Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment for Efficient On-Orbit Servicing of Mega-Constellations

Feng Guanhua; Li Wenhao; Li Zhengrui; Wu Xiaokun; Yue Yuxian

arxiv: 2507.08251 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-11 · ⚛️ physics.class-ph

Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment for Efficient On-Orbit Servicing of Mega-Constellations

Li Zhengrui , Feng Guanhua , Wu Xiaokun , Li Wenhao , Yue Yuxian This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 05:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.class-ph

keywords on-orbit servicingmega-constellationsnon-propulsive deploymentpayload ejectionrendezvous schedulingpropellant reductionJ2 perturbationLEO operations

0 comments

The pith

A service craft ejects tiny autonomous payloads into transfer orbits so they can rendezvous with targets on their own, slashing fuel use to under 1/50 of conventional methods.

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

The paper challenges the idea that on-orbit servicing of mega-constellations is impractical because of excessive fuel demands from repeated rendezvous maneuvers. It proposes Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment, in which one service spacecraft releases many lightweight micro-payloads that then handle their own final approaches. Propulsion is needed only for the small ejected masses rather than the full service vehicle, and a phase-based algorithm manages the resulting orbital disturbances from recoil. Simulations and a Starlink Gen2 case study show the approach cuts propellant dramatically while keeping scheduling accurate and fast.

Core claim

The NPD architecture lets a service spacecraft eject micro-payload spacecraft into transfer orbits where the payloads perform autonomous rendezvous with target satellites; a phase-based approximation algorithm compensates for cumulative recoil perturbations, yielding over 90 percent faster computation, velocity errors below 1 percent, an analytical deployment-capacity formula accurate to within 2 percent in LEO, and overall propellant consumption below 1/50 that of conventional multi-rendezvous servicing, including efficient multi-plane coverage via J2 effects.

What carries the argument

The Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment (NPD) system in which a single service spacecraft ejects micro-payloads for autonomous target rendezvous, coordinated by a phase-based approximation algorithm that resolves recoil-induced scheduling conflicts.

If this is right

Multi-plane servicing of large constellations becomes practical through natural J2 perturbation drift after ejection.
An analytical formula gives deployment capacity estimates with less than 2 percent error for LEO planning.
Computation time for scheduling drops by more than 90 percent while holding ejection accuracy within 1 percent.
One service spacecraft can support far more targets per mission because only the micro-payloads perform the final maneuvers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Constellation operators could reduce the number of dedicated service vehicles needed for ongoing maintenance.
Future service-craft designs might prioritize larger payload magazines over high-thrust propulsion systems.
The approach could be tested first on smaller constellations to validate recoil modeling before scaling to Starlink-sized fleets.

Load-bearing premise

Micro-payload spacecraft can reliably execute accurate autonomous rendezvous and docking after ejection into transfer orbits even though the service craft's recoil creates ongoing orbital perturbations.

