Arielle H. Stambler, Karen E. Inoshita, Lily M. Roberts, and Claire E. Barbagallo

Hathaway Brown School, Shaker Heights, Ohio

Kim K. de Groh

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Bruce A. Banks

Alphaport, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio

Ground-Laboratory to In-Space Atomic Oxygen 

Correlation for the Polymer Erosion and

Contamination Experiment (PEACE) Polymers

NASA/TM—2011-216904

January 2011
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
Arielle H. Stambler, Karen E. Inoshita, Lily M. Roberts, and Claire E. Barbagallo

Hathaway Brown School, Shaker Heights, Ohio

Kim K. de Groh

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Bruce A. Banks

Alphaport, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio

Ground-Laboratory to In-Space Atomic Oxygen 

Correlation for the Polymer Erosion and

Contamination Experiment (PEACE) Polymers

NASA/TM—2011-216904

January 2011

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

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

(ICPMSE-9)

Toronto, Canada, May 20–23, 2008
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Patty Hunt from Hathaway Brown School for providing the opportunity for students to work 

on this research project at NASA Glenn Research Center. Also, thank you to NASA mechanical technician Frank Lam for 

making the metal holder that was used for the asher tests.

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—2011-216904 1 

Ground-Laboratory to In-Space Atomic Oxygen Correlation for 

the Polymer Erosion and Contamination Experiment 

(PEACE) Polymers 

Arielle H. Stambler, Karen E. Inoshita, Lily M. Roberts, and Claire E. Barbagallo 

Hathaway Brown School 

Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122 

Kim K. de Groh 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Bruce A. Banks 

Alphaport, Inc. 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

The Materials International Space Station Experiment 2 (MISSE 2) Polymer Erosion and 

Contamination Experiment (PEACE) polymers were exposed to the environment of low Earth 

orbit (LEO) for 3.95 years from 2001 to 2005. There were 41 different PEACE polymers, which 

were flown on the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS) in order to determine their 

atomic oxygen erosion yields. In LEO, atomic oxygen is an environmental durability threat, 

particularly for long duration mission exposures. Although spaceflight experiments, such as the 

MISSE 2 PEACE experiment, are ideal for determining LEO environmental durability of 

spacecraft materials, ground-laboratory testing is often relied upon for durability evaluation and 

prediction. Unfortunately, significant differences exist between LEO atomic oxygen exposure 

and atomic oxygen exposure in ground-laboratory facilities. These differences include variations 

in species, energies, thermal exposures and radiation exposures, all of which may result in 

different reactions and erosion rates. In an effort to improve the accuracy of ground-based 

durability testing, ground-laboratory to in-space atomic oxygen correlation experiments have 

been conducted. In these tests, the atomic oxygen erosion yields of the PEACE polymers were 

determined relative to Kapton H using a radio-frequency (RF) plasma asher (operated on air). 

The asher erosion yields were compared to the MISSE 2 PEACE erosion yields to determine the 

correlation between erosion rates in the two environments. This paper provides a summary of 

the MISSE 2 PEACE experiment; it reviews the specific polymers tested as well as the 

techniques used to determine erosion yield in the asher, and it provides a correlation between the 

space and ground-laboratory erosion yield values. Using the PEACE polymers’ asher to in-space 

erosion yield ratios will allow more accurate in-space materials performance predictions to be 

made based on plasma asher durability evaluation. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 2 

Introduction 

Vulnerable spacecraft materials are eroded by atomic oxygen (AO) interaction in low Earth orbit 

(LEO). Atomic oxygen is formed when short wavelength ultraviolet (UV) radiation 

photodissociates diatomic oxygen. In LEO, at spacecraft velocities of approximately 

17,500 miles/hr (28,000 km/hr), spacecraft literally “ram” into the residual AO and oxidation of 

exterior spacecraft materials can occur. At International Space Station (ISS) altitudes (400 km) 

the average impact energy is approximately 4.5 eV [1]. For materials with volatile oxidation 

products, such as most polymers, AO interaction results in erosion. Atomic oxygen erosion can 

result in serious structural and/or optical property degradation of exterior polymeric spacecraft 

components, such as thermal control insulation films. 

Spaceflight opportunities are unique, expensive, and time-consuming, which is why AO groundlaboratory testing, such as in a radio frequency (RF) plasma asher, is often used for spacecraft 

material durability prediction. However, the correlation between in-space degradation and 

ground-testing degradation needs to be determined because multiple differences exist between 

ground facilities and space-exposure. These differences include variations in species, energies, 

thermal exposures and radiation exposures, all of which may result in different reactions and 

erosion rates. For example, differences can exist in the arrival direction in ground facilities 

compared to space. Materials exposed to the LEO environment often receive either directed or 

sweeping ram AO, whereas in a plasma asher the AO arrival is isotropic. The AO energy of a 

plasma asher is much lower (0.05 eV) than the AO energy in LEO. Samples in a plasma asher 

receive an intense amount of UV radiation, whereas samples receive many types of radiation in 

LEO, including broad spectrum UV radiation, electron and proton radiation, and solar flare xrays. Finally, AO as well as diatomic nitrogen, diatomic oxygen, and monatomic nitrogen in 

both excited and ground energy states are present in an asher when it is operated using air as the 

feed gas. However, ground state AO is the predominant species of the LEO environment [2]. 

All of these exposure differences may affect the rate of degradation of materials exposed to these 

various environments. As a consequence, the relative atomic oxygen erosion yields of polymers 

measured in RF plasma ashers can be significantly different than in LEO. Studies have been 

conducted to try to understand the effect of various factors within ground-test facilities on 

erosion yields of certain polymers. For example, Rutledge et. al conducted a series of 

experiments to isolate UV radiation and charged species during AO exposure of polyethylene 

(PE), Teflon fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), and Kapton HN relative to Kapton H in a 

plasma asher [3]. The same materials were also exposed to a hyperthermal AO beam [3]. The 

results were found to vary with the polymer and indicated that UV, charged particle exposure, 

and beam energy affect the erosion yield of FEP and PE but not Kapton HN. 

