pith. sign in

arxiv: 2105.09029 · v1 · pith:LUYEXVXGnew · submitted 2021-05-19 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY· math.OC

Optimal Science-time Reorientation Policy for the Comet Interceptor Flyby via Sequential Convex Programming

Valentin Preda , Andrew Hyslop , Samir Bennani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 13:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC
keywords spacecraft reorientationsequential convex programmingflyby missionComet Interceptorreaction wheel faultscardinality minimizationattitude controlconvex optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sequential convex programming generates optimal reorientation trajectories for maximizing science time in spacecraft flybys.

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

The paper presents an algorithm that optimizes how a spacecraft turns during a high-speed flyby to keep a scientific target in view for as long as possible. It reformulates the non-convex optimization problem involving pointing constraints into a series of convex cardinality minimization problems using sequential convex programming. This allows efficient computation while accounting for the spacecraft's nonlinear dynamics, sun exclusion zones, reaction wheel limits, and possible faults. The method is demonstrated on the Comet Interceptor mission scenario with simulations showing it works under actuator failures or dust impacts.

Core claim

The central claim is that non-convex pointing objectives and constraints in spacecraft reorientation can be reformulated as convex cardinality minimization problems solvable via sequential convex programming, enabling viable trajectories for the Comet Interceptor flyby even with reaction wheel failures or dust particle impacts.

What carries the argument

Sequential convex programming reformulating non-convex pointing objectives into convex cardinality minimization problems.

If this is right

  • The approach produces trajectories that maximize the time the target remains in the field of view of scientific instruments.
  • Trajectories respect torque and momentum limits on reaction wheels and sun exclusion constraints.
  • The method handles potential faults in actuators and prior dust particle impacts.
  • Solutions can be computed efficiently on limited hardware resources using second-order conic constraint solvers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This method could extend to other high-speed flyby missions requiring precise attitude control under constraints.
  • The use of cardinality minimization might allow similar handling of discrete-like decisions in other spacecraft optimization problems.
  • If the convex approximations are accurate, mission planners could use this instead of slower nonlinear optimizers for real-time or onboard use.

Load-bearing premise

The sequence of convex cardinality minimization problems can approximate the original nonlinear dynamics and non-convex constraints closely enough to yield feasible and high-quality solutions for the true problem.

What would settle it

Running the method on the Comet Interceptor scenario and finding that the generated trajectory violates the sun exclusion constraint or achieves significantly less science time than a known better solution when simulated with the full nonlinear model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2105.09029 by Andrew Hyslop, Samir Bennani, Valentin Preda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the instrument pointing 𝒗®, comet pointing ®𝒓𝑐 and sun pointing ®𝒓𝑠𝑢𝑛 unit vectors as well as the various field of view constraints for the Comet Interceptor mission. Note: In this diagram 𝒗® is assumed to be aligned with the 𝒙® body axis. ®𝒓𝑠𝑢𝑛 towards the sun. It is assumed that an on-board navigation subsystem provides the coordinates 𝒓𝑐 (𝑡), 𝒓𝑠𝑢𝑛 (𝑡) ∈ R 3 of these vectors in an arbitra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flyby trajectory optimized for a faulty wheel scenario with the remaining wheels initially spinning close [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spin-axis direction for each of the four wheels in the assembly. Dashed line indicates the faulty wheel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Set of achievable wheel momenta in nominal and faulty scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pointing error angles at every iteration in the sequential optimization for the example shown in fig. 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Monte Carlo results: science outage times as a function of the initial wheel momentum in nominal and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative histogram of the visual outage results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms and cumulative histograms of the number of iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Monte Carlo results: visual outage as a function of the initial body frame wheel momentum. Top row: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper introduces an algorithm to perform optimal reorientation of a spacecraft during a high speed flyby mission that maximizes the time a certain target is kept within the field of view of scientific instruments. The method directly handles the nonlinear dynamics of the spacecraft, sun exclusion constraint, torque and momentum limits on the reaction wheels as well as potential faults in these actuators. A sequential convex programming approach was used to reformulate non-convex pointing objectives and other constraints in terms of a series of novel convex cardinality minimization problems. These subproblems were then efficiently solved even on limited hardware resources using convex programming solvers implementing second-order conic constraints. The proposed method was applied to a scenario that involved maximizing the science time for the upcoming Comet Interceptor flyby mission developed by the European Space Agency. Extensive simulation results demonstrate the capability of the approach to generate viable trajectories even in the presence of reaction wheel failures or prior dust particle impacts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a sequential convex programming (SCP) algorithm for optimal spacecraft reorientation during a high-speed flyby to maximize the time a target remains in the instrument field of view. Non-convex pointing objectives and constraints (nonlinear dynamics, sun exclusion, torque/momentum limits, actuator faults) are reformulated as a sequence of convex cardinality minimization subproblems solved via second-order cone programming (SOCP). The method is applied to the Comet Interceptor mission, with simulations demonstrating viable trajectories under reaction wheel failures and dust particle impacts.

