Quantum-Assisted Space Logistics Mission Planning

Amiratabak Bahengam; Hao Chen; Mohammad-Ali Miri; R. Joseph Rupert; Wesley Dyk

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 13 references

Quantum-Assisted Space Logistics Mission Planning

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper attempts to show that entropy quantum computing, running on the Dirac-3 photonic device, can produce a feasible—though admittedly non-optimal—schedule for a time-dependent multicommodity network flow model of an interplanetary…

desk verdict A transparent but tiny demonstration of a standard QUBO encoding on Dirac-3; the overreaching conclusion is not supported by the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05046 v1 pith:422YM7IW submitted 2025-01-09 math.OC

Amiratabak Bahengam , Mohammad-Ali Miri , R. Joseph Rupert , Wesley Dyk , Hao Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 90B1090C2790C1181P68

keywords quantumcomputingentropyspacelogisticsmulticommoditynetworkflowmissionplanningHamiltonianoptimizationinterplanetaryDirac-3

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

The paper attempts to establish that a quantum optimization device can generate a feasible logistics plan for an interplanetary supply network, a problem class it argues classical methods cannot efficiently handle. The authors cast the problem as a time-expanded multicommodity network flow on a 7-node graph spanning Earth, lunar orbits, the lunar surface, and Mars, with two cargo types and six time steps. They encode the total transportation cost and all flow and capacity constraints into a single Hamiltonian, then sample low-energy states on the Dirac-3 entropy quantum computer. The best of 40 samples, after a small repair step, yields a schedule that meets every demand with an objective value of 62.08 km/s; the paper openly states this is not optimal. A sympathetic reader should see the result as a proof-of-feasibility: quantum hardware of this kind can produce workable schedules for small logistics networks, with the scalability claims left for future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hamiltonian $H(x,z)=P_1(x,z)+\alpha P_2(x,z)$ of Eq. (7): $P_1$ accumulates arc costs $c_{ij}z^t_{ij}$ over vehicles, and $P_2$ is a quadratic penalty that converts the flow-conservation and vehicle-capacity constraints into energy terms, following the QUBO recipe. The multiplier $\alpha$ is chosen manually to make infeasible solutions carry higher energy than feasible ones, while the 116-variable Hamiltonian (89 decision variables and 29 slack variables) is sampled on the Dirac-3 photonic device using the software-configurable quantum fluctuation coefficient $1/\sqrt{7}$ and relaxation schedule 2. The device's entropy-driven dissipation acts like imaginary time evolution, amplifying low-energy eigenstates over repeated samples; the argument is that low-energy samples correspond to good candidate plans, requiring only the small repair of zeroing commodity flows on arcs where the sampler scheduled no vehicle.

What would settle it

Solve the paper's 7-node, 2-commodity, 6-time-step instance to proven optimality with a classical mixed-integer linear program; if the solver finishes in under a second, the paper's concluding claim that such networks are intractable for classical methods fails, and the only remaining claim is the narrower feasibility demonstration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a time-dependent multicommodity network flow formulation of a space logistics campaign can be mapped to a polynomial Hamiltonian of the form $H(x,z)=P_1(x,z)+\alpha P_2(x,z)$, where $P_1$ is the transportation cost, $P_2$ is a quadratic penalty built from flow-conservation and capacity constraints in the QUBO style, and $\alpha$ is a hand-tuned multiplier that lifts infeasible solutions to higher energies. Sampling this Hamiltonian on the Dirac-3 entropy quantum computer produced, in the best of 40 samples, a vehicle schedule whose repair (setting commodity flows to zero wherever no vehicle was scheduled) satisfies all supplies and demands with an objective value of 62.08 km/s. The authors emphasize that this solution is not optimal—one extra vehicle traverses the $N_3$–$N_4$ arc at time step 4—and they attribute the gap partly to the Hamiltonian's 30.78 dB dynamic range approaching the device's limit. The paper presents the result as a feasibility demonstration: entropy quantum computing can explore the solution space of a logistics network and return a workable plan, which the authors take as evidence that the approach could scale to problems that resist classical optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration rests on the assumption that the hand-picked penalty weight $\alpha$ makes low-energy samples of the Hamiltonian correspond to near-feasible logistics plans, so that raw outputs need only a small repair step to become valid schedules.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A feasible plan for the 7-node, 2-commodity, 6-time-step network is obtained from low-energy samples, implying that the Hamiltonian encoding captures the constraints well enough for the device to land in the feasible region.
The reported runtime of about 2.5 seconds per sample, with roughly 1.5 seconds on the device, indicates that the method can return candidate schedules quickly for instances of this size.
Because the returned solution is explicitly non-optimal, the paper's claim is about feasibility only; optimality would require additional algorithmic or hardware improvements.
The dynamic-range discussion implies that coefficient scaling directly affects solution quality, so the method's practical range is bounded by the hardware's ability to resolve small energy differences.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to benchmark this exact instance against a classical MILP solver; the 7-node, 6-time-step problem is likely trivial for branch-and-cut, so the concluding 'intractable for classical methods' phrasing goes beyond what this single experiment establishes.
The manual choice of $\alpha$ and the one-off repair step suggest reproducibility could be strengthened by an automatic penalty-selection rule and by reporting statistics over all samples, not just the best-energy one; the paper currently shows a distribution of energies but not a distribution of feasibility rates.
If dynamic range is the binding constraint, then a testable improvement would be to rescale or drop the two smallest cost coefficients (below 0.86 km/s) and re-run; the paper mentions this trade-off but does not explore it.
The time-expanded formulation with $\Delta t_{ij}=1$ for all arcs is a strong idealization; extending the approach to variable flight times and stochastic demands would stress the Hamiltonian encoding and reveal whether the method generalizes beyond this stylized instance.

