pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.24143 · v2 · pith:MCCZFQE6new · submitted 2025-09-29 · 💻 cs.RO · math.OC

A Novel Model for 3D Motion Planning for a Generalized Dubins Vehicle with Pitch and Yaw Rate Constraints

Deepak Prakash Kumar , Swaroop Darbha , Satyanarayana Gupta Manyam , David W. Casbeer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 22:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO math.OC
keywords 3D motion planningDubins vehiclerotation minimizing framepitch and yaw rate constraintsfixed-wing UAVtrajectory optimizationmotion constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

The paper introduces a modeling approach for 3D motion planning of vehicles with pitch and yaw rate constraints by using a rotation minimizing frame and concatenating Dubins paths on spherical, cylindrical, or planar surfaces.

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

This paper develops a new way to plan the shortest paths for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles in three dimensions while respecting limits on how fast they can change pitch and yaw. It models the full orientation of the vehicle using roll, pitch, and yaw angles rather than just heading or pitch. The method tracks the vehicle's movement with a rotation minimizing frame and builds the path by joining optimal Dubins paths that lie on spheres, cylinders, or flat planes. Simulations show that this produces valid paths quickly, averaging under 10 seconds, and often results in shorter routes than previous techniques.

Core claim

The authors propose representing the vehicle's configuration with a rotation minimizing frame and constructing paths by concatenating optimal Dubins paths on spherical, cylindrical, or planar surfaces. This accounts for the vehicle's full 3D orientation and independent bounded pitch and yaw rates, differing from methods that use fewer orientation angles or a single control input like curvature. Numerical simulations demonstrate that the approach generates feasible paths within 10 seconds on average and yields shorter paths than existing methods in most cases.

What carries the argument

A rotation minimizing frame that describes the vehicle's configuration and its evolution, used to construct paths by concatenating optimal Dubins paths on spherical, cylindrical, or planar surfaces.

If this is right

  • The method allows for accurate modeling of vehicle kinematics using two separate control inputs for pitch and yaw rates.
  • It enables construction of feasible 3D paths for vehicles with full orientation constraints.
  • Paths can be generated in under 10 seconds on average according to simulations.
  • The approach produces shorter paths than existing methods in most tested cases.
  • Applicable to fixed-wing UAVs navigating with motion constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the surface-concatenation approach works, it may simplify path planning in environments with varying curvature.
  • The separation of pitch and yaw controls could lead to more precise trajectory following in real actuators.
  • Extensions might include adapting the surfaces to more complex 3D geometries.

Load-bearing premise

That joining optimal Dubins paths from separate spherical, cylindrical, or planar surfaces will produce the globally shortest feasible trajectories for the full 3D vehicle under independent pitch and yaw rate bounds.

