arxiv: 2605.04481 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.SY· eess.SY

Tightly-Coupled Estimation and Guidance for Robust Low-Thrust Rendezvous via Adaptive Homotopy

Batu Candan , Simone Servadio This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

keywords low-thrust rendezvousadaptive homotopyestimation and guidanceKalman filtermultiple tuning factorsrobust controlClohessy-Wiltshire equationsreceding-horizon optimal control

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

Tying navigation confidence to the homotopy parameter in a receding-horizon solver reduces low-thrust rendezvous terminal miss by two orders of magnitude.

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

The paper shows that minimum-fuel bang-bang control for low-thrust rendezvous breaks down under realistic estimation errors and sensor issues. By feeding a real-time composite score from Kalman-filter innovations and multiple-tuning-factor activity into the homotopy parameter of an indirect optimal-control solver, the system automatically relaxes toward smoother, more conservative trajectories when confidence is low and returns to fuel-efficient control when sensing improves. Numerical tests with severe measurement degradation confirm that this adaptive coupling cuts final position errors from hundreds of meters down to sub-meter levels while adding only modest extra propellant compared with the open-loop optimum.

Core claim

The central claim is that a composite score derived from normalized innovation and MTF activity can be mapped online to the homotopy parameter of a receding-horizon indirect optimal-control solver; this mapping lets the closed-loop guidance law continuously trade fuel optimality for robustness exactly when navigation uncertainty rises, producing terminal miss distances two orders of magnitude smaller than fixed-epsilon or open-loop baselines under the same degraded sensing.

What carries the argument

The composite score computed from normalized innovation and MTF covariance-inflation activity, which is mapped directly to the homotopy continuation parameter that smooths the bang-bang control structure inside the receding-horizon solver.

If this is right

Fixed bang-bang guidance and even fixed-epsilon MTF-KF controllers produce large terminal errors under severe measurement degradation.
Adaptive homotopy supplies the dominant robustness gain; MTF covariance inflation supplies secondary accuracy and efficiency benefits.
The receding-horizon implementation keeps solution times consistently short enough for onboard use.
Only a moderate extra control effort is required relative to the open-loop fuel-optimal benchmark.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same confidence-to-homotopy mapping could be applied to other indirect optimal-control problems where uncertainty varies over time.
Lower-grade sensors might become acceptable for uncooperative proximity operations if the adaptation mechanism is retained.
The approach highlights that estimation quality and control aggressiveness must be coupled rather than treated separately for robust performance.

Load-bearing premise

The composite score built from normalized innovation and MTF activity is assumed to remain a faithful real-time proxy for true navigation confidence, and the chosen mapping from that score to the homotopy parameter is assumed to stay effective for degradation patterns and relative-motion dynamics that were not explicitly tested.

What would settle it

A Monte-Carlo trial under an unmodeled sensor anomaly (for example, a sudden bias drift not captured by the innovation statistics) in which the adaptive controller still produces terminal miss distances comparable to the fixed-epsilon MTF-KF baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04481 by Batu Candan, Simone Servadio.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: System-level schematic of the proposed tightly-coupled adaptive homotopy view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Trajectory and state-level comparison of the open-loop and closed-loop view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Control effort and adaptation behavior for the closed-loop rendezvous case. view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Close-up view of the terminal position error near the end of the rendezvous. view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Close-up view of the innovation-based scheduler inputs during the sensor view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Adaptive-only comparison comparing the plain adaptive-homotopy con view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Close-up view of the adaptive-only comparison study. view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Minimum-fuel low-thrust rendezvous guidance yields bang-bang control structures highly sensitive to estimation errors, sensor anomalies, and solver regularization, making aggressive closed-loop execution brittle for uncooperative proximity operations. This paper proposes a tightly-coupled estimation and guidance architecture where navigation confidence directly modulates the homotopy parameter of a receding-horizon indirect optimal control solver. Relative motion is modeled in the Clohessy-Wiltshire frame. The translational state is estimated via a linear Kalman filter augmented by a Multiple Tuning Factors (MTF) covariance inflation mechanism that suppresses suspicious innovation directions. A composite score from the normalized innovation and MTF activity is mapped online to the homotopy parameter, allowing the controller to relax toward a smoother, conservative regime when confidence degrades, and recover fuel-efficient bang-bang control as sensing improves. Numerical results under severe measurement degradation show fixed bang-bang guidance remains brittle; both plain-KF and MTF-KF fixed-epsilon controllers yield large terminal miss distances. Conversely, the proposed MTF-adaptive homotopy controller reduces terminal miss by roughly two orders of magnitude, from hundreds of meters to sub-meter levels, requiring only a moderate increase in control effort versus the open-loop fuel-optimal benchmark. A comparison indicates adaptive homotopy is the dominant robustness mechanism, while MTF provides additional accuracy and efficiency improvements. The receding-horizon implementation exhibits consistently fast and reliable solution times, supporting the practical online viability of the proposed method.

