Multi-sensor fusion for fine-guidance and milliarcsecond-level attitude estimation of balloon-borne telescope

Adyn Miles; Ajay S. Gill; Alfredo Zenteno; Andrew Robertson; Andr\'e Z. Vitorelli; Anthony M. Brown; Aurelien A. Fraisse; Benjamin E. Boyd; Bradley Holder; Bryce Warren

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Multi-sensor fusion for fine-guidance and milliarcsecond-level attitude estimation of balloon-borne telescope

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Roll leakage is inherent in single-guide-star fine guidance, and multi-star estimation reduces its image smear by up to 77%.

desk verdict Roll-leakage characterization from SuperBIT flight data is genuinely new, but the headline multi-star improvement percentages rest on a simulation gain that is internally inconsistent (3.60 vs 58.39), and the GigaBIT extrapolation depends on an unverified mechanism, so treat those numbers as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28816 v1 pith:SUEJDAIY submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.IM

Philippe Voyer , Maya Amit , Steven J. Benton , Benjamin E. Boyd , Anthony M. Brown , Giulia Cerini , Paul Clark , Matthew Craigie

show 39 more authors

Christopher J. Damaren Tim Eifler Spencer W. Everett Aurelien A. Fraisse Leo W. H. Fung Ajay S. Gill Suren Gourapura Eric Habjan John W. Hartley David Harvey Bradley Holder Eric M. Huff Mathilde Jauzac William C. Jones David Lagattuta Gavin Leroy Jason S.-Y. Leung Lun Li Thuy Vy T. Luu Richard Massey Jacqueline E. McCleary Adyn Miles Johanna M. Nagy C. Barth Netterfield Emaad Paracha Susan F. Redmond Jason D. Rhodes Andrew Robertson L. Javier Romualdez Sayan Saha Jürgen Schmoll Mohamed M. Shaaban Ellen Sirks Sut Ieng Tam Simon Tartakovsky Georgios N. Vassilakis André Z. Vitorelli Bryce Warren Alfredo Zenteno

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IM

keywords rollleakagefineguidancesystemfaststeeringmirrormulti-starestimationballoon-bornetelescopeimagestabilizationSuperBITGiga

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 establishes that 'roll leakage'—residual image rotation that a two-axis fast steering mirror cannot correct—is a systematic, flight-observed limitation of single-guide-star fine guidance on balloon-borne telescopes. Using 2348 quality science exposures from SuperBIT's 2023 flight, the authors show that passive focal-plane star-camera motion correlates strongly with independent roll measurements in most exposures, proving roll frequently drives residual focal-plane motion. They build a closed-loop simulation of the fine guidance system and show that fusing centroid measurements from two guide stars reduces average science-field image motion by 31.8% for SuperBIT and 77.4% for the larger GigaBIT design, by shifting the effective field-rotation center away from the active guide star toward the science field. The work matters because it identifies a concrete, architected fix for a limitation that grows worse as balloon telescopes widen their fields of view.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is 'roll leakage': boresight roll maps to position-dependent focal-plane motion (field rotation), which a two-axis fast steering mirror cannot remove; it only relocates the apparent rotation center to the active guide star, sacrificing the rest of the field. The argument is carried by a closed-loop simulation combining optical ray tracing through the FSM, asynchronous guide-star centroid measurements with zero-order hold, an age-weighted multi-star estimator (weights decay with measurement age), and PI control of the FSM. The empirical anchor is the coupling coefficient k_fit between passive star-camera and roll-star-camera motion, measured from flight data and used to

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the coupling between passive focal-plane star-camera motion and the roll star camera while commanding known fast-steering-mirror tilts during a balloon flight. If the amplification factor k_fit drops to the rigid-body geometric prediction when the FSM is disabled, the leakage is FSM projection and the simulation's scaling is valid; if it persists with the FSM off, the amplification is structural and the simulated transfer to GigaBIT is suspect. Alternatively, fly GigaBIT with switchable single- and multi-star guidance and compare science-field RMS image moti

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that roll leakage is an inherent feature of single-guide-star fine-guidance architectures, not an occasional disturbance. The evidence is flight data: across 2348 SuperBIT science exposures with two guide stars, the passive star camera's centroid motion correlates with the roll star camera's independent measurement in the majority of cases (|ρ|>0.5), and the fitted coupling coefficient k_fit exceeds the rigid-body geometric prediction by ~27×, showing amplification that is still roll-driven. The paper further claims that a multi-star estimator, which fuses asynchronous guide-star centroids with age-based weights before commanding the fast steering mirror, reduces average

