. Applin et al. (http://setas-www.larc.nasa.gov/esem/ 

esem_final_report.html), the section regarding silicones was authored by G. Pippin (http://setaswww.larc.nasa.gov/esem/final_report_append_b.html), Feb. 1999. 

21. “Radiation Effects on Nonelectronic Materials Handbook,” JPL D-5312 1991, pp. 1–35. 

22. “Properties of Metallized Flexible Materials in the Space Environment, Final Report,” TRW 26177-

6048-RU-00, SAMSO TR 78-31, 1978. 

23. NSTS 1988 News Reference Manual, Space Shuttle Orbiter Systems, Thermal Protection System, 

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html 

24. ASTM Designation: E 595–93 (Reapproved 2003), ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO 

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, USA. 

25. “Material Properties of Three Candidate Elastomers for Space Seal Applications,” M.B. Bastrzyk, 

C.C. Daniels, J.J. Oswald, P.H. Dunlap Jr., and B.M. Steinetz, NASA/TM—2010-216263. 

26. Personal communication, Miller, S.K., 2009, from unpublished calculations using Environmental 

Workbench, and Mass Spectrometer Incoherent Scatter Model ‘86 (MSIS-86). 

27. “An Evaluation of Candidate Atomic Oxygen Resistant Materials for Space Applications in LEO,” 

Rutledge, S.K., et al., NASA TM-100122, 1986. 

28. ASTM Standard E2089-00(2006) Standard Practices for Ground Laboratory Atomic Oxygen 

Interaction Evaluation of Materials for Space Applications. 

29. “A Comparison of Atomic Oxygen Erosion Yields of Carbon and Selected Polymers Exposed in 

Ground Based Facilities and in Low Earth Orbit,” Rutledge, S.K., Banks B.A. and Cales, M., 

AIAA–94–2628. 

30. “Low Earth Orbital Atomic Oxygen Environmental Simulation Facility for Space Materials 

Evaluation,” Stidham, C.R., et al. NASA TM-106128, 1993. 

31. “Solar Energetic Particle Variations,” D.V. Reames, COSPAR D2.3-E3.3-0032-02; 

http://epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov/don/Variations.pdf 

32. Personal communication with Dan Yasenchak, E-Beam Services, 2006, unpublished depth/dose 

studies which show dose from 4.5 MeV electrons increases to a peak at a depth of about 1 cm in 

polystyrene; rad dose (water) to (Si) conversion. 

33. ESTAR: Stopping Powers and Ranges for Electrons, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

http://www.physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/method.html 

34. A Compressible Advection Approach in Permeation of Elastomer Space Seals, N.G. Garafolo, Ph.D. 

dissertation, The University of Akron, May 2010. 

35. “The Effects of Atomic Oxygen on the Sealing and Mechanical Performance of an Elastomer Seal,” 

N.G. Garafolo, M.B. Bastrzyk, and C.C. Daniels, AIAA Paper 2010-1440, Proceedings of the AIAA 

Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, Florida, 4-7 January 2010. 

36. “Evaluation of a Novel Seal for Space Applications,” C.C. Daniels, N.G. Garafolo, M.B. Bastrzyk, 

and I.M. Smith, AIAA Paper 2009-5250, Proceedings from the 44th AIAA Joint Propulsion 

Conference & Exhibit, Denver, Colorado, 2-5 August 2009. 

37. “Adhesion of Silicone Elastomer Seals for NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle,” H.C. de Groh III, 

S.K.R. Miller, I.M. Smith, C.C. Daniels, and B.M. Steinetz, 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE, Joint 

Propulsion Conference, July 2008, Paper No. AIAA–2008–4625, July 21, 2008 Hartford, CT; also 

printed as NASA/TM—2008-215433. 

38. “Nature of Adhesion,” F.W. Reinhart, Jol. of Chem. Education, Vol. 31, March 1954, pp. 128–132. 

