Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 41 references

B-spline shaping for low-thrust interplanetary rendezvous

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Clamped B-splines of heliocentric cylindrical coordinates cut low-thrust rendezvous delta-v versus high-order hodographic shaping while needing no dynamics propagation.

desk verdict Solid, usable B-spline + flatness shaping with large multi-target grids and public code; the headline ΔV gains vs hodographic are real on the reported setup but partly confounded by unequal optimizers. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23790 v1 pith:H42JUXQH submitted 2026-07-26 eess.SY cs.SY

Julio C. Sanchez This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords low-thrusttrajectoryoptimizationB-splineshapingshape-basedmethodsinterplanetaryrendezvousdifferentialflatnesshodographiccylindricalcoordinates
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

Preliminary design of continuous-thrust interplanetary rendezvous needs fast trajectory shapes that still meet position and velocity at both ends and keep propellant cost low. This paper parameterizes the spacecraft path in heliocentric cylindrical coordinates with clamped B-splines, then recovers the required thrust acceleration algebraically from the path and its derivatives by using differential flatness of the dynamics. Endpoint conditions are built into the first and last control points, so the fixed-time minimum-delta-v problem collapses to a bounded nonlinear program over only the free interior control points, with numerical integration used solely for the cost. Fine-grid Earth-to-Mars, Mercury, 1989 ML, and Tempel 1 campaigns show that every tested B-spline setup lowers mean, median, and minimum accumulated delta-v relative to a high-order hodographic benchmark; a ten-control-point quintic is offered as the practical default, and denser control polygons as a refinement tool. A sympathetic reader cares because the same architecture applies across targets without hand-built basis functions and yields usable porkchop maps at lower serial cost per attempt.

What carries the argument

Clamped B-spline cylindrical-position shaping plus differential flatness: the path q=(r,θ,z) is a clamped B-spline whose endpoint control points enforce position and velocity by construction; control acceleration is recovered algebraically from q and its first two derivatives, so dynamics need not be propagated and only interior control points are optimized.

What would settle it

Re-solve the same fine grids with one shared optimizer, identical initialization and continuation, and matched quadrature; if the median and minimum delta-v gaps between ten-control-point quintic B-splines and the hodographic bases largely close, the central performance claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across the tested fine-grid campaigns and among the finite solutions retained, all clamped B-spline configurations of cylindrical coordinates reduce mean, median, and minimum accumulated delta-v relative to high-order hodographic shaping. A quintic with ten control points is identified as the favorable compromise: it cuts median delta-v by roughly 22–45% depending on target and uses about 30–33% less computation time per transfer attempt, while forty-control-point shapes further lower the best-found minimum when cost is secondary.

Load-bearing premise

The reported delta-v edge is treated as coming from the B-spline shape space itself, even though the B-spline problems are solved with a gradient interior-point solver and the hodographic problems with a derivative-free simplex method under different sampling and warm-start rules.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single clamped B-spline cylindrical architecture can screen multi-revolution Earth departures to Mars, Mercury, NEAs, and comets without target-specific analytical bases.
  • Ten-control-point quintic shapes are a default for broad porkchop campaigns when both cost and serial time matter.
  • Forty-control-point shapes are reserved to refine selected opportunities when the lowest delta-v inside the shape space is the priority.
  • Shaped trajectories can seed higher-fidelity direct or indirect optimal-control solvers because dynamics and boundaries already hold by construction.
  • Raising spline degree and control-point count localizes thrust into shorter arcs separated by longer coasts, changing the qualitative control history available to the designer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If mass depletion and hard thrust bounds were folded into the same flat B-spline NLP, the method could move from unconstrained screening toward propulsion-aware preliminary design without leaving the shape-based setting.
  • The local support of B-splines suggests natural multi-leg or gravity-assist extensions by splicing segments while keeping endpoint clamps.
  • A matched-optimizer ablation against other shape families (Fourier, Bézier, equinoctial splines) would isolate how much of the gain is basis geometry versus solver technology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a shape-based method for fixed-time, minimum-ΔV low-thrust interplanetary rendezvous in which the heliocentric cylindrical coordinates are parameterized by clamped B-splines. Exploiting the differential flatness of the fully actuated cylindrical two-body dynamics, the control acceleration is recovered algebraically from the shaped trajectory and its first two derivatives (Eq. 3), and the clamped knot structure enforces endpoint position and velocity conditions analytically (Eq. 14). The continuous problem (1) is thereby reduced to a bounded finite-dimensional NLP (20) in the 3(nc−4) free interior control points, with quadrature needed only for the ΔV objective. The method is benchmarked against high-order hodographic shaping [27] over large fine-grid campaigns (≈1.3×10^5–1.5×10^5 attempts per method per target) for Earth-to-Mars, Mercury, 1989 ML, and Tempel 1 transfers. The headline claim (Table 3) is that all tested B-spline configurations reduce mean, median, and minimum ΔV relative to the hodographic benchmark among the finite solutions retained, with a quintic 10-control-point spline cutting median ΔV by ~22–45% at ~30–33% lower per-attempt runtime (Table 4).

