Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Solar Cruiser Disturbance Torque Estimation and Predictive Momentum Management

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Kalman-filter-augmented model predictive controller manages reaction-wheel momentum on the Solar Cruiser solar sail during slews that saturate the existing threshold-based method.

desk verdict A solid estimation-augmented MPC extension with a genuinely useful ablation, but the headline 'exceeds the state of the art' rests on a recreated NASA controller whose fairness is unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.00532 v3 pith:2JB5SLLB submitted 2026-01-02 physics.space-ph math.OC

Ping-Yen Shen , Ryan J. Caverly This is my paper
classification physics.space-phmath.OC
keywords solarsailsmomentummanagementmodelpredictivecontroldisturbanceestimationKalmanfilteringreactionwheelsactivemasstranslatorCruiser
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 aims to fix a practical gap in solar-sail momentum management: earlier MPC-based controllers needed exact knowledge of disturbance torques, which is unavailable in flight. The authors add a Kalman filter that estimates those torques in real time and feeds them into a model predictive controller that coordinates the sail's active mass translator and reflectivity control devices. The controller also accounts for the four-reaction-wheel assembly and the offset between the sail's center of mass and center of pressure. In simulation, the proposed policy tracks a 15-degree slew while the recreated baseline controller saturates at 10.5 degrees, and it uses less actuator effort during attitude hold. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that disturbance-estimation-augmented MPC materially expands the feasible operating envelope for this class of solar sail.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the closed loop between a Kalman filter, which estimates the slowly varying disturbance torque as an augmented state, and a linear-time-varying MPC that re-linearizes the nonlinear attitude dynamics about the desired slew trajectory at each 100-second momentum-management step. The MPC prediction model transforms the reaction-wheel state into individual wheel momentum using the pseudo-inverse of the four-wheel geometry matrix, enforcing per-wheel saturation and soft constraints. The active mass translator, a mechanism that shifts the center of mass relative to the center of pressure, and the reflectivity control devices, on/off membranes producing roll torque, are the

What would settle it

Run the same 15-degree slew-and-return trajectory with the operational Solar Cruiser momentum-management controller in a high-fidelity simulator or on flight hardware; if the real controller keeps reaction-wheel momentum below saturation across the maneuver, the central claim of an expanded envelope collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the unmeasured, attitude-dependent disturbance torque acting on a solar sail does not have to be known exactly for MPC to work: a Kalman filter running at the momentum-management cadence can estimate it online, and the estimate closes the prediction-model gap. In simulation, using this estimate within the MPC prediction model keeps all reaction-wheel angular momenta inside a soft 25-percent bound during a 15-degree slew sequence, whereas the same policy without the estimate lets two wheels drift toward saturation and, in other tested cases, destabilizes. Including Solar Cruiser's four-wheel pyramid configuration through a pseudo-inverse