39. Modern Elementary Statistics, 5th edition, J.E. Freund, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1979, p. 43. 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 30 

TABLE 1.—LEAKAGE OF PARKER’S #2-309 O-RINGS MADE FROM THE COMPOUND 

S0899-50 IN THE AS-RECEIVED CONDITION AND AFTER ATOMIC OXYGEN, 

ULTRAVIOLET, AND ELECTRON RADIATION EXPOSURES 

Leakage—Parker S0899-50 

Specimen ID AO, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV 

exposure, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Air leak rate, 

kg/day 

12 0 0 0 1.72E-06 

12 0 0 0 3.10E-07 

12 0 0 0 1.03E-06 

13 0 0 0 1.26E-06 

13 0 0 0 1.25E-06 

46 5.23E+21 0 0 3.56E-06 

46 5.23E+21 0 0 2.49E-06 

45 7.23E+21 0 0 2.90E-06 

45 7.23E+21 0 0 2.91E-06 

235 1.1E+22 0 0 3.85E-04 

236 1.1E+22 0 0 3.48E-04 

239 2.33E+22 0 0 4.90E-04 

240 2.33E+22 0 0 7.50E-04 

244 6.32E+22 0 0 1.22E-03 

245 6.32E+22 0 0 8.10E-04 

339 0 0 0.45 1.21E-06 

339 0 0 0.45 1.23E-06 

340 0 0 0.45 2.37E-06 

340 0 0 0.45 1.39E-06 

345 0 0 0.9 3.87E-06 

345 0 0 0.9 1.95E-06 

346 0 0 0.9 1.79E-06 

346 0 0 0.9 1.82E-06 

351 0 0 1.3 1.44E-06 

351 0 0 1.3 2.18E-06 

352 0 0 1.3 2.22E-06 

352 0 0 1.3 3.11E-06 

351 0 0 2.7 4.00E-06 

108 2.47E+21 0 0.45 3.32E-06 

108 2.47E+21 0 0.45 3.11E-06 

46 5.23E+21 0 0.45 3.13E-06 

46 5.23E+21 0 0.45 3.27E-06 

169 5.50E+21 250/395 0 1.39E-05 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 31 

TABLE 1.—Concluded. 

Leakage—Parker S0899-50 

Specimen ID AO, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV 

exposure, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Air leak rate, 

kg/day 

169 5.50E+21 409/697 0 9.96E-05 

169 5.50E+21 409/698 0 8.23E-05 

169 5.50E+21 694/970 0 2.40E-04 

169 5.50E+21 694/971 0 2.90E-04 

169 5.50E+21 1147/1221 0 5.70E-04 

169 5.50E+21 1147/1222 0 5.60E-04 

169 5.50E+21 1529/1529 0 9.00E-04 

169 5.50E+21 1529/1529 0 7.30E-04 

60 7.26E+21 312/345 0 7.31E-05 

60 7.26E+21 312/345 0 7.58E-05 

60 7.26E+21 500/617 0 1.94E-04 

60 7.26E+21 500/617 0 1.84E-04 

60 7.26E+21 741/920 0 3.64E-04 

60 7.26E+21 741/920 0 3.22E-04 

60 7.26E+21 1111/1154 0 4.50E-04 

60 7.26E+21 1111/1155 0 5.10E-04 

60 7.26E+21 1494/1505 0 6.10E-04 

60 7.26E+21 1494/1505 0 6.40E-04 

60 7.26E+21 1494/1505 0.45 1.40E-03 

60 7.26E+21 1494/1505 0.45 4.80E-04 

60 7.26E+21 1494/1505 0.45 5.30E-04 

169 5.49E+21 1529/1528 0.45 6.40E-04 

169 5.49E+21 1529/1528 0.45 6.10E-04 

Adhesion Reduction Treatment 

474 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 1.80E-06 

459 B: 225 °C for 24.5 hr 2.60E-06 

489 C: 22 hr in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 1.70E-06 

490 C: 22 hr in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 1.30E-06 

498 F: 24 hr, 80 °C, 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 1.80E-06 

501 G: 142 hr, 80 °C, 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 2.40E-06 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 32 