Significance. If the comparative claim holds under matched numerics, the contribution is a genuinely useful preliminary-design tool: a single, target-independent architecture (standard clamped B-splines of the position coordinates) that requires no hand-crafted per-target basis sets, satisfies dynamics and boundary conditions by construction, and is fast enough for full porkchop-scale screening. The mathematics in §3 (flatness of cylindrical dynamics, clamped endpoint encoding, derivative recursions) is standard and correctly applied. The paper also deserves explicit credit for several practice-level strengths: very large campaigns on identical grids for both methods; re-evaluation of both methods' ΔV with the same high-accuracy Gauss–Legendre quadrature in postprocessing, which cleanly removes the quadrature confound; public source code (FASTTRANSFER repository), making the comparison reproducible in principle; honest hedging of the claim to "tested fine-grid campaigns and among the finite solutions retained"; and a candid limitations statement (unconstrained u, no mass model, local optimality within the shape space). These make the manuscript a solid candidate for the journal provided the one,

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1–4.2, Tables 3–4] §4.1 vs §4.2 (central to Tables 3–4): the two methods are given asymmetric numerical treatment. The B-spline NLP (20) is solved with IPOPT via CasADi — exact gradients, box bounds, and a strong physics-informed initial guess obtained by least-squares fitting the control polygon to a quintic MEE interpolating profile (Eq. 22) — while the hodographic six-free-coefficient problem is solved with SciPy Nelder–Mead, an initial simplex built from 10^-2 coordinate perturbations, hard-capped at 1,000 objective evaluations. Nelder–Mead on a 6-D nonconvex objective under a 1,000-evaluation budget is frequently under-converged, so part of the reported ΔV gap (Table 3) and runtime gap (Table 4) may reflect optimizer quality rather than the shape spaces. Since the central claim is a head-to-head attribution ('all B-spline configurations reduce... relative to high-order hodographic shaping'), a matched
  2. [§5.2, Table 3] §5.2, Table 3: the statistics are computed 'among the finite solutions retained,' but the manuscript nowhere reports per-method failure/retention rates. If IPOPT and Nelder–Mead produce non-finite or non-converged results at different rates (plausible, especially for Mercury where the hodographic mean is 73.5 km/s against a median of 49.8 km/s — a heavy upper tail that could be either genuine or convergence failure), then mean and median comparisons in Table 3 are computed over different implicit subsamples for the two methods. Please report, per method and target: number of attempts, number retained, and the retention criterion; and recompute Table 3 on the intersection of attempts where both methods return finite solutions, or state explicitly that retention rates were effectively equal.
  3. [§5, Table 3] §3.2.2/§5: the comparison conflates shape-space type with shape-space dimension. The recommended B-spline configuration (nc=10) has 3(10−4)=18 decision variables versus 6 free coefficients for the hodographic benchmark. A six-degree-of-freedom B-spline configuration (e.g., quintic with nc=6, or cubic with nc=6) would isolate the contribution of the basis type from that of dimension. The nc=40 results partially address flexibility scaling on the B-spline side, but there is no analogous higher-dimensional hodographic run (e.g., adding further basis functions to match ~18 free coefficients). At least one matched-dimension experiment, even on a subset of one campaign, would substantially strengthen the attribution claim.