What would settle it

A high-fidelity simulation or on-orbit test in which recoil from successive ejections drives cumulative phase errors beyond the algorithm's 1 percent velocity tolerance, causing the schedule to miss required rendezvous windows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08251 by Feng Guanhua, Li Wenhao, Li Zhengrui, Wu Xiaokun, Yue Yuxian.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Mission scenario where: f(t2 − t1) = 1 − a r1 (1 − cos ∆E) g(t2 − t1) = (t2 − t1) − s a 3 µ (∆E − sin ∆E) ˙f(t2 − t1) = √µa sin ∆E r1r2 g˙(t2 − t1) = 1 − a r2 (1 − cos ∆E) where r1 = ∥r(t1)∥, r2 = ∥r(t2)∥, and ∆E is the difference in true anomaly of the spacecraft during the time interval t1 ≤ t ≤ t2. ∆E satisfies Kepler’s equation : p µ/a3 (t2 − t1) = ∆E − ex sin ∆E + ey sin ∆E where ex = 1 − r1/a, ey = r… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Approximation error (σ1) A comparison of the results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Correlation analysis between σ1 and [∆v] A quadratic function fit to the data points from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The effective range is represented by the region below the surface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: maxi ∆vi vs. key parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: maxi ∆vi vs. [∆v] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Correlation analysis between ∆vg and [∆v] It is worth noting that the linear term’s coefficient is approximately 0.5. Therefore, the velocity change resulting from orbital deviation can be approximated as ∆vg = [∆v]/2. Substituting this into Eq. (7) and (10) yields: max i ∆v se i = r µ rt0 2rs0 rt0 + rs0 − r µ rt0 + [∆v] 2 = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison of numerical solution and analytical formula results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Analytical formula error (σ2) 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The prevailing assumption holds that on-orbit servicing (OOS) of mega-constellations is infeasible due to prohibitive fuel consumption incurred by multiple rendezvous maneuvers across vast and dispersed satellite populations. To address this challenge, a novel OOS architecture termed Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment (NPD) is proposed in this paper. Within this framework, a service spacecraft (SSc) ejects micro-payload spacecraft (PSc) into transfer orbits, after which the PSc autonomously rendezvous with target spacecraft (TSc). Since propulsion is required only for the minimal mass of the PSc, maneuvering fuel consumption is significantly reduced. This paper develops a phase-based approximation algorithm to resolve the scheduling problems arising from cumulative recoil-induced orbital perturbations. Numerical simulations for a constellation of over 100 satellites demonstrate that this algorithm reduces computation time by over 90% while maintaining ejection velocity errors below 1%. Further analysis yields an analytical formula for evaluating the deployment capability of the NPD system, providing planning estimates with less than 2% error within low Earth orbit (LEO) regimes. Finally, a case study of the Starlink Gen2 constellation confirms that the NPD system consumes less than 1/50 of the propellant required by conventional methods, enabling efficient multi-plane servicing via J2 perturbation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The NPD idea cuts claimed propellant use to under 1/50 by ejecting micro-payloads, but the phase-based recoil scheduler lacks scaling checks for thousands of targets.

read the letter

The main point to take from this paper is that by ejecting micro-payloads instead of maneuvering the whole service craft, they claim to slash the fuel needed for servicing mega-constellations down to less than one-fiftieth of conventional approaches, using J2 perturbations to help with multi-plane access. What the work actually adds is the Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment setup combined with their phase-based algorithm for handling the recoil from each ejection. The simulations on a constellation of over 100 satellites show the algorithm speeds things up by more than 90% while keeping ejection velocity errors below 1%. They also derive an analytical formula for the deployment capability that stays within 2% error in LEO, which could be handy for quick planning estimates. Those numerical results and the formula are the parts that hold up best. They provide specific error bounds and a case study on Starlink Gen2 that supports the big savings number. The weaker area is how well this holds when you scale to thousands of satellites. The phase approximation might not keep cumulative perturbations small enough across that many ejections, and there's no detailed higher-order analysis or scaling test shown beyond the 100-satellite runs. If the micro-payloads end up needing more propulsion than assumed to correct for those errors, the 1/50 figure won't stick. The abstract and results focus on the positive outcomes without much on potential failure modes at Starlink sizes. This kind of paper would interest people in satellite operations and orbital mechanics who deal with constellation maintenance. A reader looking for new ways to model servicing missions or reduce fuel budgets could get some ideas from the algorithm and formula. It has enough concrete work to deserve going to a serious referee rather than a quick desk reject. I'd recommend putting it through peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment (NPD) architecture in which a service spacecraft ejects micro-payloads into transfer orbits; the payloads then perform autonomous rendezvous and docking with target satellites. Propulsion is thereby limited to the small payload mass. A phase-based approximation algorithm is introduced to schedule ejections while accounting for cumulative recoil perturbations and J2 effects. Numerical simulations on constellations of more than 100 satellites report >90% reduction in computation time and <1% ejection-velocity error. An analytical formula for deployment capability is derived with stated error bounds (<2% in LEO). A Starlink Gen2 case study concludes that the NPD approach consumes less than 1/50 of the propellant required by conventional multi-rendezvous methods, enabling multi-plane servicing via natural perturbations.