TABLE 2.—LEAKAGE OF PARKER’S #2-309 O-RINGS MADE FROM THE COMPOUND 

S0383-70 IN THE AS-RECEIVED CONDITION AND AFTER ATOMIC OXYGEN, 

ULTRAVIOLET, AND ELECTRON RADIATION EXPOSURES 

Leakage—Parker S0383-70 

Specimen ID AO, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV 

exposure, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Air leak rate, 

kg/day 

10 0 0 0 6.09E-07 

10 0 0 0 6.72E-07 

10 0 0 0 3.77E-07 

11 0 0 0 5.52E-07 

11 0 0 0 8.46E-07 

44 4.93E+21 0 0 1.88E-06 

44 4.93E+21 0 0 2.28E-06 

43 6.04E+21 0 0 1.17E-06 

43 6.04E+21 0 0 1.63E-06 

49 6.71E+21 0 0 9.76E-07 

49 6.71E+21 0 0 2.23E-06 

219 1.51E+22 0 0 1.92E-05 

220 1.51E+22 0 0 3.06E-05 

224 2.92E+22 0 0 9.08E-05 

225 2.92E+22 0 0 2.10E-04 

229 6.69E+22 0 0 3.30E-04 

230 6.69E+22 0 0 2.40E-04 

321 0 0 0.45 1.64E-06 

321 0 0 0.45 1.42E-06 

322 0 0 0.45 2.63E-06 

322 0 0 0.45 1.57E-06 

327 0 0 0.9 1.33E-06 

327 0 0 0.9 1.40E-06 

328 0 0 0.9 1.01E-06 

328 0 0 0.9 1.03E-06 

333 0 0 1.3 1.35E-06 

333 0 0 1.3 1.46E-06 

334 0 0 1.3 2.76E-07 

334 0 0 1.3 1.78E-06 

334 0 0 2.7 4.74E-07 

44 4.93E+21 0 0.45 1.31E-06 

44 4.93E+21 0 0.45 1.13E-06 

101 2.35E+21 0 0.45 1.78E-06 

101 2.35E+21 0 0.45 9.12E-07 

164 5.11E+21 267/382 0 2.96E-06 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 33 

TABLE 2.—Concluded. 