In this experiment, the AO erosion yields of numerous polymers in an RF plasma asher were 

determined to provide a comparison between ground exposure and in-space exposure. The 

erosion yields of 39 different polymers were determined in a plasma asher relative to Kapton H 

polyimide. Kapton H is used as a reference because its in-space erosion yield is wellcharacterized in LEO (3.00 x 10-24

 cm3/atom) [4]. The asher erosion yield values were compared 

to in-space erosion yield values from the Polymer Erosion and Contamination Experiment 

(PEACE) Polymers experiment, flown as part of the Materials International Space Station 

Experiment 2 (MISSE 2) [5], to determine the correlation between asher AO exposure and inspace AO exposure. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 3 

Materials International Space Station Experiment 2 (MISSE 2) 

MISSE is a series of materials flight experiments consisting of trays, called Passive Experiment 

Carriers (PECs), which are exposed to the space environment on the exterior of the ISS. The 

objective of MISSE is to test the long-term stability and durability of materials and devices in the 

space environment. The in-space erosion yield data used in this experiment came from the 

PEACE Polymers experiment flown as part of MISSE 2. MISSE 2 was exposed to the space 

environment on the exterior of the Quest Airlock for 3.95 years from August 16, 2001 until July 

30, 2005 [5]. Figure 1 is a photograph taken during the attachment of MISSE PEC 2 to the ISS 

Quest Airlock during a spacewalk. The MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers tray is visible in this 

photograph. Figure 2 is a photograph of the Quest Airlock showing the location of MISSE 

PEC 2. The MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers experiment consisted of 39 different polymers and two 

Kapton H fluence witness samples. 

Figure 1. During a space walk on August 16, 2001, astronaut Patrick Forrester installs MISSE 

PEC 2 on the ISS Quest Airlock [NASA photo STS105E5302]. 

Figure 2. Photograph of the Quest Airlock and MISSE PEC 2 taken during the STS-105 mission 

[NASA photo STS105-329-028]. 

MISSE PEACE 

Polymers Tray 

MISSE 

PEC 2 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 4 

The purpose of the MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers experiment was to accurately determine the 

atomic oxygen erosion yield of a wide variety of polymeric materials exposed for an extended 

period of time to the LEO space environment. The polymers range from those commonly used 

for spacecraft applications, such as Teflon fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), Mylar and 

Kapton to more recently developed polymers, such as high temperature polyimide PMR 

(polymerization of monomer reactants). Additional polymers, typically not desired for 

spacecraft applications, were included to explore erosion yield dependence upon chemical 

composition for predictive model development [5]. 

Materials 

The polymers used in this experiment were MISSE 2 PEACE Polymer flight control samples. 

Therefore, the samples tested were from the same batch, and often the same sheet of film, as the 

ones used in the MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers experiment. Table 1 contains a list of the MISSE 2 

PEACE polymers and provides the MISSE serial number, material name, trade name(s), 

abbreviation and sample thickness in mils (1 mil = 0.001” or 0.0025 cm). Although stacked 

layers of polymer films were flown in the MISSE 2 flight experiment (enough to last for a 

minimum of 3 years on-orbit), only single layer film samples were exposed in the plasma asher. 

Experimental Procedures 

1. Mass Measurements 

In this experiment, erosion yield was determined based on mass loss. The samples were vacuum 

dehydrated for at least 48 hours prior to measuring their dehydrated masses both before and after 

atomic oxygen plasma exposure as recommended by ASTM E 2089-00, “Standard Practices for 

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

Many polymeric materials are hygroscopic, and hence are apt to take on a certain amount of 

moisture depending on the percentage of humidity present in the air the day they are weighed. 

Unfortunately, this reduces the accuracy of weight measurements. The samples’ dehydrated 

masses were obtained using a Mettler Balance with a sensitivity of ± 0.000001 g. 

2. Ground-Laboratory RF Plasma Asher Exposure

Samples were exposed to an atomic oxygen environment in a Structure Probe, Inc. Plasma 

Prep II asher. This asher generates a plasma by exciting ambient air with 100 W of continuous 

RF power at 13.56 MHz [6]. The operating pressure was 0.5-1.0 x 102

 mtorr. The plasma is 

composed of oxygen and nitrogen ions and atoms [7]. The nitrogen species have been found to 

have a negligible effect in the erosion processes [8]. The effective atomic oxygen fluence was 

calculated based on mass loss data of dehydrated 5 mil Kapton H polyimide samples, which were 

ashed with the test samples. 

Six samples were ashed at a time using a specially designed holder with six sample openings (see 

Figure 3). The holder protected the edges and the backs of the samples from the plasma, which 

kept the samples from curling during exposure and provided a well defined exposure area. The 

holder was always placed in the same position in the asher in an effort to provide the same flux 

for each sample position. The sample positions are indicated in Figure 3. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 5 

Table 1. MISSE 2 PEACE Polymers Sample List 

MISSE-2 

Serial # Material Trade Name(s) Abbrev. Thickness 

(mils) 

2-E5-6 Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene Cycolac, Absylux ABS 5 

2-E5-7 Cellulose acetate Clarifoil, Dexel, Tenite Acetate CA 2 

2-E5-8 Poly-(p-phenylene terephthalamide) Kevlar 29 fabric PPDT 2.2 

2-E5-9 Polyethylene (low oxygen) PE 2 

2-E5-10 Polyvinyl fluoride Tedlar TTR10SG3 (clear) PVF 1 

2-E5-11 Crystalline polyvinylfluoride w/white pigment White Tedlar TWH10BS3 PVF 1 

2-E5-12 Polyoxymethylene; acetal; polyformaldehyde Delrin, Acetal (natural) POM 10 