Load-bearing premise

The simulated multi-star benefit rests on an empirical scaling factor (mean |k_fit|≈3.60, used as 58.39 in the model) that is about 27 times larger than the rigid-body geometric prediction; if this amplification is caused by unmodeled torsional flexure or common-mode noise rather than roll-driven FSM projection effects, the predicted reduction may not transfer from SuperBIT to GigaBIT.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adopting multi-star fine guidance becomes a concrete design recommendation for GigaBIT, where single-guide-star control leaves 2.343″ science-field smear and multi-star cuts it to 0.529″.
The benefit of multi-star estimation scales with focal-plane size, so any future wide-field balloon observatory faces the same tradeoff.
The simulation framework provides a reusable tool to test guidance architectures before flight, using SuperBIT's measured disturbance environment.
The age-weighted fusion is a simple proof of concept; weighting by guide-star brightness or proximity to the science field could improve the gains further.
Multi-star guidance complements coarse roll control; improving gimbal roll rejection reduces the same leakage from the other side.

Reading between the lines

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

If the ~27× amplification of the coupling coefficient is partly due to unmodeled torsional flexure in the optical assembly rather than FSM projection effects, then stiffening the structure could yield a similar reduction without multi-star fusion; the paper's simulation would then overstate the transferable gain to GigaBIT.
The same roll-leakage argument generalizes to any two-axis fine-steering system, including space observatories; the historical use of two guide stars on Hubble is a precedent that this paper re-derives from flight data.
A direct testable extension: in SuperBIT data, fit the full focal-plane rotation model (rotation center + amplitude) from the passive FSC and science PSF ellipticities; if the inferred rotation center matches the active guide-star location, the leakage mechanism is confirmed.
The 77.4% GigaBIT figure is likely a lower bound, since the simulation uses a scaled SuperBIT geometry with equal nominal weights; optimizing guide-star placement in GigaBIT's actual annular focal plane could improve the outcome further.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things up front. The flight-data result is real: over a thousand SuperBIT exposures with two guide stars show that the passive star camera's residual motion correlates strongly with the roll star camera, and the paper documents this carefully with thresholds and distributions. That is a useful, reusable empirical result for anyone building balloon-borne fine guidance systems. The simulation framework is a reasonable tool, and the qualitative conclusion that multi-star estimation moves the rotation center from the active guide star toward the science field is physically sensible and probably right.

The problem is the numbers. The text says the simulated model is scaled using the mean measured coupling, |k_fit| = 3.60. Table 3 lists "Empirical FSC gain" as 58.39. No conversion is given. Those differ by 16x, and the simulation results are sensitive to this choice because sensor noise is not scaled with the gain. So the 31.8% and 77.4% reductions are not as secure as the abstract implies. They are point values from a single disturbance realization, a simplified two-sinusoid roll model, and a scaled GigaBIT geometry, with no error bars and no sensitivity analysis.

There is a deeper issue behind the gain. The measured coupling is 27x larger than the rigid-body geometric prediction. The paper speculates that field-dependent tip-tilt projection explains it, but explicitly leaves torsional flexure and other unmodeled roll dynamics on the table. If flexure is a big part of the amplification, multi-star estimation can't fix it, because the FSM cannot correct motion that is not common to the guide-star rays. That makes the GigaBIT extrapolation, which assumes the same gain after scaling the geometry, the weakest claim in the paper.

None of this kills the paper. The qualitative message—single-guide-star fine guidance leaks roll into the science field, and multi-star weighting reduces that leakage—is well supported. But the quantitative reductions should be described as illustrative, not predictive, until the calibration is fixed and a sensitivity run is done.

This should go to peer review. The data are new and the question matters for GigaBIT. But the referee should ask for three things: reconcile 3.60 and 58.39, add a sensitivity analysis over the roll amplitude and gain, and soften the claims about the GigaBIT benefit. If you have a student working on balloon pointing, read the flight-data section; skip the headline numbers for now.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes roll leakage in balloon-borne telescope fine-guidance systems using SuperBIT 2023 flight data and a closed-loop simulation framework. Flight-data analysis shows that passive focal-plane star-camera (FSC) centroid motion correlates strongly with independent roll star camera (RSC) measurements in most two-guide-star science exposures, supporting the claim that boresight roll commonly leaks onto the focal plane after two-axis FSM correction. The simulation combines optical ray tracing, asynchronous FSC measurements, a weighted multi-star estimator, and FSM control. For a roll-only disturbance, single-star guidance stabilizes the active guide star but leaves field-dependent residual motion, while multi-star estimation reduces average science-field RMS image motion by 31.8% for the SuperBIT geometry and 77.4% for a representative GigaBIT geometry (Table 4). The authors recommend multi-star fine guidance for GigaBIT, but note that pitch/cross-pitch disturbances, gyroscope fusion, and the actual GigaBIT focal-plane layout are deferred to future work.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to balloon-borne telescope pointing: it documents a previously underexplored systematic effect (roll leakage) using a substantial flight dataset, and it provides a quantitative, architecture-level argument that multi-star fine guidance can substantially mitigate that effect, especially for larger focal planes like GigaBIT. The flight-data correlation analysis (Figures 3-4) is a meaningful empirical result on its own. The simulation framework is clearly described and appears reusable, though the central quantitative percentages depend on a calibration step that is not fully transparent. The qualitative conclusion—single-star fine guidance inherently distributes roll-induced image motion unevenly, and multi-star estimation can re-center the residual rotation—is well motivated and supported by the optical geometry argument.