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 adaptive coupling of MTF filter confidence to homotopy parameter gives solid robustness gains in the reported cases, though the lack of mapping analysis is a clear gap.

read the letter

The one or two things to know are that this paper presents a tightly coupled estimation-guidance loop for low-thrust rendezvous where a composite confidence score from the filter directly tunes the homotopy continuation in the indirect solver. The numerical tests under degraded measurements show a large reduction in terminal error compared to non-adaptive versions. What is new is the specific way the MTF-augmented Kalman filter's innovation and inflation activity feed into the homotopy parameter on the fly. The paper does well in laying out the Clohessy-Wiltshire relative motion model and showing that the receding-horizon implementation stays computationally light. The results make a convincing case that fixed bang-bang control breaks down quickly with bad sensing, while the adaptive version recovers sub-meter accuracy with only a bit more effort than the open-loop optimum. The soft spots are around the mapping function itself. There is no explicit derivation or analysis of how the score translates to the parameter, and no sensitivity study across different mapping choices or untested scenarios. This makes the two-order improvement look promising but potentially tied to the chosen degradation patterns and tuning. The absence of statistical error bars on the miss distances also leaves some uncertainty about repeatability. Overall this is for specialists in space vehicle guidance and control, particularly those dealing with autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations. A reader who works on robust optimal control or integrated navigation will get concrete ideas from the architecture and the baseline comparisons. It deserves serious peer review. The idea is practical and the evidence is strong enough to justify referee time, even if revisions will likely focus on justifying the adaptive mapping more rigorously. I recommend sending it out.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a tightly-coupled estimation and guidance architecture for minimum-fuel low-thrust rendezvous in the Clohessy-Wiltshire frame. A linear Kalman filter is augmented with a Multiple Tuning Factors (MTF) covariance inflation mechanism to suppress suspicious innovations. A composite score derived from normalized innovation and MTF activity is mapped online to the homotopy parameter of a receding-horizon indirect optimal control solver, allowing adaptive relaxation from bang-bang to smoother control under degraded navigation confidence. Numerical simulations under severe measurement degradation show the MTF-adaptive homotopy controller reduces terminal miss by roughly two orders of magnitude (hundreds of meters to sub-meter) versus open-loop and fixed-epsilon baselines, with only moderate control effort increase; adaptive homotopy is identified as the dominant robustness factor.

Significance. If the adaptive mapping generalizes, the architecture provides a practical, computationally efficient bridge between real-time estimation quality and guidance conservatism for uncooperative proximity operations. The numerical comparisons demonstrate clear, quantifiable gains over fixed baselines while preserving fast solver times, supporting online viability. This directly addresses brittleness in fuel-optimal bang-bang structures without requiring full re-derivation of the optimal control problem.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and numerical results] The mapping from the composite innovation/MTF score to the homotopy parameter lacks an explicit functional form, derivation (theoretical bounds, Lyapunov analysis, or otherwise), or sensitivity analysis. This is load-bearing for the central robustness claim, as the reported two-order-of-magnitude terminal-miss reduction depends on the mapping driving the solver into appropriately conservative regimes exactly when estimation quality degrades (see abstract and numerical results description).
[Numerical results] No analysis is provided of how post-hoc tuning of MTF inflation factors or the homotopy schedule influences the quantitative results, nor error-bar statistics or cross-validation of the composite score as a reliable proxy for true navigation confidence under untested degradation patterns or dynamics. This leaves open whether the performance edge is general or scenario-specific (see numerical results comparisons to fixed-epsilon baselines).

minor comments (2)

The abstract states 'roughly two orders of magnitude' reduction; include the precise terminal-miss values, control-effort deltas, and number of Monte Carlo runs from the simulations in the main text for reproducibility.
[Method] Clarify in the method section how the MTF-augmented filter interacts with the homotopy modulation to avoid potential overlap in attributing robustness gains between the two mechanisms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive review, which highlights both the practical value of the architecture and areas where additional clarity will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested improvements in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and numerical results] The mapping from the composite innovation/MTF score to the homotopy parameter lacks an explicit functional form, derivation (theoretical bounds, Lyapunov analysis, or otherwise), or sensitivity analysis. This is load-bearing for the central robustness claim, as the reported two-order-of-magnitude terminal-miss reduction depends on the mapping driving the solver into appropriately conservative regimes exactly when estimation quality degrades (see abstract and numerical results description).