  4. [§5.1, §6] §5.1 and §6: no solution from either method is validated against an independently converged reference (e.g., a direct collocation or indirect solution) for even a single transfer. The paper's own framing is comparative within shape spaces, and the conclusions are appropriately hedged, so this does not block the comparative claim — but the aggregate claim that B-spline solutions are 'better' preliminary designs would be materially grounded by one or two spot checks showing that the lower-ΔV B-spline solutions (e.g., Fig. 3, Fig. 7) remain superior after refinement by a standard transcription method, and that the near-coast profiles of Fig. 18 are not artifacts of the unconstrained-acceleration formulation that would disappear under any thrust limit.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§4.1] §4.1: IPOPT convergence tolerances, maximum iterations, and the handling of failed/restore-mode exits are not reported; these matter for interpreting per-attempt runtimes in Table 4 and the retention issue above.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (23)] §4.1, Eq. (23): the smoothing parameter ε=10^-6 is stated in 'canonical acceleration units'; for reproducibility, give its equivalent in physical units and a brief sensitivity note (does the ranking in Table 3 change for ε=10^-5 or 10^-7?).
  3. [§4.2] §4.2: the paper notes [27] used O'Neill's Nelder–Mead implementation while this work uses SciPy's; a one-line justification (or a spot check that both implementations agree on a few grid points) would preempt questions about benchmark fidelity, since the comparison is against a reimplementation rather than published numbers.
  4. [§4.1, Eqs. (22), (25)] Rendering artifacts: the MEE vector appears as 'ααα' (triple alpha) in Eq. (22) and surrounding text; 'AU' is used both for the astronomical unit and for the canonical acceleration unit in Eq. (25) ('A U = 4π² AU/yr²') — rename the latter to avoid confusion.
  5. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1: basis-function indices in the legend run from B_{0,3} while the text indexes control points and basis functions from i=1 (Eqs. 4–5); align the indexing convention.
  6. [Figs. 3, 7, 11, 15] §5.1.1, Fig. 3: the lowest-ΔV solutions compared occur at different departure dates, transfer times, and (for Mercury/Tempel 1) different N branches; the text is clear about this, but the captions should state it explicitly so the per-case percentages (1.4%, 4.8%, 9.3%, 10.3%) are not misread as same-attempt comparisons.
  7. [Table 4] Table 4: report the hardware-parallelism caveat (parallel campaign, serial-equivalent timing) in the table caption itself, and state the IPOPT linear solver used (e.g., MA27/MUMPS), which can materially affect per-attempt times.
  8. [Code availability] The GitHub repository is a strong point; please add a tagged release or commit hash in the Code Availability statement so the exact benchmarked version is citable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical shape-space comparison against an external benchmark, with dynamics/BCs satisfied by construction as transcription design.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is an empirical head-to-head: clamped B-spline cylindrical shaping versus high-order hodographic shaping [27] on fine-grid Earth–Mars/Mercury/1989 ML/Tempel 1 campaigns (Tables 3–4, porkchops). That benchmark is external (Gondelach & Noomen), not a self-citation chain. Differential flatness (Eqs. 2–3) and clamped endpoint encoding (Eq. 14) make dynamics and boundary conditions hold inside the chosen finite-dimensional shape space by construction; the paper states this explicitly as a reduction of the continuous OCP to NLP (20) and separately acknowledges the inherent shape-space optimality gap (Sec. 3.4). That is standard transcription/shape-based design, not a circular proof that the continuous optimum has been found, nor a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations ([34–36], including the author's prior flatness work) are background on related applications and are not used as uniqueness theorems that force the method. Asymmetry of solvers (IPOPT vs Nelder–Mead) is a fairness/correctness concern about attributing the ΔV gap, not circularity of the derivation. No step reduces a claimed first-principles prediction to its own fitted input.

