pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08132 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.CR

Recognition: no theorem link

OrbitBFT: Enabling Scalable and Robust BFT Consensus in LEO Constellations

Tianyi Sun , Shuo Liu , Minghui Xu , Xiuzhen Cheng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 00:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.CR
keywords BFT consensusLEO satellite constellationhierarchical protocolorbital plane stabilityByzantine-resilient routingscalabilitynetwork simulationautonomous coordination
0
0 comments X

The pith

OrbitBFT partitions LEO constellations into orbital planes for localized consensus and adds a resilient bypass to handle faults and congestion.

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

The paper develops a specialized consensus protocol called OrbitBFT for satellites in low Earth orbit. It first runs agreement within each orbital plane where satellite positions change more predictably, then coordinates the results across planes using a routing method designed to resist interference from faulty or malicious nodes. This setup addresses the limits of traditional methods that require too many messages or fail when links are sparse and change quickly. A reader would care because future satellite networks must reach reliable decisions on their own when ground links are lost or jammed.

Core claim

OrbitBFT is a two-stage hierarchical BFT consensus protocol that exploits topological stability within orbital planes to perform localized intra-plane consensus, then applies a Byzantine-resilient bypass mechanism and hop-by-hop transmission for inter-plane coordination. It adapts PBFT and HotStuff to achieve linear message complexity while preserving safety and liveness. Evaluations in a Starlink-based simulation show gains in scalability, throughput, and latency over the unmodified protocols.

What carries the argument

The two-stage structure that localizes most consensus within stable orbital planes and routes remaining messages through a bypass mechanism resistant to Byzantine interference.

If this is right

  • Consensus reaches agreement with linear rather than quadratic message growth as the number of satellites increases.
  • The protocol continues to satisfy safety and liveness even when some satellites behave arbitrarily or links experience congestion.
  • Throughput and latency improve measurably over standard PBFT and HotStuff in simulated LEO environments with realistic dynamics.
  • Large constellations can operate autonomously without continuous ground-station support for coordination.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The localization approach could be tested in other mobile systems whose members form temporary stable clusters, such as vehicle convoys.
  • Actual orbital mechanics and solar interference patterns may require adjustments to the bypass timing that simulations do not capture.
  • Pairing the protocol with existing satellite link-layer routing could lower the practical bandwidth needed for global agreement.

Load-bearing premise

That satellites in the same orbital plane maintain enough stable connections during the time required for local consensus rounds.

What would settle it

A high-fidelity simulation or orbital trace in which intra-plane links break frequently enough to prevent local consensus from completing within expected time bounds, or in which the bypass routing fails to deliver messages under multiple adversarial nodes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08132 by Minghui Xu, Shuo Liu, Tianyi Sun, Xiuzhen Cheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Partially synchronous BFT consensus Fig. 1b, HotStuff consists of four phases. Similar to PBFT, the leader first sends the proposal to other followers via a 1- to-N communication. Unlike PBFT, HotStuff uses threshold signatures in the subsequent three phases. In each of these subsequent phases, the leader first collects votes from follow￾ers and aggregates them into a threshold signature, which is then bro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: LEO constellation. The black lines on the left side of the figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: When X fails to receive an ACK from node Y , messages are passed in numerical order, with red indicating failed transmissions. success), the node concludes that the local topology violates the connectivity assumption (i.e., a closure has formed) and triggers a view change. Path Segmentation and Responsibility. The act of initiat￾ing a bypass by having node X find a cross-plane link to send its message natu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ISL utilization at the target throughput. “x [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of OrbitBFT-based protocols with and without the dynamic window mechanism. PBFT-opt(-w) and HotStuff-opt(-w) denote PBFT-opt and HotStuff-opt without a window mechanism 4) Scalability: To evaluate the scalability of our com￾munication optimization, we set the number of satellites in the intra-plane consensus group from 7 to 22 and measure the latency and throughput of each consensus protocol. A… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations are evolving from communication relays into autonomous platforms operating in increasingly congested and contested environments. Since uplinks to ground stations can be severed or jammed, ensuring reliable coordination among satellites requires autonomous Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) consensus. However, applying conventional BFT protocols to LEO constellations is challenging due to their dynamic topology, sparse connectivity, and limited communication bandwidth. In this paper, we present OrbitBFT, a novel two-stage hierarchical BFT consensus protocol tailored to the unique characteristics of LEO constellations. First, OrbitBFT exploits the topological stability within orbital planes to partition the constellation and perform localized intra-plane consensus, which reduces communication overhead. Second, we design a Byzantine-resilient bypass mechanism and a hop-by-hop transmission protocol to ensure reliable message delivery and mitigate congestion, even in the presence of adversarial behavior. Third, we adapt and optimize PBFT and HotStuff to the LEO context, achieving linear message complexity while preserving safety and liveness. Extensive evaluations in a realistic Starlink-based simulation demonstrate that OrbitBFT significantly improves scalability, throughput, and latency compared to its original designs, making it a practical and efficient BFT solution for large-scale satellite networks.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes OrbitBFT, a two-stage hierarchical BFT consensus protocol for LEO satellite constellations. It partitions the network using intra-plane topological stability for localized consensus, introduces a Byzantine-resilient bypass and hop-by-hop transmission for reliable delivery, and adapts PBFT and HotStuff to achieve linear message complexity while maintaining safety and liveness. The paper reports extensive Starlink-based simulations showing significant gains in scalability, throughput, and latency over baseline designs.

