Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Variable Emissivity Modeling for Sustainable Lunar Surface Habitats

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Variable-emissivity radiators can cut lunar-night heat loss and hold habitat walls near room temperature without constant heating.

desk verdict Useful lunar-surface VEM modeling path with a real CM/TD workflow, but the headline ~1.36 kW/m² night savings is off by ~10× and should be ~0.13 kW/m². read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23685 v1 pith:HDOKGY64 submitted 2026-07-26 physics.app-ph physics.comp-ph

S. Keller (1) , S. Stewart (2) , S. Taylor (2) , O. Ilic (1) ((1) University of Minnesota-Twin Cities , (2) NASA Johnson Space Center) This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords variableemissivitymaterialslunarsurfacehabitatsradiativethermalcontrolnightsurvivalthermochromiccoatingsfiniteelementmodelingdeGerlacheRim
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Long-stay lunar habitats face a harsh day–night swing: static white coatings reject heat well in sunlight but bleed heat all night, so heaters must run hard to keep the interior livable. This paper builds a finite-element thermal model of a simplified dome habitat at a real south-pole site (de Gerlache Rim 2), including topography, slope, and partial solar occultation, then compares body-mounted radiators that switch thermal emissivity against ordinary fixed high-emissivity coatings. When emissivity drops from 0.8 by day to 0.2 by night, average outgoing heat flux falls by roughly 1.34–1.38 kW/m², saving on the order of 270 kWh over one lunar night for 6 m² of radiator with interior temperature held at 300 K. When emissivity is instead tied to wall temperature and paired with a modest binary heater, the same radiators keep internal wall temperature near a set point across a full day–night cycle, while constant high-emissivity surfaces cannot. The work supplies a reusable modeling path in both COMSOL and Thermal Desktop and argues that solid-state variable emissivity is a practical route to lower power and more stable habitats.

What carries the argument

A two-layer fluff/regolith lunar-surface model correlated from topographic LRO elevation data to a slope- and shading-matched planar domain, coupled to a dome habitat with body-mounted radiators whose emissivity is stepped in transient simulation via COMSOL Events or Thermal Desktop Dynamic Sinda.

What would settle it

Build or measure a radiator-scale variable-emissivity coating that actually delivers and holds ε ≈ 0.2–0.8 under lunar day/night temperatures and dust loading, then re-run the same habitat thermal case; if the realized contrast is much smaller, the reported flux and heater savings disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a simplified dome habitat with body-mounted radiators at de Gerlache Rim 2, actively switching radiator thermal emissivity from 0.8 (day) to 0.2 (night) reduces average outgoing heat flux by about 1.34–1.38 kW/m² versus constant ε = 0.8, yielding roughly 268–275 kWh energy savings over one lunar night for 6 m² of radiator when interior temperature is fixed at 300 K; temperature-coupled variable-emissivity control plus a 5 kW binary heater maintains near-constant internal wall temperature across a day–night cycle while constant high-ε radiators do not.

Load-bearing premise

The radiators are assumed to achieve a clean emissivity swing between 0.2 and 0.8 (with solar absorptivity 0.2) at lunar temperatures and to keep that performance under dust—properties taken as design targets rather than a proven, scalable material stack.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lunar habitats can cut multi-hundred-kWh nighttime heater budgets by switching body-mounted radiators to low emissivity after sunset.
  • Temperature-linked emissivity control can hold interior walls near a room-temperature band without continuous heater power.
  • The same modeling path (topography → correlated planar surface → Events/Dynamic Sinda emissivity switch) can be reused for other sites, more complex habitats, or Mars cases.
  • Solid-state variable emissivity becomes a design alternative to mechanical louvers and foldable radiators where dust and actuation reliability matter.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If dust mitigation (e.g., electrodynamic shields) is required anyway for radiators, pairing it with VEMs may be the practical path that makes the modeled savings flight-relevant.
  • Passive thermochromic stacks will only match the paper’s night-survival numbers if their transition temperature is doped down into the habitat’s operating band without collapsing emissivity contrast.
  • The reported savings scale with radiator area and interior set-point; larger habitats or colder set-points would amplify absolute energy numbers and strengthen the case for flight demonstration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a two-layer lunar-regolith thermal model, compares it with Apollo 17 surface-temperature data, incorporates LRO topography and solar occultation at de Gerlache Rim 2, and reduces the resulting environment to a slope- and shading-corrected planar model. On this platform, the authors model a simplified dome habitat with two body-mounted radiators in both COMSOL Multiphysics and Ansys Thermal Desktop, implementing emissivity switching through Events and Dynamic Sinda, respectively. For idealized radiator properties (α=0.2, ε switched between 0.8 and 0.2), they report nighttime reductions in outgoing heat flux of 1.34–1.38 kW/m², energy savings of 268–275 kWh over one lunar night for a 6 m² radiator, and improved wall-temperature stability when emissivity control is coupled to a 5 kW binary heater.