What would settle it

Finding a feasible trajectory for given start and end configurations that is shorter than the one generated by the concatenation method while still satisfying the pitch and yaw rate constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.24143 by David W. Casbeer, Deepak Prakash Kumar, Satyanarayana Gupta Manyam, Swaroop Darbha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Depiction of two orientations corresponding to the same heading and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Issue with single control input The presented issues were addressed by the authors in [23], where a special case of motion planning on the surface of a sphere was studied. This paper provided insights for the 3D motion planning by considering a vehicle model with bounded yaw rate and pitch rate. Furthermore, the spherical motion planning problem was shown to arise as an intermediary problem to be solved fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The configuration of the vehicle defined by the three vectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of segments [23]. We note that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Generic control inputs region and obtaining bounds for rectangular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Depiction of surfaces used to connect spheres at the initial and final configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: • Step 2: The path exits the cylindrical envelope at Xoc, with longitudinal direction Toc. • Step 3: Finally, the path continues on the final sphere to reach the desired final configuration. X Y Z ri x y Center of a sphere z at initial configuration Center of a sphere at final configuration θic Xic φic O Tic θoc φoc Toc h OB Xoc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Motion planning on sphere with radius R and on a unit sphere From [23], the candidate optimal paths on a unit sphere are of type CGC, CCC for rˆ ≤ 1 2 , CGC, CCCC, or a degenerate path for 1 2 < rˆ ≤ √ 1 2 , and CGC, CCCCC, or CCπC for √ 1 2 < rˆ ≤ √ 3 2 . The analytical computation of the arc angles for each path is provided in [26]. We note here that the arc angles of the segments of a path on the unit s… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Initial configuration and two images of the final configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Unwrapping point lying on the cylinder The two images corresponding to the final configuration, which is the exit location of the cylinder, obtained on the unwrapping plane, are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Parameterization of family of planes and configurations at entry and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Configurations on cross-tangent plane After the path on the plane is constructed, the vehicle’s coordinates (u and v) and the heading angle (ψ) are defined. We can reconstruct the configuration of the vehicle along the path in 3D. First, we compute the location and the tangent vector along the plane as X(s) = Xic + u(s)t(θ) + v(s)  Xic(θ) − ri R × t(θ)  , T(s) = cos (ψ(s))t(θ) + sin (ψ(s))  Xic(θ) − ri… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Computation of xic for constructing a feasible path using an intermediary sphere on the initial sphere, intermediary sphere, and the final sphere. Note that motion planning on each of the surfaces depends only on two parameters. For instance, in the case of the intermediary sphere, the path length depends only on ϕic and ϕoc. Similar to the path constructing using an intermediary plane, θdisc dictates the… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Depiction of varying paths with Ryaw for “Short 4” with initial roll angle of 15◦ and final roll angle of −15◦ and instantaneous configuration of the vehicle instance, consider the “Short 4” instance with initial and final roll angles of 15◦ and −15◦ , respectively. The path generated for Ryaw = 30 m, 40 m, and 50 m is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Depiction of varying paths with Ryaw for “Additional 2” with initial roll angle of 15◦ and final roll angle of −15◦ and instantaneous configuration of the vehicle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Solution from [20] for “Short 4” 253.36 m, which traverses through an intermediary sphere. On the other hand, due to the pitch angle bounds in [20], the vehicle takes a longer path of length 290.57 m. A similar result was obtained in the second instance, where the final location was chosen inside the right sphere (one of the yaw spheres). The initial configuration and vehicle parameters were chosen to be … view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Depiction of varying paths with initial and final roll angles for “Long 1” with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Feasible path from [20] for “Long 1” [3] L. E. Dubins, “On curves of minimal length with a constraint on average curvature, and with prescribed initial and terminal positions and tangents,” American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 79, 1957. [4] L. S. Pontryagin, V. G. Boltyanskii, R. V. Gamkrelidze, and E. F. Mishchenko, The mathematical theory of optimal processes. Inter￾science Publishers, 1962. [5] X.-N. … view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Depiction of path for final location lying inside pitch sphere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a new modeling approach and a fast algorithm for 3D motion planning, applicable for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles. The goal is to construct the shortest path connecting given initial and final configurations subject to motion constraints. Our work differs from existing literature in two ways. First, we consider full vehicle orientation using a body-attached frame, which includes roll, pitch, and yaw angles. However, existing work uses only pitch and/or heading angle, which is insufficient to uniquely determine orientation. Second, we use two control inputs to represent bounded pitch and yaw rates, reflecting control by two separate actuators. In contrast, most previous methods rely on a single input, such as path curvature, which is insufficient for accurately modeling the vehicle's kinematics in 3D. We use a rotation minimizing frame to describe the vehicle's configuration and its evolution, and construct paths by concatenating optimal Dubins paths on spherical, cylindrical, or planar surfaces. Numerical simulations show our approach generates feasible paths within 10 seconds on average and yields shorter paths than existing methods in most cases.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a novel modeling approach and algorithm for 3D motion planning of fixed-wing UAVs modeled as generalized Dubins vehicles subject to independent bounded pitch and yaw rates. It employs a rotation-minimizing frame to capture the vehicle's full orientation (including roll) and constructs feasible paths by concatenating optimal Dubins paths defined on spherical, cylindrical, or planar surfaces. Numerical simulations are reported to show that the method produces feasible paths in an average of 10 seconds and shorter paths than existing methods in most cases.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a constructive, surface-based extension of Dubins paths to 3D kinematics with two independent rate controls, addressing the incompleteness of prior models that use only heading/pitch or a single curvature input. This could yield practical improvements in path length for UAV trajectory generation while respecting actuator limits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Modeling approach] Modeling approach section: the feasibility claim for concatenated surface-specific Dubins paths rests on the unverified assumption that independent pitch and yaw rate bounds remain satisfied at junction points between spherical, cylindrical, and planar segments; no explicit continuity or rate-bound check at these transitions is described.
  2. [Numerical simulations] Numerical simulations section: the assertion of shorter paths than existing methods and average 10-second computation time is presented without baselines, number of test instances, quantitative length differences, or error bars, so the comparative performance claim cannot be evaluated from the reported evidence.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to a 'modeling approach section' that appears to belong in the main text; clarify cross-references for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for clarification and strengthening of the presentation. We address each major comment point by point below and outline the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling approach] Modeling approach section: the feasibility claim for concatenated surface-specific Dubins paths rests on the unverified assumption that independent pitch and yaw rate bounds remain satisfied at junction points between spherical, cylindrical, and planar segments; no explicit continuity or rate-bound check at these transitions is described.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not explicitly verify rate-bound satisfaction or provide a continuity argument at the junctions between surface segments. Although the rotation-minimizing frame construction ensures continuous orientation and the individual surface paths respect the bounds by definition, an explicit check at transitions is indeed missing. We will revise the modeling approach section to include a formal argument demonstrating that pitch and yaw rates remain continuous and within bounds at junctions (due to tangent matching and frame alignment) and will add a verification step to the algorithm description. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical simulations] Numerical simulations section: the assertion of shorter paths than existing methods and average 10-second computation time is presented without baselines, number of test instances, quantitative length differences, or error bars, so the comparative performance claim cannot be evaluated from the reported evidence.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the numerical results lack sufficient detail to substantiate the performance claims. We will expand the numerical simulations section to report the exact number of test instances, identify the specific baseline methods used for comparison, provide quantitative path-length differences with standard deviations, and include error bars or ranges for the reported computation times. These additions will make the empirical evaluation reproducible and transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes a constructive algorithmic approach: it adopts a rotation-minimizing frame to represent vehicle configuration and builds feasible trajectories by concatenating optimal Dubins segments defined on spherical, cylindrical, or planar surfaces. No load-bearing step reduces the claimed feasibility, path lengths, or computation times to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional tautology. The central results rest on explicit geometric construction plus numerical validation against prior methods, without invoking uniqueness theorems from the same authors or smuggling ansatzes via citation. The derivation is therefore self-contained and externally falsifiable on the reported simulation instances.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the kinematic model being an accurate representation of fixed-wing UAV dynamics and on the surface-concatenation procedure yielding feasible (if not always globally optimal) paths; no explicit free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Bounded pitch and yaw rates can be treated as independent control inputs that fully capture the vehicle's 3D kinematics.
    Invoked when the abstract contrasts the two-input model against single-curvature approaches.
  • domain assumption Concatenating locally optimal Dubins paths on spheres, cylinders, or planes produces globally feasible shortest paths in 3D.
    Central to the path-construction method described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5742 in / 1500 out tokens · 34197 ms · 2026-05-21T22:18:22.216410+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    [Online]

