Euclid preparation. XXIX. Water ice in spacecraft part I: The physics of ice formation and contamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular contamination is a well-known problem in space flight. Water is the most common contaminant and alters numerous properties of a cryogenic optical system. Too much ice means that Euclid's calibration requirements and science goals cannot be met. Euclid must then be thermally decontaminated, a long and risky process. We need to understand how iced optics affect the data and when a decontamination is required. This is essential to build adequate calibration and survey plans, yet a comprehensive analysis in the context of an astrophysical space survey has not been done before. In this paper we look at other spacecraft with well-documented outgassing records, and we review the formation of thin ice films. A mix of amorphous and crystalline ices is expected for Euclid. Their surface topography depends on the competing energetic needs of the substrate-water and the water-water interfaces, and is hard to predict with current theories. We illustrate that with scanning-tunnelling and atomic-force microscope images. Industrial tools exist to estimate contamination, and we must understand their uncertainties. We find considerable knowledge errors on the diffusion and sublimation coefficients, limiting the accuracy of these tools. We developed a water transport model to compute contamination rates in Euclid, and find general agreement with industry estimates. Tests of the Euclid flight hardware in space simulators did not pick up contamination signals; our in-flight calibrations observations will be much more sensitive. We must understand the link between the amount of ice on the optics and its effect on Euclid's data. Little research is available about this link, possibly because other spacecraft can decontaminate easily, quenching the need for a deeper understanding. In our second paper we quantify the various effects of iced optics on spectrophotometric data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.293 | 0.128 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".