2-E5-13 Polyacrylonitrile Barex 210 PAN 2 

2-E5-14 Allyl diglycol carbonate CR-39, Homalite H-911 ADC 31 

2-E5-15 Polystyrene Trycite 1000 PS 2 

2-E5-16 Polymethyl methacrylate (Impact. Mod.) Plexiglas, Acrylite PMMA 2 

2-E5-17 Polyethylene oxide Alkox E-30 (powder) PEO 29 

2-E5-18 Poly(p-phenylene-benzobisoxazole) , 

balanced biaxial film Zylon PBO 1 

2-E5-19 Epoxide or epoxy Hysol EA 956 EP 95 

2-E5-20 Polypropylene Contour 28 PP 20 

2-E5-21 Polybutylene terephthalate Valox 357 resin, Stabilux FR-1 PBT 3 

2-E5-22 Polysulphone Thermalux P1700-NT11, 

Udel P-1700 resin PSU 2 

2-E5-23 Polyeurethane Dureflex PS8010 PU 2 

2-E5-24 Polyphenylene isophthalate Nomex Crepe Paper T-410 PPPA 2 

2-E5-25 Pyrolytic Graphite PG 75 

2-E5-26 Polyetherimide Ultem 1000 PEI 10 

2-E5-27 Polyamide 6 Nylon 6 PA 6 2 

2-E5-28 Polyamide 66 Nylon 66 PA 66 2 

2-E5-29 Polyimide CP1 PI (CP1) 3 

2-E5-30 & 

2-E5-33 Polyimide PMDA Kapton H PI (H) 5 

2-E5-31 Polyimide PMDA Kapton HN PI (HN) 5 

2-E5-32 Polyimide BPDA Upilex-S PI (S) 1 

2-E5-34 High temperature polyimide resin PMR-15 PMR-15 9 

2-E5-35 Polybenzimidazole Celazole PBI 2 

2-E5-36 Polycarbonate PEEREX 61 PC 10 

2-E5-37 Polyetheretherketone Victrex PEEK 450 PEEK 3 

2-E5-38 Polyethylene terephthalate Mylar A-200 PET 2 

2-E5-39 Chlorotrifluoroethylene Kel-f, Neoflon M-300 (powder) CTFE 5 

2-E5-40 Ethylene-chlorotrifluoroethylene Halar 300 ECTFE 3 

2-E5-41 Tetrafluorethylene-ethylene copolymer Tefzel ZM ETFE 3 

2-E5-42 Fluorinated ethylene propylene Teflon FEP 200A FEP 2 

2-E5-43 Polytetrafluoroethylene Chemfilm DF100 PTFE 2 

2-E5-44 Perfluoroalkoxy Teflon PFA 200 CLP PFA 2 

2-E5-45 Amorphous Fluoropolymer Teflon AF 1601 AF 2 

2-E5-46 Polyvinylidene fluoride Kynar 740 PVDF 3 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 6 

Figure 3. Sample holder with six polymer samples. 

A Kapton H fluence witness sample was placed in position 1 of every test so that the atomic 

oxygen effective fluence could be determined. The effective fluence was calculated using the 

following formula: 

  K K K

K

A E

M F



  (1)

where 

 F= plasma asher effective AO fluence (atoms/cm2

) 

MK = mass loss of Kapton H witness sample (g) 

 AK = exposed surface area of Kapton H witness sample (cm2

) 

K = density of Kapton H (1.4273 g/cm3) [5] 

 EK = erosion yield of Kapton H (3.00 x 10-24

 cm

3

/atom) 

3. Flux Tests 

The atomic oxygen flux (atoms/cm2

sec) within a plasma asher can vary with position. 

Therefore, two flux tests were conducted to determine the effective flux in each of the six sample 

positions. The flux tests were run with Kapton H witness samples in each of the six sample 

positions. The effective flux was then determined for each position (based on dehydrated mass 

loss), and six “k” constants, one corresponding to each of the six positions in the holder, were 

calculated. The k constants were based on the relative flux compared to the flux of the witness 

in position 1, as shown below: 

 f1 = f1 

 f2 = k2 x f1 

 f3 = k3 x f1 (2)

 f4 = k4 x f1 

 f5 = k5 x f1 

 f6 = k6 x f1 

1 2 

3 4

5 6 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 7 

where 

 fn = flux of the sample in position n (atoms/cm2

sec) 

 n = sample holder position 

kn = constant, a fraction of the fluence of a sample in position n relative to the 

fluence of the Kapton H sample in position one 

During the plasma asher exposures, in order to calculate the fluence that each sample was 

exposed to during a test, the effective fluence (effective flux x time) was determined for the 

Kapton H witness in position 1, and then that fluence was multiplied by the k factor for each 

position to get the fluence for each sample position. 

4. Density Measurements 

The density values for 36 of the polymers were obtained using calibrated density gradient 

columns [5]. The density solvents for the majority of polymers were made from cesium chloride 

(CsCl), which has a density of 2 g/cm3, and water (H2O), which has a density of 1 g/cm3. The 

density solvents for the higher density polymers, such as the fluoropolymers, were carbon 

tetrachloride (CCl4), which has a density of 1.594 g/cm3, and bromoform (CHBr3), which has a 

density of 2.899 g/cm3. For the polymers whose densities did not fit within the range of the 

density columns or were of a form not easily sectioned for density column measurements (ABS, 

PE, PP, Nomex, and PG), the values were found in references or using the manufacturers’ 

Materials Data and Safety Sheets [9-13].

5. Exposure Area Measurements 

The exposure area of each sample opening in the metal holder was calculated using an average 

diameter, obtained by averaging measurements taken in ten different orientations. These 

measurements were taken using Fowler & NSK Max-Cal electronic digital calipers. 