Load-bearing premise

The claimed advantage over the state of the art rests on a recreated version of the benchmark controller whose tuning parameters the original source does not publish; if the real flight controller is better tuned, the extra slew capability may shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, Solar Cruiser-class sails can execute larger slew maneuvers without losing reaction-wheel control authority, because MPC anticipates momentum growth rather than reacting to thresholds.
  • The approach removes the need for exact disturbance-torque knowledge that limited prior MPC momentum management; a filter estimate plus recursive re-linearization suffices.
  • The four-reaction-wheel formulation with pseudo-inverse allocation means the method transfers to other spacecraft with redundant wheel configurations by changing the geometry matrix.
  • Actuation thresholds barely change momentum-keeping performance while cutting reflectivity-device on/off cycles from 42 to 12 across the studied 60,000-second scenario, suggesting tuning can trade actuator wear against usage.
  • The reported quadratic-program solve time of about 33 milliseconds and model-integration time of about 40 milliseconds are far below the 100-second control cadence, supporting onboard feasibility.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would quantify how strongly the claimed envelope depends on the accuracy of the solar-radiation-pressure force estimate, which the paper assumes is available from on-orbit calibration but does not bound.
  • The Kalman-filter disturbance estimate lumps all model error into one correction, so its physical interpretation is blurred; roll-axis observability in particular may be fragile under noisier measurements.
  • The PWM-quantized reflectivity-device commands increase switching cycles relative to a single long pulse; a natural follow-up is an on/off scheduler that batches MPC requests to reduce cycling while preserving the larger slew envelope.
  • The benchmark comparison is only as convincing as the recreated threshold controller; a direct comparison against the flight controller's actual tuning would be the decisive evidence for the envelope expansion.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Kalman-filter-augmented model predictive control (MPC) framework for momentum management of NASA's Solar Cruiser solar sail, using the active mass translator (AMT) and reflectivity control devices (RCDs). The key novelty is the online estimation of unmodeled disturbance torques by a Kalman filter, which feeds the MPC prediction model; the paper also incorporates a four-reaction-wheel assembly, an off-axis center-of-mass/center-of-pressure offset, attitude-dependent solar radiation pressure, and large-angle slew tracking. The central claims are: (1) the disturbance estimate is essential for reliable MPC-based momentum management, as demonstrated by an ablation (nominal MPC vs. Kalman-filter-augmented MPC) in Section 5.3; and (2) the proposed policy outperforms the state-of-the-art Solar Cruiser thresholding controller of Tyler et al. (2023), successfully managing reaction-wheel momentum for a 15° slew while the recreated baseline saturates at 10.5°, and reducing actuator usage during attitude hold. The linearization, Kalman filter, and QP formulation are internally consistent, and the simulation includes realistic nonlinear dynamics with a static sail-shape model. However, the benchmark comparison relies on a controller recreation whose parameters are chosen by the authors because the original sources provide no numerical values, and the authors explicitly state that the recreation is not an exact replica of the proprietary flight controller. No code or da

Significance. If the results hold, this is a meaningful step toward practical MPC-based momentum management for solar sails: it addresses a known limitation of prior MPC work (exact disturbance knowledge), handles a realistic four-wheel configuration, and demonstrates slew-tracking capability with computationally feasible QP solutions (mean 32.86 ms per QP plus 39.80 ms for LTV integration on a desktop computer). The clean ablation in Section 5.3—comparing MPC with and without the disturbance estimate under an attitude hold—is a genuine and valuable test of the mechanism, and the disturbance estimates in Figure 6 appear to track the simulated truth reasonably well. The framework is also clearly extensible to other solar sail designs using AMT/RCD actuation. The main limitation is that the headline comparative claim against the 'state of the art' is supported only by the authors' recreation of NASA's thresholding controller; the true flight controller's parameters and logic are proprietary and unavailable. Consequently, the quantitative envelope extension (10.5° to 15°) and the actuator-usage comparison are conditional on the recreation being representative. This does not undermine the internal m