Significance. If the performance claims are substantiated with detailed results, this work would be significant for distributed systems in space, providing a practical BFT solution for large-scale, dynamic LEO networks where traditional protocols fail due to topology changes and bandwidth limits. The hierarchical design and bypass mechanism represent a tailored approach that could influence future satellite network protocols.

major comments (3)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The abstract claims 'significantly improves scalability, throughput, and latency' and 'extensive evaluations in a realistic Starlink-based simulation' but supplies no quantitative metrics, error bars, simulation parameters, number of nodes, or comparison tables, so the central performance claims cannot be assessed.
  2. [§3] Protocol design (§3): The claim of linear message complexity while preserving safety and liveness under LEO dynamics requires an explicit complexity analysis or proof sketch; the adaptation of PBFT/HotStuff is described at high level but the reduction from quadratic to linear is not derived.
  3. [§2] Assumption on topological stability: The weakest link is the claim that intra-plane stability suffices for localized consensus; no analysis shows how plane crossings or adversarial bypass failures affect overall liveness in contested LEO conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'compared to its original designs' is vague; specify whether baselines are unmodified PBFT, HotStuff, or other LEO-specific protocols.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: Ensure 'bypass mechanism' and 'hop-by-hop transmission' are defined before first use and used consistently.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the evaluation, analysis, and discussion as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The abstract claims 'significantly improves scalability, throughput, and latency' and 'extensive evaluations in a realistic Starlink-based simulation' but supplies no quantitative metrics, error bars, simulation parameters, number of nodes, or comparison tables, so the central performance claims cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation of results lacks sufficient quantitative detail to allow full assessment of the claims. In the revised manuscript, we will expand both the abstract and the evaluation section to include specific metrics (e.g., throughput in transactions per second, end-to-end latency in milliseconds), error bars from multiple independent runs, complete simulation parameters (constellation size, orbital elements, link bandwidths, packet loss rates), the range of node counts evaluated, and side-by-side comparison tables versus PBFT and HotStuff. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] Protocol design (§3): The claim of linear message complexity while preserving safety and liveness under LEO dynamics requires an explicit complexity analysis or proof sketch; the adaptation of PBFT/HotStuff is described at high level but the reduction from quadratic to linear is not derived.

