Stellar occultations in support of the LUMIO orbit determination

Davide Banzi; Marco Zannoni; Riccardo Lasagni Manghi

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Stellar occultations in support of the LUMIO orbit determination

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that timing stars as they cross the Moon's limb can nearly halve LUMIO's cross-track position uncertainty when added to radiometric tracking.

desk verdict Well-executed feasibility study with a genuinely new direct-time occultation observable for LUMIO OD; the factor-of-two improvement is conditional on the spherical-limb assumption, which is asserted but not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04177 v1 pith:JXI7VGUH submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.EP physics.space-ph

Davide Banzi , Riccardo Lasagni Manghi , Marco Zannoni This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph

keywords stellaroccultationsorbitdeterminationLUMIOquasi-HaloEarth-MoonL2covarianceanalysisbatchleastsquareslunarimpactflashes

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 precise timings of stars disappearing and reappearing behind the Moon's limb can keep a small lunar orbiter well-navigated when normal ground tracking is scarce. The test case is LUMIO, a CubeSat in a quasi-halo orbit around the Earth–Moon L2 point that spends its science cycles observing the dark far side with its camera, a geometry that limits both radiometric tracking and conventional optical navigation. The authors simulate these occultation timings, add them to a batch least-squares filter together with range and Doppler data, and compare the formal position uncertainties. They find that the extra observables shrink the transverse and normal position errors by roughly a factor of two on average—most during tracking gaps and occultation-rich arcs—while radial error improves modestly. If the result holds under real lunar topography, it would improve station-keeping knowledge and sharpen the surface localization of impact flashes without new ground infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the occultation-time observable, defined by the event condition E(t)=||δ||−ξ=0: the spacecraft's distance from the center of the Moon's umbral cone equals the cone's radius at the limb. Each measured crossing time places the spacecraft on a cylinder whose axis points along the star's direction and whose surface is tangent to the lunar limb, so the timing constrains position perpendicular to the Earth-spacecraft line of sight—precisely the transverse and normal components that radiometric range and Doppler constrain weakly. The paper embeds this observable in a multi-arc batch least-squares filter with local solve-for states and stochastic accelerations, and global cons

What would settle it

Rerun the analysis with a high-resolution lunar digital elevation model generating the 'true' occultation times while keeping the spherical-limb measurement model in the estimation filter; if the transverse and normal uncertainty reductions fall well below the reported factor of two, the spherical-limb assumption is doing the work. The flight-data version of the same test is the actual LUMIO telemetry compared with a radiometric-only reconstructed trajectory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a stellar occultation timing measurement—the epoch at which a star crosses the lunar limb—can be added directly to a multi-arc batch least-squares orbit-determination filter and materially improve LUMIO's reconstructed trajectory during science operations. With synthetic observables generated and estimated using the same spherical-limb model, occultation times plus X-band range and Doppler reduce the average transverse position uncertainty from 37.78 m to 22.55 m and the normal from 60.00 m to 30.70 m, while radial uncertainty falls from 9.08 m to 6.55 m. The benefit is concentrated in the cross-track directions that range and Doppler observe poorly, and is

Load-bearing premise

A spherical lunar limb is used both to simulate the occultation times and to estimate them, and the paper asserts this simplified shape has sensitivity properties similar to a high-fidelity lunar topography model; if real limb topography produces timing errors not captured by the 100 m radius uncertainty, the reported factor-of-two improvement may shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adding occultation timings to the operational OD process would cut LUMIO's average transverse uncertainty from about 38 m to 23 m and normal from 60 m to 31 m over the mission's science cycles, with the best cycles seeing 43–47% reductions.
The technique works best exactly when it is needed: during intervals without radiometric tracking and in cycles with dense occultations, because each timing independently constrains the cross-track position.
Timing precision is the main design lever; a sub-second camera and stable clock would yield substantially larger gains, while a 10 s timing error leaves little advantage over radiometrics alone.
Moon-shape uncertainty below 100 m barely changes the result, so the method is usable with moderate topographic knowledge and even degrades gracefully at 1 km uncertainty, hinting at small-body applicability.
Improved position knowledge supports station-keeping operations and should tighten the surface localization of lunar impact flashes, the mission's core science product.