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, §5.4] The central comparative claim—that the proposed MPC 'exceeds the operational envelope' of Tyler et al. (2023)—rests entirely on the authors' recreation of the NASA thresholding controller. Section 5.2 states that values are chosen 'in the absence of any numerical values' in the original work, and Section 5.4 admits the recreation is 'not an exact replica of the proprietary controller implemented on NASA's flight hardware.' The 10.5° vs 15° saturation boundary and the actuator-usage numbers in Table 5 depend directly on the chosen thresholds (0.25/0.125 N·m·s for AMT, 0.125/0.312 N·m·s for RCD) and PID gains (K_AMT_p=0.1, K_AMT_d=0.05, K_AMT_i=0.0001). I do not see a sensitivity study or any comparison against available telemetry or published figures that would establish that this recreation is representative. Since the abstract and conclusions assert superiority over the state of the art
  2. [§5.3, Figure 6] The validation chain for the Kalman-filter disturbance estimate is partly self-referential: the 'truth' disturbance torque is generated by the same group's sail-shape model (Bunker and Caverly, 2026), and the linearization/MPC model is also from the same group. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it means the simulation demonstrates consistency between the estimator and a particular model, not necessarily against independent physical truth. The observability of the roll-axis disturbance is explicitly acknowledged as difficult (Section 5.3, after Figure 6), yet the roll disturbance estimate is used in the MPC prediction. Since the claim that 'the inclusion of the disturbance torque estimate is critical' is largely based on this self-generated truth, a sensitivity analysis with respect to the sail-shape model or a comparison against a different disturbance model would materially str
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (12)-(13)] The MPC prediction model uses the pseudo-inverse transformation x = T x_MPC with T = diag(1, 1, M_34, 1), then x_MPC = T† x with T† = diag(1, 1, M_34†, 1). Since M_34 is 3×4, M_34† M_34 is not the identity; applying T† to a body-frame momentum vector always chooses the minimum-norm wheel momentum. The model therefore assumes the pseudo-inverse allocation is used at all times, while the actual simulation uses the constrained sequential pseudo-inverse allocation of Section 2.3.4, which can differ when wheels saturate. This is a modeling approximation, and it is not discussed in the paper. The authors should clarify whether the linear prediction model remains valid when the actual allocation differs, and how the MPC is guaranteed to predict the behavior of the constrained allocation. This may be benign in the tested scenarios, but it is a technical point that should be addressed explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] There are numerous typos and formatting issues, e.g., 'Predictiv e' in the title, 'Solar Cruier' in Section 2.2, 'where where' in Section 4.4, and the duplicated argument in z(·) in Section 2.5. These should be cleaned up.
  2. [Eq. (10)] Equation (10) is written as 'x_k = A_k x_k + ...' but should be x_{k+1} = A_k x_k + ... to match the surrounding discretization notation.
  3. [Section 3.3] The covariance update P+ = (1 - K_k H) P- is the standard Joseph/plain form, but it would be clearer to write (I - K_k H) P- with the identity matrix made explicit. Also, the use of '1' for identity is nonstandard.
  4. [Section 5.3] The reported computational times (32.86 ms for QP, 39.80 ms for integration) are on a desktop computer, not flight hardware. The phrase 'real-time feasibility' is used, but the connection to the actual flight computer's processing cycle should be stated more carefully, especially since the momentum management period is 100 s and the attitude control period is 1 s. Clarify how the 1 s attitude loop is affected by a 100 s momentum-management update.
  5. [Table 5] Table 5 shows that during the slew phase the MPC uses more AMT travel and more RCD on-time than the baseline, while during hold it uses less. The discussion focuses on the hold-phase reduction, but the slew-phase figures are also important for a fair trade-off assessment. Please comment on the total usage over the full maneuver rather than only the hold phase.
  6. [Section 5.2] The claim that the recreation's steady-state performance is 'similar to that shown by Inness et al. (2023); Tyler et al. (2023)' is based on 'redacted plot axes' and is therefore not quantitatively verifiable. Please state this caveat more explicitly or remove the similarity claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central KF/MPC mechanism is not circular, but the headline 'exceeds operational envelope' claim rests on an author-recreated baseline whose saturation boundary is not externally fixed.

  1. other [Section 5.2 (baseline recreation) and Section 5.4 (envelope comparison); Abstract headline]
    "In the absence of any numerical values in the work of Inness et al. (2023); Tyler et al. (2023), values are chosen in this paper in an attempt to recreate the results of Inness et al. (2023); Tyler et al. (2023). ... While it serves as a functional approximation for the purposes of this study, it is not an exact replica the proprietary controller implemented on NASA’s flight hardware."

    The paper's headline claim—'successfully manages angular momentum growth under slew maneuvers that exceed the operational envelope of the current state-of-the-art method'—is established by comparing against a controller whose thresholds and PID gains are chosen by the authors because NASA's values are redacted. The baseline's saturation at 10.5° is therefore a function of the authors' own tuning choices, not an independently measured property of NASA's controller. A different, equally plausible recreation tuning could move the 10.5° boundary and shrink or eliminate the claimed 15° advantage. The Figure 3/Table 5 comparison thus reduces, in part, to the authors' uncalibrated benchmark construction, making the headline 'envelope' claim self-referential rather than a fully external falsificat