    Authors: We will add a new subsection in §3 that derives the message complexity explicitly. Intra-plane consensus within each stable orbital plane incurs O(k) messages for k satellites per plane; because planes operate in parallel, this is linear in total n. Inter-plane coordination is reduced to a constant number of bypass messages per instance via the resilient routing layer. A proof sketch will be provided showing that the safety and liveness arguments of the original PBFT and HotStuff protocols carry over, with additional arguments that the hop-by-hop transmission protocol tolerates the bounded topology changes of LEO orbits. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§2] Assumption on topological stability: The weakest link is the claim that intra-plane stability suffices for localized consensus; no analysis shows how plane crossings or adversarial bypass failures affect overall liveness in contested LEO conditions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current text provides only a high-level justification for intra-plane stability. We will insert a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) in §2 that quantifies the duration of intra-plane stability relative to consensus round times, explains how the hop-by-hop and bypass mechanisms handle plane crossings by dynamic rerouting, and bounds the impact of adversarial bypass failures under the standard BFT fault threshold. We will also note that liveness holds provided the number of simultaneous crossings and faults remains within the tolerated limit, supported by the orbital mechanics of LEO constellations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper describes OrbitBFT as a two-stage hierarchical adaptation of established PBFT and HotStuff protocols, augmented with LEO-specific intra-plane partitioning and a Byzantine-resilient bypass mechanism. All central claims rest on explicit design choices motivated by constellation topology and bandwidth constraints, followed by empirical validation in Starlink-scale simulations. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are presented that reduce any performance prediction or safety property to the protocol's own inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and externally falsifiable via the reported simulation results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on domain assumptions about orbital-plane stability and the effectiveness of the bypass mechanism under adversarial conditions; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly described.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Topological stability within orbital planes is sufficient to support localized intra-plane consensus.
    Invoked to justify the first stage of partitioning and local consensus.
  • domain assumption A Byzantine-resilient bypass and hop-by-hop transmission protocol can ensure reliable delivery despite adversarial nodes and congestion.
    Central to the second stage for maintaining safety and liveness.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5524 in / 1422 out tokens · 56137 ms · 2026-05-12T00:44:57.650931+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Leo satellite networking re- launched: Survey and current research challenges,

    C. Westphal, L. Han, and R. Li, “Leo satellite networking re- launched: Survey and current research challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07646, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Low earth orbit (leo) satellite networks: A new era in global communication,

    Y . M. Reddy, V . H. Raj, H. P. Thethi, S. Gupta, P. Maan, and R. H. Ghani, “Low earth orbit (leo) satellite networks: A new era in global communication,” in2023 10th IEEE Uttar Pradesh Section Interna- tional Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (UPCON), vol. 10. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1563–1568

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Leo satellite access network (leo-san) toward 6g: Challenges and approaches,

    Z. Xiao, J. Yang, T. Mao, C. Xu, R. Zhang, Z. Han, and X.-G. Xia, “Leo satellite access network (leo-san) toward 6g: Challenges and approaches,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 89–96, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Satellite communications in the new space era: A survey and future challenges,

    O. Kodheli, E. Lagunas, N. Maturo, S. K. Sharma, B. Shankar, J. F. M. Montoya, J. C. M. Duncan, D. Spano, S. Chatzinotas, S. Kisseleffet al., “Satellite communications in the new space era: A survey and future challenges,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 70–109, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    China files ITU paperwork for megaconstellations totaling nearly 200,000 satellites,

    A. Jones, “China files ITU paperwork for megaconstellations totaling nearly 200,000 satellites,”SpaceNews, Jan. 2026, accessed: 2026-01-14. [Online]. Available: https://spacenews.com/china-files-itu-paperwork-f or-megaconstellations-totaling-nearly-200000-satellites/

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    A comprehensive survey on orbital edge computing: Systems, applications, and algorithms,

    C. Wu, Y . Li, M. Xu, C. Guo, Z. Yin, W. Gao, and C. Chi, “A comprehensive survey on orbital edge computing: Systems, applications, and algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00275, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Applying autonomy to distributed satellite systems: Trends, challenges, and future prospects,

    C. Araguz, E. Bou-Balust, and E. Alarc ´on, “Applying autonomy to distributed satellite systems: Trends, challenges, and future prospects,” Systems Engineering, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 401–416, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Elon musk’s SpaceX satellites catch heat in China over close calls with space station,

