Self-reconfiguration Strategies for Space-distributed Spacecraft

Panfeng Huang; Tianle Liu; Yizhai Zhang; Yongwei Zhang; Zhixiang Wang; Zihao Liu; Ziwei Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 25 references

Self-reconfiguration Strategies for Space-distributed Spacecraft

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a two-stage planner—imitation-initialized A3C for the module handling order, then A* and inverse kinematics for a five-DOF arm—achieves self-reconfiguration of a 16-module distributed spacecraft in simulation.

desk verdict Incremental but plausible integration of GAIL/A3C and A* for modular spacecraft reconfiguration; the reversed-random expert data are unvalidated and the IK equations are garbled, so as submitted the central claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17137 v1 pith:DLJ7XH3U submitted 2024-11-26 cs.RO cs.AI

Tianle Liu , Zhixiang Wang , Yongwei Zhang , Ziwei Wang , Zihao Liu , Yizhai Zhang , Panfeng Huang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.AI

keywords distributedspacecraftself-reconfigurationon-orbitassemblyimitationlearningreinforcementA3CA*pathplanninginversekinematics

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 seeks to show that a distributed spacecraft built from specialized modules can reconfigure itself autonomously, switching from an initial arrangement to a target arrangement using a two-stage planning algorithm. The first stage learns the order in which modules should be handled by combining imitation learning with the A3C reinforcement-learning algorithm; the second stage plans how a five-degree-of-freedom robotic arm physically executes that order, using A* search over a surface map and inverse kinematics. The authors test the framework on a 16-module spacecraft and visualize the resulting assembly process in Unity3D. If the approach holds up, it would offer a path toward on-orbit assembly and maintenance of modular satellites that can adapt their structure to new missions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pairing of a reversed-trajectory expert set with a discriminator-based imitation-learning step that feeds A3C. Random module-handling sequences are generated from an initial configuration, then inverted so the recorded initial state becomes the target state; these reversed sequences serve as expert data for imitation learning, which initializes the policy network before asynchronous advantage actor-critic (A3C) training refines it. The execution side rests on an adjacency-chain surface map in which each module face is numbered and edges are given weight 1, so that A* with a Manhattan-distance heuristic can produce path points for the five-DOF arm, and closed-form inverse kinematics converts those path points into joint angles.

What would settle it

Replay every reversed random sequence from the expert set: if most sequences, executed forward, do not transform the initial configuration into the target configuration without invalid moves, then the imitation-learning initialization is not grounded in valid demonstrations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a self-reconfiguration strategy for a modular distributed spacecraft can be decomposed into two planning problems and solved in simulation. For the handling order, random action sequences are generated and then reversed to create expert demonstrations; a discriminator-based imitation-learning step brings the learner's state-action distribution close to these demonstrations, and the resulting policy initializes an A3C network that continues training with multiple parallel environments. For execution, module surfaces are encoded as a graph, the A* algorithm plans path points on that surface map, and forward and inverse kinematics with fifth-degree polynomial interpolation plan the joints of a five-DOF assembly arm. The paper reports that on a 16-module configuration the IL+A3C policy converges and reaches the target configuration, that the same policy network transfers to a second 16-module architecture, and that the whole process is demonstrated in Unity3D.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a randomly generated sequence of module moves, when reversed, is a valid expert demonstration—one that actually leads from the initial configuration to the target configuration under the specified action constraints—and the paper does not report checks of optimality, feasibility, or coverage for those demonstrations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A policy trained on one 16-module configuration can be applied to a different 16-module configuration, since the paper tests two architectures and reports that the reward values converge to the target state in both.
Initializing reinforcement learning with imitation learning from reversed random sequences is what makes the training usable; the paper reports that the network without this initialization is difficult to converge.
The A* path-point planner and the inverse-kinematics joint planner together let a five-DOF arm carry out the handling sequence on the module surface, as demonstrated in the Unity3D visualization.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit is that the reversed-random-sequence expert-generation trick, if valid, transfers to any modular reconfiguration problem that can be described by the same state-action formalism, including chain-type or pivoting-cube robots, not just cube-grid spacecraft.
A testable extension would be to scale the same IL+A3C framework to more than 16 modules and measure whether the convergence advantage over PPO and SAC persists, since the reported comparison is on a single configuration size.
The use of A* with a Manhattan heuristic on a face-adjacency graph ties planning effort to module connectivity; replacing the heuristic with a precomputed graph-distance would make path planning less dependent on the module layout and is a natural next experiment.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Couple of things to know up front. This is an incremental extension of the authors' own RCAR 2023 work, and of Song et al.'s DRL reconfiguration approach. The new pieces are a pose-aware module representation (adding face orientation to the state) and a simple trick for generating 'expert' demonstrations by reversing random action sequences. The integration of GAIL-initialized A3C with A* over a face-adjacency map is sensible and actually runs end-to-end in Unity3D, which is more than many planning papers show.

