Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Long-term stability of scientific X-ray CMOS detectors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After 610 days of aging, an X-ray CMOS sensor shows no measurable performance degradation, according to this study.

desk verdict A valuable new aging dataset for scientific CMOS X-ray sensors, but the 10-year gain projection is statistically indistinguishable from zero aging. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14850 v1 pith:CLLSLT25 submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEphysics.ins-det

Mingjun Liu , Qinyu Wu , Zhixing Ling , Chen Zhang , Weimin Yuan , Shuang-Nan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEphysics.ins-det
keywords X-raydetectorCMOSsensorlong-termagingdarkcurrentreadoutnoiseconversiongainenergyresolutionspacetelescope
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

This paper tries to establish that a scientific CMOS X-ray detector can operate for years in space without losing performance. The authors aged one EP4K sensor for 610 days, first at $-30^\circ$C for 16 months and then at $20^\circ$C, measuring bias, dark current, readout noise, conversion gain, and X-ray energy resolution at regular intervals. All key metrics stayed within measurement scatter, with fewer than 50 of the 16 million pixels showing a bias drop larger than 10 DN. From the gain evolution they project a gain degeneration of $0.73\%$ over 3 years and $2.41\%$ over 10 years, small enough to be corrected by routine calibration. If correct, this supports the use of CMOS sensors in long-lived X-ray astronomy missions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the EP4K, a 4k $\times$ 4k back-illuminated scientific CMOS sensor with 15 $\mu$m pixels and a 10 $\mu$m epitaxial layer, operated at 20 Hz in high-gain mode with the PGA register set to 7.5. The aging protocol repeatedly collects dark frames at integration times from 14 $\mu$s to 1000 s and $^{55}$Fe X-ray spectra; the bias map is the per-pixel median DN, dark current is the slope of bias versus integration time, readout noise is the per-pixel standard deviation at 14 $\mu$s, and conversion gain comes from linear fits to X-ray line centroids. The lifetime projection is carried by the first-order kinetic model $G = G_0 \exp(-kt)$, fitted to the gain measurements from the $-30^\circ$C period, which yields the decay constant used for the 3- and 10-year extrapolations.

What would settle it

Re-run a 610-day aging test on the same sensor batch without masking any pixels, tracking every pixel's bias map and noise; if noticeably more than the reported ~50 pixels develop bias shifts above 10 DN or noise shifts above 15 $e^-$, or if the measured gain after several years deviates from the fitted exponential beyond the quoted $0.73\%$–$2.41\%$ band, the stability claim would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a customized large-format scientific CMOS sensor, the EP4K, shows no observable degradation in bias map, dark current, readout noise, conversion gain, or energy resolution after a 610-day aging period that combines 16 months at $-30^\circ$C and 5 months at $20^\circ$C in vacuum. The gain at $-30^\circ$C remains at $6.62\pm0.02$ eV/DN throughout the test, and the FWHM of the Mn K$\alpha$ line stays near 197 eV with only a few eV of scatter. A first-order kinetic fit to the gain decay gives a rate constant $k = 2.4\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, translating to a projected gain loss of $0.73\%$ over 3 years and $2.41\%$ over 10 years, which the authors describe as low enough for most current and upcoming astronomical missions and easily correctable by annual calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 23% of pixels excluded as inherently defective or light-leaking are static and do not mask aging damage, and that the gain decay fitted from 427 days at $-30^\circ$C follows the same exponential for ten years.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The sensor can support space missions requiring continuous operation for several hundred days without performance loss, as exemplified by the currently flying LEIA and EP-WXT instruments that use this sensor type.
  • The number of degraded pixels remains tiny—roughly 40 bias-varied and 10 noise-varied pixels after 610 days—and these are non-clustering, so they can be flagged and excluded without affecting the array's overall performance.
  • Aging appears to suppress dark current and random telegraph signal in some pixels, suggesting that extended operation may anneal certain defect sites rather than create new ones.
  • Because inherent aging is negligible, any mild performance degradation observed in orbit should be attributed to radiation damage or other environmental factors, not to the sensor's own decay.
  • The predicted gain drift of $0.73\%$ over 3 years can be compensated by routine annual gain calibration, removing a potential concern for long-duration X-ray surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 10-year projection of $2.41\%$ gain loss is an extrapolation from a fit to only 427 days of $-30^\circ$C data; including the $20^\circ$C accelerated-aging points in the fit might change the decay constant, so the true decade-scale uncertainty is likely larger than the quoted figure.
  • The analysis masks 23% of pixels as inherent defects or light leaks; those pixels are excluded from every statistic, so the 'no degradation' conclusion applies only to the selected 77% subarray. A follow-up test that tracks the excluded pixels would reveal whether latent defects grow with age.
  • The observed suppression of random telegraph noise hints that aging could partially heal radiation-induced defects, suggesting a combined radiation-plus-aging experiment (irradiate, then age, then compare defect densities) as a natural next test.
  • The protocol developed here—repeated dark and $^{55}$Fe exposures at two temperatures over two years—could serve as a standard pre-flight qualification for CMOS X-ray detectors on future missions.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 610-day aging test of a scientific CMOS X-ray detector (EP4K), combining 16 months at -30 °C with 5 months at 20 °C and periodic measurements of bias, dark current, readout noise, X-ray conversion gain, and energy resolution. The authors find no observable degradation in these quantities over the direct measurement period, observe a small number of pixels with bias or noise variations, and then use a first-order kinetic fit to the gain time series to project a gain degeneration of 0.73% over 3 years and 2.41% over 10 years. The central stability claim is based on direct measurements, while the quantitative lifetime projection is an extrapolation from a fitted model.