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

Load-bearing content is mostly standard two-body astrodynamics, B-spline theory, and differential flatness, plus engineering choices that define the compared shape spaces and solvers. No new physical entities. Free hyperparameters (degree, control-point count, bounds, smoothing ε, optimizer settings) materially affect reported ΔV and runtime and are therefore ledgered.

free parameters (5)
  • B-spline degree p and control-point count nc = featured: p=5, nc=10 (also p=3/5 with nc=40)
    Primary shape-space hyperparameters; paper sweeps cubic/quintic and nc=10/40 and recommends nc=10 quintic as default.
  • Objective smoothing epsilon = 1e-6
    ε=1e-6 canonical acceleration units regularizes ||u|| near zero for IPOPT; deactivated only when reporting ΔV.
  • Control-point box bounds = cr in [1e-4,20] AU; cz in [-20,20] AU; angular window ± extra revolution
    Hand-chosen radial/angular/axial bounds (Eq. 24) restrict the NLP search and enforce r>0 via partition of unity.
  • Hodographic free-coefficient optimizer settings = SciPy Nelder–Mead as specified in §4.2
    Nelder–Mead initial simplex 1e-2, max 1000 evals, tol 1e-6, 51-sample trajectory—choices that affect the baseline quality.
  • Quadrature resolution = 6 points per span; common postprocess quadrature
    Six Gauss points per knot span (B-spline) and post-hoc common Gauss–Legendre reevaluation set the numerical ΔV values compared.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Heliocentric motion is two-body point-mass gravity with fully actuated continuous acceleration in cylindrical coordinates (problem (1)).
    Stated in §2; mass omitted and thrust unbounded by design.
  • standard math Cylindrical coordinates q=[r,θ,z] are a flat output: u is an algebraic function of q, q̇, q̈ on r>0 (Eq. 3).
    Invoked in §3.1 from Fliess et al. flatness theory; standard for fully actuated translational dynamics.
  • standard math Clamped B-splines of degree p≥3 with simple interior knots give C^{p-1} trajectories and continuous second derivatives needed for continuous u.
    §3.2; classical B-spline continuity.
  • domain assumption Fixed transfer time T and revolution count N are prescribed; terminal azimuth is unwrapped by +2πN.
    §2 problem formulation for multi-revolution screening.
  • ad hoc to paper Local solutions of the finite NLP (20) inside the chosen B-spline space are adequate proxies for preliminary-design quality versus the continuous minimum-ΔV problem.
    Explicit convergence–optimality tradeoff paragraph at end of §3.4; central empirical claims live entirely in this finite shape space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of B-spline shaping for low-thrust interplanetary rendezvous." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H42JUXQH

@misc{pith2026260723790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: B-spline shaping for low-thrust interplanetary rendezvous},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H42JUXQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23790}
}
read the original abstract

Rapid preliminary design of low-thrust interplanetary rendezvous trajectories requires parameterizations that combine computational efficiency, flexibility, and sufficient solution quality. This work presents a shape-based method in which the heliocentric cylindrical coordinates are parameterized using clamped B-splines. The differential flatness of the low-thrust cylindrical dynamics is exploited to recover the control acceleration algebraically from the shaped trajectory and its derivatives. The clamped B-spline parameterization satisfies the endpoint position and velocity conditions analytically, reducing the original fixed-time, minimum delta-v problem to a finite-dimensional nonlinear program in the free interior B-spline control points. The formulation therefore requires no numerical propagation of the equations of motion; numerical quadrature is used only to evaluate the objective function. Numerical campaigns are conducted for low-thrust rendezvous transfers from Earth to Mars, Mercury, the near-Earth asteroid 1989 ML, and comet Tempel 1, and the results are compared with high-order hodographic shaping. Across the tested fine-grid campaigns and among the finite solutions retained, all B-spline configurations reduce the mean, median, and minimum accumulated velocity increment relative to the hodographic benchmark. In particular, a ten control-point quintic B-spline is identified as a favorable compromise between solution quality and computational efficiency, while higher-dimensional parameterizations are effective for refining selected transfer opportunities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Hodographic-Shaping Method for Low-Thrust Interplanetary Trajectory Design.Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2015, 52(3): 728–738, doi:10.2514/1.A32991