Authors: We agree that greater explicitness is warranted. In the revised manuscript we will state the precise functional form and parameters of the mapping from the composite score to the homotopy parameter that was used in all reported simulations. We will also add a sensitivity study that varies the mapping parameters over a reasonable range and confirms that the two-order-of-magnitude terminal-miss reduction persists. A full Lyapunov analysis of the closed-loop coupled estimation-guidance system is beyond the scope of the present numerical study because of the receding-horizon indirect solver; we will instead add a concise discussion of the empirical basis for the mapping and note the absence of theoretical guarantees as a limitation. revision: partial
Referee: [Numerical results] No analysis is provided of how post-hoc tuning of MTF inflation factors or the homotopy schedule influences the quantitative results, nor error-bar statistics or cross-validation of the composite score as a reliable proxy for true navigation confidence under untested degradation patterns or dynamics. This leaves open whether the performance edge is general or scenario-specific (see numerical results comparisons to fixed-epsilon baselines).

Authors: We acknowledge that the current numerical section would be strengthened by these statistical elements. In the revision we will report error bars obtained from Monte Carlo ensembles, describe the post-hoc tuning procedure for the MTF inflation factors and homotopy schedule, and demonstrate that the chosen values are not critically sensitive. We will further include cross-validation results on additional degradation patterns (different noise levels and bias profiles) not used in the primary experiments, thereby showing that the composite score remains a useful proxy and that the performance advantage of the adaptive homotopy controller generalizes beyond the specific scenarios presented. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; performance claims rest on independent simulation validation

full rationale

The paper presents an architecture in which a composite score derived from normalized innovation and MTF activity is mapped to the homotopy parameter of a receding-horizon indirect solver. This mapping is introduced as a design element of the tightly-coupled estimator-controller, with robustness demonstrated through forward numerical simulations that compare terminal miss distances and control effort against open-loop fuel-optimal, plain-KF, and fixed-epsilon baselines. No step in the described chain equates a claimed performance quantity to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition by construction; the quantitative improvements are reported as empirical outcomes of the proposed method rather than algebraic identities. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The method rests on standard orbital relative-motion assumptions plus several newly introduced mechanisms whose parameters and mapping functions are not externally validated.

free parameters (2)

homotopy-to-confidence mapping function
The function that converts the composite innovation/MTF score into the homotopy parameter value is introduced without stated derivation or external calibration.
MTF inflation factors
Multiple tuning factors used to inflate covariance along suspicious directions are chosen to suppress anomalies but lack independent justification.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Clohessy-Wiltshire linear relative dynamics remain valid for the proximity distances considered
The translational state is modeled in the CW frame throughout.
domain assumption Linear Kalman filter with Gaussian assumptions adequately captures the estimation problem
The estimator is a linear KF augmented by MTF.

invented entities (2)

MTF covariance inflation mechanism no independent evidence
purpose: Suppress suspicious innovation directions in the Kalman filter
New augmentation to standard KF for anomaly handling.
composite confidence score no independent evidence
purpose: Online scalar that modulates the homotopy parameter
Invented mapping from normalized innovation and MTF activity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5561 in / 1583 out tokens · 49345 ms · 2026-05-08T16:26:36.955906+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

A Robust Observation, Planning, and Control Pipeline for Autonomous Rendezvous with Tumbling Targets,

K. Albee, C. Oestreich, C. Specht, A. Teran Espinoza, J. Todd, I. Hokaj, R. Lampariello, and R. Linares, “A Robust Observation, Planning, and Control Pipeline for Autonomous Rendezvous with Tumbling Targets,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, V ol. 8, 2021, p. 641338, 10.3389/frobt.2021.641338

work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.641338 2021
[2]

Servadio,High Order Filters for Relative Pose Estimation of an Uncooperative Target

S. Servadio,High Order Filters for Relative Pose Estimation of an Uncooperative Target. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2017

2017
[3]

Nonlinear Prediction in Marker-Based Space- craft Pose Estimation with Polynomial Transition Maps,

