Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Orbit design and thruster requirement for various constant-arm space mission concepts for gravitational-wave observation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For heliocentric missions, holding constant equal arms costs almost no fuel

desk verdict Useful fuel-feasibility numbers for constant-arm space GW missions; the central conclusion holds up, with a fixable typo and reproducibility caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05444 v1 pith:76O5BAY6 submitted 2019-08-15 gr-qc

Gang Wang , Wei-Tou Ni , An-Ming Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.80.Nn04.80.-y95.10.Eg95.55.Ym
keywords gravitationalwavesspaceGWdetectorsorbitdesignconstantarmmissionsMichelsoninterferometrytime-delaythrusterrequirementpropellantestimation
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 asks whether space-based gravitational-wave detectors can hold their laser arms at exactly equal, constant length—an arrangement that would let them use ordinary Michelson interferometry instead of time-delay interferometry—without spending prohibitive fuel. For each mission it constructs a constant-arm formation by letting one spacecraft follow a free-fall orbit and commanding the other two to track it, then computes the continuous thrust needed to compensate the difference between the desired trajectory and the solar-system gravity model. The headline numbers are yearly propellant for a 1000-kg spacecraft: DECIGO and heliocentric B-DECIGO need much less than a gram, while LISA and TAIJI need about 12–13 kg at 300 s specific impulse and 3.7–3.9 kg at 1000 s. Geocentric B-DECIGO options are the exception, needing tens of kilograms per year. The paper's conclusion is that fuel is not the blocker for constant-arm LISA, TAIJI, DECIGO, or heliocentric B-DECIGO; the precision actuation of the proof mass is the remaining concern.

What carries the argument

The constant-arm equilateral-triangle construction: one spacecraft (S/C1) follows its geodesic orbit, and its instantaneous separation vectors $\mathbf{n}_1,\mathbf{n}_2$ define the formation plane; the other two spacecraft are commanded to positions $\mathbf{r}_{S/C1} \pm b\mathbf{n}_1 - (a+c)\mathbf{n}_2$ with $a=l/(2\sqrt3)$, $b=l/2$, $c=l/\sqrt3$, so the three spacecraft form an equilateral triangle of side $l$ at every instant. This does the argument's work because it converts "keep the arms equal and constant" from a constellation-wide control problem into a deterministic trajectory-tracking problem: the required thrust is just the mismatch between the curvature of this rigid triangle and the gravity model of Eq. (10), as expressed by Eq. (11).

What would settle it

Compare the same constant-arm trajectories propagated with an independent high-precision solar-system ephemeris that also includes solar radiation pressure and spacecraft self-gravity: if the integrated control acceleration changes by more than a factor of a few for DECIGO or by more than the fuel margin for LISA/TAIJI, the "easily satisfied" fuel conclusion would need revision. Equally decisive would be a laboratory measurement of whether 2.5 µm/s² proof-mass actuation can be monitored at pm/s²-level noise with an alternating reference mass; if not, the LISA/TAIJI constant-arm scheme fails regardless of fuel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that maintaining an exactly equal-arm, constant-arm triangular formation is propellant-cheap for heliocentric missions. The construction fixes one spacecraft on its geodesic orbit and places the other two at the vertices of a rigid equilateral triangle of prescribed arm length $l$ (Eq. 7; for DECIGO, a second triangle shares the same fiducial spacecraft, Eq. 8). The thruster acceleration is the difference $\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{thruster}} = \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{traj}} - \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{eph}}$ between the second derivative of the constructed trajectory and the gravitational acceleration from the CGC3.0 ephemeris model, which includes Newtonian and 1PN point-mass terms, Sun/Earth/Moon figure effects, and 340 asteroids. Integrating this acceleration with the rocket equation at $I_{\mathrm{sp}}=300$ s and $1000$ s gives the paper's Table 1: sub-milligram-per-year propellant for DECIGO ($8.0\times10^{-4}$ kg) and heliocentric B-DECIGO ($5.3\times10^{-4}$ kg), 12.2 kg for LISA, 13.0 kg for TAIJI, versus 20–98 kg for the geocentric B-DECIGO options. On this basis the paper concludes constant-arm implementation is fuel-feasible for the heliocentric missions, so ordinary Michelson interferometry becomes an option, with proof-mass actuation noise instead of propellant as the limiting technical issue.