    Fixed Wing Drone: The Complete Guide for Professionals (Accessed Apr 2025). [Online]. Available: https://quantum-systems.com/blog/2025/02/05/fixed-wing-drone-guide/ #:∼:text=Superior%20Range%20%26%20Coverage%3A%20The% 20design,to%20survey%20extensive%20landscapes%20quickly

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Long 1” withR yaw = 40m and instantaneous configuration of the vehicle Fig. 20. Feasible path from [20] for “Long 1

    What Is A Fixed Wing Drone? — Advantages And Uses Of Fixed Wing Drones (Accessed Apr 2025). [Online]. Available: https://uavsystemsinternational.com/blogs/drone-guides/ what-is-a-fixed-wing-drone-advantages-and-uses-of-fixed-wing-drones? srsltid=AfmBOorCTIkSZHuUP3N4YbgcjBHHJoqQUL wTsxMGUmw4nzJpJ1lvfb IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS. SUBMISSION VERSION. 16 (...

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    On curves of minimal length with a constraint on average curvature, and with prescribed initial and terminal positions and tangents,

    L. E. Dubins, “On curves of minimal length with a constraint on average curvature, and with prescribed initial and terminal positions and tangents,”American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 79, 1957

    work page 1957

  4. [4]

    L. S. Pontryagin, V . G. Boltyanskii, R. V . Gamkrelidze, and E. F. Mishchenko,The mathematical theory of optimal processes. Inter- science Publishers, 1962

    work page 1962

  5. [5]

    Shortest path synthesis for dubins non-holonomic robot,

    X.-N. Bui, J.-D. Boissonnat, P. Soueres, and J.-P. Laumond, “Shortest path synthesis for dubins non-holonomic robot,” inProceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1994, pp. 2–7

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    The asymmetric sinistral/dextral markov- dubins problem,

    E. Bakolas and P. Tsiotras, “The asymmetric sinistral/dextral markov- dubins problem,” inProceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2009, pp. 5649–5654

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    3-dimensional path planning for autonomous underwater vehicle,

    Y . Wang and Y . R. Zheng, “3-dimensional path planning for autonomous underwater vehicle,” inOCEANS 2018 MTS/IEEE Charleston, 2018, pp. 1–6

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Motion planning for two 3D-Dubins vehicles with distance constraint,

    H. Marino, M. Bonizzato, R. Bartalucci, P. Salaris, and L. Pallottino, “Motion planning for two 3D-Dubins vehicles with distance constraint,” in2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2012, pp. 4702–4707

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Path generation and tracking in 3-d for uavs,

    G. Ambrosino, M. Ariola, U. Ciniglio, F. Corraro, E. De Lellis, and A. Pironti, “Path generation and tracking in 3-d for uavs,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 980– 988, 2009