Significance. If the convex approximations are shown to produce solutions with bounded suboptimality and maintained feasibility for the original problem, the work provides a practical, computationally tractable approach for onboard attitude optimization in constrained flyby scenarios. The handling of actuator faults via the same framework and the use of cardinality minimization for pointing objectives represent targeted extensions of SCP techniques to mission-specific requirements.

major comments (1)
  1. [Simulation results] The central claim that the sequence of convex cardinality-minimization subproblems produces viable trajectories without significant degradation relative to the original non-convex problem (abstract and simulation results) requires quantitative support. A dedicated convergence or suboptimality analysis section comparing SCP solutions against a non-convex benchmark or ground-truth optimizer on at least one representative case would directly address the approximation quality.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify in the abstract and introduction what specific aspect of the cardinality minimization formulation is novel relative to prior SCP applications in spacecraft control (e.g., the particular relaxation or constraint encoding used).
  2. Ensure all figures showing trajectories include explicit labels for the sun exclusion cone and reaction wheel saturation limits to improve readability of the constraint satisfaction results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation for major revision. We agree that strengthening the quantitative validation of the SCP approximation quality is important and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation results] The central claim that the sequence of convex cardinality-minimization subproblems produces viable trajectories without significant degradation relative to the original non-convex problem (abstract and simulation results) requires quantitative support. A dedicated convergence or suboptimality analysis section comparing SCP solutions against a non-convex benchmark or ground-truth optimizer on at least one representative case would directly address the approximation quality.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not currently include a direct quantitative comparison of SCP solutions to a non-convex benchmark. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (likely in Section 5) that performs such an analysis on at least one representative Comet Interceptor case. This will involve solving the original non-convex problem with a nonlinear programming solver (e.g., IPOPT) on a simplified dynamics model to quantify the suboptimality gap, constraint violation, and feasibility retention of the SCP solutions. The new results will be presented alongside the existing simulations to directly support the claims in the abstract and simulation sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation applies standard SCP to new problem

full rationale

The paper applies sequential convex programming to reformulate non-convex spacecraft reorientation objectives and constraints (nonlinear dynamics, sun exclusion, actuator limits) into a sequence of convex cardinality-minimization subproblems solved via SOCP. This is a standard algorithmic technique applied to a mission-specific instance; the abstract and simulation claims present the method as an approximation whose quality is validated externally by numerical results on the Comet Interceptor scenario, including fault cases. No equations reduce a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction, and no load-bearing premise depends on prior author work that itself assumes the target result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; insufficient detail is available to identify specific free parameters, additional axioms, or invented entities used in the full derivation or simulations.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Convex optimization solvers implementing second-order conic constraints can efficiently solve the subproblems even on limited hardware resources.
    Invoked when stating that the subproblems were efficiently solved.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5696 in / 1273 out tokens · 27931 ms · 2026-05-24T13:51:05.088817+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The European Space Agency’s Comet Interceptor lies in wait,

    Snodgrass, C., and Jones, G. H., “The European Space Agency’s Comet Interceptor lies in wait,”Nature Communications, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019, p. 5418. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13470-1, URLhttp://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019- 13470-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13470-1 2019

  2. [2]

    Potential Backup Targets for Comet Interceptor,

    Schwamb, M. E., Knight, M. M., Jones, G. H., Snodgrass, C., Bucci, L., Sánchez Pérez, J. M., and Skuppin, N., “Potential Backup Targets for Comet Interceptor,”Research Notes of the AAS, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2020, p. 21. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab7300, URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ab7300

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab7300 2020

  3. [3]