Significance. If the numerical results are corrected, this is a useful engineering workflow for evaluating adaptive radiators in a realistic polar lunar environment. Notable strengths are the Apollo 17 surface-model comparison, use of LRO topography and NASA solar-occultation guidance, and independent implementations in two standard thermal solvers whose integrated night-energy results agree within about 3%. The work provides a transparent, falsifiable target-property calculation rather than claiming a demonstrated material. Its practical scope remains idealized: the ε contrast is a design target, the habitat omits multi-zone ECLSS and detailed internal loads, and dust degradation and scalable VEM fabrication are not modeled. The approximately 270 kWh per-radiator night-energy result, if substantiated, is meaningful, but the presently stated flux headline is not reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Figure 7b, and Conclusion] The two headline savings quantities are mutually inconsistent by a factor of about 10.6 and the stated flux exceeds a basic physical bound. With a 300 K interior and high-conductivity coupling, the maximum nighttime reduction in emitted flux from stepping ε from 0.8 to 0.2 is approximately (0.8−0.2)σ(300 K)^4 = 276 W/m² = 0.276 kW/m²; self-consistent radiator cooldown makes the actual value lower. Moreover, 268 kWh/(355 h×6 m²)=126 W/m² and 275 kWh gives 129 W/m², not 1.34–1.38 kW/m². Conversely, 1.34 kW/m² over the stated interval and area would imply about 2854 kWh. Please audit the units, averaging interval, radiator area, and whether the plotted quantity is gross emitted or net heat flux, then correct §III, Figure 7b, and the conclusion.
  2. [§III, Figure 8 and Abstract/Conclusion] The claims of “near-constant temperature” and reduced heating requirements are not quantified adequately. The first study prescribes the interior at 300 K, so reduced radiative loss is only a proxy for heater savings unless the interior energy balance and loads are specified. In the second study, the constant-ε heater is stated to remain continuously on, but the VEM heater duty cycle and integrated energy are not reported. Please provide minimum/maximum/mean wall temperatures, heater on-time and kWh for both cases and both solvers, and the internal-load assumptions connecting these results to habitat power sizing.
  3. [§II.B, Figure 6a] Important parameters that determine the quantitative outcome are not tabulated: dome dimensions and volume, wall construction/thickness/thermal mass, radiator substrate properties, the numerical value of the “high-conductivity pathway,” interior boundary condition, and how the prescribed 300 K state is enforced. These affect both radiator temperature and the 5 kW deadband-control result. A consolidated habitat-property table, plus mesh/time-step and view-factor convergence information, is needed for the modeling framework and numerical claims to be independently assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II.A, Figures 2 and 5] The Apollo 17 and topographic/planar-model agreement is described only as a “strong correlation.” Please report quantitative errors, such as RMS and maximum day/night deviations, and clarify whether the planar shading correction and validation use the same time interval.
  2. [§II.A] The introduction says the model accounts for earthshine, but the methods do not state its magnitude or implementation. Please clarify the treatment or remove the claim if it is negligible/omitted.
  3. [§III, Figure 7b] Clarify whether Figure 7b and the energy totals refer to one 6 m² radiator or both habitat radiators, and label the averaging window and units explicitly on the axes.
  4. [§III] The temperature-setpoint controller is called “passive,” although switching is based on a probed wall temperature rather than a modeled continuous material ε(T) response with hysteresis. Either rephrase this as generic temperature-coupled control or add a representative ε(T) calculation.
  5. [Throughout] Typographical issues include “acutated,” “COMSOL Multiphsyics,” inconsistent VEM/VEMS capitalization, and “As habitat designs become increasingly complex and requires.”

