Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

A multi-objective dynamic-programming schedule balances fuel and exoplanet yield for LEO nulling interferometers, producing a global Pareto policy under real ConOps constraints.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 08:31 UTC pith:4OZR2IIQ

load-bearing objection Solid engineering integration of ROE linear formations, ConOps, and multi-objective DP into a usable Pareto scheduler for LEO nulling pathfinders; absolute yields rest on empirical fuel coeffs and the duplicate-removal step softens the global-optimality claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10888 v1 pith:4OZR2IIQ submitted 2026-07-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMmath.OC

Stellar Observation Scheduling Optimization for Distributed Space Interferometry Missions

Ethan Foss , Antonio Rizza , Simone D'Amico This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMmath.OC
keywords nulling interferometryformation flyingobservation schedulingmulti-objective dynamic programmingrelative orbital elementsLEO space telescopeexoplanet yieldPareto front
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Low-Earth-orbit formation-flying interferometers can hunt for biosignatures, but every observation burns fuel and only certain stars are visible at certain times. This paper shows how to turn that trade-off into a solvable multi-objective dynamic program. By folding concept-of-operations constraints, relative-orbit transfer costs, station-keeping burn rates, and visibility windows into a single Pareto-front value function, the method returns the complete set of globally optimal observation sequences from any starting star and remaining propellant budget. Numerical runs on a realistic stellar catalog indicate that a six-month LEO mission can expect up to roughly ten exoplanet detections while spending only a few to a few tens of meters per second of ΔV. The resulting policy is flexible: if a target is re-observed or fuel is diverted, the next best path is already known without re-solving the whole problem.

Core claim

A multi-objective dynamic-programming scheme that incorporates nominal concept-of-operations constraints, analytical fuel costs for science-to-standby transfers, station-keeping expenditure, and multi-faceted observability windows produces a globally optimal Pareto-front policy for scheduling exoplanetary-system observations with LEO linear-formation interferometers.

What carries the argument

The multi-objective Bellman update that builds a Pareto front of cumulative scientific yield versus total ΔV (Eq. 32), initialized from single final observations and pruned of dominated or duplicate paths.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical transfer bound and the empirically calibrated station-keeping formula must accurately predict real propellant use for the linear-formation science and standby orbits under orbital perturbations.