Reading between the lines

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

Because each occultation constrains the spacecraft to a cylinder aligned with one star direction, I infer that observing occultations of stars with widely different directions in the same arc should also tighten the radial component, not just the cross-track ones; this is a direct testable extension of the reported covariance analysis.
The paper's spherical-limb equivalence is asserted rather than demonstrated; I infer that an end-to-end test with a high-resolution lunar topography model in the truth simulation and the spherical model in the filter is needed before flight use, since real limb errors are spatially correlated and could reduce the factor-of-two gain.
The strong dependence on timing precision suggests that commercial star trackers with 1–10 Hz sampling could provide a low-cost autonomous navigation mode for other lunar or deep-space missions, an extrapolation the paper does not make.
Tighter spacecraft position uncertainty should translate into a proportionally tighter geolocation of lunar impact flashes; quantifying that localization error is the obvious next step, which the paper itself lists as future work.

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

The useful thing to know up front: this paper does a clean batch least-squares covariance analysis showing that adding stellar occultation timings to radiometric tracking cuts LUMIO's transverse and normal position uncertainty roughly in half during science cycles. The new piece is the direct-time measurement model for ingress/egress, which is a real step past the proxy geometries used by Psiaki and Hinks (minimum lunar altitude) and Landgraf (zeros of an analytic function). The LUMIO L2 quasi-halo scenario is also new. The paper is well-structured, the sensitivity runs over timing noise and shape uncertainty are sensible, and the numbers are internally consistent.

The soft spot is the spherical-limb assumption, and it is load-bearing. The same spherical model generates the synthetic occultation times and serves as the filter measurement model, so the factor-of-two gain is a perfect-model result. The paper asserts that this model's sensitivity properties are "similar to those of a high-fidelity model" but supplies no comparison. The 100 m radius uncertainty in Table 3 is a global radius offset; real lunar topography is spatially correlated along the limb and differs event to event. The sensitivity analysis on shape varies the a priori sigma but not the truth model, so it cannot detect this. That means the reported improvement should be read as an upper bound until validated against a realistic shape or with Monte Carlo runs that include topographic errors. This is a genuine limitation, but not a fatal one for a feasibility study; the paper explicitly flags the simplified shape and the need for future high-fidelity work.

Minor points: the paper reports only formal covariances, not actual estimation errors, which is fine at this stage. The claim that improved OD will constrain LIF localization is plausible but not tested. The 1 s timing noise is conservative, and the sensitivity table shows the gains erode at 10 s, which is useful for mission planners.

Who should read it: anyone working on cislunar navigation, CubeSat OD, or autonomous optical techniques. It deserves a serious referee—it is a well-posed problem with a clear measurement model, sensible error budget, and honest limitations. The main work for the authors is to verify the spherical-limb equivalence with a real shape model, or at least a synthetic high-fidelity limb, before the quantitative claims are taken at face value. I would cite it if I were working on LUMIO-like navigation, and I would bring it to a reading group focused on navigation techniques.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. Using a MONTE-based simulator, the paper generates synthetic stellar occultation ingress/egress times behind a spherical lunar limb for LUMIO in an Earth-Moon L2 quasi-halo orbit, applies illumination and stray-light filters, and adds these timing observables to a multi-arc batch least-squares orbit determination filter together with X-band range and Doppler data. A covariance analysis across 22 science cycles reports average reductions in reconstructed position uncertainty from 37.78 m to 22.55 m (transverse) and 60.00 m to 30.70 m (normal), with smaller radial improvements. Sensitivity studies show the gains depend on occultation timing noise and on the a priori lunar radius uncertainty. The main conclusion is that occultations can complement radiometric tracking, especially during science-phase tracking gaps.