Significance. If the stability claim holds, the paper provides valuable empirical support for the use of scientific CMOS detectors in long-lived space missions, complementing prior radiation-tolerance studies. The 610-day direct data set, including the degraded-pixel census and the explicit statement of excluded regions, is a useful contribution. However, the paper's headline quantitative lifetime prediction is not statistically supported: the fitted rate constant is consistent with zero, no uncertainty is reported, and the projection is based on an extrapolation well beyond the measured interval. The direct stability measurements remain the paper's main strength; the projection should be substantially reframed or removed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 2] The first-order kinetic fit G = G0 exp(-kt) is applied to the -30°C gain values of Table 2, which are 6.62, 6.62, 6.62, 6.62, 6.62, 6.61, 6.61, and 6.60 eV/DN, each with a quoted uncertainty of ±0.02 eV/DN. The total change over 427 days is 0.02 eV/DN, equal to the stated uncertainty, and the series is not strongly monotonic. The paper reports k = 2.4e-3 yr^-1 with no confidence interval, goodness-of-fit, or residual analysis. A simple endpoint propagation from the quoted errors yields k approximately 0.0026 ± 0.004 yr^-1, so the 95% range includes k = 0 and negative values. The abstract's statements that aging predicts 0.73% degeneration over 3 years and 2.41% over 10 years are therefore not statistically supported by the data as presented. In addition, the 10-year projection corresponds to an extrapolation about a factor of eight beyond the 427-day fitting window, and the model is imported from organic solar cell lifetime studies (reference [34]) without evidence that it applies to CMOS gain aging. The authors should either provide a proper uncertainty estimate for k, demonstrate that the model is identifiable, and state the extrapolation caveat explicitly, or remove the quantitative lifetime claim from the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section 2, Figure 1] The analysis excludes roughly 3.9 million pixels, or 23% of the 4k x 4k array, as having inherent defects or light leaks. Consequently, the statement that 'the bias map, dark current, readout noise, gain, and energy resolution exhibited no observable degradation' applies only to the remaining 77% of pixels. The manuscript does not check whether the excluded regions themselves are stable during aging, nor does it demonstrate that the exclusion criteria are time-independent. The degraded-pixel statistics in Section 3.5 are also computed on the reduced pixel set, so the abstract's claim of 'less than 50 pixels' is potentially misleading if additional aging-related changes occur in the masked areas. The authors should either analyze the excluded regions for stability or explicitly state that the stability conclusion is restricted to the non-excluded pixels.
  3. [Section 3.4, Table 2] The intercept values a0 in Table 2 vary between 30 and 50 eV with uncertainties of 14-25 eV, and the FWHM values vary between 194 and 200 eV with uncertainties of about 1 eV. The text states that the intercepts 'remain unchanged' and that energy resolution 'exhibits no significant degeneration,' but no statistical test or trend analysis is provided. Given the scatter and the small number of epochs, a statement of consistency within uncertainties would be more precise. This is not central to the stability claim, but it affects the quantification of 'no observable degradation.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'The 14 µs signal can be seen as the the true bias level' contains a duplicated 'the'.
  2. [Section 2] The phrase 'every a few months' should be 'every few months' or 'every couple of months'.
  3. [Section 4] The phrase 'a aging test' should be 'an aging test'.
  4. [Abstract] The sentence 'There are less than 50 pixels within the 4k x 4k array which show a decrease of the bias under 50 ms integration time by over 10 digital numbers (DNs)' should specify that this count refers to pixels not excluded from analysis, given the 23% exclusion described in Section 2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 3-year and 10-year gain-degeneration numbers are deterministic transforms of the rate constant k fitted to the same -30°C gain series, so the lifetime 'prediction' reduces to the fit; the direct 610-day stability measurements are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Discussion and Conclusion), gain projection; abstract 'First-order kinetic fitting ... predicts ...']
    "we focus on the evolution of the conversion gains and fit them via a first-order kinetic model [34], G = G0 exp (−kt), where G is the value of gain at the time t, G0 is the initial value of gain, and k is the reaction kinetic constant. Using the -30 ◦C gain values during the aging from February 2022 to June 2023, we obtain k = 2.4 × 10−3 yr−1, corresponding to a gain degeneration of 0.73% over 3 years and 2.41% over 10 years"