6. Erosion Yield Calculation 

Once the mass loss, fluence, density, and exposure area values for each sample were determined, 

it was possible to compute the plasma asher erosion yield of every polymer. The erosion yield 

(Ey) was calculated using the following formula: 

 Ey  MS

  ASSF (3) 

Where 

MS = mass loss of sample (g) 

 AS = surface area of sample exposed to atomic oxygen (cm2) 

S = density of sample (g/cm3) 

 F= plasma asher Kapton H effective AO fluence (atoms/cm2

) 

Once the asher erosion yield values were calculated, they were compared to the MISSE 2 inspace erosion yield data in order to determine the correlation between ground-testing and inspace testing for AO erosion. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 8 

7. Optical Microscopy 

In order to determine the quality of the data collected, every sample was examined under an 

Olympus SMZ stereo-zoom optical microscope post-ashing. This allowed any existing 

contamination, or signs of excessive erosion to be identified thus indicating that the sample 

should be retested. Contamination could protect parts of the sample from AO erosion, which 

would change the exposure area. 

Results and Discussion 

1. Comparison of S2 k Values 

Table 2 lists the k values calculated from the two flux tests that consisted of six Kapton H 

samples. In the first flux test, the fluxes, and hence the k values, for the samples in positions 3 

and 4 were significantly lower than the flux in position 1. Also the fluxes, and hence the k 

values, in positions 5 and 6, were slightly higher than the flux in position 1. This pattern 

remained fairly consistent for Test 2, as well. The only inconsistency occurred in position 2. In 

Test 1, the position 2 flux was lower than that of position 1, but in test 2, the flux in position 2 

was higher than the flux of position 1. The average k values, provided in Table 2, were used for 

determining the flux (and therefore the fluence) for each sample in positions 2-6 for the plasma 

asher exposure tests. 

Table 2. Flux Test “k” Values 

Position 

Number 

Test 1 

k 

Test 2 

k 

Average 

k 

Standard 

Deviation 

1 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 

2 0.904 1.010 0.957 0.075 

3 0.773 0.882 0.827 0.077 

4 0.720 0.882 0.801 0.114 

5 1.164 1.149 1.157 0.010 

6 1.065 1.160 1.113 0.067 

2. Fluence and Erosion Yield Calculation 

Table 3 shows the fluence and asher erosion yield values for all of the tested polymers, listed by 

test number. This table also lists the thickness, density, and exposure area of each sample. 

Samples were grouped into tests based on thickness and erosion yield in space, since polymers 

with a greater thickness and lower erosion yield could withstand a higher fluence, and thinner 

polymers with a higher erosion yield needed to be exposed to a lower fluence. The fluence 

values ranged from 7.7 x 1019 to 2.2 x 1021 atoms/cm2

. The asher erosion yield values ranged in 

order of magnitude from 10-25 to 10-23 cm3

/atom. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 9 

Table 3. Fluence and Erosion Yield Calculation Summary 

Test # Material 

Sample 

Position 

Number 

Difference 

in Mass (g) 

Density of 

Sample 

(g/cm3

) 

Exposure 

Area 

(cm2) 

Asher 

Exposure 

Time (sec) 

Fluence 

(atoms/cm2

) 

based on 

Average K 

Values 

Asher Ey 

(cm3/atom) 

based on 

Average K 

Values 

1 

Kapton H 1 0.016956 1.4273 3.3546 337,680 1.2E+21 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 2 0.015283 1.4273 3.3433 337,680 1.1E+21 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 3 0.01311 1.4273 3.3559 337,680 9.1E+20 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 4 0.012217 1.4273 3.3566 337,680 8.5E+20 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 5 0.019786 1.4273 3.3631 337,680 1.4E+21 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 6 0.018054 1.4273 3.3543 337,680 1.3E+21 3.0E-24 

2 

Kapton H 1 0.006 1.4273 3.3546 123,900 4.2E+20 3.0E-24 

CA 2 0.0181 1.2911 3.3433 123,900 4.0E+20 1.1E-23 

Tedlar 3 0.0124 1.3792 3.3559 123,900 3.5E+20 7.7E-24 

PMMA 4 0.0141 1.1628 3.3566 123,900 3.4E+20 1.1E-23 

Mylar 5 0.0094 1.3925 3.3631 123,900 4.9E+20 4.1E-24 

Delrin 6 0.0557 1.3984 3.3543 123,900 4.7E+20 2.6E-23 

3 

Kapton H 1 0.006041 1.4273 3.3546 90,000 4.2E+20 3.0E-24 

PSU 2 0.006477 1.2199 3.3433 90,000 4.0E+20 4.0E-24 

PEEK 3 0.007366 1.2259 3.3559 90,000 3.5E+20 5.2E-24 

Halar 4 0.007119 1.6761 3.3566 90,000 3.4E+20 3.8E-24 

Teflon AF 5 0.004218 2.1463 3.3631 90,000 4.9E+20 1.2E-24 

PS 6 0.007236 1.0503 3.3543 90,000 4.7E+20 4.4E-24 

4 

Kapton H 1 0.00916 1.4273 3.3546 167,580 6.4E+20 3.0E-24 

ETFE 2 0.007325 1.7397 3.3433 167,580 6.1E+20 2.1E-24 

CP1 3 0.009291 1.4193 3.3559 167,580 5.3E+20 3.7E-24 

ABS 4 0.012175 1.05 [9] 3.3566 167,580 5.1E+20 6.8E-24 

PTFE 5 0.005996 2.1503 3.3631 167,580 7.4E+20 1.1E-24 

PBI 6 0.007914 1.2758 3.3543 167,580 7.1E+20 2.6E-24 

5 

Kapton H 1 0.015916 1.4273 3.3546 249,000 1.1E+21 3.0E-24 

PFA 2 0.010554 2.1383 3.3433 249,000 1.1E+21 1.4E-24 

CTFE 3 0.018114 2.1327 3.3559 249,000 9.2E+20 2.8E-24 

Kapton HN 4 0.012938 1.4345 3.3566 249,000 8.9E+20 3.0E-24 

PVDF 5 0.013181 1.7623 3.3631 249,000 1.3E+21 1.7E-24 

FEP 6 0.012716 2.1443 3.3543 249,000 1.2E+21 1.4E-24 

6 

Kapton H 1 0.026777 1.4273 3.3546 488,880 1.9E+21 3.0E-24 

PC 2 0.04768 1.1231 3.3433 488,880 1.8E+21 7.1E-24 

CR-39 3 0.1035 1.3173 3.3559 488,880 1.5E+21 1.5E-23 

PEI 4 0.02506 1.2873 3.3566 488,880 1.5E+21 3.9E-24 

PP 5 0.080402 0.9065 [10] 3.3631 488,880 2.2E+21 1.2E-23 

PEO 6 N/A 1.147 3.3543 488,880 2.1E+21 N/A 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 10 

Table 3. Fluence and Erosion Yield Calculation Summary, cont. 