major comments (4)

[§3.4.1 and Table 3, Eq. (21)-(23)] The simulation calibration is internally inconsistent. The text (§3.4.1, end) states that the mean |k_fit|≈3.60 is used to scale the simulated model, but Table 3 lists 'Empirical FSC gain' as 58.39. No definition, conversion, or derivation of 58.39 is given anywhere. If the simulations actually used 58.39, the injected 1″/4″ roll amplitudes would produce FSC centroid motions roughly 16× larger than flight-calibrated k_fit predicts, making the absolute RMS values (0.786″, 0.536″, 2.343″) and the percentage reductions in Table 4 miscalibrated. The authors must explain the relationship between k_fit and the Table 3 value, and rerun or re-report the results with a quantity that is either fully derived or explicitly justified.
[§3.4.1, Eq. (21), Figure 7] The flight-calibrated gain k_fit≈3.60 is ~27× larger than the rigid-body geometric prediction k_geo≈0.135. The manuscript attributes this to 'field-dependent tip-tilt projection' while also listing 'torsional flexure and other unmodeled roll dynamics' as possible causes. The simulation injects roll as a rigid-body rotation of the input-ray bundle (Eqs. 16-17) and then multiplies by a scalar gain. This exactly models roll-driven FSM projection effects, but if a substantial part of the amplification is due to mechanical flexure or common-mode noise that the FSM cannot correct, the simulated multi-star benefit will not transfer to GigaBIT. This concern is load-bearing for the GigaBIT 77.4% claim. Please provide a sensitivity analysis varying the gain over the observed distribution (Fig. 7 shows σ=0.83) or otherwise demonstrate that the qualitative conclusion is robust to the physical interp
[§4.1-4.2, Table 4] The headline results (31.8% and 77.4%) are reported as exact numbers with no uncertainty, despite the model depending on multiple fitted or user-chosen parameters (k_fit, roll amplitudes/frequencies, τ_d, weights, noise, gains, geometry). No Monte Carlo or error propagation is presented. At minimum, the percentage reductions should be accompanied by a spread arising from the observed distribution of k_fit and from reasonable variations in pole parameters (e.g., roll amplitude, relative phase). This is needed to judge whether the SuperBIT 31.8% and GigaBIT 77.4% claims are statistically meaningful and whether they overlap.
[§4.2, Table 2] The GigaBIT simulation uses a 'representative' scaled SuperBIT geometry (ℓ=150 mm, d=610 mm) but the actual GigaBIT focal plane is annular and more complex. The 77.4% reduction is therefore a projection for an idealized geometry, not a prediction for the real instrument. This is acknowledged in the text, but the abstract and conclusion present 77.4% without this caveat. Please soften the abstract/conclusion or add explicit reporting of the GigaBIT geometry as an idealized scaled case, so the headline number is not over-interpreted.

minor comments (6)

[§4.1, p.14] Typo: 'esxtimator' should be 'estimator' in 'age-weighted measurement fusion used by the esxtimator.'
[§3.4, p.10] Typo: 'AAs noted in previous studies' should be 'As noted in previous studies.'
[§3.4.1, p.11] Typo: 'by field rotation' likely should be 'by field rotation'; also 'by the simple by field rotation assumptions' reads awkwardly and may be missing a word.
[§1, p.1] Missing space: '∼0.050 arcsec' should be '∼0.050 arcsec' (the LaTeX source has '∼' without a following space).
[Figure 4] The figure caption reports n=2348 exposures but the right panel splits into n=1379 and n=969, which sum to 2348. Please clarify that this split is by which FSC is passive and that only one exposure per FSC configuration is counted; otherwise the caption could be clearer.
[Table 3] The 'Empirical FSC gain' parameter is not described in the text. If it is a scaled version of k_fit, the conversion (e.g., pixel-to-arcsecond scaling) should be stated in the table caption or in §3.4.1.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Multi-star reduction percentages are calibrated/construction-level results; the flight-data correlation claim is independent.