S. Servadio, F. Cavenago, P. Di Lizia, and M. Massari, “Nonlinear Prediction in Marker-Based Space- craft Pose Estimation with Polynomial Transition Maps,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, V ol. 59, No. 2, 2022, pp. 511–523, 10.2514/1.A35068

work page doi:10.2514/1.a35068 2022
[4]

Aerospace8(3), 88 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8030088

D. Morante, M. Sanjurjo Rivo, and M. Soler, “A Survey on Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization Ap- proaches,”Aerospace, V ol. 8, No. 3, 2021, p. 88, 10.3390/aerospace8030088

work page doi:10.3390/aerospace8030088 2021
[5]

A Survey on Convex Optimization for Guidance and Control of Vehicular Systems,

Z. Wang, “A Survey on Convex Optimization for Guidance and Control of Vehicular Systems,”Annual Reviews in Control, V ol. 57, 2024, p. 100957, 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2024.100957

work page doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2024.100957 2024
[6]

Advances in Trajectory Optimization for Space Vehicle Control,

D. Malyuta, Y . Yu, P. Elango, and B. Acikmese, “Advances in Trajectory Optimization for Space Vehicle Control,”Annual Reviews in Control, V ol. 52, 2021, pp. 282–315, 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2021.04.013

work page doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2021.04.013 2021
[7]

Spacecraft Rendezvous Using Constant-Magnitude Low Thrust,

P. Gurfil, “Spacecraft Rendezvous Using Constant-Magnitude Low Thrust,”Journal of Guidance, Con- trol, and Dynamics, V ol. 46, No. 11, 2023, pp. 2183–2191, 10.2514/1.G007472

work page doi:10.2514/1.g007472 2023
[8]

Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajecto- ries Reliably and Efficiently,

D. Malyuta, T. P. Reynolds, M. Szmuk, T. Lew, R. Bonalli, M. Pavone, and B. Acikmese, “Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajecto- ries Reliably and Efficiently,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, V ol. 42, No. 5, 2022, pp. 40–113, 10.1109/MCS.2022.3187542

work page doi:10.1109/mcs.2022.3187542 2022
[9]

Explicit Model Predictive Control Approach for Low- Thrust Spacecraft Proximity Operations,

M. Leomanni, E. Rogers, and S. B. Gabriel, “Explicit Model Predictive Control Approach for Low- Thrust Spacecraft Proximity Operations,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, V ol. 37, No. 6, 2014, pp. 1780–1789, 10.2514/1.G000477

work page doi:10.2514/1.g000477 2014
[10]

Convex Guidance for Envisat Rendezvous,

M. R. Bhagat, “Convex Guidance for Envisat Rendezvous,” msc thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2016

2016
[11]

Closed-Loop Guidance for Low-Thrust Interplanetary Trajectories Using Convex Programming,

C. Hofmann and F. Topputo, “Closed-Loop Guidance for Low-Thrust Interplanetary Trajectories Using Convex Programming,”Proceedings of the 11th International ESA Conference on Guidance, Naviga- tion and Control Systems, 2021. Conference paper

2021
[12]

Rapid Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization in Deep Space Based on Convex Programming,

C. Hofmann and F. Topputo, “Rapid Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization in Deep Space Based on Convex Programming,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, V ol. 44, 2021. Please verify final issue number and page range., 10.2514/1.G005839

work page doi:10.2514/1.g005839 2021
[13]

Homotopic Approach for High-Fidelity Convex Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization,

C. Hofmann and F. Topputo, “Homotopic Approach for High-Fidelity Convex Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2025. Early access / online- first article; verify final volume and page range., 10.1109/TAES.2025.3572466

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2025.3572466 2025
[14]

Collision Avoidance Maneuver Optimization During Low-Thrust Propelled Trajectories,

Z. Pavanello, L. Pirovano, R. Armellin, A. De Vittori, and P. Di Lizia, “Collision Avoidance Maneuver Optimization During Low-Thrust Propelled Trajectories,”Astrodynamics, V ol. 9, No. 2, 2025, pp. 247– 271, 10.1007/s42064-024-0227-3

work page doi:10.1007/s42064-024-0227-3 2025
[15]

Fast Homotopy for Spacecraft Rendezvous Trajectory Optimization with Discrete Logic,

D. Malyuta and B. Acikmese, “Fast Homotopy for Spacecraft Rendezvous Trajectory Optimization with Discrete Logic,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, V ol. 46, 2023, pp. 1262–1279, 10.2514/1.G006295

work page doi:10.2514/1.g006295 2023
[16]