Significance. If the central modeling assumption can be validated, this is a useful feasibility result for cislunar CubeSat navigation. The work uses a standard batch least-squares framework, a realistic radiometric tracking schedule, and a broad set of consider/solve-for parameters, and it provides per-science-cycle statistics rather than a single favorable arc. The paper also explicitly identifies many of its own limitations (spherical limb, future high-fidelity topography, clock jitter). The main risk is that the synthetic observables and the filter measurement model share the same spherical-limb approximation, so the factor-of-two improvement is currently demonstrated only in a self-consistent simulation; this needs an end-to-end test with a different truth model.

major comments (2)

[Measurement Model; Table 3; Table 6/Fig. 8] Measurement Model states that a spherical limb is used both to simulate and to interpret observables, asserting this does not affect reliability because sensitivity properties are 'similar to a high-fidelity model.' That equivalence is load-bearing for Table 4's factor-of-two gains, but no comparison is supplied. Because the same OccultationEvent function generates truth and computed observables, topography is absent from the covariance. The 100 m Moon-radius parameter (Table 3) absorbs only a global radius offset; real limb heights vary by hundreds of meters to kilometers and are spatially correlated, so they are not independent 1 s timing noise. Table 6/Fig. 8 vary the prior sigma, not the truth model, and cannot detect this mismatch. Please add a DEM-based truth test (e.g., SLDEM2017) or a correlated limb-error model; otherwise the improvements are formal results for a self-consistent
[Sensitivity analyses; Table 3] In the Sensitivity analyses subsection, the text states that long-term linear drift of the onboard clock is already accounted for in the OD filter as solved-for or consider parameters. However, Table 3 lists no clock bias or drift parameter. Because occultation observables are timing measurements, an unmodeled clock drift would enter coherently at the 1 s level and violate the independent-noise assumption in the covariance. Add clock bias/rate parameters to Table 3 with realistic a priori values, or remove the sentence and include clock drift in the timing-noise budget; otherwise the 100 ms–1 s curves in Fig. 7 are not a complete sensitivity analysis.

minor comments (3)

[Results (Fig. 6 / Table 4)] The text says transverse and normal coordinates 'improve by up to one order of magnitude,' but Table 4 shows the largest improvement is SC08 normal with a ratio of 0.18, i.e., a factor of about 5.6. Please revise the wording to match the tabulated ratios.
[Measurement Model; Table 3] The text says the UCACT-PI catalog was used for both simulation and estimation, but Table 3 lists only 'Star 141009 (example)' as a consider parameter. Clarify whether each catalog star's position uncertainty is included in the filter or whether a single representative value is used for all stars.
[References [21]] Reference [21] is cited as 'Untitled image' with a private collection source. This is not a verifiable public reference; please replace it with a permanent source or omit it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the covariance improvement is a formal, model-conditional result from a closed-loop simulation, not a fitted or self-citational prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard covariance/simulation study, not a circular derivation. The synthetic occultation observables are generated with the same MONTE-based measurement model used to compute expected observables in the batch filter ('The measurement model uses the same simulator to retrieve the computed occultation observables'), but this closed-loop design is the standard basis for a formal covariance analysis: the reported factor-of-two improvement is a mathematical consequence of the stated measurement model, noise assumptions, and observation geometry, not a parameter fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction. The ratios in Table 4 are computed covariance ratios, not estimated quantities. There is no load-bearing self-citation: prior occultation-navigation work (Psiaki and Hinks, Landgraf) is cited as external context, and the OccultationEvent formulation is attributed to Betts. The one caveat is the Measurement Model assertion that the spherical lunar-limb model 'is used both for simulating the observables and for the estimation' and that its sensitivity properties 'are similar to those of a high-fidelity model'; this equivalence is asserted rather than demonstrated. That is a genuine validation limitation — real lunar topography could produce spatially correlated timing errors that the 100 m radius consider parameter does not capture — but it is not a circular dependency, because the covariance result is computed from the assumed model rather than being assumed as an input. The paper explicitly defers high-fidelity topography to future work. The central claim therefore has independent, model-conditional content and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The free parameters are all assumed noise levels, uncertainties, and operational constraints that set the scale of the covariance improvement. The axioms are dominated by the self-consistent spherical-limb simulation loop and the assumed detectability of occultations.