    The abstract's 'predicts a gain degeneration of 0.73% over 3 years and 2.41% over 10 years' is not an independent prediction: these percentages are exactly 1 − exp(−kt) evaluated at t = 3 yr and 10 yr using the k = 2.4 × 10−3 yr−1 fitted to the same -30°C gain time series in Table 2 (6.62, 6.62, 6.61, 6.61, 6.60, 6.61, 6.61 eV/DN). No separate data or external benchmark tests the projection; it is a deterministic transform of the fitted parameter plus the assumed exponential form. The direct 610-day stability measurements are self-contained and non-circular, but the quantitative lifetime claim in the abstract reduces by construction to the fit.

full rationale

The paper's core stability findings—unchanged bias, dark current, readout noise, gain, and energy resolution over 610 days—are based on repeated direct measurements and are not circular. The only circular element is the lifetime projection. The paper fits the first-order kinetic model G = G0 exp(−kt) to the -30°C gain values, obtains k = 2.4 × 10−3 yr−1, and then reports the resulting 3-year and 10-year gain degenerations as 'predicts.' Mathematically, those percentages are just 1 − exp(−k·3) and 1 − exp(−k·10), so they are the fitted model restated rather than an independent check. The paper also reports no uncertainty or goodness-of-fit for k, making the projection statistically fragile; however, that fragility is a correctness risk, not the circularity itself. Self-citations to earlier work [6, 10, 13] provide sensor characterization and data-reduction methods and are not load-bearing for the stability conclusion. The excluded-pixel caveat (23% of pixels) is a scope limitation, not circularity. Overall, the direct experimental claims are self-contained, while the headline lifetime numbers reduce by construction to the fitted rate constant, giving partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central stability claim depends primarily on single-sensor representativeness and on excluding 23% of pixels. The lifetime projection additionally depends on an imported exponential decay model and a fitted rate constant. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • k (gain aging rate constant) = 2.4e-3 yr^-1
    Fitted to the -30 C gain time series (Table 2) via G = G0 exp(-kt); all projected gain degenerations derive from this single fitted constant.
  • G0 (initial gain in kinetic model) = 6.62 eV/DN approximately
    Obtained from the first gain measurement rather than independently fixed; part of the same fit used for the lifetime projection.
  • Degraded-pixel thresholds (10 DN, 15 e-) = 10 DN for bias, 15 e- for noise
    Chosen by hand to define bias-varied and noise-varied pixels in Section 3.5; the reported counts of degraded pixels depend on these thresholds.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption One EP4K sensor from the same batch as EP-WXT flight sensors is representative of the sensor population.
    Section 2 states a single sensor was used; no batch statistics or second-sensor verification are provided, so the broad stability conclusion rests on n=1.
  • ad hoc to paper Gain aging follows a first-order exponential model G = G0 exp(-kt), as in organic solar cell lifetime studies.
    Section 4 imports the model from reference [34] without physical justification for CMOS gain or goodness-of-fit statistics.
  • domain assumption The 20 C phase is treated as accelerated aging relative to -30 C operation.
    Section 2 describes the temperature change, but no acceleration factor is established, and the kinetic fit actually uses only the -30 C data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-term stability of scientific X-ray CMOS detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLLSLT25

@misc{pith2026241214850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-term stability of scientific X-ray CMOS detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLLSLT25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14850}
}
abstract