Leakage—Parker S0383-70 

Specimen ID AO, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV 

exposure, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Air leak rate, 

kg/day 

164 5.11E+21 267/382 0 7.75E-06 

164 5.11E+21 414/694 0 7.99E-06 

164 5.11E+21 414/694 0 7.61E-06 

164 5.11E+21 638/1008 0 1.49E-05 

164 5.11E+21 638/1008 0 1.25E-05 

164 5.11E+21 1113/1250 0 1.71E-05 

164 5.11E+21 1113/1250 0 1.67E-05 

164 5.11E+21 1568/1528 0 2.10E-05 

164 5.11E+21 1568/1528 0 9.85E-05 

165 5.36E+21 250/395 0 6.34E-06 

165 5.36E+21 250/395 0 7.47E-06 

165 5.36E+21 397/708 0 2.53E-05 

165 5.36E+21 397/708 0 2.41E-05 

165 5.36E+21 638/1011 0 4.34E-05 

165 5.36E+21 638/1011 0 3.76E-05 

165 5.36E+21 1113/1252 0 5.75E-05 

165 5.36E+21 1113/1252 0 7.12E-05 

165 5.36E+21 1541/1542 0 9.80E-05 

165 5.36E+21 1541/1542 0 9.89E-05 

164 5.11E+21 1568/1528 0.45 8.66E-06 

164 5.11E+21 1568/1528 0.45 1.17E-05 

165 5.36E+21 1541/1542 0.45 7.14E-05 

165 5.36E+21 1541/1542 0.45 5.61E-05 

Adhesion Reduction Technique 

468 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 7.30E-07 

859 J: 4 days vacuum/204 °C, 4.9e 20 atoms/cm2 1.60E-06 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 34 

TABLE 3.—LEAKAGE OF ESTERLINE’S #2-309 O-RINGS MADE FROM ELA-SA-401 

IN THE AS-RECEIVED CONDITION AND AFTER ATOMIC OXYGEN, 

ULTRAVIOLET, AND ELECTRON RADIATION EXPOSURES 

Leakage—Esterline ELA-SA-401 

Specimen ID AO, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV 

exposure, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Air leak rate, 

kg/day 

14 0 0 0 2.21E-06 

14 0 0 0 8.65E-07 

14 0 0 0 7.61E-07 

14 0 0 0 1.86E-06 

15 0 0 0 1.27E-06 

15 0 0 0 1.04E-06 

357 0 0 0 1.12E-06 

48 6.22E+21 0 0 2.63E-06 

48 6.22E+21 0 0 1.81E-06 

47 7.01E+21 0 0 3.68E-06 

47 7.01E+21 0 0 1.68E-06 

249 1.18E+22 0 0 1.57E-03 

250 1.18E+22 0 0 8.10E-04 

254 3.90E+22 0 0 1.35E-03 

255 3.90E+22 0 0 1.80E-03 

259 6.22E+22 0 0 5.42E-03 

260 6.22E+22 0 0 2.51E-03 

357 0 0 0.45 1.09E-06 

358 0 0 0.45 1.31E-06 

363 0 0 0.90 1.15E-06 

364 0 0 0.90 1.24E-06 

369 0 0 1.30 1.62E-06 

370 0 0 1.30 1.69E-06 

48 6.22E+21 0 0.45 1.49E-06 

48 6.22E+21 0 0.45 1.39E-06 

175 5.37E+21 267/381 0 1.24E-05 

175 5.37E+21 267/381 0 9.38E-06 

175 5.37E+21 455/653 0 2.58E-05 

175 5.37E+21 455/653 0 2.04E-05 

175 5.37E+21 741/926 0 3.61E-05 

175 5.37E+21 741/926 0 3.40E-05 

175 5.37E+21 1113/1250 0 6.40E-05 

175 5.37E+21 1113/1250 0 6.60E-05 

175 5.37E+21 1468/1523 0 1.10E-04 

175 5.37E+21 1468/1523 0 1.10E-04 

63 6.03E+21 312/345 0 1.36E-05 

63 6.03E+21 312/345 0 1.36E-05 

63 6.03E+21 470/647 0 2.05E-05 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 35 

TABLE 3.—Concluded. 

Leakage—Esterline ELA-SA-401 

Specimen ID AO, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV 

exposure, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Air leak rate, 

kg/day 

63 6.03E+21 470/647 0 2.00E-05 

63 6.03E+21 694/960 0 3.66E-05 

63 6.03E+21 694/960 0 3.47E-05 

63 6.03E+21 1098/1227 0 5.56E-05 

63 6.03E+21 1098/1228 0 5.66E-05 

63 6.03E+21 1553/1505 0 8.16E-05 

63 6.03E+21 1553/1505 0 9.60E-05 

175 5.37E+21 1468/1523 0.45 7.82E-05 

175 5.37E+21 1468/1523 0.45 8.10E-05 

63 6.03E+21 1553/1505 0.45 6.37E-05 

63 6.03E+21 1553/1505 0.45 6.93E-05 

63 6.03E+21 1553/1505 0.45 5.62E-05 

Adhesion Reduction Technique 

863 J: 4 days vacuum/204 °C, 4.9e20 atoms/cm2 4.08E-06 

TABLE 4.—AVERAGE NUV/VUV EXPOSURE CONDITIONS FOR 

CANDIDATE LIDS ELASTOMERS 

Exposure 

increment 

Average NUV exposure, 

equivalent Sun hours 

Average VUV exposure, 

equivalent Sun hours 

1 365 286 

2 291 170 

3 293 256 

4 259 425 

5 296 413 

TABLE 5.—HEAT AND HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TREATMENTS 

USED TO DECREASE ADHESION 

Treatment ID 

A 204 °C in air for 24 hr 

B 225 °C in air for 24.5 hr 

C 265 °C in air for 20 min + 226 °C for 23 hr 

D 22 hr submerged in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 

E 142 hr submerged in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 

F 80 °C for 24 hr submerged in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 

G 80 °C for 142 hr submerged in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 

H 142 hr at room temperature submerged in 30 percent hydrogen peroxide 

I 142 hr at room temperature submerged in 50 percent hydrogen peroxide 

J 4 days vacuum/204 °C, +4.9e 20 atoms/cm2

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 36 

TABLE 6.—ADHESION OF BUTTONS MADE FROM PARKER’S S0899-50 ELASTOMER 

IN THE AS-RECEIVED CONDITION AND AFTER ATOMIC OXYGEN, ULTRAVIOLET, 

AND ELECTRON RADIATION EXPOSURES 

[In most cases the adhesion measured was between two buttons; the identification (ID) numbers for the 

two buttons being given in the ID column. Two tests were done with buttons pressed against a flat plate 

of aluminum, the aluminum was given the ID of Al. Tests against the aluminum plate are shaded gray 

in the table. The AO, UV, and electron radiations listed are the average for the two specimens.] 