Significance. If the phase-based scheduling and error bounds hold at full mega-constellation scale, the work would substantially lower the propellant barrier to on-orbit servicing, making servicing of thousands of satellites in multiple planes feasible. The combination of an efficient scheduling algorithm, an analytical deployment formula with explicit error bounds, and direct comparison against conventional propellant budgets constitutes a concrete, falsifiable contribution to orbital-mechanics-based mission design.

major comments (2)

[Starlink Gen2 case study and numerical simulations sections] The central <1/50 propellant-savings claim for the Starlink Gen2 case study rests on the phase-based approximation algorithm correctly bounding cumulative recoil-induced perturbations for thousands of targets. The reported numerical results and error statistics (<1% velocity error, >90% compute-time reduction) are stated only for constellations of over 100 satellites; no scaling study, higher-order perturbation analysis, or explicit accumulation of recoil errors at N~thousands is presented. This gap directly affects whether the scheduling remains valid and therefore whether the 1/50 figure is supported.
[Analytical formula and results sections] The abstract and results sections state that the analytical deployment formula provides planning estimates with <2% error, yet no derivation, error-propagation analysis, or comparison against full-fidelity numerical integration is supplied. Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the stated bound is conservative or merely an observed fit for the simulated regimes.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract claims the algorithm is 'derived from orbital mechanics and J2 perturbation effects' but provides no explicit equations or assumptions; adding a short derivation outline or reference to the governing equations would improve traceability.
[Methods and algorithm description] Notation for ejection velocity magnitude, direction, and phase discretization step size should be defined consistently in the text and any accompanying tables or figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments identify important areas where additional clarification and analysis would strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Starlink Gen2 case study and numerical simulations sections] The central <1/50 propellant-savings claim for the Starlink Gen2 case study rests on the phase-based approximation algorithm correctly bounding cumulative recoil-induced perturbations for thousands of targets. The reported numerical results and error statistics (<1% velocity error, >90% compute-time reduction) are stated only for constellations of over 100 satellites; no scaling study, higher-order perturbation analysis, or explicit accumulation of recoil errors at N~thousands is presented. This gap directly affects whether the scheduling remains valid and therefore whether the 1/50 figure is supported.

Authors: We agree that explicit demonstration of scalability to thousands of targets would better support the Starlink Gen2 case study. The phase-based approximation algorithm models recoil perturbations as additive phase shifts that are updated iteratively; because the underlying perturbation model is linear in the number of ejections, the computational cost and error bounds are expected to scale without requiring a full re-optimization at each step. The <1/50 propellant figure is obtained by applying the validated analytical deployment formula to Starlink Gen2 orbital parameters rather than by direct simulation of every target. To address the referee's concern directly, we will add a scaling study in the revised manuscript that examines algorithm performance and cumulative error growth for N up to several thousand targets, together with a short assessment of higher-order J2 and third-body effects. revision: yes
Referee: [Analytical formula and results sections] The abstract and results sections state that the analytical deployment formula provides planning estimates with <2% error, yet no derivation, error-propagation analysis, or comparison against full-fidelity numerical integration is supplied. Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the stated bound is conservative or merely an observed fit for the simulated regimes.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript presents the analytical formula and its <2% error bound without a full derivation or formal error-propagation analysis. The bound was obtained from direct comparison against the numerical scheduler in the LEO test cases reported. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that (i) derives the closed-form expression from the phase-adjustment equations, (ii) performs an explicit error-propagation analysis under the stated assumptions, and (iii) provides side-by-side comparisons against full-fidelity numerical integration for representative LEO regimes to substantiate the conservatism of the <2% figure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation remains self-contained in orbital mechanics