    J. Wattles and J. Disis, “Elon musk’s SpaceX satellites catch heat in China over close calls with space station,” Dec. 2021, accessed: 2026-01-14. [Online]. Available: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/28/tec h/elon-musk-china-spacex-satellite-collision-intl-hnk

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    China is practicing ‘dogfighting’ with satellites as it ramps up space capabilities: US Space Force,

    S. McCarthy, “China is practicing ‘dogfighting’ with satellites as it ramps up space capabilities: US Space Force,” Mar. 2025, accessed: 2026-01-14. [Online]. Available: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/21/chi na/china-space-force-dogfighting-satellites-intl-hnk

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Why U.S. and Chinese satellites are ‘dogfighting’ in orbit,

    C. Davenport, A. Steckelberg, and W. Neff, “Why U.S. and Chinese satellites are ‘dogfighting’ in orbit,”The Washington Post, Dec. 2025, accessed: 2026-01-14. [Online]. Available: https: //www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/space-militar y-satellite-china-united-states/

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Iran makes high-tech additions to its age-old playbook for crushing protests,

    M. Salem, “Iran makes high-tech additions to its age-old playbook for crushing protests,” Jan. 2026, accessed: 2026-01-14. [Online]. Available: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/13/middleeast/iran-high-tec h-additions-playbook-crushing-protests-intl

    work page 2026

  12. [12]

    Practical byzantine fault tolerance,

    M. Castro and B. Liskov, “Practical byzantine fault tolerance,” in Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ’99). USENIX Association, 1999, pp. 173–186

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Hot- stuff: Bft consensus with linearity and responsiveness,

    M. Yin, D. Malkhi, M. K. Reiter, G. G. Gueta, and I. Abraham, “Hot- stuff: Bft consensus with linearity and responsiveness,” inProceedings of the 2019 ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing, 2019, pp. 347–356

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    A survey of fault tolerant consensus in wireless networks,

    Y . Zou, L. Yang, G. Jing, R. Zhang, Z. Xie, H. Li, and D. Yu, “A survey of fault tolerant consensus in wireless networks,”High- Confidence Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 100202, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    A hierarchical byzantine fault tolerance consensus protocol for the internet of things,

    R. Guo, Z. Guo, Z. Lin, and W. Jiang, “A hierarchical byzantine fault tolerance consensus protocol for the internet of things,”High-Confidence Computing, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 100196, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Performance evaluation of starlink-like leo satellite constellations with stable intra-plane links,

    G. Wysocki, P. Cichocki, and M. Pi ´oro, “Performance evaluation of starlink-like leo satellite constellations with stable intra-plane links,” inProceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN). IEEE, 2021, pp. 281–286

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    A technical and economic assessment of satellite constellations for global internet provision,

    I. Del Portillo, B. G. Cameron, and E. F. Crawley, “A technical and economic assessment of satellite constellations for global internet provision,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 105, pp. 1–17, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Constellation design and perfor- mance for leo satellite-based internet,

    L. Fink, M. Masi, and I. Del Portillo, “Constellation design and perfor- mance for leo satellite-based internet,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1629–1643, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    A review of distributed ledger technologies for satellite operations,

    B. Probert, R. A. Clark, E. Blasch, and M. Macdonald, “A review of distributed ledger technologies for satellite operations,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 123 230–123 254, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Fault-tolerant consensus in directed graphs,

    L. Tseng and N. H. Vaidya, “Fault-tolerant consensus in directed graphs,” inProceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 2015, pp. 451–460

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Laser intersatellite links in a starlink constellation: A classification and analysis,

    A. U. Chaudhry and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Laser intersatellite links in a starlink constellation: A classification and analysis,”IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 48–56, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Foundations of dynamic bft,

    S. Duan and H. Zhang, “Foundations of dynamic bft,” in2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2022, pp. 1317–1334

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Blown: a blockchain protocol for single-hop wireless networks under adversarial sinr,

    M. Xu, F. Zhao, Y . Zou, C. Liu, X. Cheng, and F. Dressler, “Blown: a blockchain protocol for single-hop wireless networks under adversarial sinr,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile computing, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Tinybft: Byzantine fault- tolerant replication for highly resource-constrained embedded systems,