Koopman-Operator Control Optimization for Relative Mo- tion in Space,

S. Servadio, R. Armellin, and R. Linares, “Koopman-Operator Control Optimization for Relative Mo- tion in Space,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, V ol. 46, No. 1, 2023. Please verify final page range., 10.2514/1.G007217

work page doi:10.2514/1.g007217 2023
[17]

Deep Networks as Approximators of Optimal Low -Thrust and Multi-Impulse Cost in Multitarget Missions,

H. Li, S. Chen, D. Izzo, and H. Baoyin, “Deep Networks as Approximators of Optimal Low-Thrust and Multi-Impulse Cost in Multitarget Missions,”Acta Astronautica, V ol. 166, 2020, pp. 469–481, 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.09.023

work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.09.023 2020
[18]

Real-Time Optimal Control for Spacecraft Orbit Transfer via Multiscale Deep Neural Networks,

L. Cheng, Z. Wang, F. Jiang, and C. Zhou, “Real-Time Optimal Control for Spacecraft Orbit Transfer via Multiscale Deep Neural Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, V ol. 55, No. 5, 2019, pp. 2436–2450, 10.1109/TAES.2018.2889571

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2018.2889571 2019
[19]

Reinforcement Learning for Robust Trajectory Design of Interplanetary Missions,

A. Zavoli and L. Federici, “Reinforcement Learning for Robust Trajectory Design of Interplanetary Missions,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2021. Please verify final volume, issue, and page range., 10.2514/1.G005794

work page doi:10.2514/1.g005794 2021
[20]

Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization via Knowledge-Enhanced Deep Neu- ral Network,

B. Yang, Z. Yao, and S. Li, “Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization via Knowledge-Enhanced Deep Neu- ral Network,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2026. Early access / online-first article; verify final volume and page range., 10.1109/TAES.2026.3652990

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2026.3652990 2026
[21]

Learning-Based Stable Optimal Guidance for Spacecraft Close-Proximity Operations,

K. Wang, R. Armellin, A. Evans, H. Holt, and Z. Chen, “Learning-Based Stable Optimal Guidance for Spacecraft Close-Proximity Operations,” arXiv preprint, 2025. arXiv:2501.01096. 14

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

Neural Approximators for Low-Thrust Trajectory Transfer Cost and Reach- ability,

Z. Zhang and F. Topputo, “Neural Approximators for Low-Thrust Trajectory Transfer Cost and Reach- ability,” arXiv preprint, 2025. arXiv:2508.02911; AAS 25-542

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

When Optimal Control Meets Neural Network: A Comprehensive Survey,

X. Wang, Y . Dou, X. Yi, Y . Zhang, X. Li, B. Li, H. Peng, L. Wang, and K. L. Teo, “When Optimal Control Meets Neural Network: A Comprehensive Survey,”Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2026, 10.1007/s11831-026-10499-6

work page doi:10.1007/s11831-026-10499-6 2026
[24]

Enhanced Smoothing Technique for Indirect Optimization of Minimum-Fuel Low-Thrust Trajectories,

E. Taheri, I. Kolmanovsky, and E. Atkins, “Enhanced Smoothing Technique for Indirect Optimization of Minimum-Fuel Low-Thrust Trajectories,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, V ol. 39, No. 11, 2016, pp. 2500–2511, 10.2514/1.G000379

work page doi:10.2514/1.g000379 2016
[25]

A Quadratic Homotopy Method for Fuel-Optimal Low-Thrust Tra- jectory Design,

B. Pan, X. Pan, and Y . Ma, “A Quadratic Homotopy Method for Fuel-Optimal Low-Thrust Tra- jectory Design,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2018. Please verify publisher-formatted page range in the final bibliography., 10.1177/0954410018761965

work page doi:10.1177/0954410018761965 2018
[26]

A Modified Robust Homotopic Method for the Low- Thrust Fuel-Optimal Orbital Control Problem,

Y . Huang, L. Zhang, and X. Zhang, “A Modified Robust Homotopic Method for the Low- Thrust Fuel-Optimal Orbital Control Problem,”Aerospace, V ol. 11, No. 9, 2024, p. 766, 10.3390/aerospace11090766

work page doi:10.3390/aerospace11090766 2024
[27]

Comparison of Control Regularization Techniques for Minimum- Fuel Low-Thrust Trajectory Design Using Indirect Methods,

S. Tafazzol, E. Taheri, and N. Li, “Comparison of Control Regularization Techniques for Minimum- Fuel Low-Thrust Trajectory Design Using Indirect Methods,” arXiv preprint, 2024. arXiv:2409.01490; AAS 24-302

work page arXiv 2024
[28]