full rationale

The paper states that it develops a phase-based approximation algorithm from orbital mechanics and J2 perturbation effects to handle recoil-induced scheduling, then derives an analytical deployment formula whose error is reported as <2% in LEO. Numerical validation and the Starlink case study are presented as applications of these derivations rather than inputs to them. No equations are shown to reduce to fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-citation chain is invoked for uniqueness, and the <1/50 propellant claim is an output of the scheduling analysis rather than a definitional premise. The derivation chain is therefore independent of the target performance numbers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard orbital mechanics plus new modeling choices for recoil and scheduling; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

ejection velocity magnitude and direction
Chosen per target to place PSc on transfer orbits; values are outputs of the scheduling algorithm rather than externally measured.
phase discretization step size
Approximation parameter in the scheduling algorithm that trades accuracy for speed.

axioms (2)

domain assumption J2 perturbation dominates long-term orbital evolution in LEO for the timescales considered
Invoked in the Starlink case study to enable multi-plane servicing without additional plane-change burns.
domain assumption Autonomous rendezvous and docking by micro-payloads is feasible with current guidance technology
Required for the fuel savings claim but not demonstrated in the abstract.

invented entities (1)

Non-Propulsive Payload Deployment (NPD) architecture no independent evidence
purpose: Reduce total propellant mass by limiting propulsion to ejected micro-payloads
New system concept introduced in the paper; no independent prior evidence cited.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5772 in / 1450 out tokens · 48190 ms · 2026-05-19T05:26:06.862292+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

phase-based approximation algorithm ... tf i − t0i = 2π √((r0i+rf i)³/8μ) ... θf i(tf i) − θ0i(t0i) = π (Eq. 5); cumulative recoil velocity [Δv] = Σ Ki Δvi (Eq. 7)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Hohmann transfer ... service spacecraft’s near-circular orbit ... deviation ... δθ0i (Section 2.3)

What do these tags mean?

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Li, D.-Y

W.-J. Li, D.-Y. Cheng, X.-G. Liu, Y.-B. Wang, W.-H. Shi, Z.-X. Tang, F. Gao, F.-M. Zeng, H.-Y. Chai, W.-B. Luo, Q. Cong, Z.-L. Gao, On-orbit service (OOS) of spacecraft: A review of engineering developments, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 108 (2019) 32–120. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.01.004. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0376042118301210

work page doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.01.004 2019
[2]

Northrop Grumman achieves 1st undocking between 2 commercial spacecraft in GEO - SatNews (Jun. 2025). URL https://news.satnews.com/2025/04/10/northrop-grumman-achieves-1st-undocking-between-2-commercial-spacecraft-in-geo/

work page 2025
[3]

China’s Shijian-21 towed dead satellite to a high graveyard orbit - SpaceNews (Jun. 2025). URL https://spacenews.com/chinas-shijian-21-spacecraft-docked-with-and-towed-a-dead-satellite/

work page 2025
[4]

Jones, China launches Shijian-25 satellite to test on-orbit refueling and mission extension technologies (Jan

A. Jones, China launches Shijian-25 satellite to test on-orbit refueling and mission extension technologies (Jan. 2025). URL http://spacenews.com/china-launches-shijian-25-satellite-to-test-on-orbit-refueling-and-mission-extension-technologies/

work page 2025
[5]

H. Shen, P. Tsiotras, Optimal Two-Impulse Rendezvous Using Multiple- Revolution Lambert Solutions, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dy- namics 26 (1) (2003) 50–61. doi:10.2514/2.5014. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/2.5014 15

work page doi:10.2514/2.5014 2003
[6]

H. Shen, P. Tsiotras, Optimal Scheduling for Servicing Multiple Satel- lites in a Circular Constellation, in: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Spe- cialist Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Monterey, California, 2002. doi:10.2514/6.2002-4907. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2002-4907

work page doi:10.2514/6.2002-4907 2002
[7]