Test # Material 

Sample 

Position 

Number 

Difference 

in Mass (g) 

Density of 

Sample 

(g/cm3) 

Exposure 

Area 

(cm2) 

Asher 

Exposure 

Time (sec) 

Fluence 

(atoms/cm2) 

based on 

Average K 

Values 

Asher Ey 

(cm3/atom) 

based on 

Average K 

Values 

7 

Kapton H 1 0.027276 1.4273 3.3546 408,600 1.9E+21 3.0E-24 

PMR-15 2 0.024802 1.3232 3.3433 408,600 1.8E+21 3.1E-24 

PG 3 0.005945 2.22 [11] 3.3559 408,600 1.6E+21 5.1E-25 

Epoxy 4 0.057241 1.115 3.3566 408,600 1.5E+21 1.0E-23 

Upilex S 5 N/A 1.3866 3.3631 408,600 2.2E+21 N/A 

8 

Kapton H 1 0.005286 1.4273 3.3546 106,800 3.7E+20 3.0E-24 

PBT 2 0.008893 1.3318 3.3433 106,800 3.5E+20 5.7E-24 

PA 66 3 0.010523 1.2252 3.3559 106,800 3.0E+20 8.4E-24 

PU 4 0.017694 1.2345 3.3566 106,800 3.0E+20 1.5E-23 

PAN 5 0.008248 1.1435 3.3631 106,800 4.3E+20 5.0E-24 

PA6 6 0.015072 1.1233 3.3543 106,800 4.1E+20 9.8E-24 

9 

Kapton H 1 0.004725 1.4273 3.3546 82,380 3.3E+20 3.0E-24 

 Kevlar 2 0.022898 1.4422 3.3433 82,380 3.2E+20 1.5E-23 

PE 3 0.007795 0.918 [12] 3.3559 82,380 2.7E+20 9.3E-24 

PBO 4 0.006862 1.3976 3.3566 82,380 2.6E+20 5.6E-24 

White 

Tedlar 5 0.005838 1.6241 3.3631 82,380 3.8E+20 2.8E-24 

Nomex 6 0.009914 0.72 [13] 3.3543 82,380 3.7E+20 1.1E-23 

10 

Kapton H 1 0.004856 1.4273 3.3546 86,460 3.4E+20 3.0E-24 

PBO 2 0.005646 1.3976 3.3433 86,460 3.2E+20 3.7E-24 

Nomex 3 0.006833 0.72 3.3559 86,460 2.8E+20 1.0E-23 

White 

Tedlar 4 0.005512 1.6241 3.3566 86,460 2.7E+20 3.7E-24 

PE 5 0.008259 0.918 3.3631 86,460 3.9E+20 6.8E-24 

Tedlar 6 0.008967 1.3792 3.3543 86,460 3.8E+20 5.2E-24 

11 

Kapton H 1 0.013458 1.4273 3.3546 313,200 9.4E+20 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 2 0.013546 1.4273 3.3433 313,200 9.5E+20 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 3 0.011873 1.4273 3.3559 313,200 8.3E+20 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 4 0.011876 1.4273 3.3566 313,200 8.3E+20 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 5 0.015514 1.4273 3.3631 313,200 1.1E+21 3.0E-24 

Kapton H 6 0.015612 1.4273 3.3543 313,200 1.1E+21 3.0E-24 

12 

Kapton H 1 0.001375 1.4273 3.3546 28,800 9.6E+19 3.0E-24 

PEO 2 0.006295 1.147 3.3433 28,800 9.2E+19 1.8E-23 

Upilex S 3 0.001238 1.3866 3.3559 28,800 7.9E+19 3.4E-24 

Nomex 4 0.001536 0.72 3.3566 28,800 7.7E+19 8.3E-24 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 11 

Seven samples had to be retested for various reasons, which is why some samples appear twice 

(and in the case of Nomex, three times) in Table 3. During its first ashing, Tedlar was eroded 

through its thickness in one area close to the edge, and so it needed to be re-tested. PEO and 

Upilex-S both had fingerprints discovered on them and this is why no erosion yield value is 

provided for them in the early tests. PE, PBO, and White Tedlar all eroded completely away 

during their first ashing, and therefore all had to be retested. Nomex was also re-tested, but, 

during the retest, it was eroded through in one area, and therefore had to be re-tested a second 

time. Tests 10 and 12 are the retests of these samples and the data provided in these tests is most 

accurate. For those samples that appear twice on the table, the bolded values are the erosion 

yields that are most precise and were used to calculate the asher-to-in-space erosion yield ratio. 

The majority of samples had a clear ring of non-eroded space on the outer rim where they had 

been covered by the holder. An example is shown in Figure 4 for a Kapton H witness sample. 

 

Figure 4. Picture of a Kapton H sample that was ashed during Test 11. 