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: simulation outputs from prescribed optical properties and independent lunar boundary conditions, not fits renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is a standard forward thermal simulation. Lunar-surface thermo-optical and layer properties are taken from prior literature and checked against Apollo 17 probe data; topography and solar geometry come from LRO and JPL Horizons; habitat wall properties are literature averages (beta cloth / TransHab); radiator α and ε swing (0.2 / 0.2–0.8) are stated as generic design targets, not parameters fitted to recover the reported savings. Day/night and temperature-coupled emissivity switches are imposed boundary conditions; the reported flux and energy differences and the near-constant wall-temperature traces are direct numerical outputs of that setup in CM and TD. Self-citations (e.g., Keller et al. on phase-change heterostructures; Hengeveld on LEO VEM modeling) supply background or method precedent and are not used as uniqueness theorems that force the habitat result. A separate units inconsistency between the stated kW/m² flux and the kWh energy integral is a correctness issue, not circularity: neither figure is obtained by fitting the other. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central savings and stability claims rest on standard radiative heat transfer plus a stack of engineering idealizations: a two-layer regolith model taken from prior cryogenic-storage work, generic VEM target optics, a conductively isolated simplified dome, perfect day/night or setpoint-triggered ε steps, and omission of dust and real material hysteresis. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are design choices and literature property sets, not fits to the claimed kWh savings.

free parameters (5)
  • VEM emissivity high/low states = 0.8 day / 0.2 night
    Chosen as common design targets (0.8 / 0.2), not measured for a specific lunar-qualified stack; directly sets the reported Δq and kWh savings.
  • VEM solar absorptivity = 0.2
    Fixed at 0.2 as a target metric; controls daytime absorbed load independent of ε switching.
  • Habitat wall α/ε (beta cloth / TransHab average) = α≈0.4, ε≈0.9
    Approximate average optical properties (α≈0.4, ε≈0.9) assigned to the dome exterior; affects non-radiator heat balance.
  • Heater power and deadband = 5 kW; 290–295 K; setpoint 292.5 K
    Binary 5 kW heater with 290–295 K on/off and 292.5 K ε setpoint chosen for the stability case; determines whether constant-ε case fails to hold temperature.
  • Two-layer fluff/regolith property set = Table 1 values (e.g. fluff t=0.02 m, α=0.87, ε=0.97)
    Thickness, k(T), ρ, cp, α, ε, and internal heat flow taken from Christie et al. NASA/TM—2008-215300 and used throughout surface temperature boundary conditions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption No conductive heat transfer between habitat and lunar surface
    Stated in §II.B; removes ground-coupling path that would change night heat loss and heater demand.
  • ad hoc to paper Emissivity switches as an ideal step (day/night or across a single setpoint), not a continuous ε(T) with hysteresis
    §II.B and Results; authors note a real VEM could replace the step with ε(T) over a transition band.
  • domain assumption Solar flux attenuation for partial solar disk below horizon follows NASA HLS-UG-001 formula (Eq. 1)
    §II.A; load-bearing for polar day/night timing and onset of night heat rejection.
  • domain assumption Two-layer fluff/regolith continuum with given k(T) adequately represents surface temperature for habitat radiative BC
    §II.A; validated against Apollo 17 then transferred to south-pole site.
  • ad hoc to paper Body-mounted radiators couple to the interior wall through an idealized high-conductivity pathway; interior T can be prescribed or represented by wall probe + binary heater
    §II.B–III; enables clean radiator q comparison but omits distributed thermal mass and ECLSS load dynamics.
  • standard math Standard radiosity / ray-tracing radiative exchange in CM and TD is sufficient; software differences are numerical not physical
    Implicit throughout Results; small CM–TD spread attributed to ray tracing and low elevation angles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variable Emissivity Modeling for Sustainable Lunar Surface Habitats." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HDOKGY64

@misc{pith2026260723685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variable Emissivity Modeling for Sustainable Lunar Surface Habitats},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HDOKGY64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23685}
}
read the original abstract