free parameters (6)

Occultation timing noise = 1 s (nominal), varied 100 ms to 10 s
Assumed nominal 1 sigma noise for simulated occultation timings; directly sets the magnitude of the reported covariance improvement.
Lunar shape a priori uncertainty = 100 m (nominal), varied 10 m to 1 km
Consider parameter on Moon radius; used in sensitivity analysis and directly affects the occultation timing error budget.
Radiometric noise levels = Range 15 m, Doppler 0.1 mm/s at 60 s
Assumed measurement noises for simulated two-way range and Doppler; define the baseline covariance that occultations improve upon.
Stochastic acceleration a priori = 1e-12 km/s^2
Assumed unmodeled dynamics magnitude, solved for per arc; affects the covariance growth between tracking passes.
Event selection thresholds = Magnitude < 6, angular separation > 17.5 deg, terminator/illumination constraints
Rules for discarding occultation events; determine the number of usable events per science cycle and hence the strength of the observable.
Tracking schedule = 3 h + 2 h + 3 h per 15-day cycle
Assumed ESTRACK coverage; determines the radiometric-only baseline and the gaps where occultations provide the largest relative improvement.

assumptions (5)

standard math Batch least-squares with consider parameters correctly propagates formal covariances for the stated models.
Standard OD methodology (cited refs 13, 14); not re-derived in the paper.
domain assumption Spherical lunar limb model has sensitivity properties similar to a high-fidelity shape model for both simulation and estimation.
Stated in the Measurement Model section without proof or comparison; load-bearing for the claimed realism of the results.
domain assumption Occultation events are detectable by LUMIO-Cam under the assumed magnitude cutoff, sampling rate, and illumination constraints.
Assumed from LUMIO mission documentation; the feasibility of detecting faint occultations during LIF observation is not modeled in detail.
domain assumption Umbral rays are parallel and only umbral occultations are considered.
Stated in the Measurement Model section; valid for distant stars but simplifies the event geometry.
domain assumption Force models (DE440, EIGEN-GL04C, GL0660B, SRP flat-plate) adequately represent true dynamics within the consider uncertainties.
Standard practice for OD covariance studies; the truth model in the simulation uses the same models, so force-model errors are not independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar occultations in support of the LUMIO orbit determination." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JXI7VGUH

@misc{pith2026250904177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar occultations in support of the LUMIO orbit determination},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JXI7VGUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04177}
}

read the original abstract

This work investigates the use of stellar occultation measurements to enhance the orbit determination performance of the Lunar Meteoroid Impact Observer (LUMIO) mission, operating from a quasi-Halo orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point. During science phases, when radiometric tracking is sparse and low illumination limits conventional optical navigation methods, occultation events, defined as precise timings of stellar appearances/disappearances behind the Moon's limb, offer a suitable alternative. A simulation tool based on JPL's MONTE library was developed to identify valid occultation events, applying geometric and illumination constraints to exclude non-observable cases. These events were integrated into a batch least-squares orbit determination filter alongside conventional radiometric data. The covariance analysis shows that occultation observables reduce the transverse and normal position uncertainties of LUMIO by up to a factor of two, especially during tracking gaps or occultation-rich arcs. This uncertainty reduction is expected to facilitate station-keeping operations and constrain the surface localization of Lunar Impact Flashes (LIFs), enhancing the mission's scientific return. Sensitivity analyses confirm that the orbit determination performance is primarily driven by the timing accuracy of occultation events, with limited dependence on lunar shape uncertainty below 100 m. These findings confirm the potential of occultation-based navigation to enhance spacecraft autonomy and robustness in low-visibility environments, making it a valuable complement to radiometric techniques for future lunar and deep-space missions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Review of options for autonomous cislunar navigation,