Adhesion—Parker S0899-50 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NVU, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Adhesion, 

lb/in.2

26/27 0 0 0 85.8 

22/23 0 0 0 72.1 

24/25 0 0 0 87.4 

533/Al 0 0 0 31.8 

532/Al 0 0 0 45 

524/525 6.40E+20 0 0 4.7 

526/527 1.30E+21 0 0 4.3 

145/144 1.59E+21 0 0 13.41 

138/141 1.81E+21 0 0 9.97 

142/149 1.96E+21 0 0 11.3 

197/198 2.93E+21 0 0 11.94 

192/201 5.06E+21 0 0 9.6 

90/93 5.18E+21 0 0 10.8 

88/91 7.35E+21 0 0 9.7 

273/274 1.10E+22 0 0 0.3 

393/394 0 0 0.45 67 

399/400 0 0 0.9 72.4 

405/406 0 0 1.3 74 

142/149 1.96E+21 0 0.45 13.1 

192/201 5.06E+21 0 0.45 9.65 

73/75 5.32E+21 1533/1525 0 0.3 

89/200 5.45E+21 1520/1523 0 0.3 

70/71 6.37E+21 1522/1515 0 0.3 

Adhesion Reduction Technique 

475/476 A: 24 hr at 204 °C 70.9 

443/444 C: 265 °C for 20 min. + 226 °C for 23 hr 99.4 

494/495 D: 22 hr 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 58.8 

502/503 E: 142 hr 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 41.4 

499/500 F: 24 hr, 80 °C, 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 59.9 

509/510 H: 142 hr in room temperature 30 percent peroxide 42.4 

516/517 I: 142 hr in 50 percent hydrogen peroxide 53.4 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 37 

TABLE 7.—ADHESION OF BUTTONS MADE FROM PARKER’S S0383-70 ELASTOMER IN 

THE AS-RECEIVED CONDITION AND AFTER ATOMIC OXYGEN, ULTRAVIOLET, 

AND ELECTRON RADIATION EXPOSURES 

[Adhesion measured was between two buttons; the identification (ID) numbers for the two buttons 

are given in the ID column. Adhesion tests against a flat plate of aluminum are given the ID of Al. 

Tests between a button and an anodized aluminum plate include the ID AlAn. Tests against 

the bare the aluminum or anodized aluminum are shaded gray in the table. The AO, UV, 

and electron radiations listed are the average for the two specimens.]

Adhesion—Parker S0383-70 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Adhesion, 

lb/in.2

16/17 0 0 0 30.3 

18/19 0 0 0 44.5 

20/21 0 0 0 39.4 

530/Al 0 0 0 4.25 

531/Al 0 0 0 10.27 

o-ring 535/Al 0 0 0 22.2 

A12/A13 1.00E+18 0 0 12.6 

B22/B23 3.00E+18 0 0 2.2 

C32/C33 1.00E+19 0 0 1.6 

748/749 7.00E+19 0 0 3.3 

750/751 1.00E+20 0 0 1.5 

520/521 6.40E+20 0 0 0.3 

A12/Al 1.00E+18 0 0 4.9 

B22/Al 3.00E+18 0 0 5.4 

C32/Al 1.00E+19 0 0 2.8 

753/Al 2.10E+19 0 0 3.34 

754/Al 2.80E+19 0 0 4.5 

784/Al 3.10E+19 0 0 1.76 

789/Al 4.23E+19 0 0 2.34 

791/Al 4.34E+19 0 0 2.06 

785/Al 4.91E+19 0 0 1.07 

787/Al 5.05E+19 0 0 2.26 

769/Al 7.30E+19 0 0 0.3 

764/Al 9.65E+19 0 0 0.61 

767/Al 1.08E+20 0 0 0.3 

758/Al 1.10E+20 0 0 0.67 

520/Al 6.40E+20 0 0 0.3 

768/AlAn 2.67E+19 0 0 1.5 

782/AlAn 2.87E+19 0 0 1.3 

779/AlAn 2.99E+19 0 0 0.63 

761/AlAn 3.16E+19 0 0 2.9 

781/AlAn 3.50E+19 0 0 4.13 

762/AlAn 3.66E+19 0 0 2.11 

756/AlAn 4.33E+19 0 0 3.63 

777/AlAn 4.69E+19 0 0 2.68 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 38 

TABLE 7.—Continued. 

Adhesion—Parker S0383-70 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Adhesion, 