Where it earns credit: the problem is genuine, the decomposition (sequence planning first, then arm motion planning) is clean, and the A* surface-map construction is a nice practical touch. The authors also report comparative learning curves against PPO, SAC, and bare A3C, which is the right kind of experiment to run. The citation pattern is normal, and the self-citation to [13] is legitimate.

The soft spots are real and they bite. The reversal-of-random-trajectories trick is the load-bearing premise for the imitation learning, and the paper never validates that those reversed trajectories are legal, feasible, or terminate at the target. If a large fraction contain illegal moves, GAIL will happily imitate them. That's a circularity problem, not a cosmetic one. Eq. (5), the inverse kinematics solution, is garbled: undefined symbols, missing derivation, and an atan2 that looks misprinted. No one could reproduce the arm motion from what's written. The empirical support for the central claim is thin: reward curves without error bars, no final success rate, no success criteria, screenshots instead of quantitative outcomes, and no released code.

None of this sinks the idea. The framework is plausible, and the flaws are addressable. But as submitted, the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that a 16-module self-reconfiguration was successfully planned and executed. A reader working on modular space robotics would find the pipeline useful as a baseline; a reader outside the area would need more structure.

My recommendation: send it to peer review rather than desk-reject. It's a legitimate approach to a real problem, and a serious referee could push the authors to validate the expert data, clean up the IK, and report proper success metrics. It's not there yet, but it's worth engaging.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage framework for self-reconfiguration of a space-distributed spacecraft. In the first stage, a module handling sequence is learned by combining imitation learning (GAIL) with asynchronous advantage actor-critic (A3C), where the expert demonstrations are generated by recording random action sequences and then reversing them. In the second stage, an assembly unit (a five-degree-of-freedom arm) executes the sequence using a surface map built over module faces, A* path planning on that map, and forward/inverse kinematics with fifth-order polynomial joint interpolation. The method is evaluated in a simulated 16-module spacecraft, with results presented as reward curves and Unity3D snapshots.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a useful integration of imitation learning, reinforcement learning, and manipulator motion planning for modular on-orbit assembly. The authors make a concrete attempt to combine policy learning with geometric path planning and show a physical simulation pipeline. However, the central empirical claim of effective 16-module handling rests on unvalidated expert data and on reward curves without quantitative success metrics. The inverse-kinematics equations are presented without derivation and appear garbled, so the motion-planning component is not verifiable. The paper's main value at present is as a proof-of-concept description; the evidence does not yet establish the proposed algorithms' effectiveness.

major comments (4)