fitted input called prediction [§3.4.1, Table 3, §4.1–4.2]
"The amplification is consistently observed across the flight data and is therefore treated empirically in the present analysis. To account for this excess response, we use the mean |k_fit| of the combined distribution to scale the simulated model in the numerical results that follow. ... Empirical FSC gain 58.39"

The simulation that produces the headline reductions (Table 4: 31.8% and 77.4%) is scaled by an 'Empirical FSC gain' fitted to the very RSC-to-passive-FSC coupling that the simulation is said to reproduce. The stated mean |k_fit| = 3.60 and the table value 58.39 do not even agree, so the quantitative outputs are inherited from a fitted scaling rather than independently predicted. The comparison is not a parameter-free derivation, and the absolute RMS values and percentage reductions are not statistically independent of the calibration input.
self definitional [§4.1, Eq. (9), Fig. 8, Eq. (24)]
"Rather than optimizing image stability at a single field location, the estimator distributes the residual roll motion more uniformly across the focal plane, namely by moving the center of rotation back to the center of the science camera. As a result, the FSM commands become nearly zero, since the boresight lies midway between the two FSCs and coincides with the center of the science field."

In the roll-only, symmetric-FSC setup, the two FSC centroid signals are equal-and-opposite (Fig. 8). The multi-star estimate (Eq. 9) therefore cancels the roll signal by construction, the FSM command is driven to zero, and the science-camera metric (Eq. 24) is evaluated at the boresight/field center where roll-induced motion vanishes. Thus the qualitative multi-star advantage and much of its magnitude are consequences of the estimator definition and the chosen metric location, rather than an independent empirical prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains two separable claims. First, the flight-data characterization of roll leakage (passive FSC motion correlating with RSC roll) is an independent empirical result and is not circular. Second, the simulated multi-star benefit is a design/calibration study: the model is explicitly scaled by an empirical gain fitted from the same coupling phenomenon, and the symmetric geometry makes the multi-star roll estimate cancel by construction. This gives partial circularity for the quantitative 'reduction' percentages, especially because Table 3's 'Empirical FSC gain' (58.39) disagrees with the text's stated mean |k_fit| = 3.60, so the simulation input is not fully reproducible from the paper. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present; the self-citations to the authors' prior ray-tracing work are accompanied by in-paper equations. The overall score reflects that the central simulation prediction reduces partly to fitted inputs and construction, while the empirical roll-leakage finding remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers are model outputs, not measurements. The model is calibrated through a fitted empirical gain and a hand-picked disturbance/geometry set; the flight data provide the correlation evidence but not a direct measurement of the multi-star improvement.

free parameters (8)

Empirical FSC gain (k_fit-derived) = 58.39 (text reports µ=3.60 for k_fit)
Fitted from SuperBIT flight data (n=1370 exposures) to scale roll-to-focal-plane coupling; used in simulation. §3.4.1, Table 3.
Roll disturbance amplitudes and frequencies = a_z1=1″, a_z2=4″ at 0.5 Hz and 1/300 Hz
Chosen to represent low-frequency pendulation; intentionally larger than flight levels. Table 3, §4.
Multi-star decay time τ_d = 1.0 s
User-defined age-weighting decay for fused measurements. Eq. 10, Table 3.
Nominal camera weights w̃1, w̃2 = 1, 1
Chosen by hand; adjustable for focal-plane geometry. Eq. 10.
Centroid noises, update rates and stds = σ_v=0.04/0.07 px; f=8/20 Hz; σ_f=2/5 Hz
Assumed sensor parameters. Table 3.
PI gains and FSM time constant = κ_p,x=1e-4, κ_p,y=6.94e-5, κ_i=1e-4 rad/mm/s; τ=0.05 s
Chosen control gains; scaled by 180/610 for GigaBIT. Table 3, §4.2.
GigaBIT geometry (ℓ=150 mm, d=610 mm) = ℓ=150 mm, d=610 mm
Representative scaled values for GigaBIT, not the actual annular layout. Table 2 note, §4.2.
Exposure selection thresholds = ∆x<10 px; ∆x_RSC>2.5 px; |ρ|>0.6
Quality cuts used for flight-data correlation and coupling estimates. Eqs. 1 and 22.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The ray-tracing FSM model of Voyer et al. (Eqs. 3–6) correctly maps telescope jitter to focal-plane centroid motion.
Adopted from prior work (refs 2,21) without re-derivation; central to the simulation.
domain assumption Residual disturbances can be modeled as a small rigid-body rotation about the boresight, with a finite sum of sinusoidal modes.
Used in §3.4; ignores flexure and non-rigid-body effects (some absorbed in the empirical gain).
domain assumption Centroid measurements are Gaussian-noise-corrupted and asynchronously sampled with zero-order hold.
Eq. 7, §3.2.
domain assumption FSM actuator response is first-order (Eq. 14).
§3.3.
domain assumption Gyroscope information can be omitted from the estimator without changing the qualitative roll-leakage comparison.
§3.2; authors leave gyro fusion for future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-sensor fusion for fine-guidance and milliarcsecond-level attitude estimation of balloon-borne telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUEJDAIY

@misc{pith2026260728816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-sensor fusion for fine-guidance and milliarcsecond-level attitude estimation of balloon-borne telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUEJDAIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28816}
}

read the original abstract

Balloon-borne telescopes rely on fine-guidance systems to achieve milliarcsecond image stability despite residual disturbances from the balloon environment. In these systems, the Fast Steering Mirror (FSM) stabilizes the image in two focal-plane axes, but leaves systematic, field-dependent residual motion induced by boresight roll. This effect, referred to as roll leakage, becomes more important for wider fields of view. In this work, roll leakage is characterized using data from the 2023 Superpressure Balloon-borne Imaging Telescope (SuperBIT) science flight. SuperBIT is a 0.5-m near-ultraviolet to near-infrared telescope that demonstrated milliarcsecond-level image stability during its 45-night science flight. We find that passive focal-plane star-camera measurements correlate strongly with independent roll measurements across a large set of science exposures, showing that boresight roll frequently drives residual focal-plane motion. We then develop a simulation framework combining optical ray tracing, asynchronous guide-star measurements, estimation, and FSM control to study this behavior. The framework is used to compare single-star and multi-star guidance architectures under realistic flight disturbances. For the SuperBIT geometry, we find that multi-star estimation reduces average roll-induced science-field image motion by 31.8%, increasing to 77.4% for a representative geometry of GigaBIT, SuperBIT's planned larger-aperture successor. These results motivate further investigation of multi-star fine-guidance architectures for GigaBIT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28816 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Representative ∼ 300 s SuperBIT exposure of Abell 3411 taken on 03-05-2023, at payload latitude −46.0103◦ and longitude 142.1318◦ , displaying roll jitter leakage on the focal plane. Left: pitch and cross-pitch focal-plane star-camera centroid motion for FSC1 and FSC2, with the FGS locked on FSC1. Right: Sciencecamera PSF ellipticity field overlaid on a to-scale focal-plane layout, with ellipse major axes scaled by… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Triangle plot of a ∼ 300 s SuperBIT exposure of Abell 3411 taken on 03-05-2023. Pairwise correlations between FSC2 x centroid motion, RSC x centroid motion, and FSM tilt command are shown. Vertical gaps in the camera bins are an artefact of the centroiding algorithm discretizing the reported centroid positions. The best fit line for each box is shown in black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: Distribution of RSC standard deviation for good two-guide-star exposures ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Block diagram of the simulated Fine Guidance System with multi-star estimation and FSM feedback. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Power spectral densities of boresight and roll star camera (BSC, RSC) image motion measured during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distribution of the measured coupling magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Simulation response to a roll-only disturbance with the FSM inactive. The left column shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Closed-loop response of single-guide-star and multi-guide-star estimation under a roll-only disturbance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Image trails across the science field computed from the simulated focal-plane trajectories for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references

[1]

Scientific Ballooning Handbook: 50th Anniversary Edition,

Roth, S. A., Reed, E. M., Yoder, C. D., Chaffee, E. A., and Romualdez, J., “Scientific Ballooning Handbook: 50th Anniversary Edition,” Technical Publication NASA/TP–20240004989, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2025)

2025
[2]

From SuperBIT to GigaBIT: Informing next-generation balloon-borne telescope design with Fine Guidance System flight data,

Voyer, P., Benton, S. J., Damaren, C. J., Everett, S. W., Fraisse, A. A., Gill, A. S., Hartley, J. W., Harvey, D., Henderson, M., Holder, B., Huff, E. M., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Lagattuta, D., Leung, J. S.-Y., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R., McCleary, J. E., Nagy, J. M., Netterfield, C. B., Paracha, E., Redmond, S. F., Rhodes, J. D., Robertson, A., ...