What would settle it

Fly a high-fidelity closed-loop simulation (or an on-orbit technology demonstrator) of the planned science-standby-transfer sequence and measure whether actual ΔV and achieved optical-path-difference stay within the predicted budgets used to generate the Pareto front.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Mission designers can compare absolute orbits (altitude, LTAN, terminator vs noon-midnight) by reading off their Pareto fronts rather than by single-point analysis.
  • The same value function immediately supplies the optimal continuation after a revisit or an unplanned fuel expenditure, without re-optimization.
  • Enforcing the frozen-relative-orbit constraint reduces state dimension and fuel but also shrinks reachable yield; the fronts quantify that trade.
  • LEO nulling concepts with only meters-to-tens-of-m/s total ΔV budgets remain scientifically competitive for multi-month campaigns.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Pareto-DP skeleton can be re-parameterized for eccentric or Sun-Earth L2 formations once their relative-orbit and visibility models are substituted.
  • Because the policy is already global, ground operators could treat remaining ΔV as a live state variable and replan only when the Markov assumption is broken by a true anomaly change.
  • Extending the reward from simple yield to a multi-metric science score (biosignature completeness, spectral type balance) would require only a change of the scalar yield term inside the same Bellman update.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a multi-objective dynamic-programming scheduler for LEO linear-formation nulling-interferometry missions. It encodes Sun exclusion, Earth/solar occultation, baseline oscillation, optional frozen-ROE (δix≈0) constraints, operational dwell, transfer ΔV (via ROE bounds with a standby intermediate), and an empirical station-keeping cost into a reachable-set Bellman update that returns a Pareto front of cumulative yield versus propellant. Yields are precomputed from the HWO stellar catalog with a simplified Bracewell SNR and Monte-Carlo completeness. Numerical results for six Sun-synchronous orbits over a 6-month horizon show expected detections of order ~4–10 for ΔV budgets of a few to ~10 m/s, and compare terminator versus noon–midnight families with and without the frozen-orbit constraint.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work is a useful and timely contribution: it is among the first multi-objective DP applications to distributed space-telescope scheduling, produces a reusable policy (not a single open-loop path) that can restart after revisits or fuel changes, and gives concrete comparative guidance across absolute-orbit families under a realistic ConOps. Strengths include the clean specialization of the multi-objective Bellman update (Eq. 32), the ROE-based transfer geometry with standby relaxation (Eqs. 17–20), and the systematic orbit-family comparison (Figs. 8–10). Absolute science-return numbers remain model-dependent, but the relative ranking of design choices is the more durable product.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract, Introduction, and Results repeatedly describe the returned front as “globally optimal,” yet the text after Eq. 32 and Alg. 1 explicitly states that forbidding duplicate observations breaks the Markov property and “introduces optimality losses.” For the 6-month Case-b runs (no δix=0), revisits are possible and the claim is therefore overstated. Either (i) restrict the global-optimality language to the frozen-orbit (Case a) 6-month instances where duplicates cannot occur, or (ii) restore Markovian structure (e.g., state augmentation with a visited-set hash or a post-processing exact check on the reported fronts) and quantify the gap. As written, the strongest claim is not fully supported by the algorithm that is run.
  2. Eq. 21 and the paragraph that follows: the station-keeping model is an empirical linear fit with three coefficients (0.5, 0.5, 1.5 mm/s per m per orbit) calibrated only at a0=6878 km and scaled by a−7/2. Absolute ΔV numbers on the Pareto fronts (Figs. 7–10) and the “meters to tens of m/s” conclusion rest on these free parameters. A short sensitivity study (e.g., ±50% on the three coefficients, or a comparison against a few high-fidelity J2+drag closed-loop runs) is needed so that readers can separate comparative orbit-family conclusions from absolute propellant claims. Without it, the absolute science-per-ΔV numbers remain under-constrained.
  3. Eqs. 24–25 and Appendix “Science Yield Computations”: the scheduler optimizes a simplified single-Bracewell SNR and Monte-Carlo completeness that omit chopping, multi-baseline LIFE-style architectures, and realistic exozodi/stellar-leakage covariances. That is acceptable for ranking, but the paper’s headline “~10 expected detections” is then an upper-bound ranking metric, not a mission yield forecast. The Results and Conclusion should state this limitation explicitly and avoid equating the optimized objective with expected LIFE/STARI science return.
minor comments (6)
  1. Notation: “œ” for orbital elements is nonstandard and hard to read in some fonts; consider the more common “α” or “oe”.
  2. Eq. (1) and surrounding text: “quasi non-singular relative orbital elements” — a one-line pointer to the exact D’Amico / Koenig convention used would help readers match signs of δλ and δi.
  3. Fig. 7 caption and sky maps: color scale for fvis is useful; adding the Sun-exclusion boundary as a dashed curve on the α–δ plane would make the winter low-declination gap easier to interpret.
  4. Table 2 footnote [b]: η_G and η_M citations are given, but η_F and η_K appear without primary references; please supply them.
  5. Typos / style: “sammples” (Eq. 25 paragraph); “protoplanet” in the Conclusion should be “exoplanet”; “SP ACE” and “OBSERV ABILITY” in headings look like PDF hyphenation artifacts.
  6. Related work: a brief contrast with classical telescope scheduling (e.g., orienteering / greedy / MILP formulations used for HST/JWST) would better situate the multi-objective DP contribution.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the multi-objective DP Pareto policy is an independent algorithmic construction; self-citations supply only the input formation/ConOps models, not the claimed optimality or yield numbers.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [BACKGROUND / Orbit Design & Concept of Operations (Eqs. 5–7, Fig. 3); also Fuel Expenditure (Eqs. 17–22)]
    "As was discovered in Ref. 18 and formalized under a relative orbital element definition in Ref. 17, there exists only one class of relative orbits that leverages natural Keplerian relative motion to achieve Λ=0 continuously … Ref. 17 proposes a nominal concept of operations in which these high stress science orbits are only inhabited for short durations … Numerical results in Ref. 17 have shown this analytical expression to be accurate for these scenarios."