    Discretized Constrained Attitude Pathfinding and Control for Satellites,

    Kjellberg, H. C., and Lightsey, E. G., “Discretized Constrained Attitude Pathfinding and Control for Satellites,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1301–1309. doi:10.2514/1.60189, URLhttp://arc.aiaa.org/ doi/10.2514/1.60189

    work page doi:10.2514/1.60189 2013

  4. [4]

    Fast Autonomous Three-Axis Constrained Attitude Pathfinding and Visualization for Boresight Alignment,

    Tanygin, S., “Fast Autonomous Three-Axis Constrained Attitude Pathfinding and Visualization for Boresight Alignment,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2017, pp. 358–370. doi:10.2514/1.G001801, URLhttp: //arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.G001801

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g001801 2017

  5. [5]

    A randomized attitude slew planning algorithm for autonomous spacecraft,

    Feron, E., Dahleh, M., Frazzoli, E., and Kornfeld, R., “A randomized attitude slew planning algorithm for autonomous spacecraft,” , 8 2001. doi:10.2514/6.2001-4155, URLhttp://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2001-4155

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2001-4155 2001

  6. [6]

    Onboard Spacecraft Slew-Planning by Heuristic State-Space Search and Optimization,

    Cui, P., Zhong, W., and Cui, H., “Onboard Spacecraft Slew-Planning by Heuristic State-Space Search and Optimization,”2007 International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, IEEE, 2007, pp. 2115–2119. doi:10.1109/ICMA.2007.4303878, URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4303878/

    work page doi:10.1109/icma.2007.4303878 2007

  7. [7]

    A constraint monitor algorithm for the Cassini spacecraft,

    Singh, G., Macala, G., Wong, E., Rasmussen, R., Singh, G., Macala, G., Wong, E., and Rasmussen, R., “A constraint monitor algorithm for the Cassini spacecraft,” , 8 1997. doi:10.2514/6.1997-3526, URLhttp://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6. 1997-3526

    work page doi:10.2514/6.1997-3526 1997

  8. [8]

    Saturated Attitude Control for Rigid Spacecraft Under Attitude Constraints,

    Hu, Q., Liu, Y., Dong, H., and Zhang, Y., “Saturated Attitude Control for Rigid Spacecraft Under Attitude Constraints,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2020, pp. 790–805. doi:10.2514/1.G004613, URLhttps: //arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.G004613. 14 0 50 100 150 Visual outage (s) 40% 60% 80% 100%Percentage of trajectories Nominal Fa...

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g004613 2020

  9. [9]

    Potential approach for constrained autonomous manoeuvres of a spacecraft equipped with a cluster of control moment gyroscopes,

    Avanzini, G., Radice, G., and Ali, I., “Potential approach for constrained autonomous manoeuvres of a spacecraft equipped with a cluster of control moment gyroscopes,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 223, No. 3, 2009, pp. 285–296. doi:10.1243/09544100JAERO375, URLhttp://journals. sagepu...

    work page doi:10.1243/09544100jaero375 2009

  10. [10]

    On different parameterisation methods to analyse spacecraft attitude manoeuvres in the presence 15 of attitude constraints,

    Radice, G., and Casasco, M., “On different parameterisation methods to analyse spacecraft attitude manoeuvres in the presence 15 of attitude constraints,”The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1119, 2007, pp. 335–342. doi:10.1017/S0001924000004589, URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0001924000004589/type/journal_article

    work page doi:10.1017/s0001924000004589 2007

  11. [11]

    Potential field methods and their inherent limitations for mobile robot navigation,

    Koren, Y., and Borenstein, J., “Potential field methods and their inherent limitations for mobile robot navigation,”IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1991, pp. 1398–1404. doi:10.1109/ROBOT. 1991.131810, URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/131810/

    work page doi:10.1109/robot 1991

  12. [12]

    Survey of convex optimization for aerospace applications,

    Liu, X., Lu, P., and Pan, B., “Survey of convex optimization for aerospace applications,”Astrodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2017, pp. 23–40. doi:10.1007/s42064-017-0003-8, URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42064-017-0003-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s42064-017-0003-8 2017

  13. [13]

    Real-time Optimization in Aerospace Systems,

    Dueri, D. A., “Real-time Optimization in Aerospace Systems,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Model Predictive Control in Aerospace Systems: Current State and Opportunities,