In recent years, complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensors have been demonstrated to have significant potential in X-ray astronomy, where long-term reliability is crucial for space X-ray telescopes. This study examines the long-term stability of a scientific CMOS sensor, focusing on its bias, dark current, readout noise, and X-ray spectral performance. The sensor was initially tested at -30 $^\circ$C for 16 months, followed by accelerated aging at 20 $^\circ$C. After a total aging period of 610 days, the bias map, dark current, readout noise, gain, and energy resolution exhibited no observable degradation. There are less than 50 pixels within the 4 k $\times$ 4 k array which show a decrease of the bias under 50 ms integration time by over 10 digital numbers (DNs). First-order kinetic fitting of the gain evolution predicts a gain degeneration of 0.73% over 3 years and 2.41% over 10 years. These results underscore the long-term reliability of CMOS sensors for application in space missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dark exposure map under 50 ms (left) and 1 ks (right) integration time of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of bias under 14 µs (left panel) and 50 ms (middle panel) integration time of the scientific CMOS sensor at -30 ◦C on the 0th day (black) and the 610th day (red) of the aging test. It should be noted that there are 57 pixels and 54 pixels that have a 50-ms-bias value over 300 DN on the 0th day and the 610th day, respectively. The bias of the scientific CMOS sensors under 14 µs integration time (righ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The bias level of the whole sensor as a function of the integration time (left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of the readout noise of pixels of the scientific CMOS sensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The G0center spectra of the same sensor irradiated by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: the number of degraded pixels during the aging test. Right: the distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 50-ms-bias distribution of eight degraded pixels at -30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    De Bettignies, J

    R. De Bettignies, J. Leroy, M. Firon, C. Sentein, Accelerated lifetime measurements of p3ht:pcbm solar cells, SYNTHETIC METALS 156 (7-

    work page

  2. [1]

    Ingley, D

    R. Ingley, D. R. Smith, A. D. Holland, Life testing of emccd gain charac- teristics, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RE- SEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DE- TECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT 600 (2) (2009) 460–465. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.10.041

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.10.041 2009

  3. [2]

    Suyama, A

    M. Suyama, A. Kageyama, S. Ema, K. Kinoshita, T. Maruno, Eb- ccd life characteristics, in: M. Blouke (Ed.), SOLID STATE SEN- SOR ARRAYS: DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS II, Vol. 3301 of PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY OF PHOTO-OPTICAL IN- STRUMENTATION ENGINEERS (SPIE), SPIE, Int Soc Opt Engn; Soc Imaging Sci & Technol, 1998, pp. 131–138, conference on Solid Stat...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.304555 1998

  4. [3]

    Dunford, K

    A. Dunford, K. Stefanov, A. Holland, Ageing and proton irradiation damage of a low voltage emccd in a cmos process, JOURNAL OF IN- STRUMENTATION 13, 11th International Conference on Position Sen- sitive Detectors (PSD), Open Univ, Milton Keynes, ENGLAND, SEP 03-08, 2017 (FEB 2018). doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/02/C02059

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/02/c02059 2017

  5. [4]

    Wang, et al., Developments of scientific CMOS as focal plane de- tector for Einstein Probe mission, in: J.-W

    W. Wang, et al., Developments of scientific CMOS as focal plane de- tector for Einstein Probe mission, in: J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, K. Nakazawa (Eds.), Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ul- traviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 10699 of Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 2018, p. 106995O. doi:10.1117/12.2311922

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2311922 2018

  6. [5]

    W. X. Wang, et al., Characterization of a BSI sCMOS for soft X-ray imaging spectroscopy, Journal of Instrumentation 14 (2) (2019) P02025. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/02/P02025. 13

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/02/p02025 2019

  7. [6]

    Ling, et al., A correlogram method to examine the crosstalk of sCMOS sensors, Journal of Instrumentation 16 (3) (2021) P03018

    Z. Ling, et al., A correlogram method to examine the crosstalk of sCMOS sensors, Journal of Instrumentation 16 (3) (2021) P03018. doi:10. 1088/1748-0221/16/03/P03018

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    X-ray Performance of a Small Pixel Size sCMOS Sensor and the Effect of Depletion Depth

    Y. Hsiao, et al., X-ray performance of a small pixel size sCMOS sensor and the effect of depletion depth, Journal of Instrumentation 17 (12) (2022) P12006. arXiv:2211.16901, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/12/ P12006

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    W. X. Wang, Z. X. Ling, C. Zhang, W. M. Yuan, S. N. Zhang, Design and test results of different aluminum coating layers on the sCMOS sen- sors for soft X-ray detection, Journal of Instrumentation 17 (12) (2022) P12016. arXiv:2211.15132, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/12/P12016

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Wang, et al., Design and test results of scientific x-ray CMOS cam- eras, in: A

    W. Wang, et al., Design and test results of scientific x-ray CMOS cam- eras, in: A. D. Holland, J. Beletic (Eds.), X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy X, Vol. 12191 of Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 2022, p. 1219...