    The zero-OPD linear-formation geometry, the science/standby ConOps cycle, and the accuracy of the ΔV transfer formula are imported wholesale from the authors' own concurrent formation-design paper (Ref. 17). Those models define the reachable set R and the cost ΔV that enter the DP; without them the Pareto fronts of Figs. 7–10 would not exist. The citation is therefore load-bearing for the numerical results, yet the uniqueness claim and empirical coefficients are not re-verified inside the present manuscript. The circularity is minor because the DP algorithm and the yield computation remain independent of that self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) adopt linear-formation ROE geometry and standby/science ConOps (from prior literature including the authors' Ref. 17), (2) write explicit observability fractions f_vis and analytical/empirical ΔV transfer+station-keeping costs, (3) define scientific yield Y from an external HWO catalog plus a published SNR formula, (4) cast the resulting orienteering problem as multi-objective DP whose Bellman update (Eq. 32) produces a Pareto front of (yield, −ΔV) paths. Steps (2)–(4) do not redefine their outputs in terms of the quantities they report; the numerical fronts are simply the result of running the DP on those fixed models. The only self-citation that is load-bearing for the problem statement (not for the optimality claim itself) is the uniqueness of zero-OPD linear formations and the associated ConOps, which are taken as given inputs rather than re-derived or fitted to the science-return numbers. Duplicate-removal is acknowledged to break the Markov property, but that is an optimality caveat, not a circular reduction. Consequently the central engineering claim remains non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard ROE dynamics, published linear-formation geometry, an external stellar catalog, a simplified Bracewell SNR model, and a handful of empirically chosen numerical coefficients for station-keeping and operational dwell. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual mission-design knobs.

free parameters (5)
  • station-keeping coefficients ΔV_δλ, ΔV_δix, ΔV_δiy = 0.5 / 0.5 / 1.5 mm s⁻¹ m⁻¹ orbit⁻¹
    Empirically set to 0.5, 0.5, 1.5 mm/s per meter per orbit at a0 = 6878 km; directly scale the fuel cost of every science orbit and therefore the entire Pareto front.
  • operational dwell window Δλ_⊙,min / max = 2π·7/365.24 to 2π·14/365.24
    Fixed to 7–14 days; controls the temporal density of observations and reachable-set size.
  • SNR detection threshold and t_eff,max = SNR=7, t_eff,max=1 day
    SNR = 7 and 1-day maximum integration time set completeness and therefore yield Y_i for every star.
  • baseline formula prefactor 0.59 and B_min/B_max clip = 0.59, [5,200] m
    B0 = 0.59 λ0 / θ_HZ clipped to [5 m, 200 m] determines science-orbit size and station-keeping cost.
  • HZ occurrence rates η_F,G,K,M = 0.30 / 0.50 / 0.45 / 0.20
    Assigned by spectral type (0.30/0.50/0.45/0.20) and multiply completeness to produce yield.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Linear formations parameterized by Eq. 5 achieve continuous zero optical-path difference under unperturbed Keplerian relative motion.
    Taken from Hansen (2020) and Rizza et al.; underpins the entire science-orbit model.
  • domain assumption Relative-orbital-element transfer cost reduces to an (∥Δδe∥/2 + ∥Δδi∥) lower bound when Δδa = 0 and ΔM is large (Eq. 17).
    Cited from Chernick; used for every edge cost in the DP graph.
  • domain assumption J2-frozen science orbits require δix ≈ 0 (optional constraint Eq. 13).
    From the authors’ prior formation-design work; halves the state space when active.
  • standard math Multi-objective Bellman update with Pareto pruning yields the globally optimal front for the finite discrete graph (Eq. 32).
    Standard result in multi-objective DP; invoked after discretization of λ_⊙.
  • ad hoc to paper Simplified single-Bracewell SNR (Eq. 24) and Monte-Carlo completeness (Eq. 25) adequately rank stellar targets.
    Authors note it is simplified relative to full LIFE simulations; still used as the sole scientific reward.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22512 in / 3403 out tokens · 40128 ms · 2026-07-14T08:31:03.049063+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Growing interest in space interferometry for detecting bio-signatures of exoplanets has led to the development of several low-cost mission concepts involving Earth-orbiting formation flying techniques to perform nulling interferometry of incoming light from exoplanetary systems. Pursuing these developments, this work proposes a multi-objective dynamic programming scheme to optimize the balance between fuel expenditure and scientific outcomes of low-cost formation flying space interferometry missions by leveraging several insights from mission design. This scheme accounts for nominal concept of operations constraints, fuel expenditure, and observability conditions to produce a globally optimal Pareto front policy for exoplanetary system observation, and represents one of the first applications of multi-objective optimization to distributed space telescope astronomy.