[IV.A, Eq. (1)] The expert demonstrations used for imitation learning are generated by the method itself: Section IV.A states that a random step size f is used to generate action sequences which are then inverted into expert data. No check is reported that each recorded action is legal in the state where it is applied, that the reversed sequence is a feasible path to the target configuration, or that the reversed trajectories provide a useful occupancy measure for the target task. Because Eq. (1) trains the policy to match the expert occupancy measure, any illegal or non-terminal trajectories in this self-generated expert set will be amplified rather than corrected. This is a load-bearing circularity: the claimed benefit of imitation initialization is not established.
[V.1, Figs. 8-9] The paper's central claim is that the IL+A3C policy learns a valid handling sequence for a 16-module spacecraft, but the quantitative evidence consists solely of reward curves without error bars, without a defined success criterion, and without reporting success rates over multiple trials. Fig. 8 shows curves that are claimed to demonstrate convergence, but no numbers are given for final reward, success probability, or number of episodes to convergence. Fig. 9 shows test results where 'reward values gradually converge to 0,' which is not a well-defined success metric. Without a quantitative success rate, the claim of effectiveness is unsupported.
[IV.B.2, Eq. (5)] The inverse kinematics equations in Eq. (5) are presented without derivation and with garbled notation: the trigonometric expressions are incomplete, the symbols M, a, b, Δ, and r_{ij} are not all defined, and the equation block appears to have formatting errors. Since the robot arm execution is a core component of the proposed framework, the reader cannot verify that the joint planning is correct. The forward kinematics in Eq. (4) is also given only generically, with no explicit link lengths or joint variables, making the inverse solution impossible to reproduce.
[III.A-B] The state and action representations are not fully specified. Fig. 3(b) introduces a 6-dimensional pose vector but the exact encoding of the six faces is described only vaguely, and Fig. 4 lists available actions without a formal definition of which actions are legal in a given configuration. This ambiguity makes it difficult to judge whether the environment and the expert-data generation in Section IV.A are operating on the same action semantics, which directly affects the validity of the imitation learning step.

minor comments (7)

[Fig. 3(b)] The caption says a 6-dimensional vector represents the spatial orientation of each face, but the text does not clearly define how the entries correspond to face orientations; please clarify with a concrete example.
[Eq. (2)] The formula '*6numI C I=+' appears to be a typesetting error; the intended relationship between the interface number and the module number is unclear and should be rewritten.
[Algorithm 1] The loop label 'For f =0.,1, 2' and several reward/gradient update expressions are garbled; the pseudocode should be cleaned up and aligned with the equations in the text.
[V.2] The handling process description in Fig. 11(a) references points P1 and P2 but the diagram is not clear; please annotate the figure or describe the trajectory more precisely.
[V.3] The sentence 'we can get the handling 19 process' contains a typo; it should read 'handling process'.
[References] Reference [26] is identical to reference [14]; please remove the duplicate.
[Throughout] The term 'unity3D' should be capitalized consistently as 'Unity3D' or 'Unity 3D'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IL+A3C and A*/kinematics derivation chain is self-contained; the self-generated expert data are a validation concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The module-handling policy is trained by GAIL on expert trajectories that are generated by reversing random action sequences (Sec. IV.A, Fig. 2). This is an unusual and unvalidated source of 'expert' supervision: the paper does not report checks that the reversed random trajectories are legal, feasible, or terminate at the intended target configuration. That is a methodological and validation weakness, but it is not a circular reduction: the imitation objective in Eq. (1) is used only to initialize the policy, and the A3C phase optimizes an independent task reward; no demonstrated result is defined as the fitted target of the expert data. The A* surface-map planning (Alg. 2, Eq. (3)) and the forward/inverse kinematics (Eqs. (4)-(6)) are standard, self-contained constructions from the stated geometry. The only self-citation, [13], appears in the sentence 'As a further step from our previous work[13]' and is descriptive rather than load-bearing for the central claim. The comparison against no-IL baselines and the separate RL objective provide independent content. Therefore no step is equivalent by construction to its input; the score reflects only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation and the unvalidated expert-data premise, which affects confidence but not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a custom simulated environment, self-generated expert data, an assumed-reachable arm, and a simplified action space; none of these are externally validated or shipped as code.

free parameters (3)