lb/in.2

771/AlAn 4.73E+19 0 0 2.75 

812/AlAn 4.75E+19 0 0 3.6 

808/AlAn 4.90E+19 0 0 3.88 

807/AlAn 5.07E+19 0 0 2.02 

763/AnAl 5.17E+19 0 0 2.03 

770/AlAn 5.42E+19 0 0 0.3 

772/AlAn 5.51E+19 0 0 1.21 

811/AlAn 5.73E+19 0 0 2.94 

757/AlAn 5.75E+19 0 0 0.3 

755/AlAn 5.80E+19 0 0 1.23 

778/AlAn 5.91E+19 0 0 3.19 

806/AlAn 6.25E+19 0 0 1.6 

810/AlAn 6.82E+19 0 0 0.3 

819/AlAn 6.92E+19 0 0 0.7 

818/AlAn 6.99E+19 0 0 2.41 

817/AlAn 7.07E+19 0 0 2.36 

805/AlAn 7.40E+19 0 0 1.35 

760/AlAn 7.42E+19 0 0 0.45 

815/AlAn 7.58E+19 0 0 2.15 

816/AlAn 7.65E+19 0 0 2.48 

814/AlAn 7.66E+19 0 0 3.41 

804/AlAn 7.74E+19 0 0 0.3 

813/AlAn 7.75E+19 0 0 3.28 

809/AlAn 7.92E+19 0 0 2.76 

809/AlAn 7.92E+19 0 0 0.3 

775/AlAn 9.06E+19 0 0 0.3 

776/AlAn 9.21E+19 0 0 0.3 

765/AlAn 1.03E+20 0 0 0.3 

766/AlAn 1.07E+20 0 0 0.6 

759/AlAn 1.77E+20 0 0 0.3 

522/523 1.30E+21 0 0 0.3 

130/131 1.58E+21 0 0 2.8 

130/131 1.58E+21 0 0 0.3 

124/128 1.70E+21 0 0 1.9 

123/129 2.00E+21 0 0 0.3 

124/125 2.10E+21 0 0 1.0 

126/127 2.10E+21 0 0 1.9 

181/184 3.05E+21 0 0 0.4 

178/179 5.15E+21 0 0 0.3 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 39 

TABLE 7.—Concluded. 

Adhesion—Parker S0383-70 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Adhesion, 

lb/in.2

84/187 5.32E+21 0 0 0.3 

65/69 5.78E+21 0 0 0.3 

64/85 6.97E+21 0 0 0.3 

68/87 7.62E+21 0 0 0.3 

261/262 1.51E+22 0 0 0.3 

375/376 0 0 0.45 44.2 

381/382 0 0 0.9 36.2 

387/388 0 0 1.3 24.6 

124/128 1.70E+21 0 0.45 3.8 

178/179 5.15E+21 0 0.45 0.3 

65/69 5.78E+21 1582/1489 0 0.3 

66/83 6.03E+21 1560/1503 0 0.3 

67/82 6.52E+21 1533/1517 0 0.3 

65/69 5.78E+21 1582/1489 0.45 0.3 

Adhesion Reduction Technique 

434/435 C: 265 °C for 20 min + 226 °C for 23 hr 57.5 

507/508 H: 142 hr, 30 percent hydrogen peroxide 37.6 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 40 

TABLE 8.—ADHESION OF BUTTONS MADE FROM ESTERLINE’S ELA-SA-401 ELASTOMER IN 

THE AS-RECEIVED CONDITION AND AFTER ATOMIC OXYGEN, ULTRAVIOLET, 

AND ELECTRON RADIATION EXPOSURES 

[Adhesion measured was between two buttons; the identification (ID) numbers for the two buttons are given 

in the ID column. Adhesion tests against a flat plate of aluminum are given the ID of Al. Tests between 

buttons and an anodized aluminum plate include the ID AlAn. Tests against bare 

aluminum or anodized aluminum are shaded gray in the table. The AO, UV, 

and electron radiations listed are the average for the two specimens.] 

Adhesion—Esterline ELA-SA-401 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Adhesion, 

lb/in.2

28/29 0 0 0 21.5 

30/31 0 0 0 22.4 

32/33 0 0 0 21.5 

528/Al 0 0 0 4 

529/Al 0 0 0 3.4 

o-ring 534/Al 0 0 0 6.5 

151/Al 2.00E+21 0 0 0.3 

151/Al 2.00E+21 0 0 0.8 

153/159 1.61E+21 0 0 0.3 

158/160 1.74E+21 0 0 0.3 

150/151 1.96E+21 0 0 0.3 

206/213 3.10E+21 0 0 0.96 

208/208 5.31E+21 0 0 0.3 

94/96 7.20E+21 0 0 0.3 

286/285 1.18E+22 0 0 0.3 

413/414 0 0 0.45 23.6 

419/420 0 0 0.9 25.5 

423/424 0 0 1.3 22.75 

150/151 1.96E+21 0 0.45 0.3 

95/97 5.65E+21 1525/1495 0 0.3 

76/98 5.83E+21 1547/1498 0 0.3 

80/99 6.40E+21 1356/1354 80/0.45 0.3 

76/80 6.10E+21 1565/1501 0.45 0.3 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 41 

TABLE 9.—COMPRESSION SET FOR PARKER’S S0899-50 #2-309 O-RINGS IN THE AS-RECEIVED 

CONDITION AND AFTER AO, UV, AND ELECTRON RADIATION 

[O-rings from the same test were averaged together and are boxed together in the table (see bold outline). 