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    A mixed local-global solution to motion planning within 3-d environments,

    R. Hurley, R. Lind, and J. Kehoe, “A mixed local-global solution to motion planning within 3-d environments,” inAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2009-6297

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2009-6297 2009

  11. [11]

    Path planning using 3D Dubins curve for un- manned aerial vehicles,

    Y . Lin and S. Saripalli, “Path planning using 3D Dubins curve for un- manned aerial vehicles,” in2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2014, pp. 296–304

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Shortest 3-dimensional paths with a prescribed curvature bound,

    H. Sussmann, “Shortest 3-dimensional paths with a prescribed curvature bound,” inIEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1995, pp. 3306– 3312

    work page 1995

  13. [13]

    Optimal geometrical path in 3D with curvature constraint,

    S. Hota and D. Ghose, “Optimal geometrical path in 3D with curvature constraint,” in2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2010, pp. 113–118

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Optimal path planning for an aerial vehicle in 3D space,

    ——, “Optimal path planning for an aerial vehicle in 3D space,” in49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2010, pp. 4902–4907

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    An analytic solution to the 3D csc Dubins path problem,

    V . M. Baez, N. Navkar, and A. T. Becker, “An analytic solution to the 3D csc Dubins path problem,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 7157–7163

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Time-optimal paths for a Dubins airplane,

    H. Chitsaz and S. M. LaValle, “Time-optimal paths for a Dubins airplane,” in2007 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2007, pp. 2379–2384

    work page 2007

  17. [17]

    M. Owen, R. W. Beard, and T. W. McLain,Implementing Dubins Airplane Paths on Fixed-Wing UAVs*. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2015, pp. 1677–1701. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1 120

    work page doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1 2015

  18. [18]

    R. W. Beard and T. W. McLain,Small Unmanned Aircraft: Theory and Practice. Princeton University Press, 2012

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Vector fields for robot navigation along time-varying curves inn-dimensions,

    V . M. Goncalves, L. C. A. Pimenta, C. A. Maia, B. C. O. Dutra, and G. A. S. Pereira, “Vector fields for robot navigation along time-varying curves inn-dimensions,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 647–659, 2010

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Minimal 3D Dubins path with bounded curvature and pitch angle,

    P. V ´aˇna, A. Alves Neto, J. Faigl, and D. G. Macharet, “Minimal 3D Dubins path with bounded curvature and pitch angle,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 8497–8503

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Finding 3D Dubins paths with pitch angle constraint using non-linear optimization,

    J. Herynek, P. V ´aˇna, and J. Faigl, “Finding 3D Dubins paths with pitch angle constraint using non-linear optimization,” in2021 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR), 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Towards finding the shortest-paths for 3D rigid bodies,

    W. Wang and P. Li, “Towards finding the shortest-paths for 3D rigid bodies,” inRobotics: Science and Systems 2021, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    D. P. Kumar, S. Darbha, S. G. Manyam, and D. Casbeer, “A new IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS. SUBMISSION VERSION. 17 (a) Maneuver with final location in- side pitch sphere (b) Maneuver for same configura- tion from [20] Fig. 21. Depiction of path for final location lying inside pitch sphere approach to motion planning in 3D for a dubins vehicle: Special cas...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    There is more than one way to frame a curve,

    R. L. Bishop, “There is more than one way to frame a curve,”The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 246–251, 1975

    work page 1975

  25. [25]

    Optimal geodesic curvature constrained dubins’ paths on a sphere,

    S. Darbha, A. Pavan, R. Kumbakonam, S. Rathinam, D. W. Casbeer, and S. G. Manyam, “Optimal geodesic curvature constrained dubins’ paths on a sphere,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 197, pp. 966–992, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Generation of paths for motion planning for a dubins vehicle on sphere,

    D. P. Kumar, S. Darbha, S. G. Manyam, and D. Casbeer, “Generation of paths for motion planning for a dubins vehicle on sphere,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11832

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    D. J. Struik,Lectures on Classical Differential Geometry, 2nd ed. Dover, 1988, ch. 4

    work page 1988

  28. [28]

    Classification of the dubins set,

    A. M. Shkel and V . Lumelsky, “Classification of the dubins set,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 34, pp. 179–202, 2001

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    M. P. D. Carmo,Differential Geometry of Curves & Surfaces, 2nd ed. Dover, 2016, ch. 3. APPENDIX A. Construction of segments Consider an intervals∈[s 0, s1]in whichκ g and κn are constants. In this case, noting thatR(s) := T(s)Y(s)U(s) is a rotation matrix, a portion of (2) (a) Maneuver with final location in- side yaw sphere (b) Maneuver for same configur...

    work page 2016