    Gondelach DJ, Noomen R. Hodographic-Shaping Method for Low-Thrust Interplanetary Trajectory Design.Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2015, 52(3): 728–738, doi:10.2514/1.A32991

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a32991 2015

  2. [1]

    Results from the Deep Space 1 Technology Vali- dation Mission.Acta Astronautica, 2000, 47(2–9): 475–487, doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(00)00087-4

    Rayman MD, Varghese P, Lehman DH, Livesay LL. Results from the Deep Space 1 Technology Vali- dation Mission.Acta Astronautica, 2000, 47(2–9): 475–487, doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(00)00087-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0094-5765(00)00087-4

  3. [2]

    SMART-1 Mission Description and Development Status.Planetary and Space Science, 2002, 50(14–15): 1323–1337, doi:10.1016/ S0032-0633(02)00123-X

    Racca GD, Marini A, Stagnaro L, van Dooren J, di Napoli L, Foing BH, Lumb R, Volp J, Brinkmann J, Gr¨ unagger R, Estublier D, Gare P, Haskell G, Rinaldi M, Schwehm G, Bonnewijn S, Koschny D, Kramers G, Lager A, Langevin Y, Sainct H, Svedhem H. SMART-1 Mission Description and Development Status.Planetary and Space Science, 2002, 50(14–15): 1323–1337, doi:1...

    2002

  4. [3]

    The Dawn Ion Propulsion System.Space Science Reviews, 2011, 163(1–4): 251–261, doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9848-y

    Brophy JR. The Dawn Ion Propulsion System.Space Science Reviews, 2011, 163(1–4): 251–261, doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9848-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9848-y 2011

  5. [4]

    Powered Flight of Electron Cyclotron Resonance Ion Engines on Hayabusa Explorer.Journal of Propulsion and Power, 2007, 23(2): 544–551, doi:10.2514/1.25434

    Kuninaka H, Nishiyama K, Funaki I, Yamada T, Shimizu Y, Kawaguchi J. Powered Flight of Electron Cyclotron Resonance Ion Engines on Hayabusa Explorer.Journal of Propulsion and Power, 2007, 23(2): 544–551, doi:10.2514/1.25434

    work page doi:10.2514/1.25434 2007

  6. [5]

    System Design of the Hayabusa 2 — Asteroid Sample Return Mission to 1999 JU3.Acta Astronautica, 2013, 91: 356–362, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.06.028

    Tsuda Y, Yoshikawa M, Abe M, Minamino H, Nakazawa S. System Design of the Hayabusa 2 — Asteroid Sample Return Mission to 1999 JU3.Acta Astronautica, 2013, 91: 356–362, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.06.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.06.028 1999

  7. [6]

    New York: Interscience Publishers, 1962, translated by K

    Pontryagin LS, Boltyanskii VG, Gamkrelidze RV, Mishchenko EF.The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes. New York: Interscience Publishers, 1962, translated by K. N. Trirogoff and edited by L. W. Neustadt

    1962

  8. [7]

    Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1975

    Bryson AE, Ho YC.Applied Optimal Control: Optimization, Estimation, and Control. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1975

    1975

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Primer Vector Theory Applied to Global Low-Thrust Trade Studies.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2007, 30(2): 460–472, doi:10.2514/1.22984