2024
[3]

Precise pointing and stabilization performance for the balloon-borne imaging testbed: 2015 test flight,

Romualdez, L. J., Damaren, C. J., Li, L., Galloway, M. N., Hartley, J. W., Netterfield, C. B., Clark, P., and Massey, R. J., “Precise pointing and stabilization performance for the balloon-borne imaging testbed: 2015 test flight,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Journal of Aerospace Engineering0(0), 1–15 (2016)

2015
[4]

Romualdez, L. J.,Design, Implementation, and Operational Methodologies for Sub-Arcsecond Attitude De- termination, Control, and Stabilization of the Super-pressure Balloon-borne Imaging Telescope (SuperBIT), PhD thesis, University of Toronto (2018)

2018
[5]

Overview, design, and flight results from SuperBIT: a high-resolution, wide-field, visible-to-near-UV balloon- borne astronomical telescope,

Romualdez, L. J., Benton, S. J., Brown, A. M., Clark, P., Damaren, C. J., Eifler, T., Fraisse, A. A., Galloway, M. N., Hartley, J. W., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R. J., Mccleary, J., Netterfield, C. B., Redmond, S., Rhodes, J. D., Schmoll, J., and Tam, S.-i., “Overview, design, and flight results from SuperBIT: a high-resolut...

2018
[6]

SuperBIT Superpressure Flight Instrument Overview and Performance: Near-diffraction-limited Astronomical Imaging from the Stratosphere,

Gill, A. S., Benton, S. J., Damaren, C. J., Everett, S. W., Fraisse, A. A., Hartley, J. W., Harvey, D., Holder, B., Huff, E. M., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Lagattuta, D., Leung, J. S.-Y., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R., McCleary, J. E., Nagy, J. M., Netterfield, C. B., Paracha, E., Redmond, S. F., Rhodes, J. D., Robertson, A., Romualdez, L. J., Schmoll,...

2024
[7]

To the stratosphere and beyond! super-pressure balloon flight overview for the super-pressure balloon-borne imaging telescope (superbit),

Redmond, S. F., Benton, S. J., Damaren, C. J., Everett, S. W., Fraisse, A. A., Gill, A. S., Hartley, J. W., Harvey, D., Holder, B., Huff, E. M., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Lagattuta, D., Leung, J. S.-Y., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R., McCleary, J. E., Nagy, J. M., Netterfield, C. B., Paracha, E., Rhodes, J. D., Robertson, A., Romualdez, L. J., Schmoll,...

2024
[8]

Lensing in the Blue III: Weak Lensing Shape Catalogs of 30 Merging Galaxy Clusters,

Saha, S., McCleary, J. E., Everett, S. W., Amit, M., Vassilakis, G. N., Paracha, E., Fung, L. W. H., Benton, S. J., Jones, W. C., Leroy, G., Huff, E. M., Massey, R., Luu, T. V. T., Gill, A. S., Shaaban, M. M., Voyer, P., Brown, A. M., Cerini, G., Clark, P., Craigie, M., Damaren, C. J., Eifler, T., Harvey, D., Habjan, E., Hartley, J. W., Holder, B., Jauzac...

2026

Show all 24 references

[9]

FIREBall-2: The faint intergalactic medium redshifted emission balloon telescope,

Hamden, E., Martin, D. C., Milliard, B., Schiminovich, D., Nikzad, S., Evrard, J., Kyne, G., Grange, R., Montel, J., Pirot, E., Hoadley, K., O’Sullivan, D., Melso, N., Picouet, V., Vibert, D., Balard, P., Blanchard, P., Crabill, M., Pascal, S., Mirc, F., Bray, N., Jewell, A., ...

2020
[10]

FIREBall-2 2023: fine guidance system performance for UV balloon telescope flight,

Cevallos-Aleman, I., Schiminovich, D., Sitaram, M., Montel, J., Chevrier, C.-A., Miles, D. M., Picouet, V., Lin, Z., and Werneken, M., “FIREBall-2 2023: fine guidance system performance for UV balloon telescope flight,” in [Proceedings of SPIE Space Telescopes and Instrumentat...

2023
[11]

SUNRISE III: Overview of observatory and instruments,

Korpi-Lagg, A., Gandorfer, A., Solanki, S. K., del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Katsukawa, Y., Bernasconi, P., Berkefeld, T., Feller, A., Riethm¨ uller, T. L., ´Alvarez-Herrero, A., Kubo, M., Mart ´ ınez Pillet, V., Smitha, H. N., Orozco Su´ arez, D., Grauf, B., Carpenter, M., Bell, A...