J. A. Christian and E. G. Lightsey, “Review of options for autonomous cislunar navigation,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, V ol. 46, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1023–1036

work page 2009
[2]

HERA vision based GNC and autonomy,

A. Pellacani, M. Graziano, M. Fittock, J. Gil, and I. Carnelli, “HERA vision based GNC and autonomy,” Proceedings of the 8th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences. Madrid, Spain, 1-4 july 2019, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Optical measurements for rosetta navigation near the comet,

R. P. De Santayana and M. Lauer, “Optical measurements for rosetta navigation near the comet,” Pro- ceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics (ISSFD), Munich , 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Optical navigation for the DART mission,

B. P. Rush, D. M. Mages, A. T. Vaughan, J. Bellerose, and S. Bhaskaran, “Optical navigation for the DART mission,”33rd AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting , 2023, pp. 1–20

work page 2023
[5]

V oyager 2 navigation to Uranus and Neptune,

R. Van Allen, R. Cesarone, and D. Gray, “V oyager 2 navigation to Uranus and Neptune,”Astrodynamics Conference, 1982, p. 1474

work page 1982
[6]

Experiment D005/D-5/, star occultation navigation,

T. Jorris, R. Silva, and E. Vallerie III, “Experiment D005/D-5/, star occultation navigation,” NASA. MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER MANNED SPACEFLIGHT EXPT. GEMINI 10 MISSION MAR. 1967 (SEE N68-14150 05-30) , 1967

work page 1967
[7]

Autonomous optical navigation for the lunar meteoroid im- pacts observer,

V . Franzese, P. Di Lizia, and F. Topputo, “Autonomous optical navigation for the lunar meteoroid im- pacts observer,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , V ol. 42, No. 7, 2019, pp. 1579–1586

work page 2019
[8]

R. V . Keenan and J. D. Regenhardt, Star occultation measurements as an aid to navigation in cis-lunar space. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962

work page 1962

Show all 29 references

[9]

Autonomous lunar orbit determination using star occultation measurements,

M. Psiaki and J. Hinks, “Autonomous lunar orbit determination using star occultation measurements,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit , 2007, p. 6657

2007
[10]

Optical navigation for lunar exploration missions,

M. Landgraf, G. Thiele, D. Koschny, and B. Udrea, “Optical navigation for lunar exploration missions,” 57th International Astronautical Congress, 2006, pp. C1–7

2006
[11]

LUMIO: A CubeSat for observing and characterizing micro-meteoroid impacts on the lunar far side,

A. Cervone, F. Topputo, S. Speretta, A. Menicucci, E. Turan, P. Di Lizia, M. Massari, V . Franzese, C. Giordano, G. Merisio, et al., “LUMIO: A CubeSat for observing and characterizing micro-meteoroid impacts on the lunar far side,” Acta Astronautica, V ol. 195, 2022, pp. 309–317

2022
[12]

LU- MIO CubeSat: current status and lessons learnt (so far),

F. Topputo, F. Ferrari, C. Giordano, P. Panicucci, C. Buonagura, A. Martinelli, and S. Simonetti, “LU- MIO CubeSat: current status and lessons learnt (so far),” Small Satellites Systems and Services Sympo- sium (4S 2024), V ol. 13546, SPIE, March 2025, pp. 707–722

2024
[13]

C. L. Thornton and J. S. Border, Radiometric tracking techniques for deep-space navigation . John Wiley & Sons, 2003

2003
[14]