Comparison of Indirect and Direct Methods for Operationally Constrained Low-Thrust Trajectories,

N. P. Nurre and E. Taheri, “Comparison of Indirect and Direct Methods for Operationally Constrained Low-Thrust Trajectories,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, V ol. 48, No. 4, 2025. Please verify final page range in the published issue., 10.2514/1.G008559

work page doi:10.2514/1.g008559 2025
[29]

N. L. O. Parrish,Low Thrust Trajectory Optimization in Cislunar and Translunar Space. PhD thesis, University of Colorado Boulder, 2018

2018
[30]

Uniform Trigonometrization Method for Optimal Control Prob- lems with Control and State Constraints,

K. Mall, M. J. Grant, and E. Taheri, “Uniform Trigonometrization Method for Optimal Control Prob- lems with Control and State Constraints,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, V ol. 57, 2020, pp. 995– 1007, 10.2514/1.A34624

work page doi:10.2514/1.a34624 2020
[31]

Robust Attitude Estimation Using IMU-Only Measure- ments,

B. Candan and H. E. Soken, “Robust Attitude Estimation Using IMU-Only Measure- ments,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, V ol. 70, 2021, pp. 1–9, DOI:10.1109/TIM.2021.3104042

work page doi:10.1109/tim.2021.3104042 2021
[32]

Robust Attitude Estimation Using Magnetic and Inertial Sensors,

B. Candan and H. E. Soken, “Robust Attitude Estimation Using Magnetic and Inertial Sensors,”IF AC- PapersOnLine, V ol. 56, No. 2, 2023, pp. 4502–4507, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.941

work page doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.941 2023
[33]

Relative Pose Estimation of an Uncooperative Target with Camera Marker Detection,

B. Candan and S. Servadio, “Relative Pose Estimation of an Uncooperative Target with Camera Marker Detection,”Aerospace, V ol. 12, No. 5, 2025, DOI:10.3390/aerospace12050425

work page doi:10.3390/aerospace12050425 2025
[34]

Adaptive Relative Pose Estimation Framework with Dual Noise Tuning for Safe Approaching Maneuvers,

B. Candan and S. Servadio, “Adaptive Relative Pose Estimation Framework with Dual Noise Tuning for Safe Approaching Maneuvers,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Boston, MA, August 2025, DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2507.16214

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.16214 2025
[35]

Capturing and deorbiting Envisat with an Airbus Spacetug. Results from the ESA e.Deorbit consolidation phase study,

S. Estable, C. Pruvost, E. Ferreira, J. Telaar, M. Fruhnert, C. Imhof, T. Rybus, G. Peckover, R. Lucas, R. Ahmed, T. Oki, M. Wygachiewicz, P. Kicman, A. Lukasik, N. Santos, T. Milhano, P. Arroz, R. Bies- broek, and A. Wolahan, “Capturing and deorbiting Envisat with an Airbus Spacetug. Results from the ESA e.Deorbit consolidation phase study,”Journal of Sp...

work page doi:10.1016/j.jsse.2020.01.003 2020
[36]

Deep Learning- Based Target Pose Estimation Using LiDAR Measurements in Active Debris Removal Operations,

E. A. Pensado, L. M. G. d. Santos, H. G. Jorge, and M. Sanjurjo-Rivo, “Deep Learning- Based Target Pose Estimation Using LiDAR Measurements in Active Debris Removal Operations,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, V ol. 59, No. 5, 2023, pp. 5658–5670. DOI:10.1109/TAES.2023.3262505

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2023.3262505 2023
[37]

De- sign and Operational Elements of the Robotic Subsystem for the e.deorbit Debris Removal Mission,

S. Jaekel, R. Lampariello, W. Rackl, M. De Stefano, N. Oumer, A. M. Giordano, O. Porges, M. Pietras, B. Brunner, J. Ratti, Q. Muehlbauer, M. Thiel, S. Estable, R. Biesbroek, and A. Albu-Schaeffer, “De- sign and Operational Elements of the Robotic Subsystem for the e.deorbit Debris Removal Mission,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, V ol. V olume 5 - 2018, 201...

work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00100 2018
[38]

1218 ofESA SP, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, European Space Agency, Jan

European Space Agency, ed.,Envisat Mission: Opportunities for Science and Applications, V ol. 1218 ofESA SP, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, European Space Agency, Jan. 1998. 15

1998