Lunar habitats will be one of the first platforms to enable long-term human presence beyond Low Earth Orbit. These structures act as a stepping stone for exploring our solar system while simultaneously enabling lunar resource utilization, low-energy cryopreservation, and various other applications. These habitats must be designed to withstand the extreme thermal variation of the lunar surface caused by the changing orientation with respect to the Sun and Earth. White paints and multi-layered insulation are conventionally used to minimize solar heating, yet this approach is static and results in a structure that requires internal heating to survive lunar night. An adaptive approach to control absorbed and emitted radiation allows for highly efficient daytime cooling and improved nighttime heat retention. Louvers and shutters have been employed to switch between high- and low-emissivity states; however, this approach relies on ensuring moving parts are resilient to dust contamination. Alternatively, variable emissivity materials are a solid-state solution with no moving parts. The emissivity of these materials can be switched passively based on surface temperature, or actively as a result of applied voltage. Despite their potential to reduce power consumption and increase thermal stability, variable emissivity materials have yet to be explored on the lunar surface. We first present a finite element modeling approach to predict the thermal performance of simplified habitats in realistic lunar environments. We then demonstrate the benefit of variable emissivity materials for thermal stability and lunar night survival by comparing them to traditional constant emissivity coatings. By using variable emissivity materials, we envision near-constant temperature lunar habitats with significantly reduced internal heating requirements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23685 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. a), Two-layer thermal model used to describe the lunar surface. b), Comparison of surface temperature using this model to temperature probe data collected during Apollo 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a), Topographic map of the de Gerlache Rim 2 site near the lunar south pole (88.161°S, 305.936°E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Solar elevation angle observed at the de Gerlache Rim 2 site (88.161°S, 305.936°E) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a), Simplified lunar habitat design with body-mounted radiators. b), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a), Thermal emissivity of the simplified habitat and surrounding lunar surface in low and high emissivity states. b), Heat rejection of a 2m x 3m variable emissivity radiator and constant, high-emissivity radiator over two day/night cycles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Habitat internal wall temperature over one lunar day-night cycle using constant high- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Meseguer, I

    J. Meseguer, I. Perez-Grande, and A. Sanz-Andres, Spacecraft Thermal Control. Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing, 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Conceptual Thermal Control System Design for a Lunar Surface Habitat,

    G. Schunk, S. Babiak, D. Naville, and B. Evans, “Conceptual Thermal Control System Design for a Lunar Surface Habitat,” in Thermal and Fluid Analysis Workshop (TFAWS) 2021, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Martian Exploration Portable Life Support System Schematic Study,

    D. M. Lobmeyer et al., “Martian Exploration Portable Life Support System Schematic Study,” in 54th International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES 2025), Prague, Czechia, ICES-2025-90, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Advanced passive thermal control materials and devices for spacecraft: A review,

    S. Tachikawa, H. Nagano, A. Ohnishi, and Y. Nagasaka, “Advanced passive thermal control materials and devices for spacecraft: A review,” Int. J. Thermophys., vol. 43, no. 6, June 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Electrochromic emissivity modulator for spacecraft thermal management,

    H. Demiryont and D. Moorehead, “Electrochromic emissivity modulator for spacecraft thermal management,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 93, no. 12, pp. 2075–2078, Dec. 2009

  6. [6]

    Defining a discretized space suit surface radiator with variable emissivity properties,

    C. J. Massina and D. M. Klaus, “Defining a discretized space suit surface radiator with variable emissivity properties,” J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl., vol. 7, no. 4, p. 041014, Dec. 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Spectrally-selective vanadium dioxide based tunable metafilm emitter for dynamic radiative cooling,

    S. Taylor, L. Long, R. McBurney, P. Sabbaghi, J. Chao, and L. Wang, “Spectrally-selective vanadium dioxide based tunable metafilm emitter for dynamic radiative cooling,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 217, no. 110739, p. 110739, Nov. 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Thermochromic properties of W-doped VO 2 thin films deposited by aqueous sol-gel method for adaptive infrared stealth application,

    D. Liu, H. Cheng, X. Xing, C. Zhang, and W. Zheng, “Thermochromic properties of W-doped VO 2 thin films deposited by aqueous sol-gel method for adaptive infrared stealth application,” Infrared Phys. Technol., vol. 77, pp. 339–343, July 2016

    2016

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Design of VO2-based spacecraft smart radiator with low solar absorptance,

    B. Xie, W. Zhang, J. Zhao, C. Zheng, and L. Liu, “Design of VO2-based spacecraft smart radiator with low solar absorptance,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 236, no. 121751, p. 121751, Jan. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    VO2 metasurface smart thermal emitter with high visual transparency for passive radiative cooling regulation in space and terrestrial applications,

    K. Sun et al., “VO2 metasurface smart thermal emitter with high visual transparency for passive radiative cooling regulation in space and terrestrial applications,” Nanophotonics, vol. 11, no. 17, pp. 4101–4114, Sept. 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Electrochromic materials and devices: present and future,

    P. R. Somani and S. Radhakrishnan, “Electrochromic materials and devices: present and future,” Mater. Chem. Phys., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 117–133, Jan. 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    Solid-State Phase-Change Heterostructures for Radiative Heating and Cooling in Space,