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Wu, et al., X-Ray Performance of a Customized Large-format Scien- tific CMOS Detector, Publ

    Q. Wu, et al., X-Ray Performance of a Customized Large-format Scien- tific CMOS Detector, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac134 (1033) (2022) 035006. arXiv:2209.15295, doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac5ac9

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Wu, et al., Investigating the image lag of a scientific CMOS sen- sor in X-ray detection, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 1050 (2023) 168180

    Q. Wu, et al., Investigating the image lag of a scientific CMOS sen- sor in X-ray detection, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 1050 (2023) 168180. arXiv:2303.08425, doi:10.1016/j. nima.2023.168180

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Wu, et al., Improving the X-Ray Energy Resolution of a Scien- tific CMOS Detector by Pixel-level Gain Correction, Publ

    Q. Wu, et al., Improving the X-Ray Energy Resolution of a Scien- tific CMOS Detector by Pixel-level Gain Correction, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac135 (1044) (2023) 025003. arXiv:2303.01027, doi:10.1088/ 1538-3873/acbcf3

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Q. Wu, Z. Ling, C. Zhang, S.-N. Zhang, W. Yuan, An Aluminum-coated sCMOS Sensor for X-Ray Astronomy, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac135 (1053) (2023) 115002. arXiv:2310.14887, doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad03d7

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Liu, et al., Radiation effects on scientific CMOS sensors for X-ray astronomy: I

    M. Liu, et al., Radiation effects on scientific CMOS sensors for X-ray astronomy: I. Proton irradiation, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, 14 Instruments, and Systems 9 (2023) 046003. arXiv:2312.01851, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.4.046003

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Chen, et al., Radiation effects on scientific complementary metal- oxide-semiconductor detectors for x-ray astronomy: II

    M. Chen, et al., Radiation effects on scientific complementary metal- oxide-semiconductor detectors for x-ray astronomy: II. Total ionizing dose irradiation, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 10 (2) (2024) 026001. doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.10.2.026001. URL...

    2024 doi

  9. [16]

    B. E. Burke, R. W. Mountain, P. J. Daniels, M. J. Cooper, V. S. Dolat, CCD soft x-ray imagers for ASCA and AXAF, in: O. H. Siegmund (Ed.), EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, Vol. 2006 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confere...

    2006 doi

  10. [17]

    G. P. Garmire, M. W. Bautz, P. G. Ford, J. A. Nousek, J. Ricker, George R., Advanced CCD imaging spectrometer (ACIS) instrument on the Chandra X-ray Observatory, in: J. E. Truemper, H. D. Tananbaum (Eds.), X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astron- omy., Vol. 4...

    2003 doi

  11. [18]

    Str¨ uder, et al., The European Photon Imaging Camera on XMM- Newton: The pn-CCD camera, Astron

    L. Str¨ uder, et al., The European Photon Imaging Camera on XMM- Newton: The pn-CCD camera, Astron. Astrophys.365 (2001) L18–L26. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    2001 doi

  12. [19]

    D. N. Burrows, et al., The Swift X-Ray Telescope, Space Science Re- views120 (3-4) (2005) 165–195. doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  13. [20]

    Mitsuda, et al., The X-Ray Observatory Suzaku, Publ

    K. Mitsuda, et al., The X-Ray Observatory Suzaku, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn59 (2007) S1–S7. doi:10.1093/pasj/59.sp1.S1

    2007 doi

  14. [21]

    Predehl, et al., The eROSITA X-ray telescope on SRG, Astron

    P. Predehl, et al., The eROSITA X-ray telescope on SRG, Astron. As- trophys.647 (2021) A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  15. [22]

    Matsuoka, et al., The MAXI Mission on the ISS: Science and Instru- ments for Monitoring All-Sky X-Ray Images, Publ