full rationale

The core derivation—Kalman-filter disturbance estimation feeding the MPC prediction model—is not circular at the equation level. The KF state w is estimated from the measurement model and linearized dynamics (Eqs. 9-10, Section 3), then injected into the MPC prediction (Eq. 13); the performance gain is demonstrated by a clean ablation in Section 5.3/Figure 4, where w=0 is compared with w=w_hat. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness/ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The self-citations to Shen and Caverly (2025, 2026) provide the base MPC architecture and dynamics, but the new KF augmentation and 4-RW/slew extensions are independently formulated here. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the benchmark for the headline claim: Section 5.2 explicitly says baseline values were chosen by the authors 'in an attempt to recreate' NASA's method, and Section 5.4 admits the recreation is 'not an exact replica of the proprietary controller.' Therefore the 10.5-degree saturation boundary is an output of the authors' tuning, not an external standard. This is a benchmark-validity/correctness risk rather than an equation-level identity; it does not infect the KF-MPC mechanism itself. The same-group sail-shape model (Bunker and Caverly, 2026) used to generate the simulated 'true' disturbances is a published, parameter-free model rather than a fitted input, so it is self-citation but not load-bearing circularity. Overall, score 3 reflects partial self-dependence in the validation chain, not a definitionally circular derivation.

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

The central claim relies on a chain of assumptions: rigid-body dynamics, slowly-varying disturbance, known SRP force, full-state measurement, an accurate SRP shape model, and a recreated baseline controller. The free parameters are mostly controller tuning values and the recreated baseline gains. The absence of sensitivity analysis means the robustness of the results to these choices is unknown.

free parameters (6)
  • QKF_model (process noise covariance) = diag(0.012·1₃, 0.00012·1₃, 1e-6·1₃, 1e-16·1₃)
    Tuning parameters of the Kalman filter; chosen by the authors to balance convergence and noise sensitivity. No data-driven identification.
  • QKF_dist (disturbance covariance) = diag(5e-6 + 0.5ω²_d1, 5e-6 + 0.5ω²_d2, 5e-9 + 0.1ω²_d3)
    Static covariances qτ and scaling ξ are tuning parameters, with a heuristic quadratic dependence on desired slew rate.
  • Measurement noise covariances σh and σe = σh = 1e-5 N·m·s, σe = 1e-8 rad·s
    The paper states these parameters are 'not publicly available' and are assumed, directly affecting the Kalman filter behavior.
  • MPC weights Q, QN, R, R̃, C = Q=diag(10·1₆, 0.5·1₄, 0₃), QN=10Q, R=diag(1,1,5e6), R̃=2000·1₂, C=10000·1₄
    Objective-function tuning parameters that determine the trade-off between tracking and actuation; chosen to make the simulations work.
  • Actuation thresholds βAMT, βRCD = βAMT ∈ {0.1,0.2,0.3}, βRCD ∈ {0.3,0.6,0.9}
    Design choices that trim small actuation commands; the paper shows they affect RCD cycle counts and AMT travel. Not derived from first principles.
  • NASA baseline AMT PID gains and hysteresis thresholds = Kp=0.1 (N·s)⁻¹, Kd=0.05 N⁻¹, Ki=0.0001 N⁻¹s⁻²; AMT act 0.25 N·m·s, deact 0.125 N·m·s; RCD act 0.125, deact 0.312
    Recreated parameters because the original Tyler et al. (2023) reference provides no numerical values; the benchmark comparison depends on these choices.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Solar sail and bus are rigid bodies; structural flexibility and sail vibrations are negligible.
    Section 2.2 states 'it is assumed that vibrations in the structure are minimal and both the sail shape and material properties remain static' to make fSRP and τdist attitude-dependent only.
  • domain assumption Disturbance torque is approximately constant or slowly varying within each 100 s momentum-management step.
    Section 3.2 models wKF with a random walk, explicitly assuming 'the disturbance torque to be estimated, τdist, is constant within the time update (prediction) step.'
  • domain assumption An accurate SRP force estimate is available onboard (e.g., from NASA's on-orbit calibration algorithms).
    Section 3 states 'it is reasonable to assume that an accurate SRP force estimate is available' and f̄SRP is treated as a known input to the Kalman filter and MPC.
  • domain assumption Full state measurement of attitude, angular velocity, reaction-wheel momentum, and integral state is accessible with Gaussian noise.
    Section 3.1 assumes the ADCS provides accurate estimates and the measurement model is y = Hx + ν with normally distributed noise.
  • domain assumption The static membrane shape model of Bunker and Caverly (2026) accurately computes fSRP and τdist for the simulated truth.
    Section 5.1 uses this model as the nonlinear simulation truth; if this model is inaccurate, the disturbance environment and hence the comparative results change.
  • domain assumption The linearized LTV model about the desired slew trajectory is sufficiently accurate over the MPC prediction horizon (1000 s).
    Sections 2.5 and 4.3 linearize about the desired trajectory and assume zero AMT rates in the linearization; no bound on the linearization error is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar Cruiser Disturbance Torque Estimation and Predictive Momentum Management." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JB5SLLB