Multi-arc Orbit Determination to determine Rosetta trajectory and 67P physical parameters,

B. Godard, F. Budnik, G. Bellei, P. Mu˜noz, and T. Morley, “Multi-arc Orbit Determination to determine Rosetta trajectory and 67P physical parameters,” Proceedings 26th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics–26th ISSFD, Matsuyama, Japan , 2017

2017
[15]

MONTE: the next generation of mission design and navigation software,

S. Evans et al., “MONTE: the next generation of mission design and navigation software,”CEAS Space Journal, V ol. 10, No. 1, 2018, pp. 79–86

2018
[16]

Optimal low–thrust orbit transfers with eclipsing,

J. T. Betts, “Optimal low–thrust orbit transfers with eclipsing,”Optimal Control Applications and Meth- ods, V ol. 36, No. 2, 2015, pp. 218–240, https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.2111

2015 doi
[17]

Predicting the outcome of the LUMIO lunar CubeSat,

G. Merisio, M. Massari, P. Di Lizia, J. Biggs, C. Giordano, V . Franzese, F. Topputo, D. Koschny, J. Ven- nekens, R. Walker, et al., “Predicting the outcome of the LUMIO lunar CubeSat,” INTERNATIONAL ASTRONAUTICAL CONGRESS: IAC PROCEEDINGS, 2020, pp. 1–14

2020
[18]

The second US Naval Observatory CCD astrograph catalog (UCAC2),

N. Zacharias, S. E. Urban, M. I. Zacharias, G. L. Wycoff, D. M. Hall, D. G. Monet, and T. J. Rafferty, “The second US Naval Observatory CCD astrograph catalog (UCAC2),” The Astronomical Journal , V ol. 127, No. 5, 2004, p. 3043

2004
[19]

The Tycho-2 catalogue of the 2.5 million brightest stars,

E. Høg, C. Fabricius, V . V . Makarov, S. Urban, T. Corbin, G. Wycoff, U. Bastian, P. Schwekendiek, and A. Wicenec, “The Tycho-2 catalogue of the 2.5 million brightest stars,”Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 355, p. L27-L30 (2000) , V ol. 355, 2000, pp. L27–L30

2000
[20]

The HIPPARCOS catalogue,

M. A. Perryman, L. Lindegren, J. Kovalevsky, E. Hoeg, U. Bastian, P. Bernacca, M. Cr ´ez´e, F. Donati, M. Grenon, M. Grewing, et al., “The HIPPARCOS catalogue,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, V ol. 323, p. L49-L52, V ol. 323, 1997, pp. L49–L52

1997
[21]

Untitled image,

J. Heywood, “Untitled image,” Private collection or internal source, 2023. S[&]T Norway

2023
[22]

The JPL lunar gravity field to spherical harmonic degree 660 from the GRAIL Primary Mission,

A. S. Konopliv, R. S. Park, D.-N. Yuan, S. W. Asmar, M. M. Watkins, J. G. Williams, E. Fahnestock, G. Kruizinga, M. Paik, D. Strekalov, et al., “The JPL lunar gravity field to spherical harmonic degree 660 from the GRAIL Primary Mission,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Plane...

2013
[23]

The GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam/Groupe de Recherche de Geode- sie Spatiale satellite-only and combined gravity field models: EIGEN-GL04S1 and EIGEN-GL04C,

C. F ¨orste, R. Schmidt, R. Stubenvoll, F. Flechtner, U. Meyer, R. K¨onig, H. Neumayer, R. Biancale, J.-M. Lemoine, S. Bruinsma, et al., “The GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam/Groupe de Recherche de Geode- sie Spatiale satellite-only and combined gravity field models: EIGEN-GL04S1 ...