K. T. Alfriend, D.-J. Lee, N. G. Creamer, Optimal Servicing of Geosyn- chronous Satellites, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 29 (1) (2006) 203–206. doi:10.2514/1.15602. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.15602

work page doi:10.2514/1.15602 2006
[8]

Y. Zhou, Y. Yan, X. Huang, L. Kong, Mission planning optimization for multiple geosynchronous satellites refueling, Advances in Space Research 56 (11) (2015) 2612–2625. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.09.033. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117715006948

work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.09.033 2015
[9]

H. Xu, B. Song, Y. Guo, L. Liu, X. Li, G. Ma, An optimization frame- work with improved auction-based initialization for highly constrained on-orbit servicing mission planning, Applied Soft Computing 149 (2023) 110983. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110983. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1568494623010013

work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110983 2023
[10]

Baranov, D

A. Baranov, D. Grishko, . Khukhrina, D. Chen, Optimal transfer schemes between space debris objects in geostationary orbit, Acta Astronautica 169 (2020) 23–31. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.001. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576520300011

work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.001 2020
[11]

L. Kong, Y. Zhou, Multiobjective Mission Planning for Multiple Geosyn- chronous Spacecraft Refueling, International Journal of Aerospace En- gineering 2023 (2023) 1–14. doi:10.1155/2023/6623461. URL https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijae/2023/6623461/

work page doi:10.1155/2023/6623461 2023
[12]

Z. Wei, T. Long, R. Shi, Y. Wu, N. Ye, Scheduling optimization of multiple hybrid-propulsive spacecraft for geostationary space debris re- moval missions, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Sys- tems 58 (3) (2022) 2304–2326. doi:10.1109/TAES.2021.3131294

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2021.3131294 2022
[13]

Y. Zhou, Y. Yan, X. Huang, L. Kong, Optimal scheduling of multiple geosynchronous satellites refueling based on a hybrid particle swarm optimizer, Aerospace Science and Technology 47 (2015) 125–134. 16 doi:10.1016/j.ast.2015.09.024. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1270963815002825

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2015.09.024 2015
[14]

Zhang, Y.-K

T.-J. Zhang, Y.-K. Yang, B.-H. Wang, Z. Li, H.-X. Shen, H.- N. Li, Optimal scheduling for location geosynchronous satel- lites refueling problem, Acta Astronautica 163 (2019) 264–271. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.01.024. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576518312530

work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.01.024 2019
[15]

Daneshjou, A

K. Daneshjou, A. Mohammadi-Dehabadi, M. Bakhtiari, Mission planning for on-orbit servicing through multiple servicing satellites: A new approach, Advances in Space Research 60 (6) (2017) 1148–1162. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.05.037. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117717303824

work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.05.037 2017
[16]

Zhang, G

J. Zhang, G. T. Parks, Y.-z. Luo, G.-j. Tang, Multispacecraft Refueling Optimization Considering the J2 Perturbation and Window Constraints, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 37 (1) (2014) 111–122. doi:10.2514/1.61812. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.61812

work page doi:10.2514/1.61812 2014
[17]

B. Du, Y. Zhao, A. Dutta, J. Yu, X. Chen, Optimal scheduling of multispacecraft refueling based on cooperative maneuver, Advances in Space Research 55 (12) (2015) 2808–2819. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.02.025. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117715001362

work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.02.025 2015
[18]

X. Zhu, C. Zhang, R. Sun, J. Chen, X. Wan, Orbit determination for fuel station in multiple SSO spacecraft refueling considering the J2 perturbation, Aerospace Science and Technology 105 (2020) 105994. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2020.105994. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1270963820306763

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2020.105994 2020
[19]

H. Shen, P. Tsiotras, Peer-to-Peer Refueling for Circular Satellite Con- stellations, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 28 (6) (2005) 1220–1230. doi:10.2514/1.9570. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.9570

work page doi:10.2514/1.9570 2005
[20]