@misc{pith2026260100532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar Cruiser Disturbance Torque Estimation and Predictive Momentum Management},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JB5SLLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.00532}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel disturbance-torque-estimation-augmented model predictive control (MPC) framework to perform momentum management on NASA's Solar Cruiser solar sail mission. Solar Cruiser represents a critical step in the advancement of large-scale solar sail technology and includes the innovative use of an active mass translator (AMT) and reflectivity control devices (RCDs) as momentum management actuators. The coupled nature of these actuators has proven challenging in the development of a robust momentum management controller. Recent literature has explored the use of MPC for solar sail momentum management with promising results, although exact knowledge of the disturbance torques acting on the solar sail was required. This paper amends this issue through the use of a Kalman filter to provide real-time estimation of unmodeled disturbance torques. Furthermore, the dynamics model used in this paper incorporates key fidelity enhancements compared to prior work, including Solar Cruiser's four-reaction-wheel assembly and the offset between its center of mass and center of pressure. More realistic operation scenarios involving the tracking of large angle slew maneuvers under attitude-dependent solar radiation force and torque are also performed to further validate the proposed method compared to prior work. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed policy successfully manages angular momentum growth under slew maneuvers that exceed the operational envelope of the current state-of-the-art method. The inclusion of the disturbance torque estimate is shown to greatly improve the reliability and performance of the proposed MPC approach. This work establishes a new benchmark for Solar Cruiser's momentum management capabilities and paves the way for MPC-based momentum management of other solar sails making use of an AMT and/or RCDs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Depictions of the Solar Cruiser model used in this p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the MPC soft constraint design wit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation results using NASA’s Solar Cruiser mom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation results using the proposed MPC momentu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Threshold tuning of the proposed MPC framework und [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kalman filter disturbance estimate values used in t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of simulation results using the propos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    doi:10.2514/1.11133

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 27, 536–544. doi:10.2514/1.11133. Woodbury, D., Junkins, J.,

    doi:10.2514/1.11133

  2. [3]

    Progress in Aerospace Sciences 150, 101047

    Space sails for achiev- ing major space exploration goals: Historical review and fu ture outlook. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 150, 101047. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2024.101047. Boni, L., Bassetto, M., Niccolai, L., Mengali, G., Quarta, A .A., Circi, C., Pellegrini, R.C., Cavallini, E.,

    arXiv 2024

  3. [7]

    Advances in Space Researc h 71, 4557–4567

    Attitude and vibration control of a solar sail. Advances in Space Researc h 71, 4557–4567. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.039. Di Cairano, S., Kolmanovsky, I.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.039 2023

  4. [10]

    (Eds.), Next Gener ation CubeSats and SmallSats

    Propellant-less systems, in: Branz, F., C appelletti, C., Ricco, A.J., Hines, J.W . (Eds.), Next Gener ation CubeSats and SmallSats. Elsevier, pp. 519–541. doi: 10.1016/C2020-0-00508-6 . Farrés, A., Heiligers, J., Miguel, N.,

    work page doi:10.1016/c2020-0-00508-6

  5. [12]

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 41, 1715–1730

    Attitude control of a flexible sol ar sail in low Earth orbit. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 41, 1715–1730. doi: 10.2514/1.G003178. Fu, B., Eke, F.O.,