Special experiments designed to lower adhesion are included at the end.] 

Compression set—Parker S0899-50 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NVU, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Compression set,

percent 

Average 

compression set, 

percent 

Standard 

deviation, 

percent 

4 0 0 0 8.36 7.7 0.60 

5 0 0 0 7.78 

6 0 0 0 6.89 

171 2.96E+21 0 0 11.79 14.5 4.56 

170 4.76E+21 0 0 20.9 

61 5.19E+21 0 0 10.75 

38 5.41E+21 0 0 10.66 8.9 2.94 

37 6.22E+21 0 0 11.34 

39 7.25E+21 0 0 4.79 

232 1.10E+22 0 0 11.3 11.1 0.22 

233 1.10E+22 0 0 10.86 

236 2.33E+22 0 0 18.5 19.8 1.02 

237 2.33E+22 0 0 19.76 

238 2.33E+22 0 0 21.01 

241 6.32E+22 0 0 29.6 26.7 2.37 

242 6.32E+22 0 0 26.7 

243 6.32E+22 0 0 23.8 

341 0 0 0.45 2.85 3.5 3.13 

342 0 0 0.45 0 

344 0 0 0.45 7.6 

347 0 0 0.9 9.2 12.1 2.26 

348 0 0 0.9 14.7 

349 0 0 0.9 12.5 

353 0 0 1.3 2.53 2.7 1.01 

354 0 0 1.3 1.53 

355 0 0 1.3 4 

53 5.42E+21 269/284 0 16.76 16.76 n/a 

52 6.50E+21 294/358 0 18.8 18.8 n/a 

54 6.70E+21 405/266 0 17 17 n/a 

Adhesion Reduction Technique 

471 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 11.4 10.1 3.16 

472 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 13.1 

473 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 5.7 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 42 

TABLE 9.—Concluded. 

Compression set—Parker S0899-50 

ID Average AO exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NVU, 

ESH 

Electron radiation, 

Mrad 

Compression 

set, 

percent 

456 B: 225 °C for 24.5 hr 24.64 21.8 2.08 

457 B: 225 °C for 24.5 hr 19.66 

458 B: 225 °C for 24.5 hr 21.24 

Adhesion Reduction Technique 

491 D: 22 hr in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 11.3 15.2 3.00 

492 D: 22 hr in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 15.6 

493 D: 22 hr in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide 18.6 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 43 

TABLE 10.—COMPRESSION SET FOR PARKER’S S0383-70, #2-309 O-RINGS IN THE AS-RECEIVED 

CONDITION AND AFTER AO, UV, AND ELECTRON RADIATION 

[O-rings from the same test were averaged together and are boxed together in the table (see bold outline). 

Special experiments designed to lower adhesion are included at the end.] 

Compression set—Parker S0383-70 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NVU, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Compression set, 

percent 

Average 

compression set, 

percent 

Standard 

deviation, 

percent 

1 0 0 0 10.09 8.9 1.38 

2 0 0 0 6.99 

3 0 0 0 9.7 

100 2.52E+21 0 0 13.7 14.6 1.13 

167 2.84E+21 0 0 16.2 

51 4.90E+21 0 0 13.9 

34 6.02E+21 0 0 15.24 15.0 2.92 

35 6.49E+21 0 0 18.47 

36 7.64E+21 0 0 11.32 

216 1.51E+22 0 0 14.17 17.1 2.28 

217 1.51E+22 0 0 19.75 

218 1.51E+22 0 0 17.3 

221 3.02E+22 0 0 24.2 21.6 1.88 

222 3.02E+22 0 0 20.44 

223 3.02E+22 0 0 20.01 

226 6.33E+22 0 0 24.7 25.1 0.45 

227 6.33E+22 0 0 24.8 

228 6.33E+22 0 0 25.7 

323 0 0 0.45 6.35 9.7 2.64 

324 0 0 0.45 12.8 

325 0 0 0.45 10.03 

329 0 0 0.9 10.6 12.8 1.55 

330 0 0 0.9 13.6 

331 0 0 0.9 14.1 

335 0 0 1.3 7.04 6.1 0.71 

336 0 0 1.3 5.81 

337 0 0 1.3 5.36 

59 5.60E+21 452/250 0 16.9 16.9 n/a 

58 6.02E+21 177/284 0 20.32 20.32 n/a 

50 6.55E+21 295/358 0 15.77 15.77 n/a 

Adhesion Reduction Technique 

465 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 16.6 14.8 1.99 

466 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 15.7 

467 A: 204 °C for 24 hr 12 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 44 

TABLE 10.—Concluded. 