Load-bearing premise

The fuel numbers assume the CGC3.0 gravity model predicts real spacecraft accelerations well enough over mission lifetimes; if unmodelled forces or ephemeris errors are comparable to the required control accelerations (sub-nm/s² for DECIGO and heliocentric B-DECIGO, up to µm/s² for LISA and TAIJI), the propellant integrals would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Constant-arm LISA and TAIJI would burn only 12–13 kg of propellant per year at $I_{\rm sp}=300$ s (3.7–3.9 kg at $1000$ s) for a 1000-kg spacecraft, so fuel does not rule out ordinary equal-arm Michelson interferometry.
  • DECIGO and heliocentric B-DECIGO require propellant on the order of $10^{-4}$ kg per year, so holding the 1000-km and 100-km arms fixed is nearly free in fuel terms.
  • Because the small-$\Delta m$ propellant scales linearly with spacecraft mass and inversely with specific impulse, the Table 1 numbers can be rescaled directly to different dry masses or improved thrusters.
  • The remaining engineering bottleneck is precision, not propulsion: proof-mass actuation must supply $\mu$m/s$^2$ corrections with pm/s$^2$-level noise, and finite actuation range limits single maneuvers to tens of seconds for LISA and TAIJI.
  • If the actuation issue is resolved, a single mission could operate in both constant-arm Michelson and TDI modes, testing one against the other at science start.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The real feasibility test has moved from the orbit desk to the laboratory: measuring actuation and thruster noise under the required dynamic range will decide whether the constant-arm scheme works, which is exactly the study the paper calls for.
  • The same one-fiducial-spacecraft construction could stabilize other rigid formations—unequal-arm triangles or rotating arrays—so the method may generalize beyond equal-arm configurations.
  • Since the heliocentric fuel numbers are so small, an independent check of the ephemeris model (propagating the same trajectories with a different solar-system ephemeris and adding solar radiation pressure) would show how much of the conclusion depends on the CGC3.0 model.
  • A hybrid LISA/TAIJI design that uses thrusters only to slow arm-length drift and relies on TDI for the residual could trade a little fuel for lower actuation noise—an option the paper does not examine.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using the CGC3.0 ephemeris framework, the authors construct constant-arm triangular formations for B-DECIGO, DECIGO, LISA, and TAIJI by fixing one spacecraft on a geodesic and computing the acceleration that the other two spacecraft need in order to maintain an equilateral triangle of fixed arm length (Eqs. 7-11). They integrate this acceleration over one year to obtain propellant estimates at Isp = 300 s and 1000 s (Table 1). The central conclusions are that geocentric B-DECIGO options have concerning fuel demands, heliocentric B-DECIGO and DECIGO are easily feasible, and LISA/TAIJI constant-arm operation is not fuel-limited, although proof-mass actuation noise is identified as a remaining concern.