Five-DOF arm link lengths = 1, 1.5, 1.5, 1 (module lengths)
Chosen in Section III.C without justification; the inverse kinematics solution and reachability depend on these values.
Module side length L = unspecified (standard cell unit)
Appears in the inverse kinematics equations (Eq. 5) and scales the world model; introduced ad hoc.
Random step size f = not specified
Used in Section IV.A to generate expert action sequences; the quality and coverage of the reversed expert data depend on it.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper Reversed random action sequences constitute expert demonstrations for imitation learning.
Section IV.A defines expert data by reversing random trajectories, with no proof that these are good or even valid handling plans.
domain assumption Each module has exactly six connectable faces and every face-to-face docking is kinematically valid.
Section III.B enumerates actions over six faces per module and does not model connector orientation or structural load-path constraints.
domain assumption The five-DOF arm can reach every required module interface and dock without collision.
Section III.C and IV.B give forward and inverse kinematics but no reachability analysis or collision checking for the planned paths.
domain assumption The state representation based on relative positions and 6D pose vectors fully captures the reconfiguration problem.
Section III.A defines states by relative coordinates and poses; inter-module collisions during transfer are not represented in the state or action space.
standard math A* with the Manhattan distance heuristic returns a valid path on the surface graph.
Section IV.B.1 uses A* with Manhattan distance; this is standard when the graph is grid-aligned and edge weights are uniform, as the constructed adjacency graph assumes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-reconfiguration Strategies for Space-distributed Spacecraft." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLJ7XH3U

@misc{pith2026241117137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-reconfiguration Strategies for Space-distributed Spacecraft},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLJ7XH3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17137}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a distributed on-orbit spacecraft assembly algorithm, where future spacecraft can assemble modules with different functions on orbit to form a spacecraft structure with specific functions. This form of spacecraft organization has the advantages of reconfigurability, fast mission response and easy maintenance. Reasonable and efficient on-orbit self-reconfiguration algorithms play a crucial role in realizing the benefits of distributed spacecraft. This paper adopts the framework of imitation learning combined with reinforcement learning for strategy learning of module handling order. A robot arm motion algorithm is then designed to execute the handling sequence. We achieve the self-reconfiguration handling task by creating a map on the surface of the module, completing the path point planning of the robotic arm using A*. The joint planning of the robotic arm is then accomplished through forward and reverse kinematics. Finally, the results are presented in Unity3D.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17137 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Distributed spacecraft conceptual diagram, with configurations consisting of modules with different functions including communication, photography, propulsion modules, etc. a waste of resources and the generation of space debris. Thirdly, traditional spacecraft typically operate in dedicated star mode and lack the ability to self-reconfigure or self-organize. They cannot adjust their configuration to suit different … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[13]

Intelligent algorithm-based cellular robot self -reconfiguration step planning research,

T. Liu, W. Wang, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang and P. Huang, "Intelligent algorithm-based cellular robot self -reconfiguration step planning research," 2023 IEEE International Conference on Real -time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), Datong, China, 2023, pp. 13-18

work page 2023
[1]

Analysis of modular spacecraft bus design for rapid response missions

L. E. Cohan, R-D. Chamber, R. K. Lee, et al. “Analysis of modular spacecraft bus design for rapid response missions ”. 4th Responsive Space Conf, Los Angeles, California, United States, April 24–27, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Extending satellite lifetimes in geosynchronous orbit with servicing

N. C. Cohen, G. G. Richardson, S. K. Martinelli, et al. “Extending satellite lifetimes in geosynchronous orbit with servicing ”. AIAA SPACE 2011 Conf and Expo , Long Beach, United States, 2011, p. 27-29

work page 2011
[3]

http://www.pellegrino.caltech.edu/aarest1/

Autonomous Assembly of a Reconfigurable Space Telescope (AAReST), 2022. http://www.pellegrino.caltech.edu/aarest1/. (Accessed 9 March 2022)

work page 2022
[4]