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

38 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2023, 10.17226/26141

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2023, 10.17226/26141

    doi:10.17226/26141 2023

  2. [2]

    A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star,

    M. Mayor and D. Queloz, “A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star,”Nature, V ol. 378, No. 6555, 1995, pp. 355–359, 10.1038/378355a0

    doi:10.1038/378355a0 1995

  3. [3]

    The NASA Exoplanet Archive and Exo- planet Follow-up Observing Program: Data, Tools, and Usage,

    J. L. Christiansen, D. L. McElroy, M. Harbut,et al., “The NASA Exoplanet Archive and Exo- planet Follow-up Observing Program: Data, Tools, and Usage,”Planetary Science Journal, 2025, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03299. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03299 2025

  4. [4]

    The Occurrence of Rocky Habitable-zone Plan- ets around Solar-like Stars from Kepler Data,

    S. Bryson, M. Kunimoto, R. K. Kopparapu,et al., “The Occurrence of Rocky Habitable-zone Plan- ets around Solar-like Stars from Kepler Data,”The Astronomical Journal, V ol. 161, dec 2020, p. 36, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc418

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc418 2020

  5. [5]

    The extrasolar planet atmosphere and exosphere: Emission and trans- mission spectroscopy,

    G. Tinetti and J.-P. Beaulieu, “The extrasolar planet atmosphere and exosphere: Emission and trans- mission spectroscopy,”Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, V ol. 4, No. S253, 2008, p. 231–237, 10.1017/S1743921308026446

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921308026446 2008

  6. [6]

    J. T. Hansen,Towards Optical & Infrared Interferometry From Space. PhD thesis, The Australian National University, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Imaging exoplanets with coronagraphic instruments,

    R. Galicher and J. Mazoyer, “Imaging exoplanets with coronagraphic instruments,”Comptes Rendus. Physique, V ol. 24, No. S2, 2023, pp. 69–113, 10.5802/crphys.133

    doi:10.5802/crphys.133 2023

  8. [8]

    The Subaru Coronagraphic Extreme Adaptive Optics System: Enabling High-Contrast Imaging on Solar-System Scales,

    N. Jovanovic, F. Martinache, O. Guyon,et al., “The Subaru Coronagraphic Extreme Adaptive Optics System: Enabling High-Contrast Imaging on Solar-System Scales,”Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, V ol. 127, sep 2015, p. 890, 10.1086/682989

    doi:10.1086/682989 2015

  9. [9]

    SPHERE: the exoplanet imager for the Very Large Telescope,

    Beuzit, J.-L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., and others, “SPHERE: the exoplanet imager for the Very Large Telescope,”A&A, V ol. 631, 2019, p. A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935251

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935251 2019

  10. [10]

    JWST/MIRI coronagraphic performances as mea- sured on-sky,

    Boccaletti, A., Cossou, C., Baudoz, P., and others, “JWST/MIRI coronagraphic performances as mea- sured on-sky,”A&A, V ol. 667, 2022, p. A165, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244578

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244578 2022

  11. [11]

    System design of a minia- turized distributed occulter/telescope for direct imaging of star vicinity,

    J. Kolmas, P. Banazadeh, A. W. Koenig, B. Macintosh, and S. D’Amico, “System design of a minia- turized distributed occulter/telescope for direct imaging of star vicinity,”2016 IEEE Aerospace Confer- ence, 2016, pp. 1–11, 10.1109/AERO.2016.7500783

    work page doi:10.1109/aero.2016.7500783 2016

  12. [12]

    Detecting nonsolar planets by spinning infrared interferometer,

    R. N. Bracewell, “Detecting nonsolar planets by spinning infrared interferometer,”Nature, V ol. 274, 1978, pp. 780–781, 10.1038/274780a0

    doi:10.1038/274780a0 1978

  13. [13]

    Large Interferometer For Exoplanets (LIFE): I. Improved exoplanet detection yield estimates for a large mid-infrared space-interferometer mission,

    S. P. Quanz, M. Ottiger, E. Fontanet,et al., “Large Interferometer For Exoplanets (LIFE): I. Improved exoplanet detection yield estimates for a large mid-infrared space-interferometer mission,”Astronomy & Astrophysics, V ol. 664, Aug. 2022, p. A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140366

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140366 2022

  14. [14]

    SEIRIOS: A Demonstration of Space Infrared Interferometer by Formation Flying of Micro-Satellites,