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

Read this one. It's a clean write-up of a standard time-expanded MCNF formulation with a QUBO penalty encoding, run on QCi's Dirac-3 for a 7-node, 2-commodity space logistics network. The authors are transparent that the best of 40 samples was infeasible and had to be repaired by zeroing unsupported cargo flows, and they admit the resulting schedule is suboptimal. That honesty is real credit.

What's new: the specific demonstration of EQC hardware on a space logistics MCNF instance. The math itself—time-expanded MCNF and penalty-based QUBO—is textbook, following the cited tutorial. No new algorithm, no new bound, no reproducibility artifacts. The literature review is adequate, and the citation to their own prior entropy-computing work is appropriate.

Where it falls apart: the conclusion says the results 'validate the feasibility of quantum-assisted frameworks in optimizing logistical networks that are intractable for classical methods.' The instance has 7 nodes and 2 commodities. There is no classical solver comparison, no runtime comparison, and no check that the repaired solution actually satisfies constraints (2)–(4). The raw device samples were infeasible; the post-processed solution is hand-patched. The penalty weight alpha is manually chosen with no sensitivity analysis. The dynamic range discussion is plausible but doesn't rescue the claim. In short, the evidence is a single anecdote, not a demonstration.

The paper is honest about its own limitations in Section IV.B, which makes the conclusion's overreach puzzling. The 'intractable for classical methods' phrase is not backed by any experiment. The central feasibility claim—that low-energy EQC samples correspond to feasible flows—is asserted, not shown.

Bottom line: This is for readers who want a first look at applying a specific quantum device to space logistics. It should not be cited as evidence of quantum advantage, or even of quantum feasibility beyond this toy instance. As a referee, I'd ask for a classical baseline and a feasibility check on the repaired solution before publishing. The core question—does EQC produce feasible MCNF solutions?—remains unanswered.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum-assisted framework for space logistics mission planning, formulating the problem as a time-dependent multicommodity network flow (MCNF) on a small seven-node interplanetary network. The authors construct a polynomial Hamiltonian from the MCNF objective and constraints, submit the resulting model to QCi's Dirac-3 entropy quantum computing hardware, and report a single best-of-40-sample solution that is post-processed to remove unscheduled commodity flows. The paper claims this experiment validates the feasibility of quantum-assisted frameworks for logistical networks that are intractable for classical methods.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a useful early demonstration of a quantum hardware platform applied to space logistics optimization. The authors deserve credit for a concrete end-to-end effort: they define a time-expanded MCNF instance, translate it into a polynomial Hamiltonian, execute it on real hardware, and report sample times and energy distributions. However, the evidence as presented is anecdotal: the reported solution is admitted to be non-optimal, the raw hardware output required manual repair, no classical solver comparison is provided, and the instance is tiny. The manuscript therefore does not currently support its stated conclusions about feasibility or classical intractability.