Test 9 underwent two ashings, the second of which was called Test 9B, because the first ashing 

did not allow for enough exposure time for the samples. Test 9B does not appear in Table 3 

because none of the samples survived this second ashing. Four of the samples in Test 9 (PE, 

PBO, White Tedlar, and Nomex) were retested in other tests. The only sample for which the Test 

9 data was used was Kevlar. Therefore, the exposure time for Test 9 (which does not include the 

exposure time for Test 9B) in Table 3 applies to Kevlar only. A similar incident occurred with 

Test 2. The Test 2 shown in Table 3 is actually comprised of the original Test 2 and a second 

ashing, called Test 2B. However, all of the samples survived this second ashing except for one, 

so the total exposure time for the Test 2 samples includes the exposure time of Test 2 and Test 

2B. The only sample that did not survive the second ashing of Test 2 was Tedlar, and it was 

retested in Test 10. 

3. MISSE 2 Erosion Yields vs. Asher Erosion Yields 

Table 4 provides a list of the erosion yields of each of the PEACE polymers in space and in the 

asher, as well as the asher to in-space erosion yield ratios. All of the polymers had higher asher 

erosion yields than in-space erosion yields. This is due to the many differences that exist 

between in-space and asher exposure, as mentioned earlier. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 12 

Table 4. Ratio of Asher to MISSE 2 Erosion Yields 

MISSE 

Serial # Material Abbrev. 

MISSE 2 

Erosion Yield 

Ey 

(cm3

/atom) 

Asher 

Ey 

(cm3

/atom) 

Asher to 

In-Space 

Ey 

Ratio 

2-E5-6 Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ABS 1.09E-24 6.8E-24 6.2 

2-E5-7 Cellulose acetate CA 5.05E-24 1.1E-23 2.1 

2-E5-8 Poly-(p-phenylene terephthalamide) PPD-T (Kevlar) 6.28E-25 1.5E-23 24.0 

2-E5-9 Polyethylene PE >3.74E-24 6.8E-24 1.8 

2-E5-10 Polyvinyl fluoride PVF (Tedlar) 3.19E-24 5.2E-24 1.6 

2-E5-11 Crystalline polyvinylfluoride w/white 

pigment 

PVF (White 

Tedlar) 1.01E-25 3.7E-24 37.1 

2-E5-12 Polyoxymethylene; acetal; 

polyformaldehyde POM (Delrin) 9.14E-24 2.6E-23 2.8 

2-E5-13 Polyacrylonitrile PAN 1.41E-24 5.0E-24 3.6 

2-E5-14 Allyl diglycol carbonate ADC (CR-39) >6.80E-24 1.5E-23 2.2 

2-E5-15 Polystyrene PS 3.74E-24 4.4E-24 1.2 

2-E5-16 Polymethyl methacrylate PMMA >5.60E-24 1.1E-23 1.9 

2-E5-17 Polyethylene oxide PEO 1.93E-24 1.8E-23 9.3 

2-E5-18 Poly(p-phenylene-2 6-

benzobisoxazole) PBO (Zylon) 1.36E-24 3.7E-24 2.8 

2-E5-19 Epoxide or epoxy EP 4.21E-24 1.0E-23 2.4 

2-E5-20 Polypropylene PP 2.68E-24 1.2E-23 4.6 

2-E5-21 Polybutylene terephthalate PBT 9.11E-25 5.7E-24 6.2 

2-E5-22 Polysulphone PSU 2.94E-24 4.0E-24 1.3 

2-E5-23 Polyeurethane PU 1.56E-24 1.5E-23 9.3 

2-E5-24 Polyphenylene isophthalate PPPA (Nomex) 1.41E-24 8.3E-24 5.9 

2-E5-25 Graphite PG 4.15E-25 5.1E-25 1.2 

2-E5-26 Polyetherimide PEI >3.31E-24 3.9E-24 1.2 

2-E5-27 Polyamide 6 or Nylon 6 PA 6 3.51E-24 9.8E-24 2.8 

2-E5-28 Polyamide 66 or Nylon 66 PA 66 1.80E-24 8.4E-24 4.7 

2-E5-29 Polyimide PI (CP1) 1.91E-24 3.7E-24 1.9 

2-E5-30 Polyimide (PMDA) PI (Kapton H) 3.00E-24 3.0E-24 1.0 

2-E5-31 Polyimide (PMDA) PI(Kapton HN) 2.81E-24 3.0E-24 1.1 

2-E5-32 Polyimide (BPDA) PI (Upilex-S) 9.22E-25 3.4E-24 3.6 

2-E5-33 Polyimide (PMDA) PI (Kapton H) 3.00E-24 3.0E-24 1.0 

2-E5-34 High temperature polyimide resin PI (PMR-15) >3.02E-24 3.1E-24 1.0 

2-E5-35 Polybenzimidazole PBI >2.21E-24 2.6E-24 1.2 

2-E5-36 Polycarbonate PC 4.29E-24 7.1E-24 1.7 

2-E5-37 Polyetheretherkeytone PEEK 2.99E-24 5.2E-24 1.7 

2-E5-38 Polyethylene terephthalate PET (Mylar) 3.01E-24 4.1E-24 1.4 

2-E5-39 Chlorotrifluoroethylene CTFE (Kel-f) 8.31E-25 2.8E-24 3.3 

2-E5-40 Halar ethylene-chlorotrifluoroethylene ECTFE (Halar) 1.79E-24 3.8E-24 2.1 

2-E5-41 Tetrafluorethylene-ethylene copolymer ETFE (Tefzel) 9.61E-25 2.1E-24 2.2 

2-E5-42 Fluorinated ethylene propylene FEP 2.00E-25 1.4E-24 7.2 

2-E5-43 Polytetrafluoroethylene PTFE 1.42E-25 1.1E-24 7.9 

2-E5-44 Perfluoroalkoxy copolymer resin PFA 1.73E-25 1.4E-24 8.0 

2-E5-45 Amorphous Fluoropolymer Teflon AF 1.98E-25 1.2E-24 6.1 

2-E5-46 Polyvinylidene fluoride PVDF (Kynar) 1.29E-24 1.7E-24 1.4 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 13 

Most of the ratios of asher to in-space erosion yield were between one and three. In this table, it 

appears that PMR-15 had a ratio of 1.0, but the asher erosion yield was slightly higher 

(3.1 x 10-24 

cm-3/atom) than the in-space erosion yield (>3.02 x 10-24 cm-3/atom). Some of the 

fluoropolymers such as Teflon AF, PTFE, PFA, and FEP had significantly higher ratios: 6.1, 7.9, 

8.0, and 7.2, respectively. PP, PBT, PU, PEO, PA 66, ABS, and Nomex also had noticeably 

higher ratios: 4.6, 6.2, 9.3, 9.3, 4.7, 6.2, and 5.9, respectively. Kevlar and White Tedlar stand out 

as having ratios of 24.0 and 37.1 respectively, the highest of all the samples. For Kevlar, this is 

likely because the Kevlar sample is a woven fabric and in the asher AO can attack a greater 

surface area per atomic oxygen fluence than in LEO. 