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g003178

  6. [15]

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 48, 2541–2556

    Atmospheric-density-compensating model predictive control for targeted reentry of drag-modulated spacecraft. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 48, 2541–2556. doi: 10.2514/1.G008665. Heaton, A., Ahmad, N., Miller, K.,

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g008665

  7. [16]

    Available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170001502/downloads/20170001502.pdf

    Near Earth Asteroid Scout thrust and torque model, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Solar Sailing, Kyoto, Japan. Available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170001502/downloads/20170001502.pdf. Heaton, A., Artusio-Glimpse, A.,

    arXiv

  8. [17]

    doi: 10.2514/6.2015-4506

    An update to the NASA reference solar sail thrust model, in: AIAA SP ACE Conferenc e and Exposition, Pasadena, CA. doi: 10.2514/6.2015-4506. AIAA 2015-4506. Heaton, A., Ramazani, S., Tyler, D.,

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2015-4506 2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [19]

    Advances in Space Research 67, 2613–2627

    Analysis of the solar sail deformation based on the point clo ud method. Advances in Space Research 67, 2613–2627. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.05.008. Inness, J., Diedrich, B., V aldez, B., Tyler, D., Sanders, B.,

    2020 doi

  2. [23]

    Internation al Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2017, 8536732

    Shorter path desi gn and control for an underactuated satellite. Internation al Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2017, 8536732. doi: 10.1155/2017/8536732. Lee, S., Bunker, K.R., Caverly, R.J.,

    2017 doi

  3. [26]

    doi:10.2514/6.2018-1326

    So lar torque management for the Near Earth Asteroid Scout Cube Sat using center of mass position control, in: Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Kissimmee, Florida. doi:10.2514/6.2018-1326. AIAA 2018-1326. Pezent, J.B., Sood, R., Heaton, A.,...

    2018 doi

  4. [27]

    Acta Astronautica 183, 134–140

    Preliminary trajectory design for NASA ’s Solar Cruis er: A technology demonstration mission. Acta Astronautica 183, 134–140. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.03.006. Shen, P .Y ., Caverly, R.,

    2021 doi

  5. [28]

    Acta Astronautica 241, 134–152

    Solar sail momentum manageme nt with mass translation and reflectivity devices using pred ictive control. Acta Astronautica 241, 134–152. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.12.042. Tyler, D., Diedrich, B., Gauvain, B., Inness, J., Heaton, A. , Orphee, J.,

    2025 doi

  6. [29]

    Available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230001111/downloads/Attitude%20Control%20Approach%20for%20Solar%20Cruis V atankhahghadim, B., Damaren, C.J.,

    Atti- tude control approach for Solar Cruiser, a large, deep space solar sail mission, in: Proceed- ings of the AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference , Breckenridge, CO. Available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230001111/downloads/Attitude%20Control%20Appro...

  7. [30]

    Advances in Space Research 67, 2746–2756

    Solar sail deplo yment dynamics. Advances in Space Research 67, 2746–2756. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020.03.029. Wang, J., Cheng, Z., He, G., Y uan, H.,

    2020 doi

  8. [31]

    Advances in Space Research 75, 5640–5655

    Uncertainty char acterization of solar sail thrust with a multiscale modelin g method. Advances in Space Research 75, 5640–5655. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2025.01.026. Wie, B.,

    2025 doi

  9. [34]

    IET Control Theory & Applications 12, 1873–1881

    On the coupling of model predict ive control and robust Kalman filtering. IET Control Theory & Applications 12, 1873–1881. doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2017.1074. 24

    2017

  10. [58]

    Firuzi, S., Gong, S.,

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.105458. Firuzi, S., Gong, S.,

    2019

  11. [489]

    Chen, T.Z., Liu, X., Cai, G.P ., Y ou, C.L.,

    doi: 10.1109/TCST.2020.3014601. Chen, T.Z., Liu, X., Cai, G.P ., Y ou, C.L.,

    2020

  12. [2010]