major comments (5)

[Section IV.B (post-processing)] The central feasibility claim is not supported because the reported solution is the result of manual repair rather than the direct output of the quantum optimization. The text states that the raw best-energy sample contained spurious commodity flows with no scheduled vehicle, and that the authors therefore "set all commodity flows to 0 when no vehicle was scheduled." The same paragraph admits that the resulting schedule is not optimal, specifically that there is "one more vehicle than is required at time step 4 from N3 to N4." Since Tables 4-6 report only the repaired solution, the paper provides no evidence that low-energy samples of H(x,z) correspond to feasible flows. The authors should report the penalty value P2(x,z) for the repaired solution, verify constraints (2)-(4) explicitly, and state exactly how the post-processing changes the objective and feasibility status.
[Section IV.B and Section V (comparison to classical methods)] No classical baseline is given. The instance has 7 nodes, 2 commodities, 8 arcs, and 6 time steps, yet the conclusion states that the results validate quantum-assisted frameworks for "logistical networks that are intractable for classical methods." This claim is unsupported because the paper reports no classical run time, no exact solver comparison, and no scaling study. At minimum, the authors should solve the same instance with an exact MCNF or MILP solver, report the optimal objective and runtime, and either remove the intractability claim or substantiate it with problem-size scaling experiments.
[Eq. (7) and Section III.B (penalty construction)] The Hamiltonian separation needed for the method is asserted rather than demonstrated. The penalty multiplier alpha is chosen manually, and because the raw device samples were infeasible before post-processing, the paper gives no evidence that the chosen alpha produces an energy gap separating feasible from infeasible states. The authors should provide either a proof that all infeasible states have energy greater than all feasible states for the chosen alpha, or an empirical sweep of alpha showing feasibility rates and constraint violations as functions of alpha.
[Section III.B (encoding of the MCNF model)] The mapping from the MCNF model to the hardware form is underspecified. The hardware variables xi are described as nonnegative real variables subject to a sum constraint, while the model contains integer decision variables x^{k,t}_{ij} and z^t_{ij}. The paper does not state how equality constraints (2) and inequality constraints (3) are converted into the polynomial P2, nor how integer variables are encoded using photon time bins. Without this information, the experiment is not reproducible and the reported 116 variables, 331 levels, and dynamic range cannot be independently checked.
[Tables 4-6 (feasibility verification)] The reported tables do not by themselves demonstrate a feasible flow. Table 6 is described with demand remaining in inventory at destination nodes, which conflicts with the standard flow-conservation form in Eq. (2) unless supplies and demands are treated asymmetrically; the relationship between the cargo movements in Table 5 and the commodity flows in Table 6 is not made explicit. A constraint-by-constraint verification of Eqs. (2)-(4) should be included for the final repaired solution, with any inventory conventions clearly defined.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "issuies" in the Introduction, "vechicle" and "coeffients" in Section IV.B, and "auxilary" in the same section; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Table 2] The parameter table refers to costs as "Listed in the arcs table," but no separate arcs table appears; the Delta-V values are only labeled in Fig. 1, which makes the exact c_ij values and the resulting objective value 62.08 Km/s difficult to verify.
[Section IV.B (variable counts)] The paper reports 116 variables, 89 decision variables, 29 slack variables, and 331 levels, but does not explain how these counts are derived from the model or how the slack variables enter P2; a variable table or formula would improve reproducibility.
[Section V (conclusion)] The conclusion states that the approach "simultaneously evaluates multiple solutions," but the experiment reports only 40 samples; this should be phrased as a hardware capability rather than a demonstrated advantage of the reported results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hamiltonian construction is a standard objective-plus-penalty encoding, and the reported result is a direct hardware sample with acknowledged post-processing, not a prediction derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain in this paper is an application: the authors formulate a time-dependent multicommodity network flow problem, encode its objective and constraints into a polynomial Hamiltonian H(x,z)=P1(x,z)+αP2(x,z) in Eq. (7), run the QCi Dirac-3 device, and report the best of 40 samples after a clearly described post-processing step. There is no equation-level circularity: P1 and P2 are constructed directly from the problem's objective and constraints, so minimizing H is a standard reduction from an optimization problem to a Hamiltonian ground-state problem, not a case where the output is identical to the input by definition. The manual selection of α and the post-processing rule that sets commodity flows to zero when no vehicle is scheduled are acknowledged in Section IV.B; these weaken the empirical demonstration, but they are not circular because the paper does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. The paper's citation of the authors' prior entropy-computing preprint [10] describes the EQC paradigm and flexible variable encoding, but the central claim of this paper is supported by the reported hardware run itself rather than by an unverified uniqueness theorem or by an ansatz imported from prior work. The strong conclusion that the network is 'intractable for classical methods' is unsupported by the 7-node, 2-commodity instance and by the absence of a classical baseline, but unsupported strength is a correctness risk, not circularity. Under the review rules, a weak or overclaimed experiment with no hidden definitional equivalence receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard MCNF model, the QUBO penalty construction, the capabilities of the Dirac-3 device as described in the authors' prior preprint, and a post-processing repair rule. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Penalty multiplier α = not reported
In Eq. (7), H=P1+αP2; α is chosen manually to elevate penalties above objective coefficients, but its value is not given and no separation proof is offered.
Number of samples = 40
Best-of-40 selection is a sampler tuning choice; no statistical guarantee or repetition across seeds is reported.
Quantum Fluctuation Coefficient = 1/sqrt(7)
Device configuration parameter listed in Table 3, selected without justification for this instance.
Relaxation Schedule = 2
Device configuration parameter listed in Table 3, selected without justification.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The time-expanded MCNF in Eqs. (1)-(4) is an appropriate model for space logistics mission planning.
Section III.A assumes flows of cargo types on a fixed graph with unit time delays capture interplanetary logistics.
domain assumption The EQC hardware Dirac-3 minimizes the polynomial objective in Eq. (5) through entropy-driven evolution, making low-energy samples meaningful.
Section III.B and IV.B rely on the device's behavior as described in the authors' prior preprint [10].
ad hoc to paper A single scalar α can be chosen so that all infeasible states have higher energy than feasible states in Eq. (7).
Section IV.B states α is chosen to elevate penalties, but no bound is derived; the paper admits the result is not optimal.
domain assumption Integer variables can be encoded as photon number levels subject to sum constraint R, preserving the optimization.
Section III.B claims multi-bin encoding enables integer variables, citing [10]; no encoding details or correctness proof is given in this paper.
ad hoc to paper The post-processing rule 'set commodity flows to 0 when no vehicle is scheduled' preserves feasibility and cost.
Section IV.B applies this repair to raw samples; it changes the solution after seeing the device output.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-Assisted Space Logistics Mission Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/422YM7IW