Another factor that appears to have greatly affected the erosion yield values of the samples is the 

content of AO durable particles within the polymer, such as in White Tedlar. The titanium 

dioxide pigment in White Tedlar is AO durable, and hence when the polymeric content of White 

Tedlar erodes during AO exposure it leaves a fine powder that is not volatile, and which resides 

on the sample surface. This can shield the underlying polymer from AO attack. For the MISSE 

flight experiment the AO arrival was primarily from the ram direction (normal to the polymer 

surface), and hence the residual powder appears to have formed a protective layer (if not 

disturbed). But, in the plasma asher, where the atomic oxygen arrival is isotropic and at thermal 

energy, the high AO flux can get underneath the protective particles and cause significantly 

greater erosion than in space. Hence, the erosion of White Tedlar is substantially greater in the 

plasma asher than it is in space. 

4. Potential Differences between In-Space and Ground Laboratory Data 

The atomic oxygen erosion yield for certain polymers, such as those that contain a certain 

amount of AO durable material (have a high ash content), may be AO fluence dependent. It is 

possible that the AO erosion yield of the polymer may decrease over time because AO durable 

particles are increasingly exposed on the sample surface with higher fluence, providing amplified 

protection of the underlying material that can be oxidized. 

Figure 5 is a graph of the mass fraction of ash versus the asher to in-space erosion yield ratio for 

the MISSE 2 PEACE polymers. As seen in Figure 5, although there is a lot of scatter in the data, 

as the mass fraction of ash content of a polymer increases, the asher to in-space erosion yield 

ratio of the polymer increases. This trend is likely because of the differences in arrival direction 

of AO in the asher and space environments. 

There are numerous tests that would be of interest to conduct to try to determine what specific 

component(s) in the asher provides a difference in the erosion yield as compared to space. For 

example, one proposed experiment would be to run a series of erosion yield determination tests 

in a plasma asher with each of the PEACE polymers placed inside Faraday cages, such as the 

tests conducted by Miller et al [3]. In a specially designed Faraday cage, AO can reach the 

sample, but the intense UV radiation and charged species cannot. Thus, these tests would 

determine if radiation and charged species contribute to the greater erosion rate of polymers in 

the asher as compared to space. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 14 

y = 0.0054x - 0.0046

R2

 = 0.5044

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Asher-to-Space Ey Ratio

Ash Mass Fraction .

 Figure 5. Asher to In-Space Erosion Yield Ratios vs. the Ash Mass Fraction. 

In studies conducted by Rutledge and Banks, the erosion yield of Teflon FEP in a plasma asher 

was determined to be 1.12 x 10-24 cm3/atom and the ratio of the erosion yield of Teflon FEP to 

the erosion yield of Kapton H was 0.3742 ± 0.03575 [14]. This test was conducted in a plasma 

asher using an aluminum holder. The asher erosion yield of Teflon FEP in the current experiment 

was 1.4 x 10-24 cm3/atom and the ratio with respect to Kapton H was 0.5, which is similar to the 

Rutledge and Banks data. The Rutledge and Banks experiment also included tests that attempted 

to isolate the environmental factors that may cause a difference in asher and in-space erosion 

yields for Teflon FEP. Faraday cages were used to allow samples to be exposed to AO with no 

VUV radiation or charged particle species. Faraday cages with double and single mesh screens 

were used in attempt to block out charged species but allow vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) radiation 

and AO to enter as well. Most of the tests conducted within a Faraday cage were found to have a 

lower erosion yield than the tests conducted without a Faraday cage. For example, the Teflon 

FEP in a closed Faraday cage had an estimated erosion yield of 7.5 x 10-25 cm3

/atom, which is 

closer to space data [14]. 

As mentioned previously, in studies conducted by Miller et al, Teflon FEP, PE, and Kapton HN 

were tested in various AO exposure environments including Faraday cages [3]. One test was 

conducted with each polymer in an RF plasma asher on a metal plate, which is similar to the tests 

conducted in this experiment. In the experiment conducted by Miller et al using a metal holder, 

PE and Kapton HN had erosion yields that were very close to the erosion yields determined in 

this study. However, in the Miller et al experiment, Teflon FEP had an asher erosion yield that 

was approximately twice as large as the value determined in this experiment [3], and it was 

significantly greater than the value determined in the Rutledge and Banks study reported in 

reference 14. It should be noted that the AO fluence exposures differed between these three tests 

and the UV intensities may have varied also. Comparing various test results indicates how 

sensitive some materials, such as Teflon FEP, are to variations in AO exposure conditions. 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 15 

Summary and Conclusions 

To improve the accuracy of ground-based durability testing, ground-laboratory to in-space AO 

correlation experiments have been conducted. In these tests, the AO erosion yields of the 39 

PEACE polymers were determined relative to Kapton H using a radio-frequency (RF) plasma 

asher operated on air, and with the samples in metal holders. The asher erosion yields were 

compared to the MISSE 2 erosion yields for the PEACE polymers to determine the correlation 

between erosion rates in the two environments. The asher erosion yield of every polymer was 

higher than that of its in-space counterpart, and the asher to in-space erosion yield ratios ranged 

from 1.0 to 37.1. However, the fluoropolymers in particular had slightly higher ratios, ranging 

from 6.1 to 8.0. Kevlar, a woven fabric, had a ratio of 24.0, and White Tedlar, a material 

containing AO durable filler particles, had a ratio of 37.1. The data from this experiment will be 

valuable for future ground-laboratory AO durability prediction tests using plasma asher facilities. 