    Eren, U., Prach, A., Koçer, B. B., Raković, S. V., Kayacan, E., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Model Predictive Control in Aerospace Systems: Current State and Opportunities,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2017, pp. 1541–1566. doi:10.2514/1.G002507, URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.G002507

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g002507 2017

  15. [15]

    Trajectory Design Employing Convex Optimization for Landing on Irregularly Shaped Asteroids,

    Pinson, R. M., and Lu, P., “Trajectory Design Employing Convex Optimization for Landing on Irregularly Shaped Asteroids,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2018, pp. 1243–1256. doi:10.2514/1.G003045, URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.G003045

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g003045 2018

  16. [16]

    Maximum Divert for Planetary Landing Using Convex Optimization,

    Harris, M. W., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Maximum Divert for Planetary Landing Using Convex Optimization,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 162, No. 3, 2014, pp. 975–995. doi:10.1007/s10957-013-0501-7, URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10957-013-0501-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-013-0501-7 2014

  17. [17]

    Lossless Convexification of Nonconvex Control Bound and Pointing Constraints of the Soft Landing Optimal Control Problem,

    Acikmese, B., Carson, J. M., and Blackmore, L., “Lossless Convexification of Nonconvex Control Bound and Pointing Constraints of the Soft Landing Optimal Control Problem,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2013, pp. 2104–2113. doi:10.1109/TCST.2012.2237346, URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6428631/

    work page doi:10.1109/tcst.2012.2237346 2013

  18. [18]

    Discretization Performance and Accuracy Analysis for the Rocket Powered Descent Guidance Problem,

    Malyuta, D., Reynolds, T., Szmuk, M., Mesbahi, M., Acikmese, B., and Carson, J. M., “Discretization Performance and Accuracy Analysis for the Rocket Powered Descent Guidance Problem,” , 1 2019. doi:10.2514/6.2019-0925, URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2019-0925

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2019-0925 2019

  19. [19]

    Simultaneous Capture and Detumble of a Resident Space Object by a Free-Flying Spacecraft-Manipulator System,

    Virgili-Llop, J., and Romano, M., “Simultaneous Capture and Detumble of a Resident Space Object by a Free-Flying Spacecraft-Manipulator System,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, Vol. 6, 2019. doi:10.3389/frobt.2019.00014, URLhttps: //www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frobt.2019.00014/full

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2019.00014 2019

  20. [20]

    Autonomous Trajectory Planning for Rendezvous and Proximity Operations by Conic Optimization,

    Lu, P., and Liu, X., “Autonomous Trajectory Planning for Rendezvous and Proximity Operations by Conic Optimization,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2013, pp. 375–389. doi:10.2514/1.58436, URLhttp: //arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.58436

    work page doi:10.2514/1.58436 2013

  21. [21]

    Swarm assignment and trajectory optimization using variable-swarm, distributed auction assignment and sequential convex programming,

    Morgan, D., Subramanian, G. P., Chung, S.-J., and Hadaegh, F. Y., “Swarm assignment and trajectory optimization using variable-swarm, distributed auction assignment and sequential convex programming,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 35, No. 10, 2016, pp. 1261–1285. doi:10.1177/0278364916632065, URLhttp://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.11...

    work page doi:10.1177/0278364916632065 2016

  22. [22]

    Successive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence properties,

    Mao, Y., Szmuk, M., and Acikmese, B., “Successive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence properties,”2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, 2016, pp. 3636–3641. doi: 10.1109/CDC.2016.7798816, URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7798816/

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2016.7798816 2016

  23. [23]

    GuSTO: Guaranteed Sequential Trajectory optimization via Sequential Convex Programming,

    Bonalli, R., Cauligi, A., Bylard, A., and Pavone, M., “GuSTO: Guaranteed Sequential Trajectory optimization via Sequential Convex Programming,”2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 2019, pp. 6741–6747. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2019.8794205, URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8794205/

    work page doi:10.1109/icra.2019.8794205 2019

  24. [24]

    Successive Convexification for Real-Time 6-DoF Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,

    Szmuk, M., Reynolds, T. P., and Acikmese, B., “Successive Convexification for Real-Time 6-DoF Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,” , 11 2018. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1811.10803

    work page arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    On the Constrained Attitude Control Problem,

    Kim, Y., Mesbahi, M., Singh, G., and Hadaegh, F., “On the Constrained Attitude Control Problem,” , 8 2004. doi: 10.2514/6.2004-5129, URLhttp://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2004-5129