@misc{pith2026250105046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-Assisted Space Logistics Mission Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/422YM7IW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05046}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum computing provides a novel approach to addressing conventionally intractable issues in large-scale optimization. Space logistics missions require the efficient routing of payloads, spacecraft, and resources across complex networks, often resulting in an exponential growth of the solution space that classical methods cannot efficiently solve. This paper leverages entropy quantum computing to model and solve the space logistics problem as a time-dependent multicommodity network flow, enabling the exploration of large solution spaces. The findings highlight quantum computing's potential to address complex aerospace logistics, demonstrating its suitability for complex interplanetary mission planning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Schumacher, B., Quantum coding, Physical Review A, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1995, pp. 2738--2747. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738, ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738

doi:10.1103/physreva.51.2738 1995
[2]

, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C, 2021

United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration , NASA 's plan for sustained lunar exploration and development. , National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Chen, H., and Ho, K., Integrated Space Logistics Mission Planning and Spacecraft Design with Mixed - Integer Nonlinear Programming , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2018, pp. 365--381. doi:10.2514/1.A33905, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A33905

work page doi:10.2514/1.a33905 2018
[4]

Takubo, Y., Chen, H., and Ho, K., Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning Framework for Stochastic Spaceflight Campaign Design , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2022, pp. 421--433. doi:10.2514/1.A35122, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35122, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a35122 2022
[5]

doi:10.2514/1.A35284, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35284, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Isaji, M., Takubo, Y., and Ho, K., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Approach to Integrated Space Mission Planning and Spacecraft Design , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2022. doi:10.2514/1.A35284, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35284, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a35284 2022
[6]

