Simulated space environmental exposure of optical coatings for spacecraft solar rejection

James D. Barrie; Michael J. Meshishnek; Peter D. Fuqua; W. Chris Rostel

doi:10.1364/AO.41.003150

Applied Optics
Vol. 41,
Issue 16,
pp. 3150-3155
(2002)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.41.003150

Simulated space environmental exposure of optical coatings for spacecraft solar rejection

James D. Barrie, Michael J. Meshishnek, Peter D. Fuqua, and W. Chris Rostel

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
James D. Barrie, Michael J. Meshishnek, Peter D. Fuqua, and W. Chris Rostel, "Simulated space environmental exposure of optical coatings for spacecraft solar rejection," Appl. Opt. 41, 3150-3155 (2002)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Abstract

Dielectric multilayers composed of niobium pentoxide and silicon dioxide, designed for broadband solar rejection, were exposed to a simulated space environment of ultraviolet light and low-energy (10–20-keV) electron radiation. Samples exhibited various degrees of exposure-induced absorption extending from the ultraviolet to the infrared. Processing variations were correlated to damage susceptibility, and methods were identified that produced parts that exhibited no degradation even though the same materials and coating design were used. Coatings prepared under energetic deposition conditions that provided the densest and most moisture-stable coatings exhibited the best stability to the exposure conditions used.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Pit formation observed in a multilayer dielectric coating as a result of simulated space environmental exposure

Peter D. Fuqua, Nathan Presser, James D. Barrie, Michael J. Meshishnek, and Dianne J. Coleman
Appl. Opt. 41(16) 3142-3149 (2002)

Development and testing of coatings for orbital space radiation environments

Samuel F. Pellicori, Carol L. Martinez, Paul Hausgen, and David Wilt
Appl. Opt. 53(4) A339-A350 (2014)

Optical Material Problems of Interplanetary Space

Randolph A. Becker
Appl. Opt. 6(5) 955-962 (1967)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (8)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (2)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Item Number	Configuration	Bake Temperature (°C)	Decrease in Integrated Solar Reflectivity (%)
Item Number	Configuration	Bake Temperature (°C)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4
1	Long distance, 25°	400	0.3b		18.3	15.6
2	Long distance, 25°	400	17.0		10.1
3	Very long distance, 45°	400	19.7	13.1
4	Long distance, 25°	400	14.8	9.7
5	Very long distance, 45°	600–650	0.4	0.2
6	Long distance, 25°	400–800	5.5	2.5
7		400–800	0.2	0.1	-0.3
8	Very long distance, 45°	None	12.8
18	Long distance, 25°	400–500		15.0	12.6
19	Long distance, 25°	400–600		17.6	-0.5
20		400–600		5.8
21	Very long distance, 45°	400–650		0.6
22	Very long distance, 45°	400–650		0.1
23	Very long distance, 45°	400–700		4.7
24		400		3.9
25	Short distance, Normal	None			0.2
26	Short distance, Normal	None			0.2
27	Short distance, Normal	400			1.7
28	Short distance, Normal	650			1.5
29	Medium distance, 45°	None				3.3
30	Short distance, 25°	None				2.1
31	Short distance, 25°	400				3.3
32	Short distance, 25°	650				1.7
33	Medium distance, 45°	None				5.5
34	Medium distance, 45°	400				5.4
35	Medium distance, 45°	650				1.8
36	Medium distance, 45°	None				4.5
37	Medium distance, 45°	400	c			3.3
38	Short distance, 25°	None	c			1.3
39	Medium distance, 45°	None	d			0.0
40	Short distance, 25°	650	d			0.5

Deposition Geometry	Distance (cm)	Mask	Angle of Incidence	Change in Reflectance (%)	Comments
Worst Case	10–15	Yes	Oblique	-20	Best uniformity, strong IR absorption
Best Case	6–10	No	Normal	0	Acceptable only for flat components
Compromise	4–9	No	Oblique	-3	Reduced uniformity, less IR absorption
Optimized, niobium metal target oxidized during deposition	4–9	No	Oblique	0	Reduced uniformity, minimum IR absorption

Item Number	Configuration	Bake Temperature (°C)	Decrease in Integrated Solar Reflectivity (%)
Item Number	Configuration	Bake Temperature (°C)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4
1	Long distance, 25°	400	0.3b		18.3	15.6
2	Long distance, 25°	400	17.0		10.1
3	Very long distance, 45°	400	19.7	13.1
4	Long distance, 25°	400	14.8	9.7
5	Very long distance, 45°	600–650	0.4	0.2
6	Long distance, 25°	400–800	5.5	2.5
7		400–800	0.2	0.1	-0.3
8	Very long distance, 45°	None	12.8
18	Long distance, 25°	400–500		15.0	12.6
19	Long distance, 25°	400–600		17.6	-0.5
20		400–600		5.8
21	Very long distance, 45°	400–650		0.6
22	Very long distance, 45°	400–650		0.1
23	Very long distance, 45°	400–700		4.7
24		400		3.9
25	Short distance, Normal	None			0.2
26	Short distance, Normal	None			0.2
27	Short distance, Normal	400			1.7
28	Short distance, Normal	650			1.5
29	Medium distance, 45°	None				3.3
30	Short distance, 25°	None				2.1
31	Short distance, 25°	400				3.3
32	Short distance, 25°	650				1.7
33	Medium distance, 45°	None				5.5
34	Medium distance, 45°	400				5.4
35	Medium distance, 45°	650				1.8
36	Medium distance, 45°	None				4.5
37	Medium distance, 45°	400	c			3.3
38	Short distance, 25°	None	c			1.3
39	Medium distance, 45°	None	d			0.0
40	Short distance, 25°	650	d			0.5

Deposition Geometry	Distance (cm)	Mask	Angle of Incidence	Change in Reflectance (%)	Comments
Worst Case	10–15	Yes	Oblique	-20	Best uniformity, strong IR absorption
Best Case	6–10	No	Normal	0	Acceptable only for flat components
Compromise	4–9	No	Oblique	-3	Reduced uniformity, less IR absorption
Optimized, niobium metal target oxidized during deposition	4–9	No	Oblique	0	Reduced uniformity, minimum IR absorption

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (8)

Tables (2)

Applied Optics