Significance. If correct, these results provide a systematic comparison of propulsion requirements across a wide range of space GW mission concepts and support the possibility of constant-arm Michelson interferometry for LISA/TAIJI, complementing TDI approaches. The construction is explicit and the cross-mission scaling is physically transparent. The qualitative fuel-feasibility conclusions are plausible and robust to modest model errors. The main weaknesses are that the numerical values depend on a non-public ephemeris without sensitivity analysis and that non-gravitational disturbances are not included in the thrust/propellant budget; these limit the quantitative claims but do not overturn the main feasibility ordering.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Table 1] Section 4.2 states that the DECIGO thruster requirement is less than 0.2 nN, while Table 1 lists 0.2 µN. With M = 1000 kg and a_max = 0.2 nm/s^2, F = Ma = 2e-7 N = 0.2 µN, so Table 1 is consistent and the text is off by a factor of 1000. This discrepancy also appears in the introduction's summary of Section 4.2 and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5, Table 1, Eq. (10)] The acceleration balance that defines a_thruster contains only gravitational terms (Newtonian, 1PN, figure effects, and asteroids). A drag-free spacecraft's thrusters must also continuously cancel non-gravitational accelerations; at 1 AU, solar radiation pressure on a 1000-kg spacecraft with 10 m^2 effective area is about 45 nm/s^2, more than two orders of magnitude above the 0.2 nm/s^2 DECIGO formation-keeping value in Table 1. Table 1 should therefore be presented as the additional formation-keeping requirement, with a statement about non-gravitational disturbances, or the SRP contribution should be modeled explicitly.
  3. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The numerical second derivative in Eq. (9) is not described (e.g., finite-difference stencil and step size), and no sensitivity analysis is given for the CGC3.0 ephemeris framework. Since CGC3.0 is non-public, the Table 1 numbers cannot be independently reproduced by other groups; a comparison with a public ephemeris or a perturbation study would materially strengthen the quantitative claims, even though the qualitative feasibility ordering is likely unchanged.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The propellant integral should use |a_thruster| or explicitly state that a_thruster denotes the magnitude of the acceleration vector; as written, the integral of a vector is ambiguous.
  2. [Section 4.1] The text refers to the 'B-DECIGO-AM-EML1' configuration, while the bullet list and Table 1 use 'B-DECIGO-AM-EML4'; the label should be made consistent.
  3. [References] Reference [15] is cited as 'Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 194000X'; the final article number should be inserted.
  4. [Section 2.2] The heading 'Vector Defination' should be corrected to 'Vector Definition'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: propellant estimates are direct numerical outputs from constructed trajectories and ephemeris accelerations, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit and self-contained: constant-arm trajectories are constructed from Eq. (7) around one geodesic spacecraft; the required thruster acceleration is computed as Eq. (11), a_thruster = a_traj - a_eph, where a_traj is the second derivative of the constructed trajectory and a_eph is the gravitational acceleration from the stated CGC3.0 model; and the propellant follows from Eqs. (13)-(15) integrated into Table 1. No parameter is fitted to make the Table 1 fuel numbers come out small, and the LISA/TAIJI and DECIGO/B-DECIGO accelerations are direct outputs of the equation of motion under the stated ephemeris model, not quantities assumed by the inputs. The paper does cite the authors' prior work for the CGC ephemeris, AMIGO/AIGSO orbit families, and the LISA orbit from Ref. 10, but those citations supply initial conditions and a gravitational model, not the target conclusion; the paper re-derives the trajectory-construction and rocket-equation steps it uses. The known discrepancy between 0.2 nN in Section 4.2 and 0.2 µN in Table 1, and the absence of a sensitivity analysis, are presentation and reproducibility concerns, not circularity. The central fuel-feasibility conclusion therefore does not reduce by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study introduces no free parameters fitted to data. The spacecraft mass (1000 kg) and specific impulses (300 s, 1000 s) are stated assumptions that scale the propellant results. The central assumptions are the kinematic control scheme (Eq. 7), the CGC3.0 ephemeris accuracy (Eq. 10), and the representativeness of the chosen initial orbits. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are invented.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The rocket equation and constant-specific-impulse thruster model (Eqs. 12-14) correctly convert acceleration integrals into propellant mass.
    Used in Section 5 to compute the yearly propellant requirements; it is a standard physics relation.
  • domain assumption The constant-arm formation can be maintained by one spacecraft following a geodesic while the other two follow constructed trajectories defined by Eq. 7.
    This control scheme is the foundation of the entire study; it assumes the chasing spacecraft can continuously track the moving target positions in the instantaneous plane.
  • domain assumption The CGC3.0 ephemeris framework (Eq. 10) accurately represents the solar-system gravitational environment, including Newtonian and 1PN point masses, figure effects, and 340 asteroids.
    The computed thruster accelerations are differences between the trajectory accelerations and this model; any unmodeled perturbations would shift the fuel estimates in Table 1.
  • domain assumption The chosen initial orbit elements (from Ref. 10 and Ref. 45, with downscaling for B-DECIGO) are representative of the mission concepts.
    The geodesic reference orbits determine the formation geometry and hence the required control accelerations; different initial conditions would change the results. The paper notes that for DECIGO, optimization would reduce requirements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orbit design and thruster requirement for various constant-arm space mission concepts for gravitational-wave observation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76O5BAY6