    Ad vances in Space Research 45, 750–759

    A study of reaction whee l configurations for a 3-axis satellite attitude control. Ad vances in Space Research 45, 750–759. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2009.11.004. 23 Johnson, L., Curran, F.,

    2009 doi

  13. [2011]

    Advances in Space Research 48, 1702–1716

    Solar sail science missio n applications and advancement. Advances in Space Research 48, 1702–1716. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2011.03.018. Markley, F.L., Crassidis, J.L.,

    2011 doi

  14. [2015]

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 38, 662–670

    Attitude control methodology for la rge solar sails. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 38, 662–670. doi:10.2514/1.G000048. Gauvain, B.M., Tyler, D.A.,

    doi

  15. [2016]

    253 –257

    Minimum pow er consumption of the microsatellite attitude control usin g pyra- midal reaction wheel configuration, in: 8th International C onference on Modelling, Identification and Control, pp. 253 –257. doi:10.1109/ICMIC.2016.7804118. Berthet, M., Schalkwyk, J., Çelik, O., Sen...

    2016

  16. [2017]

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 40, 1541–1566

    Model predictive control in aerospace systems: Current state and opportunities. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 40, 1541–1566. doi: 10.2514/1.G002507. Farres, A.,

    doi

  17. [2018]

    2392–2409

    Real-time optimizat ion and model predictive control for aerospace and automoti ve applica- tions, in: American Control Conference, pp. 2392–2409. doi :10.23919/ACC.2018.8431585. Eren, U., Prach, A., Koçer, B., Rakovi´c, S., Kayacan, E., Açıkme¸ se, B.,

    2018

  18. [2019]

    Presentation at the International Astronautical Congress, Washington, DC

    The So lar Cruiser mission: Demonstrating large solar sails for deep space missions. Presentation at the International Astronautical Congress, Washington, DC. Available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190032304/downloads/20190032304.pdf. Johnson, L., Everett, J., McKe...

  19. [2020]

    Technical Report 20205003681

    Solar Cruiser Technology Mat uration Plans. Technical Report 20205003681. NASA Marshal l Space Flight Center. Huntsville, AL. Available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205003681. Johnson, L., Curran, F., Dissly, R., Heaton, A.,

  20. [2021]

    Advan ces in Space Research 67, 2716–2726

    Considerations in the d esign and deployment of flexible booms for a solar sail. Advan ces in Space Research 67, 2716–2726. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.01.019. Huang, X., Zeng, X., Circi, C., Vulpetti, G., Qiao, D.,

    2020 doi

  21. [2022]

    Acta Astronautica 200, 242–252

    High-performance solar sails for interstellar o bject ren- dezvous. Acta Astronautica 200, 242–252. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.07.053. Orphee, J., Diedrich, B., Stiltner, B., Heaton, A.,

    2022 doi

  22. [2023]

    Aerospace Science and Technology 133, 108152

    Stru c- tural response of Helianthus solar sail during attitude man euvers. Aerospace Science and Technology 133, 108152. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2023.108152. Bunker, K.R., Caverly, R.J.,

    2023

  23. [2024]

    Journal of Aerospace Information Systems 21, 667 –683

    Tutorial revie w of indirect wind estimation methods using small uncrewed a ir vehicles. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems 21, 667 –683. doi: 10.2514/1.I011345. Bellar, A., Mohammed, M.A.S., Adnane, A.,

    doi

  24. [2025]

    Acta Astronautica 230, 1–15

    Aut onomous station keeping of satellites in areostationary Ma rs orbit: A predictive control approach. Acta Astronautica 230, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.01.064. Hayes, A.D., Caverly, R.J.,

    2025 doi

  25. [2026]

    Journ al of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , 1–9doi: 10.2514/1.G009590

    Static and dynamic torqu e generation analysis of a cable-actuated solar sail. Journ al of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , 1–9doi: 10.2514/1.G009590. 22 Carzana, L., Wilkie, W .K., Heaton, A., Diedrich, B., Heilig ers, J.,

    doi

  26. [7752]

    Zenere, A., Zorzi, M.,

    doi:10.2514/6.2010-7752. Zenere, A., Zorzi, M.,

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.