It would be beneficial to do additional testing to try to identify which components in the asher 

and LEO environments cause the varying erosion yields of polymers in each environment. 

References 

1. Banks, B.A., Rutledge, S.K., Auer, B.M., and DiFilippo, F., “Atomic Oxygen Undercutting 

of Defects on SiO2 Protected Polyimide Solar Array Blankets,” Materials Degradation in 

Low Earth Orbit (LEO), TMS Society, 1990, pp. 15-33. 

2. NOAA, NASA and USAF, “U.S. Standard Atmosphere,” 1976, NASA Tech. Memo 

TMX-74335, 1976. 

3. Miller, S.K.R., Banks, B.A. and Waters, D.L., “Investigation into the Differences in 

Atomic Oxygen Erosion Yields of Materials in Ground Based Facilities Compared to 

Those in LEO,” High Performance Polymers, 523-534, Vol. 20, 2008.

4. Banks, B.A., “The Use of Fluoropolymers in Space Applications,” Chpt. 4 in Modern 

Fluoropolymers: High Performance Polymers for Diverse Applications, John Wiley & 

Sons, Ltd., 1997. 

5. de Groh, K.K., Banks, B.A., McCarthy, C.E., Rucker, R.N., Roberts, L.M. and Berger, 

L.A. “MISSE PEACE Polymers Atomic Oxygen Erosion Results,” Proceedings of the 

2006 National Space & Missile Materials Symposium in conjunction with the 2006 MISSE 

Post-Retrieval Conference, Orlando, Florida, June 26 - 30, 2006; also NASA TM-2006-

214482, November 2006. 

6. Gulino, D.A., “Atomic-Oxygen Durability of Impact-Damaged Solar Reflectors,” J. 

Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 39-44 (1988); also NASA TM 88874. 

7. Rutledge, S.K. and Banks, B.A., “A Comparison of Atomic Oxygen Erosion Yields of 

Carbon and Selected Polymers Exposed in Ground Based Facilities and in Low Earth 

Orbit,” NASA TM 106622, 1994. 

8. Rutledge, S.K., Banks, B.A., DiFilippo, F., Brady, J.A., Dever, T.M. and Hotes, D., “An 

Evaluation of Candidate Oxidation Resistant Materials for Space Applications in LEO,” 

NASA TM 100122, 1986. 

9. IDES, The Plasics Web: http://www.ides.com/generics/ABS/ABS_typical_properties.htm 

(= 1.01 - 1.09). 
NASA/TM—2011-216904 16 

10. Average of data from: Materials Handbook 14th ed., G.S. Brady, H.R. Clauser, J.A., 

Vaccari, McGraw-Hill, 1997 (= 0.913, p. 699) & Materials Safety and Data Sheets for 

Polypropylene (= 0.895-0.905). 

11. Materials Handbook 14th ed., G.S. Brady, H.R. Clauser, J.A. Vaccari, McGraw-Hill, 1997 

(Pyrolitic Graphite, = 2.22, p. 427). 

12. Consolidated Thermoplastics for Polyethylene, manufacturer’s density (= 0.918). 

13. DuPont Nomex Crepe Paper Type 410, technical data sheet (= 0.72). 

14. Rutledge, S.K. and Banks, B.A., “A Comparison of Space and Ground Based Facility 

Environmental Effects for FEP Teflon,” NASA TM 207918, 1998. 
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)

01-01-2011 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Ground-Laboratory to In-Space Atomic Oxygen Correlation for the Polymer Erosion and 

Contamination Experiment (PEACE) Polymers 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Stambler, Arielle, H.; Inoshita, Karen, E.; Roberts, Lily, M.; Barbagallo, Claire, E.; de Groh, 

Kim, K.; Banks, Bruce, A. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 825080.04.02.30.17 

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-17482 

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-2011-216904 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 18 and 27 

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

The Materials International Space Station Experiment 2 (MISSE 2) Polymer Erosion and Contamination Experiment (PEACE) polymers 

were exposed to the environment of low Earth orbit (LEO) for 3.95 years from 2001 to 2005. There were 41 different PEACE polymers, 

which were flown on the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS) in order to determine their atomic oxygen erosion yields. In LEO, 

atomic oxygen is an environmental durability threat, particularly for long duration mission exposures. Although spaceflight experiments, 

such as the MISSE 2 PEACE experiment, are ideal for determining LEO environmental durability of spacecraft materials, ground-laboratory 

testing is often relied upon for durability evaluation and prediction. Unfortunately, significant differences exist between LEO atomic oxygen 

exposure and atomic oxygen exposure in ground-laboratory facilities. These differences include variations in species, energies, thermal 

exposures and radiation exposures, all of which may result in different reactions and erosion rates. In an effort to improve the accuracy of 

ground-based durability testing, ground-laboratory to in-space atomic oxygen correlation experiments have been conducted. In these tests, 

the atomic oxygen erosion yields of the PEACE polymers were determined relative to Kapton H using a radio-frequency (RF) plasma asher 

(operated on air). The asher erosion yields were compared to the MISSE 2 PEACE erosion yields to determine the correlation between 

erosion rates in the two environments. This paper provides a summary of the MISSE 2 PEACE experiment; it reviews the specific polymers 

tested as well as the techniques used to determine erosion yield in the asher, and it provides a correlation between the space and groundlaboratory erosion yield values. Using the PEACE polymers’ asher to in-space erosion yield ratios will allow more accurate in-space 

materials performance predictions to be made based on plasma asher durability evaluation.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Atomic oxygen; International Space Station; Space flight experiment; Environmental degradation; Erosion yield; Polymers 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

22 

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