@misc{pith2026190805444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orbit design and thruster requirement for various constant-arm space mission concepts for gravitational-wave observation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76O5BAY6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05444}
}
read the original abstract

In previous papers, we have addressed the issues of orbit design and thruster requirement for the constant arm versions of AMIGO (Astrodynamical Middle-frequency Interferometric Gravitational-wave Observatory) mission concept and for the constant arm GW (gravitational wave) mission concept of AIGSO (Atom Interferometric Gravitational-wave Space Observatory). In this paper, we apply similar methods to the orbit design and thruster requirement for the constant arm GW missions B-DECIGO and DECIGO, and estimate the yearly propellant requirements at the specific impulse Isp = 300 sec and Isp = 1000 sec. For the geocentric orbit options of B-DECIGO which we have explored, the fuel mass requirement is a concern. For the heliocentric orbit options of B-DECIGO and DECIGO, the fuel requirement to keep the arm equal and constant should be easily satisfied. Furthermore, we explore the thruster and propellant requirements for constant arm versions of LISA and TAIJI missions and find the fuel mass requirement is not a show stopper either. The proof mass actuation noise is a concern. To have enough dynamical range, an alternate proof mass is required. Detailed laboratory study is warranted

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the three S/Cs for a constant arm length triangle configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The thruster acceleration compensations to maintain the 100 km arm length for S/Cs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The DECIGO orbit formation. We assume the scientific observation of DECIGO starts from t0 = JD2464694.0 (2036-Jan-1st 12:00:00) and calculation the mission orbits. In this work, we presume that two possible placements for the three constellations in the ecliptic plane which are • three constellations at 30 deg (30-degree-a and 30-degree-b), 150 deg and 270 deg trailing angles with respect to position of the Earth, a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The thruster acceleration compensations to maintain the DECIGO arm length for S/Cs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The thruster acceleration compensations to maintain the DECIGO arm length for S/Cs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The thruster acceleration compensations to maintain the New LISA constant arm length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 061102, and references therein

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017)161101, and references therein

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaborations), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Kuroda, W.-T

    K. Kuroda, W.-T. Ni and W.-P. Pan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24 (2015) no.14, 1530031

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley and G. Auger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) no.23, 231101

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley and J. Baird et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.6, 061101

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley and S. Babak et al. (LISA Collaboration), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4 (2017) no.5, 685

    work page 2017

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Luo L.-S

    J. Luo L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 33 (2016) 035010

    2016

  2. [10]

    Wang and W

    G. Wang and W. T. Ni, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 19 (2019) no.4, 058, arXiv:1707.09127

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    B.-B. Ye, X. Zhang, M.-Y. Zhou et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 1950121

    2019

  4. [12]

    D. Gao, J. Wang and M. Zhan, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69 (2018) no.1, 37

    2018

  5. [13]

    G. Wang, D. Gao, W.-T. Ni, J. Wang and M.-S. Zhan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 1940004

    2019

  6. [14]

    Ni, EPJ Web Conf

    W.-T. Ni, EPJ Web Conf. 168 (2018) 01004

    2018

  7. [15]

    W.-T. Ni, G. Wang and A.-M. Wu, Astrodynamical middle-frequency interferometric gravitational wave observatory AMIGO: Mission concept and orbit design, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 194000X

    2019

  8. [16]

    W.-T. Ni et al., ASTROD optimized for Gravitational Wave detection: ASTROD-GW (in Chinese), in Proceedings of Sixth Deep Space Exploration Technology Symposium, December 3-6, 2009, Sanya, Hainan, China, pp. 122-128 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    W.-T. Ni, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 25 (2010) 922

    2010

  10. [18]

    W.-T. Ni, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22 (2013) 1431004

    2013

  11. [19]

    Men, W.-T

    J.-R. Men, W.-T. Ni, and G. Wang, Chin.Astron.Astrophys. 34 (2010) 434

    2010

  12. [20]