Compression set—Parker S0383-70 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NVU, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Compression set, 

percent 

Average 

compression set, 

percent 

Standard 

deviation, 

percent 

447 B: 225 °C for 24.5 hr 

B: 225 °C for 24.5 hr 

B: 225 °C for 24.5 hr 

17.75 18.6 1.53 

448 20.74 

449 17.29 

 
NASA/TM—2010-216332 45 

TABLE 11.—COMPRESSION SET FOR ESTERLINE’S ELA-SA-401 ELASTOMER SIZE #2-309 O-RINGS 

IN THE AS-RECEIVED CONDITION AND AFTER AO, UV, AND ELECTRON RADIATION 

[O-rings from the same test were averaged combined and are boxed together in the table.] 

Compression set—Esterline ELA-SA-401 

ID Average AO 

exposure, 

atoms/cm2

VUV/NUV, 

ESH 

Electron 

radiation, 

Mrad 

Compression set, 

percent 

Average 

compression set, 

percent 

Standard 

deviation, 

percent 

7 0 0 0 19.23 19.3 2.52 

8 0 0 0 16.3 

9 0 0 0 22.46 

40 5.89E+21 0 0 15.76 16.1 0.35 

41 6.94E+21 0 0 15.93 

42 6.55E+21 0 0 16.57 

246 1.00E+22 0 0 25.9 24.6 0.90 

247 1.00E+22 0 0 24.2 

278 1.00E+22 0 0 23.84 

251 3.20E+22 0 0 30.6 37.2 6.53 

252 3.20E+22 0 0 46.1 

253 3.20E+22 0 0 34.9 

359 0 0 0.45 6.98 12.6 4.19 

360 0 0 0.45 13.96 

361 0 0 0.45 16.99 

365 0 0 0.9 16.96 20.0 2.50 

366 0 0 0.9 23.09 

367 0 0 0.9 20 

371 0 0 1.3 5.05 12.0 5.16 

372 0 0 1.3 13.6 

373 0 0 1.3 17.4 

56 5.63E+21 177/284 0 23.7 23.7 n/a 

62 5.64E+21 428/290 0 25 25 n/a 

57 5.77E+21 270/284 0 35.75 35.75 n/a 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-07-2010 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Space Environment Effects on Silicone Seal Materials 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

de Groh, Henry, C., III; Daniels, Christopher, C.; Dever, Joyce, A.; Miller, Sharon, K.; 

Waters, Deborah, L.; Finkbeiner, Joshua, R.; Dunlap, Patrick, H., Jr.; Steinetz, Bruce, M. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 644423.06.31.04.01.03.22 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17267 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2010-216332 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 18, 27, and 38 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

A docking system is being developed by the NASA to support future space missions. It is expected to use redundant elastomer seals to help 

contain cabin air during dockings between two spacecraft. The sealing surfaces are exposed to the space environment when vehicles are not 

docked. In space, the seals will be exposed to temperatures between 125 to -75 °C, vacuum, atomic oxygen, particle and ultraviolet 

radiation, and micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD). Silicone rubber is the only class of space flight-qualified elastomeric seal 

material that functions across the expected temperature range. NASA Glenn has tested three silicone elastomers for such seal applications: 

two provided by Parker (S0899-50 and S0383-70) and one from Esterline (ELA-SA-401). The effects of atomic oxygen (AO), UV and 

electron particle radiation, and vacuum on the properties of these three elastomers were examined. Critical seal properties such as leakage, 

adhesion, and compression set were measured before and after simulated space exposures. The S0899-50 silicone was determined to be 

inadequate for extended space seal applications due to high adhesion and intolerance to UV, but both S0383-70 and ELA-SA-401 seals were 

adequate. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Elastomers; Adhesion; Outgassing; Ultraviolet radiation; Electron radiation; Low Earth orbits; Leakage; Silicone rubber 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

51 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18