Chen, H., Sarton du Jonchay, T., Hou, L., and Ho, K., Multifidelity Space Mission Planning and Infrastructure Design Framework for Space Resource Logistics , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2021, pp. 538--551. doi:10.2514/1.A34666, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34666, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a34666 2021
[7]

N., Spaceflight Logistics Approach to Modeling Aggregated Vehicle Concepts , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2023

Downs, C., Prasad, A., Robertson, B., and Mavris, D. N., Spaceflight Logistics Approach to Modeling Aggregated Vehicle Concepts , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2023. doi:10.2514/1.A35724, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35724, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a35724 2023
[8]

H., and Tennyson, J., The Variational Quantum Eigensolver : a review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports, Vol

Tilly, J., Chen, H., Cao, S., Picozzi, D., Setia, K., Li, Y., Grant, E., Wossnig, L., Rungger, I., Booth, G. H., and Tennyson, J., The Variational Quantum Eigensolver : a review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports, Vol. 986, 2022, pp. 1--128. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.08.003, ://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05176, arXiv:2111.05176 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2022

Show all 13 references

[9]

W., and Ho, K., Space Transportation System and Mission Planning for Regular Interplanetary Missions , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol

Chen, H., Lee, H. W., and Ho, K., Space Transportation System and Mission Planning for Regular Interplanetary Missions , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2019, pp. 12--20. doi:10.2514/1.A34168, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34168

2019 doi
[10]

Nguyen, L., Miri, M.-A., Rupert, R. J., Dyk, W., Wu, S., Vrahoretis, N., Huang, I., Begliarbekov, M., Chancellor, N., Chukwu, U., Mahamuni, P., Martinez-Delgado, C., Haycraft, D., Spear, C., Campanelli, M., Huffman, R., Sua, Y. M., and Huang, Y., Entropy Computing : A Paradigm...

2024 doi
[11]

Glover, F., Kochenberger, G., and Du, Y., A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models , , Nov. 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1811.11538, ://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11538, arXiv:1811.11538 [cs]

2019 doi arXiv
[12]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence afte...
[13]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Schumacher, B., Quantum coding, Physical Review A, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1995, pp. 2738--2747. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738, ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738

doi:10.1103/physreva.51.2738 1995

[2] [2]

, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C, 2021

United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration , NASA 's plan for sustained lunar exploration and development. , National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Chen, H., and Ho, K., Integrated Space Logistics Mission Planning and Spacecraft Design with Mixed - Integer Nonlinear Programming , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2018, pp. 365--381. doi:10.2514/1.A33905, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A33905

work page doi:10.2514/1.a33905 2018

[4] [4]

Takubo, Y., Chen, H., and Ho, K., Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning Framework for Stochastic Spaceflight Campaign Design , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2022, pp. 421--433. doi:10.2514/1.A35122, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35122, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a35122 2022

[5] [5]

doi:10.2514/1.A35284, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35284, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Isaji, M., Takubo, Y., and Ho, K., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Approach to Integrated Space Mission Planning and Spacecraft Design , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2022. doi:10.2514/1.A35284, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35284, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a35284 2022

[6] [6]

Chen, H., Sarton du Jonchay, T., Hou, L., and Ho, K., Multifidelity Space Mission Planning and Infrastructure Design Framework for Space Resource Logistics , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2021, pp. 538--551. doi:10.2514/1.A34666, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34666, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a34666 2021

[7] [7]

N., Spaceflight Logistics Approach to Modeling Aggregated Vehicle Concepts , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2023

Downs, C., Prasad, A., Robertson, B., and Mavris, D. N., Spaceflight Logistics Approach to Modeling Aggregated Vehicle Concepts , Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2023. doi:10.2514/1.A35724, ://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35724, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

work page doi:10.2514/1.a35724 2023

[8] [8]

H., and Tennyson, J., The Variational Quantum Eigensolver : a review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports, Vol

Tilly, J., Chen, H., Cao, S., Picozzi, D., Setia, K., Li, Y., Grant, E., Wossnig, L., Rungger, I., Booth, G. H., and Tennyson, J., The Variational Quantum Eigensolver : a review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports, Vol. 986, 2022, pp. 1--128. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.08.003, ://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05176, arXiv:2111.05176 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2022