    Russell RP. Primer Vector Theory Applied to Global Low-Thrust Trade Studies.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2007, 30(2): 460–472, doi:10.2514/1.22984

    2007 doi

  2. [9]

    Primer Vector Theory and Applications

    Prussing JE. Primer Vector Theory and Applications. In BA Conway, editor,Spacecraft Tra- jectory Optimization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 16–36, doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511778025.003

    2010

  3. [10]

    A Survey on Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization Ap- proaches.Aerospace, 2021, 8(3), doi:10.3390/aerospace8030088

    Morante D, Sanjurjo Rivo M, Soler M. A Survey on Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization Ap- proaches.Aerospace, 2021, 8(3), doi:10.3390/aerospace8030088

    2021 doi

  4. [11]

    Taheri E, Kolmanovsky I, Atkins E. Enhanced Smoothing Technique for Indirect Optimization of Minimum-Fuel Low-Thrust Trajectories.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2016, 39(11): 2500–2511, doi:10.2514/1.G000379

    2016 doi

  5. [12]

    Direct-to-indirect mapping for optimal low-thrust trajectories.Astrodynamics, 2024, 8(1): 27–46, doi:10.1007/s42064-023-0164-6

    Ottesen D, Russell RP. Direct-to-indirect mapping for optimal low-thrust trajectories.Astrodynamics, 2024, 8(1): 27–46, doi:10.1007/s42064-023-0164-6

    2024 doi

  6. [13]

    Tang G, Jiang F, Li J. Fuel-Optimal Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization Using Indirect Method and Successive Convex Programming.IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2018, 54(4): 2053–2066, doi:10.1109/TAES.2018.2803558

    2018

  7. [14]

    Fuel Optimization for Low-Thrust Earth–Moon Transfer via Indirect Optimal Control.Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 2018, 130(2): 21, doi:10.1007/ s10569-017-9808-2

    P ´erez-Palau D, Epenoy R. Fuel Optimization for Low-Thrust Earth–Moon Transfer via Indirect Optimal Control.Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 2018, 130(2): 21, doi:10.1007/ s10569-017-9808-2

    2018

  8. [15]

    Costate mapping for indirect trajectory optimization.Astrodynamics, 2021, 5: 359–371, doi:10.1007/s42064-021-0114-0

    Taheri E, Arya V, Junkins JL. Costate mapping for indirect trajectory optimization.Astrodynamics, 2021, 5: 359–371, doi:10.1007/s42064-021-0114-0

    2021 doi

  9. [16]

    Indirect Optimization of Power-Limited Asteroid Rendezvous Trajectories

    Wang Y, Topputo F. Indirect Optimization of Power-Limited Asteroid Rendezvous Trajectories. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2022, 45(5): 962–971, doi:10.2514/1.G006179

    2022 doi

  10. [17]

    Direct Trajectory Optimization Using Nonlinear Programming and Collo- cation.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1987, 10(4): 338–342, doi:10.2514/3.20223

    Hargraves CR, Paris SW. Direct Trajectory Optimization Using Nonlinear Programming and Collo- cation.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1987, 10(4): 338–342, doi:10.2514/3.20223

    1987 doi

  11. [18]

    Survey of Numerical Methods for Trajectory Optimization.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1998, 21(2): 193–207, doi:10.2514/2.4231

    Betts JT. Survey of Numerical Methods for Trajectory Optimization.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1998, 21(2): 193–207, doi:10.2514/2.4231

    1998 doi

  12. [19]

    Survey of Direct Transcription for Low-Thrust Space Trajectory Optimization with Applications.Abstract and Applied Analysis, 2014, 2014: 1–15, doi:10.1155/2014/851720

    Topputo F, Zhang C. Survey of Direct Transcription for Low-Thrust Space Trajectory Optimization with Applications.Abstract and Applied Analysis, 2014, 2014: 1–15, doi:10.1155/2014/851720

    2014 doi

  13. [20]