    S. Ikari, H. Kondo, and S. Nakasuka, “SEIRIOS: A Demonstration of Space Infrared Interferometer by Formation Flying of Micro-Satellites,”Proceedings of the 35th Annual Small Satellite Conference (SmallSat 2021), Logan, UT, USA, Utah State University, Aug. 2021. Pre-Conference Workshop Ses- sion 4: Advanced Concepts I – Research & Academia

    2021

  15. [15]

    SILVIA: Ultra-precision formation flying demonstration for space- based interferometry,

    T. Ito, K. Izumi, I. Kawano,et al., “SILVIA: Ultra-precision formation flying demonstration for space- based interferometry,”Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, V ol. 77, 08 2025, pp. 1080– 1089, 10.1093/pasj/psaf086

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf086 2025

  16. [16]

    STARI: STarlight Acquisition and Reflection toward Interfer- ometry,

    J. D. Monnier, J. Cutler, M. Meyer,et al., “STARI: STarlight Acquisition and Reflection toward Interfer- ometry,”Proceedings of the Small Satellite Conference 2025, Session VIII: Advanced Technologies 2 – Research & Academia, Salt Palace Convention Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, Aug. 2025, 10.26077/6031- 9780

    work page doi:10.26077/6031- 2025

  17. [17]

    Space Interferometry Formation Design using Relative Orbital Elements: the STARI Mission,

    A. Rizza, E. Foss, and S. D’Amico, “Space Interferometry Formation Design using Relative Orbital Elements: the STARI Mission,”Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, IEEE, Mar. 2026, 10.1109/AERO

    work page doi:10.1109/aero 2026

  18. [18]

    A linear formation-flying astronomical interferometer in low Earth orbit,

    J. T. Hansen and M. J. Ireland, “A linear formation-flying astronomical interferometer in low Earth orbit,”Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, V ol. 37, 2020, 10.1017/pasa.2020.13

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.13 2020

  19. [19]

    Bellman,The Theory of Dynamic Programming

    R. Bellman,The Theory of Dynamic Programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954

    1954

  20. [20]

    Automated tour design in the Saturnian system,

    Y . Takubo, D. Landau, and B. Anderson, “Automated tour design in the Saturnian system,”Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, V ol. 136, 2024, p. 8, 10.1007/s10569-023-10179-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-023-10179-8 2024

  21. [21]

    Multiobjective Design of Gravity-Assist Trajec- tories via Graph Transcription and Dynamic Programming,

    A. Bellome, J.-P. S´anchez, L. Felicetti, and S. Kemble, “Multiobjective Design of Gravity-Assist Trajec- tories via Graph Transcription and Dynamic Programming,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, V ol. 60, No. 5, 2023, pp. 1381–1399, 10.2514/1.A35472

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a35472 2023

  22. [22]

    Pathfinding and V-infininty leveraging for planetary moon tour mis- sions,

    A. Brinckerhoff and R. Russell, “Pathfinding and V-infininty leveraging for planetary moon tour mis- sions,”Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, V ol. 134, 01 2009, pp. 1833–1850

    2009

  23. [23]

    GLOBAL SEARCH OF RESONANT TRANSFERS FOR A EUROPA LANDER TO CLIPPER DATA RELAY ,

    D. Landau and S. Campagnola, “GLOBAL SEARCH OF RESONANT TRANSFERS FOR A EUROPA LANDER TO CLIPPER DATA RELAY ,” 08 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    A Multi-Objective Dynamic Mission- Scheduling Algorithm Considering Perturbations for Earth Observation Satellites,

    H. Li, Y . Li, Y . Liu, K. Zhang, X. Li, Y . Li, and S. Zhao, “A Multi-Objective Dynamic Mission- Scheduling Algorithm Considering Perturbations for Earth Observation Satellites,”Aerospace, V ol. 11, No. 8, 2024, 10.3390/aerospace11080643

    doi:10.3390/aerospace11080643 2024

  25. [25]

    Understanding HWO’s Field of Regard and Characterization Requirement Trade Space with a Dynamic Observation Scheduling Algorithm,

    C. Spohn, C. C. Stark, D. Savransky, and N. Latouf, “Understanding HWO’s Field of Regard and Characterization Requirement Trade Space with a Dynamic Observation Scheduling Algorithm,” Apr

  26. [26]

    arXiv:2604.22023 [astro-ph.IM], 10.48550/arXiv.2604.22023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22023

  27. [27]

    D’Amico,Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit

    S. D’Amico,Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit. PhD thesis, TU Delft, 2010. 21

    2010

  28. [28]