    H. B ¨ohm, T. Distler, and P. W ¨agemann, “Tinybft: Byzantine fault- tolerant replication for highly resource-constrained embedded systems,” inProceedings of the 30th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS’24), 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Par- tially synchronous bft consensus made practical in wireless networks,

    S. Liu, M. Xu, Y . Zheng, Y . Zou, W. Qiu, G. Qu, and X. Cheng, “Par- tially synchronous bft consensus made practical in wireless networks,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2025-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–10

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Enabling byzan- tine fault tolerance in access authentication for mega-constellations,

    Z. Wang, X. Lai, S. Zhang, Q. Meng, and H. Luo, “Enabling byzan- tine fault tolerance in access authentication for mega-constellations,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Satbft: An efficient and scalable consensus protocol for blockchain-enabled space-air-ground integrated network,

    H. Zhang and Y . Zhao, “Satbft: An efficient and scalable consensus protocol for blockchain-enabled space-air-ground integrated network,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    The latest gossip on bft consensus,

    E. Buchman, J. Kwon, and Z. Milosevic, “The latest gossip on bft consensus,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.04938, 2018

    work page arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Ratcheta: Memory-bounded hybrid byzantine consensus for cooperative embedded systems,

    W. Xu and R. Kapitza, “Ratcheta: Memory-bounded hybrid byzantine consensus for cooperative embedded systems,” in2018 IEEE 37th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 103–112

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    wchain: a fast fault-tolerant blockchain protocol for multihop wireless networks,

    M. Xu, C. Liu, Y . Zou, F. Zhao, J. Yu, and X. Cheng, “wchain: a fast fault-tolerant blockchain protocol for multihop wireless networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 6915– 6926, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Performance analysis of wireless practical byzantine fault tolerance networks using ieee 802.11,

    Z. Zhou, O. Onireti, L. Zhang, and M. A. Imran, “Performance analysis of wireless practical byzantine fault tolerance networks using ieee 802.11,” in2021 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Par- tially synchronous bft consensus made practical in wireless networks,

    S. Liu, M. Xu, Y . Zheng, Y . Zou, W. Qiu, G. Qu, and X. Cheng, “Par- tially synchronous bft consensus made practical in wireless networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05512, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Privacy-aware spectrum pricing and power control optimization for leo satellite internet-of- things,

    B. Shen, K.-Y . Lam, F. Li, and L. Wang, “Privacy-aware spectrum pricing and power control optimization for leo satellite internet-of- things,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 9569–9584, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Fault-tolerant spectrum usage consensus for low-earth-orbit satellite constellations,

    A. Mollakhani and D. Guo, “Fault-tolerant spectrum usage consensus for low-earth-orbit satellite constellations,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures (DAPPS), 2025, pp. 21–26

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Age-critical and secure blockchain sharding scheme for satellite-based internet of things,

    B. Wang, J. Jiao, S. Wu, R. Lu, and Q. Zhang, “Age-critical and secure blockchain sharding scheme for satellite-based internet of things,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 9432– 9446, 2022

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process,

    M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson, “Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process,”Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 374–382, 1985

    work page 1985

  37. [37]

    Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony,

    C. Dwork, N. Lynch, and L. Stockmeyer, “Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony,”Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 288–323, 1988

    work page 1988

  38. [38]

    Temporary laser inter-satellite links in free-space optical satellite networks,

    A. U. Chaudhry and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Temporary laser inter-satellite links in free-space optical satellite networks,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 3, pp. 1413–1427, 2022

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Time- varying topology model for dynamic routing in leo satellite constellation networks,

    Z. Han, C. Xu, G. Zhao, S. Wang, K. Cheng, and S. Yu, “Time- varying topology model for dynamic routing in leo satellite constellation networks,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3440–3454, 2022

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Adaptive routing mechanism for leo satellite network based on control domain partition,

    P. Zhang, Z. Xian, M. Liao, H. Huang, and J. Yang, “Adaptive routing mechanism for leo satellite network based on control domain partition,” IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking, 2024

    work page 2024