Tsiotras, A

P. Tsiotras, A. De Nailly, Comparison Between Peer-to-Peer and Single- Spacecraft Refueling Strategies for Spacecraft in Circular Orbits, in: 17 Infotech@Aerospace, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau- tics, Arlington, Virginia, 2005. doi:10.2514/6.2005-7115. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2005-7115

work page doi:10.2514/6.2005-7115 2005
[21]

Dutta, P

A. Dutta, P. Tsiotras, Asynchronous optimal mixed P2P satellite refuel- ing strategies, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 54 (3-4) (2006) 543–565. doi:10.1007/BF03256505. URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03256505

work page doi:10.1007/bf03256505 2006
[22]

G. Feng, W. Li, H. Zhang, Geomagnetic Energy Approach to Space De- bris Deorbiting in a Low Earth Orbit, International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2019 (2019) 1–18. doi:10.1155/2019/5876861. URL https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijae/2019/5876861/ 18

work page doi:10.1155/2019/5876861 2019

[1] [1]

Li, D.-Y

W.-J. Li, D.-Y. Cheng, X.-G. Liu, Y.-B. Wang, W.-H. Shi, Z.-X. Tang, F. Gao, F.-M. Zeng, H.-Y. Chai, W.-B. Luo, Q. Cong, Z.-L. Gao, On-orbit service (OOS) of spacecraft: A review of engineering developments, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 108 (2019) 32–120. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.01.004. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0376042118301210

work page doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.01.004 2019

[2] [2]

Northrop Grumman achieves 1st undocking between 2 commercial spacecraft in GEO - SatNews (Jun. 2025). URL https://news.satnews.com/2025/04/10/northrop-grumman-achieves-1st-undocking-between-2-commercial-spacecraft-in-geo/

work page 2025

[3] [3]

China’s Shijian-21 towed dead satellite to a high graveyard orbit - SpaceNews (Jun. 2025). URL https://spacenews.com/chinas-shijian-21-spacecraft-docked-with-and-towed-a-dead-satellite/

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Jones, China launches Shijian-25 satellite to test on-orbit refueling and mission extension technologies (Jan

A. Jones, China launches Shijian-25 satellite to test on-orbit refueling and mission extension technologies (Jan. 2025). URL http://spacenews.com/china-launches-shijian-25-satellite-to-test-on-orbit-refueling-and-mission-extension-technologies/

work page 2025

[5] [5]

H. Shen, P. Tsiotras, Optimal Two-Impulse Rendezvous Using Multiple- Revolution Lambert Solutions, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dy- namics 26 (1) (2003) 50–61. doi:10.2514/2.5014. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/2.5014 15

work page doi:10.2514/2.5014 2003

[6] [6]

H. Shen, P. Tsiotras, Optimal Scheduling for Servicing Multiple Satel- lites in a Circular Constellation, in: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Spe- cialist Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Monterey, California, 2002. doi:10.2514/6.2002-4907. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2002-4907

work page doi:10.2514/6.2002-4907 2002

[7] [7]

K. T. Alfriend, D.-J. Lee, N. G. Creamer, Optimal Servicing of Geosyn- chronous Satellites, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 29 (1) (2006) 203–206. doi:10.2514/1.15602. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.15602

work page doi:10.2514/1.15602 2006

[8] [8]

Y. Zhou, Y. Yan, X. Huang, L. Kong, Mission planning optimization for multiple geosynchronous satellites refueling, Advances in Space Research 56 (11) (2015) 2612–2625. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.09.033. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117715006948

work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.09.033 2015

[9] [9]

H. Xu, B. Song, Y. Guo, L. Liu, X. Li, G. Ma, An optimization frame- work with improved auction-based initialization for highly constrained on-orbit servicing mission planning, Applied Soft Computing 149 (2023) 110983. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110983. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1568494623010013

work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110983 2023

[10] [10]

Baranov, D

A. Baranov, D. Grishko, . Khukhrina, D. Chen, Optimal transfer schemes between space debris objects in geostationary orbit, Acta Astronautica 169 (2020) 23–31. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.001. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576520300011

work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.001 2020

[11] [11]