2025
[12]

SUNRISE III: The wavefront correction system,

Berkefeld, T., Bell, A., Volkmer, R., Heidecke, F., Preis, T., Sonner, T., Nakai, E., Korpi-Lagg, A., Gan- dorfer, A., Solanki, S. K., del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Katsukawa, Y., Bernasconi, P., Feller, A., Riethm¨ uller, T. L., ´Alvarez-Herrero, A., Kubo, M., Mart ´ ınez Pillet, ...

2026
[13]

Balloon flight demonstration of coronagraph focal plane wavefront correction with PICTURE-C,

Mendillo, C. B., Hewawasam, K., Martel, J., Potter, T., Cook, T. A., and Chakrabarti, S., “Balloon flight demonstration of coronagraph focal plane wavefront correction with PICTURE-C,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems9(2), 025005 (2023)

2023
[14]

The Wallops Arc Second Pointer – A Balloon Borne Fine Pointing System,

Stuchlik, D. W., “The Wallops Arc Second Pointer – A Balloon Borne Fine Pointing System,” in [AIAA Balloon Systems Conference], (2015)

2015
[15]

The EXoplanet Climate Infrared TElescope (EXCITE),

Nagler, P. C., Bernard, L., Bocchieri, A., Butler, N., Changeat, Q., D’Alessandro, A., Edwards, B., Gamaunt, J., Gong, Q., Hartley, J., Helson, K., Jensen, L., Kelly, D. P., Klangboonkrong, K., Kleyheeg, A., Lewis, N. K., Li, S., Line, M., Maher, S. F., McClelland, R., Miko, L...

2022
[16]

The Exoplanet Climate Infrared Telescope (EXCITE): gondola pointing and stabilization qualification,

Romualdez, J. L., Bernard, L., Bocchieri, A., Butler, N., Changeat, Q., D’Alessandro, A., Edwards, B., Gamaunt, J., Gong, Q., Hartley, J., Helson, K. R., Jensen, L., Kelly, D. P., Klangboonkrong, K., Kleyheeg, A., Leong, E., Lewis, N., Li, S., Line, M., Maher, S., McClelland, ...

2024
[17]

The Stratospheric Cosmic Web Imager technical implementation,

Miles, D. M., Martin, C., Jones-Wilson, L., Matuszewski, M., Picouet, V., Eryan, P., Kyne, G., Johnson, A., McKinley, I., Nikzad, S., Perez, J. D., and Wheeler, C., “The Stratospheric Cosmic Web Imager technical implementation,” in [Proceedings of SPIE Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray...

2026
[18]

GigaBIT: 18 design and analysis of a diffraction-limited balloon-borne telescope,

Miles, A., Bartosik, P., Li, L., Letarte, A., Fullum, N., Romualdez, L. J., Hartley, J. W., VazBrown, J., Trujillo, P., George, D. B., Luu, T. V., Benton, S. J., Jones, W. C., and Netterfield, C. B., “GigaBIT: 18 design and analysis of a diffraction-limited balloon-borne teles...

2026
[19]

Line-of-sight kinematics and corrections for fast-steering mirrors used in precision pointing and tracking systems,

Hilkert, J. M., Kanga, G., and Kinnear, K., “Line-of-sight kinematics and corrections for fast-steering mirrors used in precision pointing and tracking systems,” in [Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems and Applications XI], Henry, D. J., Lange, D....

2014
[20]

Single star guiding: Extending the lifetime of hubble’s fine guidance sensors,

Rafelski, M., “Single star guiding: Extending the lifetime of hubble’s fine guidance sensors,”STScI Newslet- ter43(Apr. 2026). Published April 29, 2026; accessed June 2026

2026
[21]

Voyer, P.,Modeling and Control for Fine Pointing and Jitter Management in Balloon-Borne Telescopes, masc thesis, University of Toronto (2024)

2024
[22]

A modular dynamics simulation framework for the pre-assembly validation of balloon-borne telescope control systems,

Boyd, B., Warren, B., Benton, S. J., Gill, A. S., Hartley, J. W., Holder, B., Jones, W. C., Li, L., Netterfield, C. B., Paracha, E., Redmond, S. F., Romualdez, L. J., Tartakovsky, S., Voyer, P., and Miles, A., “A modular dynamics simulation framework for the pre-assembly valid...