2008
[24]

The JPL planetary and lunar ephemerides DE440 and DE441,

R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, and D. H. Boggs, “The JPL planetary and lunar ephemerides DE440 and DE441,” The Astronomical Journal, V ol. 161, No. 3, 2021, p. 105

2021
[25]

Accuracy assessment of lunar topography models,

H. S. Fok, C. K. Shum, Y . Yi, H. Araki, J. Ping, J. G. Williams, G. Fotopoulos, H. Noda, S. Goossens, Q. Huang, et al., “Accuracy assessment of lunar topography models,”Earth, planets and space, V ol. 63, 2011, pp. 15–23

2011
[26]

Sensing (Chapter 8.6),

F. Zhu, “Sensing (Chapter 8.6),” 2022. Accessed: 2025-07-25

2022
[27]

A new lunar digital ele- vation model from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter and SELENE Terrain Camera,

M. Barker, E. Mazarico, G. Neumann, M. Zuber, J. Haruyama, and D. Smith, “A new lunar digital ele- vation model from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter and SELENE Terrain Camera,” Icarus, V ol. 273, 2016, pp. 346–355

2016
[28]

The Dynamical State of the Didymos System before and after the DART Impact,

D. C. Richardson, H. F. Agrusa, B. Barbee, R. H. Cueva, F. Ferrari, S. A. Jacobson, R. Makadia, A. J. Meyer, P. Michel, R. Nakano,et al., “The Dynamical State of the Didymos System before and after the DART Impact,”The Planetary Science Journal, V ol. 5, No. 8, 2024, p. 182

2024
[29]

Goldstone and Arecibo radar observations of (99942) Apophis in 2012–2013,

M. Brozovi ´c, L. A. Benner, J. G. McMichael, J. D. Giorgini, P. Pravec, P. Scheirich, C. Magri, M. W. Busch, J. S. Jao, C. G. Lee, et al., “Goldstone and Arecibo radar observations of (99942) Apophis in 2012–2013,” Icarus, V ol. 300, 2018, pp. 115–128. 16

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Review of options for autonomous cislunar navigation,

J. A. Christian and E. G. Lightsey, “Review of options for autonomous cislunar navigation,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, V ol. 46, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1023–1036

work page 2009

[2] [2]

HERA vision based GNC and autonomy,

A. Pellacani, M. Graziano, M. Fittock, J. Gil, and I. Carnelli, “HERA vision based GNC and autonomy,” Proceedings of the 8th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences. Madrid, Spain, 1-4 july 2019, 2019

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Optical measurements for rosetta navigation near the comet,

R. P. De Santayana and M. Lauer, “Optical measurements for rosetta navigation near the comet,” Pro- ceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics (ISSFD), Munich , 2015

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Optical navigation for the DART mission,

B. P. Rush, D. M. Mages, A. T. Vaughan, J. Bellerose, and S. Bhaskaran, “Optical navigation for the DART mission,”33rd AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting , 2023, pp. 1–20

work page 2023

[5] [5]

V oyager 2 navigation to Uranus and Neptune,

R. Van Allen, R. Cesarone, and D. Gray, “V oyager 2 navigation to Uranus and Neptune,”Astrodynamics Conference, 1982, p. 1474

work page 1982

[6] [6]

Experiment D005/D-5/, star occultation navigation,

T. Jorris, R. Silva, and E. Vallerie III, “Experiment D005/D-5/, star occultation navigation,” NASA. MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER MANNED SPACEFLIGHT EXPT. GEMINI 10 MISSION MAR. 1967 (SEE N68-14150 05-30) , 1967

work page 1967

[7] [7]

Autonomous optical navigation for the lunar meteoroid im- pacts observer,

V . Franzese, P. Di Lizia, and F. Topputo, “Autonomous optical navigation for the lunar meteoroid im- pacts observer,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , V ol. 42, No. 7, 2019, pp. 1579–1586

work page 2019

[8] [8]

R. V . Keenan and J. D. Regenhardt, Star occultation measurements as an aid to navigation in cis-lunar space. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962

work page 1962