Sugawara, H

Y. Sugawara, H. Sahara, S. Nakasuka, S. Greenland, T. Morimoto, K. Koyama, C. Kobayashi, H. Kikuchi, T. Okada, H. Tanaka, A satellite for demonstration of panel extension satellite (PETSAT), Acta Astronaut. 63 (2008) 228–237

work page 2008
[5]

Sugawara, S

Y. Sugawara, S. Nakasuka, K. Higashi, C. Kobayashi, K. Koyama, T. Okada, Structure and th ermal control of panel extension satellite (PETSAT), Acta Astronaut. 65 (2009) 958–966

work page 2009
[6]

Letier, X.T

P. Letier, X.T. Yan, M. Deremetz, A. Bianco, G. Grunwald, M. Roa, R. Krenn, M. M. Aranc ́on, P. Dissaux, J.S.G. Casarrubios, MOSAR: modular spacecraft assembly and reconfiguration demonstrator, in: 15th Symposium on Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Letier, T

P. Letier, T. Siedel, M. Deremetz, E. Pavlovskis, B. Lietaer, K. Nottensteiner, M. A. Roa Garzon, J. S ́anchez Garcia, J.L. Corella, J. Gancet, HO TDOCK, Design and validation of a new generation of standard robotic interface for on -orbit servicing, in: International Astronautical Congress, IAC 2020, IAF, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 25 references

[8]

Helvajian, HIVE: a new architecture for space, in: Proceedings of the 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC -2019), 2020

H. Helvajian, HIVE: a new architecture for space, in: Proceedings of the 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC -2019), 2020. Washington DC paper IAC19-D4

2019
[9]

https://aerospace.org/article/hi ve-satellites-redefine-disaggregation, 2021

Hive satellites redefine disaggregation. https://aerospace.org/article/hi ve-satellites-redefine-disaggregation, 2021. (Accessed 1 November 20 21). Accessed

2021
[10]

Q. Song, D. Ye, Z. Sun, B. Wang, Autonomous reconfiguration of homogeneous pivoting cube modular satellite by deep reinforcement learning, Proc. IME J. Syst. Control Eng. 235 (2021) 1777–1786

2021
[11]

Chen, Research on Reconfiguration Path Planning Algorithm for Self-Reconfigurable Satellites [dissertation], Harbin Institute of Technology, 2018 (in Chinese)

X. Chen, Research on Reconfiguration Path Planning Algorithm for Self-Reconfigurable Satellites [dissertation], Harbin Institute of Technology, 2018 (in Chinese)

2018
[12]

An, X. Li, Z. Zhang, W. Man, G. Zhang, Joint trajectory planning of space modular reconfigurable satellites based on kinematic model, Int. J. Aerospace Eng. (2020) 2020

2020
[15]

A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths,

P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson and B. Raphael, "A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths," in IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100-107, July 1968

1968
[16]

Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., & Klimov, O. (2017). Proximal policy optimization algorithms

2017
[17]

Soft actor -critic algorithms and applications[J], 2018

Haarnoja T, Zhou A, Hartikainen K, et al. Soft actor -critic algorithms and applications[J], 2018

2018
[18]

Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning

Mnih, Volodymyr, et al. "Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning." International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2016

2016
[19]

Implementation Matters in Deep Policy Gradients: A Case Study on PPO and TRPO,

L. Engstrom, A. Ilyas, S. Santurkar, et al. “Implementation Matters in Deep Policy Gradients: A Case Study on PPO and TRPO,” 2020. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2005.12729

2020 doi arXiv
[20]

Modular Reconfigurable Robots, an Approach To Urban Search and Rescue,

M. Yim, D. Duff, K. Roufas. “Modular Reconfigurable Robots, an Approach To Urban Search and Rescue,” in Proce. 1st International Workshop on Human -friendly Welfare Robotic Systems, Taejon, Korea, 2000, pp. 69-76

2000
[21]

Modular Robots,

M. Yim, Y. Zhang, D. Duff. “Modular Robots,” Cover Story on February 2002 Issue of IEEE Spectrum Magazine. 2002, pp. 30-34