2026
[23]

Modeling and stability of balloon-borne gondolas with coupled pendulum-torsion dynamics,

Kassarian, E., Sanfedino, F., Alazard, D., Montel, J., and Chevrier, C.-A., “Modeling and stability of balloon-borne gondolas with coupled pendulum-torsion dynamics,”Aerospace Science and Technology111, 106607 (2021)

2021
[24]

Modeling of stratospheric balloons and robust line-of-sight pointing control,

Kassarian, E., Sanfedino, F., Alazard, D., Montel, J., and Chevrier, C.-A., “Modeling of stratospheric balloons and robust line-of-sight pointing control,”CEAS Space Journal16, 457–474 (2024). 19

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Scientific Ballooning Handbook: 50th Anniversary Edition,

Roth, S. A., Reed, E. M., Yoder, C. D., Chaffee, E. A., and Romualdez, J., “Scientific Ballooning Handbook: 50th Anniversary Edition,” Technical Publication NASA/TP–20240004989, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2025)

2025

[2] [2]

From SuperBIT to GigaBIT: Informing next-generation balloon-borne telescope design with Fine Guidance System flight data,

Voyer, P., Benton, S. J., Damaren, C. J., Everett, S. W., Fraisse, A. A., Gill, A. S., Hartley, J. W., Harvey, D., Henderson, M., Holder, B., Huff, E. M., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Lagattuta, D., Leung, J. S.-Y., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R., McCleary, J. E., Nagy, J. M., Netterfield, C. B., Paracha, E., Redmond, S. F., Rhodes, J. D., Robertson, A., ...

2024

[3] [3]

Precise pointing and stabilization performance for the balloon-borne imaging testbed: 2015 test flight,

Romualdez, L. J., Damaren, C. J., Li, L., Galloway, M. N., Hartley, J. W., Netterfield, C. B., Clark, P., and Massey, R. J., “Precise pointing and stabilization performance for the balloon-borne imaging testbed: 2015 test flight,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Journal of Aerospace Engineering0(0), 1–15 (2016)

2015

[4] [4]

Romualdez, L. J.,Design, Implementation, and Operational Methodologies for Sub-Arcsecond Attitude De- termination, Control, and Stabilization of the Super-pressure Balloon-borne Imaging Telescope (SuperBIT), PhD thesis, University of Toronto (2018)

2018

[5] [5]

Overview, design, and flight results from SuperBIT: a high-resolution, wide-field, visible-to-near-UV balloon- borne astronomical telescope,

Romualdez, L. J., Benton, S. J., Brown, A. M., Clark, P., Damaren, C. J., Eifler, T., Fraisse, A. A., Galloway, M. N., Hartley, J. W., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R. J., Mccleary, J., Netterfield, C. B., Redmond, S., Rhodes, J. D., Schmoll, J., and Tam, S.-i., “Overview, design, and flight results from SuperBIT: a high-resolut...

2018

[6] [6]

SuperBIT Superpressure Flight Instrument Overview and Performance: Near-diffraction-limited Astronomical Imaging from the Stratosphere,

Gill, A. S., Benton, S. J., Damaren, C. J., Everett, S. W., Fraisse, A. A., Hartley, J. W., Harvey, D., Holder, B., Huff, E. M., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Lagattuta, D., Leung, J. S.-Y., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R., McCleary, J. E., Nagy, J. M., Netterfield, C. B., Paracha, E., Redmond, S. F., Rhodes, J. D., Robertson, A., Romualdez, L. J., Schmoll,...

2024

[7] [7]

To the stratosphere and beyond! super-pressure balloon flight overview for the super-pressure balloon-borne imaging telescope (superbit),

Redmond, S. F., Benton, S. J., Damaren, C. J., Everett, S. W., Fraisse, A. A., Gill, A. S., Hartley, J. W., Harvey, D., Holder, B., Huff, E. M., Jauzac, M., Jones, W. C., Lagattuta, D., Leung, J. S.-Y., Li, L., Luu, T. V. T., Massey, R., McCleary, J. E., Nagy, J. M., Netterfield, C. B., Paracha, E., Rhodes, J. D., Robertson, A., Romualdez, L. J., Schmoll,...

2024

[8] [8]

Lensing in the Blue III: Weak Lensing Shape Catalogs of 30 Merging Galaxy Clusters,

Saha, S., McCleary, J. E., Everett, S. W., Amit, M., Vassilakis, G. N., Paracha, E., Fung, L. W. H., Benton, S. J., Jones, W. C., Leroy, G., Huff, E. M., Massey, R., Luu, T. V. T., Gill, A. S., Shaaban, M. M., Voyer, P., Brown, A. M., Cerini, G., Clark, P., Craigie, M., Damaren, C. J., Eifler, T., Harvey, D., Habjan, E., Hartley, J. W., Holder, B., Jauzac...

2026