L. Kong, Y. Zhou, Multiobjective Mission Planning for Multiple Geosyn- chronous Spacecraft Refueling, International Journal of Aerospace En- gineering 2023 (2023) 1–14. doi:10.1155/2023/6623461. URL https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijae/2023/6623461/

work page doi:10.1155/2023/6623461 2023

[12] [12]

Z. Wei, T. Long, R. Shi, Y. Wu, N. Ye, Scheduling optimization of multiple hybrid-propulsive spacecraft for geostationary space debris re- moval missions, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Sys- tems 58 (3) (2022) 2304–2326. doi:10.1109/TAES.2021.3131294

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2021.3131294 2022

[13] [13]

Y. Zhou, Y. Yan, X. Huang, L. Kong, Optimal scheduling of multiple geosynchronous satellites refueling based on a hybrid particle swarm optimizer, Aerospace Science and Technology 47 (2015) 125–134. 16 doi:10.1016/j.ast.2015.09.024. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1270963815002825

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2015.09.024 2015

[14] [14]

Zhang, Y.-K

T.-J. Zhang, Y.-K. Yang, B.-H. Wang, Z. Li, H.-X. Shen, H.- N. Li, Optimal scheduling for location geosynchronous satel- lites refueling problem, Acta Astronautica 163 (2019) 264–271. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.01.024. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576518312530

work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.01.024 2019

[15] [15]

Daneshjou, A

K. Daneshjou, A. Mohammadi-Dehabadi, M. Bakhtiari, Mission planning for on-orbit servicing through multiple servicing satellites: A new approach, Advances in Space Research 60 (6) (2017) 1148–1162. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.05.037. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117717303824

work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.05.037 2017

[16] [16]

Zhang, G

J. Zhang, G. T. Parks, Y.-z. Luo, G.-j. Tang, Multispacecraft Refueling Optimization Considering the J2 Perturbation and Window Constraints, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 37 (1) (2014) 111–122. doi:10.2514/1.61812. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.61812

work page doi:10.2514/1.61812 2014

[17] [17]

B. Du, Y. Zhao, A. Dutta, J. Yu, X. Chen, Optimal scheduling of multispacecraft refueling based on cooperative maneuver, Advances in Space Research 55 (12) (2015) 2808–2819. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.02.025. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117715001362

work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.02.025 2015

[18] [18]

X. Zhu, C. Zhang, R. Sun, J. Chen, X. Wan, Orbit determination for fuel station in multiple SSO spacecraft refueling considering the J2 perturbation, Aerospace Science and Technology 105 (2020) 105994. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2020.105994. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1270963820306763

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2020.105994 2020

[19] [19]

H. Shen, P. Tsiotras, Peer-to-Peer Refueling for Circular Satellite Con- stellations, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 28 (6) (2005) 1220–1230. doi:10.2514/1.9570. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.9570

work page doi:10.2514/1.9570 2005

[20] [20]

Tsiotras, A

P. Tsiotras, A. De Nailly, Comparison Between Peer-to-Peer and Single- Spacecraft Refueling Strategies for Spacecraft in Circular Orbits, in: 17 Infotech@Aerospace, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau- tics, Arlington, Virginia, 2005. doi:10.2514/6.2005-7115. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2005-7115

work page doi:10.2514/6.2005-7115 2005

[21] [21]

Dutta, P

A. Dutta, P. Tsiotras, Asynchronous optimal mixed P2P satellite refuel- ing strategies, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 54 (3-4) (2006) 543–565. doi:10.1007/BF03256505. URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03256505

work page doi:10.1007/bf03256505 2006

[22] [22]

G. Feng, W. Li, H. Zhang, Geomagnetic Energy Approach to Space De- bris Deorbiting in a Low Earth Orbit, International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2019 (2019) 1–18. doi:10.1155/2019/5876861. URL https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijae/2019/5876861/ 18

work page doi:10.1155/2019/5876861 2019