    Men, W.-T

    J.-R. Men, W.-T. Ni, and G. Wang, Acta Astronomica Sinica 51 (2010) 198

    2010

  13. [21]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Chin.Astron.Astrophys. 36 (2012) 211

    2012

  14. [22]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Chin. Phys. B 22 (2013) 049501

    2013

  15. [23]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Chin. Phys. B 24 (2015) 059501

    2015

  16. [24]

    Crowder and N

    J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 083005

    2005

  17. [25]

    Isoyama, H

    S. Isoyama, H. Nakano and T. Nakamura, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys (2018) 073E01

    2018

  18. [26]

    Kawamura, T

    S. Kawamura, T. Nakamura, M. Ando et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27 (2018) 1845001

    2018

  19. [27]

    Kawamura et al., Class

    S. Kawamura et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (2006) S125

    2006

  20. [28]

    Ni, Class

    W.-T. Ni, Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009) 075021

    2009

  21. [29]

    J. M. Hogan et al., Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 43 (2011) 1953

    2011

  22. [30]

    J. M. Hogan and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A 94 (2016) 033632

    2016

  23. [31]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, S. Rajendran and R. W. Romani, Midband gravitational wave detection with precision atomic sensors, arXiv:1711.02225

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Loeb and D

    A. Loeb and D. Maoz, arXiv:1501.00996

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Vutha, New J

    A. Vutha, New J. Phys . 17 (2015) 063030. August 16, 2019 0:19 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE Constant˙Arm Thruster Requirement for Various Constant Arm Space Mission Concepts 13

    2015

  26. [34]

    Kolkowitz et al., Phys

    S. Kolkowitz et al., Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 124043

    2016

  27. [35]

    Ebisuzaki, H

    T. Ebisuzaki, H. Katori, J. Makino, A. Noda, H. Shinkai and T. Tamagawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 1940002, arXiv:1809.10317 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chaibi, R

    W. Chaibi, R. Geiger, B. Canuel, A. Bertoldi, A. Landragin, and P. Bouyer, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 021101(R)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Canuel et al

    B. Canuel et al. , Sci. Rep. 8 (2018) 14064

    2018

  30. [38]

    H. J. Paik, C. E. Griggs, M. V. Moody et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 33 (2016) 075003

    2016

  31. [39]

    H. J. Paik, M. V. Moody and R. S. Norton, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019), 1940001

    2019

  32. [40]

    Shoda, Y

    A. Shoda, Y. Kuwahara, M. Ando, et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, (2017) 082004

    2017

  33. [41]

    Shimoda, S.Takano, C.P

    T. Shimoda, S.Takano, C.P. Ooi, N. Aritomi, A,Shoda, Y. Michimura, and M. Ando, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 1940003, arXiv:1812.01835

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M.-S. Zhan, J. Wang, W.-T. Ni et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 1940005, arXiv:1903.09288 [physics.atom-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. V. Dhurandhar, W.-T. Ni and G. Wang, Adv. Space Res. 51 (2013) 198

    2013

  36. [44]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Class. Quantum Grav. 30 (2013) 065011

    2013

  37. [45]

    S. V. Dhurandhar, K. R. Nayak, S. Koshti and J. Y. Vinet, Class. Quantum Grav. 22 (2005) 481-488

    2005

  38. [46]

    Wang, Time-delay Interferometry for ASTROD-GW (MS Thesis) (Nanjing: Purple Mountain Observatory, 2011) (in Chinese)

    G. Wang, Time-delay Interferometry for ASTROD-GW (MS Thesis) (Nanjing: Purple Mountain Observatory, 2011) (in Chinese)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Luo et al , Associated laser metrology study for various constant-arm GW imple- mentation, in progress

    Z. Luo et al , Associated laser metrology study for various constant-arm GW imple- mentation, in progress

  40. [48]

    Lei et al, Actuation noise estimation for various constant-arm GW implementation, in progress

    J. Lei et al, Actuation noise estimation for various constant-arm GW implementation, in progress

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.