    Keller S., Luo Y., Kindem D., Pederson K., Ilic O., “Solid-State Phase-Change Heterostructures for Radiative Heating and Cooling in Space,” in 54th International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES 2025), Prague, Czechia, ICES-2025-366, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Thermochromic Variable Emissivity Material Thermal Modeling and Test Correlation,

    D. W. Hengeveld, “Thermochromic Variable Emissivity Material Thermal Modeling and Test Correlation,” in 54th International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES 2025), Prague, Czechia, ICES-2025-83, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Characterizing transient thermal interactions between lunar regolith and surface spacecraft,

    P. B. Hager, D. M. Klaus, and U. Walter, “Characterizing transient thermal interactions between lunar regolith and surface spacecraft,” Planet. Space Sci., vol. 92, pp. 101–116, Mar. 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    A comprehensive 3D thermophysical model of the lunar surface,

    K. Durga Prasad, V. K. Rai, and S. V. S. Murty, “A comprehensive 3D thermophysical model of the lunar surface,” Earth Space Sci., vol. 9, no. 12, Dec. 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Surface brightness temperatures at the Apollo 17 heat flow site: Thermal conductivity of the upper 15 cm of regolith,

    S. J. Keihm and M. G. Langseth Jr, “Surface brightness temperatures at the Apollo 17 heat flow site: Thermal conductivity of the upper 15 cm of regolith,” in Proceedings of the Lunar Science Conference, vol. 4, p. 2503, 1973, vol. 4, p. 2503

    1973

  9. [17]

    Lunar reconnaissance orbiter (LRO): Observations for lunar exploration and science,

    R. Vondrak, J. Keller, G. Chin, and J. Garvin, “Lunar reconnaissance orbiter (LRO): Observations for lunar exploration and science,” Space Sci. Rev., vol. 150, no. 1–4, pp. 7–22, Jan. 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Transient thermal model and analysis of the lunar surface and regolith for cryogenic fluid storage,

    R. J. Christie, D. W. Plachta, and M.M Hasan, “Transient thermal model and analysis of the lunar surface and regolith for cryogenic fluid storage,” NASA/TM—2008-215300. 12 International Conference on Environmental Systems

    2008

  11. [19]

    Safeguarding Earth’s biodiversity by creating a lunar biorepository,

    M. Hagedorn et al., “Safeguarding Earth’s biodiversity by creating a lunar biorepository,” Bioscience, vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 561–566, Aug. 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Artemis deep space habitation: Enabling a sustained human presence on the moon and beyond,

    P. Kessler, T. Prater, T. Nickens, and D. Harris, “Artemis deep space habitation: Enabling a sustained human presence on the moon and beyond,” in 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO), Big Sky, MT, USA, 2022, pp. 01–12

    2022

  13. [21]

    Evaluating potential landing sites for the Artemis III mission using a multi-criteria decision making approach,

    E. Peña-Asensio, Á. S. Neira-Acosta, and J. M. Sánchez-Lozano, “Evaluating potential landing sites for the Artemis III mission using a multi-criteria decision making approach,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 226, pp. 469–478, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Lunar Thermal Analysis Guidebook (L-TAG),

    C. Gomez, B. Hamill, G. Schunk, and L. Erickson, “Lunar Thermal Analysis Guidebook (L-TAG),” in 33rd Annual Thermal and Fluid Analysis Workshop (TFAWS), 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Lunar habitats: A brief overview of issues and concepts,

    H. Benaroya, “Lunar habitats: A brief overview of issues and concepts,” REACH, vol. 7–8, pp. 14–33, Dec. 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Comparison of observed Beta cloth interactions with simulated and actual space environment,

    R. R. Kamenetzky, “Comparison of observed Beta cloth interactions with simulated and actual space environment,” NASA/TM—1999-209575

    1999

  17. [25]

    TransHab - NASA’s large-scale inflatable spacecraft,

    H. de la Fuente, J. Raboin, G. Valle, and G. Spexarth, “TransHab - NASA’s large-scale inflatable spacecraft,” in 41st Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, Atlanta,GA,U.S.A., 2000

    2000

  18. [26]

    Novel Methods for Modeling Thermochromic Variable Emissivity Surfaces,

    D. Hengeveld and J. Allison, “Novel Methods for Modeling Thermochromic Variable Emissivity Surfaces,” in 52nd International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES 2023), Calgary, Canada, ICES-2023-129, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.