    M. Matsuoka, et al., The MAXI Mission on the ISS: Science and Instru- ments for Monitoring All-Sky X-Ray Images, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn61 (2009) 999. doi:10.1093/pasj/61.5.999. 15

    2009 doi

  16. [23]

    Zhang, et al., First Wide Field-of-view X-Ray Observations by a Lobster-eye Focusing Telescope in Orbit, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters941 (1) (2022) L2

    C. Zhang, et al., First Wide Field-of-view X-Ray Observations by a Lobster-eye Focusing Telescope in Orbit, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters941 (1) (2022) L2. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca32f

    2022 doi

  17. [24]

    Z. X. Ling, et al., The Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy Onboard the SATech-01 Satellite, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 23 (9) (2023) 095007. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acd593

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    Yuan, et al., Einstein Probe: a lobster-eye telescope for monitoring the x-ray sky, in: J.-W

    W. Yuan, et al., Einstein Probe: a lobster-eye telescope for monitoring the x-ray sky, in: J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, K. Nakazawa (Eds.), Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 10699 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers ...

    2018 doi

  19. [26]

    W. Yuan, C. Zhang, Y. Chen, Z. Ling, The Einstein Probe Mission, in: C. Bambi, A. Sangangelo (Eds.), Handbook of X-ray and Gamma- ray Astrophysics, Springer Living Reference Work, 2022, p. 86. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0$\underline{\}$151-1

    2022 doi

  20. [27]

    S. Nikzad, et al., High-efficiency UV/optical/NIR detectors for large aperture telescopes and UV explorer missions: development of and field observations with delta-doped arrays, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems 3 (2017) 036002. doi:10.1117/1. JAT...

    2017 doi

  21. [28]

    T. Roth, S. Tammes, P. Kaaret, C. DeRoo, C. M. Packard, Character- ization of gamma-ray-induced radiation effects on a commercial CMOS sensor for x-ray small satellites, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, In- struments, and Systems 8 (2022) 026001. doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2. 026001

    2022 doi

  22. [29]

    M. E. Hoenk, et al., Delta-doped back-illuminated CMOS imaging ar- rays: progress and prospects, in: E. L. Dereniak, J. P. Hartke, P. D. Levan, R. E. Longshore, A. K. Sood (Eds.), Infrared Systems and Pho- toelectronic Technology IV, Vol. 7419 of Society of Photo-Optical In- s...

    2009 doi

  23. [30]

    Janesick, G

    J. Janesick, G. Putnam, Developments and Applications of High- Performance CCD and CMOS Imaging Arrays, Annual Review of Nu- 16 clear and Particle Science 53 (2003) 263–300. doi:10.1146/annurev. nucl.53.041002.110431

    2003

  24. [31]

    Heymes, et al., Development of a photon-counting near-fano-limited x-ray CMOS image sensor for THESEUS’ SXI, in: A

    J. Heymes, et al., Development of a photon-counting near-fano-limited x-ray CMOS image sensor for THESEUS’ SXI, in: A. D. Holland, J. Beletic (Eds.), X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IX, Vol. 11454 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE...

    2020 doi

  25. [32]

    Grasset, et al., JUpiter ICy moons Explorer (JUICE): An ESA mis- sion to orbit Ganymede and to characterise the Jupiter system, Plane- tary and Space Science78 (2013) 1–21

    O. Grasset, et al., JUpiter ICy moons Explorer (JUICE): An ESA mis- sion to orbit Ganymede and to characterise the Jupiter system, Plane- tary and Space Science78 (2013) 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2012.12. 002

    2013 doi

  26. [33]

    Li, et al., On-orbit service (OOS) of spacecraft: A review of en- gineering developments, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 108 (2019) 32–

    W.-J. Li, et al., On-orbit service (OOS) of spacecraft: A review of en- gineering developments, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 108 (2019) 32–

    2019

  27. [35]

    K. Mori, H. Tomida, H. Nakajima, T. Okajima, H. Noda, H. Uchida, H. Suzuki, S. B. Kobayashi, T. Yoneyama, K. Hagino, K. Nobukawa, T. Tanaka, H. Murakami, H. Uchiyama, M. Nobukawa, H. Matsumoto, T. Tsuru, M. Yamauchi, I. Hatsukade, H. Odaka, T. Kohmura, K. Ya- maoka, M. Ishida,...

    2024

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1016/j.synthmet.2005.06.016

    (2006) 510–513. doi:10.1016/j.synthmet.2005.06.016

    2006 doi

  29. [120]

    doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.01.004

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.