    James Webb Space Telescope Mission Operations Concept Doc- ument,

    Space Telescope Science Institute, “James Webb Space Telescope Mission Operations Concept Doc- ument,” Tech. Rep. JWST-STScI-001928, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD, 2006. JWST Mission Operations Concept Document (MOCD)

    2006

  29. [29]

    Chernick,Optimal Impulsive Control of Satellite Relative Motion

    M. Chernick,Optimal Impulsive Control of Satellite Relative Motion. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2021

    2021

  30. [30]

    MAXIMIZING THE ExoEarth CAN- DIDATE YIELD FROM A FUTURE DIRECT IMAGING MISSION,

    C. C. Stark, A. Roberge, A. Mandell, and T. D. Robinson, “MAXIMIZING THE ExoEarth CAN- DIDATE YIELD FROM A FUTURE DIRECT IMAGING MISSION,”The Astrophysical Journal, V ol. 795, Oct. 2014, p. 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/122

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/122 2014

  31. [31]

    Large Interferometer For Exoplanets (LIFE): II. Signal simulation, signal extraction and fundamental exoplanet parameters from single epoch observations

    F. Dannert, M. Ottiger, S. P. Quanz, R. Laugier, E. Fontanet, A. Gheorghe, O. Absil, C. Dandumont, D. Defr`ere, C. Gasc´on, A. M. Glauser, J. Kammerer, T. Lichtenberg, H. Linz, J. Loicq, and t. L. collab- oration, “Large Interferometer For Exoplanets (LIFE): II. Signal simulation, signal extraction and fun- damental exoplanet parameters from single epoch ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141958 2022

  32. [32]

    HWO Target Stars and Systems: A Prioritized Community List of Potential Stellar Targets for the Habitable Worlds Observatory’s ExoEarth Survey,

    N. W. Tuchow, C. K. Harada, E. E. Mamajek,et al., “HWO Target Stars and Systems: A Prioritized Community List of Potential Stellar Targets for the Habitable Worlds Observatory’s ExoEarth Survey,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, V ol. 137, Oct. 2025, p. 104402, 10.1088/1538- 3873/ae0a81

    doi:10.1088/1538- 2025

  33. [33]

    The orienteering problem: A survey,

    P. Vansteenwegen, W. Souffriau, and D. V . Oudheusden, “The orienteering problem: A survey,”European Journal of Operational Research, V ol. 209, No. 1, 2011, pp. 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.045

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.045 2011

  34. [34]

    Multi-Objective Markov Decision Processes for Data-Driven Decision Support,

    D. J. Lizotte and E. B. Laber, “Multi-Objective Markov Decision Processes for Data-Driven Decision Support,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, V ol. 17, No. 210, 2016, pp. 1–28

    2016

  35. [35]

    Habitable Zones Around Main-Sequence Stars: New Estimates,

    R. k. Kopparapu, R. Ramirez, J. F. Kasting, V . Eymet, T. D. Robinson, S. Mahadevan, R. C. Ter- rien, S. Domagal-Goldman, V . Meadows, and R. Deshpande, “Habitable Zones Around Main-Sequence Stars: New Estimates,”The Astrophysical Journal, V ol. 765, Feb. 2013, p. 131. arXiv:1301.6674 [astro- ph.EP], 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/131 2013

  36. [36]

    The Occurrence of Potentially Habitable Planets Orbiting M Dwarfs Estimated from the Full Kepler Dataset and an Empirical Measurement of the Detection Sensi- tivity,

    C. D. Dressing and D. Charbonneau, “The Occurrence of Potentially Habitable Planets Orbiting M Dwarfs Estimated from the Full Kepler Dataset and an Empirical Measurement of the Detection Sensi- tivity,” May 2015. arXiv:1501.01623 [astro-ph.EP], 10.48550/arXiv.1501.01623

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1501.01623 2015

  37. [37]

    Astrophysical studies of extrasolar planetary systems using infrared interferometric tech- niques,

    O. Absil, “Astrophysical studies of extrasolar planetary systems using infrared interferometric tech- niques,”

  38. [38]

    A deceptively easy problem,

    J. M. Elkin, “A deceptively easy problem,”The Mathematics Teacher, V ol. 58, No. 3, 1965, pp. 194 – 199, 10.5951/MT.58.3.0194. 22

    work page doi:10.5951/mt.58.3.0194 1965