    A Unified Framework for the Numerical Solution of Optimal Control Problems Using Pseudospectral Methods.Automatica, 2010, 46(11): 1843–1851, doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2010.06.048

    Garg D, Patterson MA, Hager WW, Rao A V, Benson DA, Huntington GT. A Unified Framework for the Numerical Solution of Optimal Control Problems Using Pseudospectral Methods.Automatica, 2010, 46(11): 1843–1851, doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2010.06.048

    2010 doi

  14. [21]

    Li S, Zhu Y, Wang Y. Rapid design and optimization of low-thrust rendezvous/interception trajectory for asteroid deflection missions.Advances in Space Research, 2014, 53(4): 696–707, doi:10.1016/ j.asr.2013.12.012

    2014

  15. [22]

    Optimal Planning and Guidance for Solar System Exploration Using Electric Solar Wind Sails.Acta Astronautica, 2024, 217: 116–129, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.01.030

    Urrios J, Pacheco-Ramos G, V ´azquez R. Optimal Planning and Guidance for Solar System Exploration Using Electric Solar Wind Sails.Acta Astronautica, 2024, 217: 116–129, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.01.030

    2024 doi

  16. [23]

    Target selection for a small low-thrust mission to near-Earth asteroids.Astrody- namics, 2018, 2(3): 249–263, doi:10.1007/s42064-018-0024-y

    Mereta A, Izzo D. Target selection for a small low-thrust mission to near-Earth asteroids.Astrody- namics, 2018, 2(3): 249–263, doi:10.1007/s42064-018-0024-y

    2018 doi

  17. [24]

    State-dependent trust region for successive convex programming for autonomous spacecraft.Astrodynamics, 2024, 8: 553–575, doi:10.1007/ s42064-024-0200-1

    Bernardini N, Baresi N, Armellin R. State-dependent trust region for successive convex programming for autonomous spacecraft.Astrodynamics, 2024, 8: 553–575, doi:10.1007/ s42064-024-0200-1

    2024

  18. [25]

    Shape-Based Algorithm for the Automated Design of Low-Thrust, Gravity Assist Trajectories.Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2004, 41(5): 787–796, doi:10.2514/ 1.13095

    Petropoulos AE, Longuski JM. Shape-Based Algorithm for the Automated Design of Low-Thrust, Gravity Assist Trajectories.Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2004, 41(5): 787–796, doi:10.2514/ 1.13095

    2004

  19. [26]

    Improved Shaping Approach to the Preliminary Design of Low-Thrust Trajectories.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2011, 34(1): 128–147, doi:10.2514/1

    Novak DM, Vasile M. Improved Shaping Approach to the Preliminary Design of Low-Thrust Trajectories.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2011, 34(1): 128–147, doi:10.2514/1. 52105

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Initial three-dimensional low-thrust trajectory design.Advances in Space Research, 2016, 57(3): 889–903, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.11.034

    Taheri E, Abdelkhalik O. Initial three-dimensional low-thrust trajectory design.Advances in Space Research, 2016, 57(3): 889–903, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.11.034

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Fan Z, Huo M, Qi J, Qi N. Fast Initial Design of Low-Thrust Multiple Gravity-Assist Three- Dimensional Trajectories Based on the B´ezier Shape-Based Method.Acta Astronautica, 2021, 178: 233–240, doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.09.020

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    Combined trajectory and time-planning strategy for rendezvous missions using low-thrust transfer.Astrodynamics, 2025, 9(4): 481–493, doi:10.1007/s42064-024-0222-8

    Guo J, Pang Z, Du Z. Combined trajectory and time-planning strategy for rendezvous missions using low-thrust transfer.Astrodynamics, 2025, 9(4): 481–493, doi:10.1007/s42064-024-0222-8

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    On Calculating with B-Splines.Journal of Approximation Theory, 1972, 6(1): 50–62, doi:10.1016/0021-9045(72)90080-9

    de Boor C. On Calculating with B-Splines.Journal of Approximation Theory, 1972, 6(1): 50–62, doi:10.1016/0021-9045(72)90080-9