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2004-5129 2004

  26. [26]

    Spacecraft synchronization in the presence of attitude constrained zones,

    Unsik Lee, and Mesbahi, M., “Spacecraft synchronization in the presence of attitude constrained zones,”2012 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, 2012, pp. 6071–6076. doi:10.1109/ACC.2012.6315561, URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee. org/document/6315561/. 16

    work page doi:10.1109/acc.2012.6315561 2012

  27. [27]

    Constrained spacecraft reorientation using mixed integer convex programming,

    Tam, M., and Glenn Lightsey, E., “Constrained spacecraft reorientation using mixed integer convex programming,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 127, 2016, pp. 31–40. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.04.003, URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0094576516303150

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.04.003 2016

  28. [28]

    A mixed integer convex programming approach to Constrained Attitude Guidance,

    Eren, U., Acikmese, B., and Scharf, D. P., “A mixed integer convex programming approach to Constrained Attitude Guidance,”2015 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, 2015, pp. 1120–1126. doi:10.1109/ECC.2015.7330690, URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7330690/

    work page doi:10.1109/ecc.2015.7330690 2015

  29. [29]

    Fast Trajectory Optimization via Successive Convexification for Spacecraft Rendezvous with Integer Constraints,

    Malyuta, D., Reynolds, T., Szmuk, M., Acikmese, B., and Mesbahi, M., “Fast Trajectory Optimization via Successive Convexification for Spacecraft Rendezvous with Integer Constraints,”AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2020. doi:10.2514/6.2020-0616, URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10. 2514/6.2020-0616

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2020-0616 2020

  30. [30]

    OntheConvexParameterizationofConstrainedSpacecraftReorientation,

    Kim,Y.,Mesbahi,M.,Singh,G.,andHadaegh,F.Y.,“OntheConvexParameterizationofConstrainedSpacecraftReorientation,” IEEETransactionsonAerospaceandElectronicSystems ,Vol.46,No.3,2010,pp.1097–1109.doi:10.1109/TAES.2010.5545176, URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5545176/

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2010.5545176 2010

  31. [31]

    A convex-programming-based guidance algorithm to capture a tumbling object on orbit using a spacecraft equipped with a robotic manipulator,

    Virgili-Llop, J., Zagaris, C., Zappulla, R., Bradstreet, A., and Romano, M., “A convex-programming-based guidance algorithm to capture a tumbling object on orbit using a spacecraft equipped with a robotic manipulator,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2019, pp. 40–72. doi:10.1177/0278364918804660, URLhttp://journals.sagepub. ...

    work page doi:10.1177/0278364918804660 2019

  32. [32]

    l1-norm Methods for Convex Cardinality Problems,

    Boyd, S., “l1-norm Methods for Convex Cardinality Problems,” , 2007

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    Trajectory optimization with inter-sample obstacle avoidance via successive convexification,

    Dueri, D., Mao, Y., Mian, Z., Ding, J., and Acikmese, B., “Trajectory optimization with inter-sample obstacle avoidance via successive convexification,”2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1150–1156. doi:10.1109/CDC.2017.8263811, URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8263811/

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2017.8263811 2017

  34. [34]

    R., Gould, N

    Conn, A. R., Gould, N. I. M., and Toint, P. L.,Trust Region Methods, Vol. 1, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,

    work page

  35. [35]

    doi:10.1137/1.9780898719857, URLhttp://epubs.siam.org/doi/book/10.1137/1.9780898719857

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9780898719857

  36. [36]

    A rewriting system for convex optimization problems,

    Agrawal, A., Verschueren, R., Diamond, S., and Boyd, S., “A rewriting system for convex optimization problems,”Journal of Control and Decision, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2018, pp. 42–60. doi:10.1080/23307706.2017.1397554, URL https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23307706.2017.1397554

    work page doi:10.1080/23307706.2017.1397554 2018

  37. [37]

    ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems,

    Domahidi, A., Chu, E., and Boyd, S., “ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems,”2013 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, 2013, pp. 3071–3076. 17 Table 2 Numerical values of the benchmark parameters Parameter Value Spacecraft Initial relative position in the inertial frame𝒓𝑐¹0º 70001000 0 𝑇 km Velocity in the inertial frame 0 70 0 𝑇 kms Initial quat...

    work page 2013