2002
[22]

The CONRO Modules for Reconfigurable Robots,

A. Castano, A. Behar, P. Will. “The CONRO Modules for Reconfigurable Robots,” IEEE/ASME Trans on Mechatroncis, 2002, pp. 7(4):403-409

2002
[23]

Mechanical Design of a Module for Reconfigurable Robots,

A. Castano, P. Will. “Mechanical Design of a Module for Reconfigurable Robots,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conf on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Takamatsu, Japan, 2000, pp. 2203-2209

2000
[24]

Distributed Task Negotiation in Self-reconfigurable Robots,

B. Salemi, P. Will, W. M. Shen. “Distributed Task Negotiation in Self-reconfigurable Robots,” in Prod of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Las Vegas, Nevada, 2003, pp. 2448-2453

2003
[25]

Distributed Bbehavior Collaboration for Self-reconfigurable Robots,

B. Salemi, W. M. Shen. “Distributed Bbehavior Collaboration for Self-reconfigurable Robots,” in Proc. ICRA. New Orieans, LA, 2004: 4178-4183

2004
[26]

Asynchronous Methods for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning,

Y. Zhang, I. Clavera, B. Tsai, et al. “Asynchronous Methods for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning,” 2019, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1910.124 53

2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

Intelligent algorithm-based cellular robot self -reconfiguration step planning research,

T. Liu, W. Wang, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang and P. Huang, "Intelligent algorithm-based cellular robot self -reconfiguration step planning research," 2023 IEEE International Conference on Real -time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), Datong, China, 2023, pp. 13-18

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Analysis of modular spacecraft bus design for rapid response missions

L. E. Cohan, R-D. Chamber, R. K. Lee, et al. “Analysis of modular spacecraft bus design for rapid response missions ”. 4th Responsive Space Conf, Los Angeles, California, United States, April 24–27, 2006

work page 2006

[3] [2]

Extending satellite lifetimes in geosynchronous orbit with servicing

N. C. Cohen, G. G. Richardson, S. K. Martinelli, et al. “Extending satellite lifetimes in geosynchronous orbit with servicing ”. AIAA SPACE 2011 Conf and Expo , Long Beach, United States, 2011, p. 27-29

work page 2011

[4] [3]

http://www.pellegrino.caltech.edu/aarest1/

Autonomous Assembly of a Reconfigurable Space Telescope (AAReST), 2022. http://www.pellegrino.caltech.edu/aarest1/. (Accessed 9 March 2022)

work page 2022

[5] [4]

Sugawara, H

Y. Sugawara, H. Sahara, S. Nakasuka, S. Greenland, T. Morimoto, K. Koyama, C. Kobayashi, H. Kikuchi, T. Okada, H. Tanaka, A satellite for demonstration of panel extension satellite (PETSAT), Acta Astronaut. 63 (2008) 228–237

work page 2008

[6] [5]

Sugawara, S

Y. Sugawara, S. Nakasuka, K. Higashi, C. Kobayashi, K. Koyama, T. Okada, Structure and th ermal control of panel extension satellite (PETSAT), Acta Astronaut. 65 (2009) 958–966

work page 2009

[7] [6]

Letier, X.T

P. Letier, X.T. Yan, M. Deremetz, A. Bianco, G. Grunwald, M. Roa, R. Krenn, M. M. Aranc ́on, P. Dissaux, J.S.G. Casarrubios, MOSAR: modular spacecraft assembly and reconfiguration demonstrator, in: 15th Symposium on Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [7]

Letier, T

P. Letier, T. Siedel, M. Deremetz, E. Pavlovskis, B. Lietaer, K. Nottensteiner, M. A. Roa Garzon, J. S ́anchez Garcia, J.L. Corella, J. Gancet, HO TDOCK, Design and validation of a new generation of standard robotic interface for on -orbit servicing, in: International Astronautical Congress, IAC 2020, IAF, 2020

work page 2020