    1972 doi

  24. [33]

    Flatness and Defect of Non-Linear Systems: Introductory Theory and Examples.International Journal of Control, 1995, 61(6): 1327–1361, doi:10.1080/ 00207179508921959

    Fliess M, L ´evine J, Martin P, Rouchon P. Flatness and Defect of Non-Linear Systems: Introductory Theory and Examples.International Journal of Control, 1995, 61(6): 1327–1361, doi:10.1080/ 00207179508921959

    1995

  25. [34]

    Louembet C, Cazaurang F, Zolghadri A, Charbonnel C, Pittet C. Path planning for satellite slew manoeuvres: a combined flatness and collocation-based approach.IET Control Theory and Appli- cations, 2009, 3(4): 481–491, doi:10.1049/iet-cta.2008.0054

    2009

  26. [35]

    Collision Avoidance in Low-Thrust Rendezvous Guidance Using Flatness and Positive B-Splines

    Louembet C, Deaconu G. Collision Avoidance in Low-Thrust Rendezvous Guidance Using Flatness and Positive B-Splines. In2011 American Control Conference, San Francisco, CA: IEEE, 2011, 456–461, doi:10.1109/ACC.2011.5990830

    2011

  27. [36]

    A flatness-based predictive controller for six- degrees of freedom spacecraft rendezvous.Acta Astronautica, 2020, 167: 391–403, doi:10.1016/j

    Sanchez JC, Gavilan F, Vazquez R, Louembet C. A flatness-based predictive controller for six- degrees of freedom spacecraft rendezvous.Acta Astronautica, 2020, 167: 391–403, doi:10.1016/j. actaastro.2019.11.026

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control.Mathematical Programming Computation, 2019, 11(1): 1–36, doi:10.1007/s12532-018-0139-4

    Andersson JAE, Gillis J, Horn G, Rawlings JB, Diehl M. CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control.Mathematical Programming Computation, 2019, 11(1): 1–36, doi:10.1007/s12532-018-0139-4

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    W ¨achter A, Biegler LT. On the Implementation of an Interior-Point Filter Line-Search Algorithm for Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming.Mathematical Programming, 2006, 106(1): 25–57, doi: 10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y

    2006 doi

  30. [39]

    A set of modified equinoctial orbit elements.Celestial Mechanics, 1985, 36(4): 409–419, doi:10.1007/BF01227493

    Walker M, Ireland B, Owens J. A set of modified equinoctial orbit elements.Celestial Mechanics, 1985, 36(4): 409–419, doi:10.1007/BF01227493

    1985 doi

  31. [40]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python.Nature Methods, 2020, 17: 261–272, doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, Burovski E, Peterson P, Weckesser W, Bright J, van der Walt SJ, Brett M, Wilson J, Millman KJ, Mayorov N, Nelson ARJ, Jones E, Kern R, Larson E, Carey CJ, Polat˙I, Feng Y, Moore EW, VanderPlas J, Laxalde D...

    2020

  32. [41]

    Ancillary Data Services of NASA’s Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

    Acton CH. Ancillary Data Services of NASA’s Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility. Planetary and Space Science, 1996, 44(1): 65–70, doi:10.1016/0032-0633(95)00107-7

    1996 doi

  33. [42]

    SpiceyPy: a Pythonic Wrapper for the SPICE Toolkit.Journal of Open Source Software, 2020, 5(46): 2050, doi:10.21105/joss.02050

    Annex AM, Pearson B, Seignovert B, Carcich BT, Eichhorn H, Mapel JA, von Forstner JLF, McAuliffe J, del Rio JD, Berry KL, Aye KM, Stefko M, de Val-Borro M, Kulumani S, Murakami Sy. SpiceyPy: a Pythonic Wrapper for the SPICE Toolkit.Journal of Open Source Software, 2020, 5(46):...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.