Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Progressive Replacement Sequence Planning for Laser-Enhanced BeiDou Navigation Constellations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the order in which BeiDou-3's aging satellites are replaced with laser-enabled ones should be planned round-by-round on networking merit, and that doing so beats the historical launch order on several hybrid-network m

desk verdict A useful formulation of a real replacement-planning problem whose 'optimality-preserving' proof is undercut by an insufficient weighting condition; worth refereeing but needs revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25235 v1 pith:EOOTKJTO submitted 2026-07-28 eess.SY cs.SY

Huan Yan , Juan A. Fraire , Ziqi Yang , Kanglian Zhao , Wenfeng Li , Jinjun Zheng , Ziyu Wang , Changgang Zheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 90C10
keywords BeiDou-3constellationreplacementlaserinter-satellitelinkshybridnetworklaunchsequenceplanningintegerlinearprogramminground-wisegreedynetwork-aware
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

BeiDou-3's oldest satellites are nearing retirement, and the planned replacements carry laser inter-satellite links. This paper claims the order of those replacements is itself an engineering decision: a round-wise greedy planner that scores each launch by the size of the ground-connected laser subnetwork it creates and by the visibility support that subnetwork gives to the remaining microwave satellites yields a better hybrid-network evolution than the historical BDS-3 launch order. An integer linear program evaluates each candidate launch, and a priority-aware search cuts 73.6% of the full evaluations without changing the round-level choice. The claimed result is a network-aware decision-support tool for BeiDou evolution, not a complete mission scheduler.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the action-gain function G_r(a) = (average connected laser-subnetwork size, average microwave-visibility support), computed by a single-commodity-flow ILP that forces every selected laser satellite into a ground-connected subnetwork via high-rate satellite-to-ground links. A lexicographic weighting makes subnetwork size the primary objective and visibility support the tie-breaker. Around this sits a priority-aware search: actions are screened by relaxed ground-reachability, ranked by full-subnetwork visibility support, and evaluated by the ILP only until a round-wise full-subnetwork action is found; Theorem A1 shows this early termination preserves the round-lev

What would settle it

Run the same round-wise simulation with a 'ground-first' rule — launch all GEO and IGSO satellites (the ones carrying high-rate ground links) in the first three rounds — and compare the resulting A4-satellite counts, waiting delays, and laser-subnetwork sizes against the proposed ILP sequence. If the simple rule matches the ILP's outcomes, the optimization's advantage is not established; if it falls short, the ILP's finer ordering is what drives the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that progressive constellation replacement should be planned as a network-formation sequence, not inherited from the original deployment order. For each launch round, the planner defines the gain of a launch action as the pair (average size of the ground-connected laser subnetwork, average microwave-visibility support provided to residual microwave satellites), realized through a lexicographic ILP objective with single-commodity-flow connectivity constraints. Solving this round-wise greedy problem on the actual BDS-3 constellation yields a replacement sequence that, compared with the historical BDS-3 launch order, forms a ground-accessible laser-enhanced network earlier,

Load-bearing premise

The whole 'more favorable' conclusion rests on the network-gain objective G_r(a) in Eq. (13) — the choice to prioritize connected laser-subnetwork size and microwave visibility support over other goals such as RNSS coverage continuity, PDOP, aging-satellite lifetime, or launch costs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The replacement order of an operational navigation constellation is a first-class engineering variable: network states during a multi-year transition can be steered by launch sequencing.
  • Early launch of GEO/IGSO satellites carrying high-rate ground links accelerates formation of a ground-connected laser backbone, rather than waiting for MEO coverage logic.
  • A ground-connected laser subnetwork converts satellites that would otherwise be non-anchor into anchor satellites, reducing data-return and time-synchronization pressure on the microwave layer.
  • The same ILP evaluation can be extended to batch actions (e.g., four MEO satellites over two launches) for limited-horizon look-ahead planning, as the paper notes.
  • The 73.6% reduction in full ILP evaluations with provably unchanged round-level decisions makes the approach computationally feasible for larger hybrid architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a constellation operator's objective were lifetime urgency or guaranteed RNSS availability (e.g., PDOP continuity) during the transition, the optimal sequence could differ materially; the paper does not test robustness of its networking objective to such alternatives.
  • A simple testable benchmark is a 'ground-first' rule that launches all GEO/IGSO satellites in the opening rounds; comparing its A4 counts and delays to the ILP sequence would reveal whether the optimization adds value beyond the obvious high-priority intuition.
  • The approach could transfer to other GNSS constellations or to mega-constellation maintenance, where replacing failed satellites while preserving service continuity is a growing operational problem.
  • The paper's FSA/DTN abstractions suggest that the method's conclusions are sensitive to the choice of laser FSA duration and microwave superframe/slot parameters; re-running with different temporal scales would indicate how robust the ordering advantage is.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the progressive replacement of legacy BDS-3 microwave satellites by laser-enabled satellites, formulating the problem as a sequence of round-wise greedy launch decisions. A networking gain is defined as the lexicographic pair (average ground-connected laser-subnetwork size, average microwave-visibility support), and each candidate action is evaluated by a per-laser-state ILP that enforces connectivity through single-commodity-flow constraints, feeder-link thresholds, and terminal/ground-station resources. A priority-aware action search is proposed to reduce the number of full ILP evaluations, with an appendix proof (Theorem A1) claiming that the resulting early termination is optimality-preserving relative to exhaustive ILP evaluation. Simulations based on the actual BDS-3 constellation compare the proposed sequence with the historical launch order, reporting earlier formation of a ground-connected laser subnetwork, better laser-link utilization, fewer non-anchor satellites, and lower microwave-layer waiting delay.

Significance. If the technical claims are correct, this is a useful and timely decision-support tool for a practically important constellation-evolution problem. The hierarchical FSA modeling, the explicit ILP formulation, and the concrete engineering constraints are well presented and adaptable to other navigation constellations. The reported computational savings (73.6% reduction in full ILP evaluations, 503 s total) are promising. The paper is also candid about the networking-perspective scope and its limitations. However, the central optimality-preserving property is not established as written because the round-level scalar score in Eq. (40) does not implement the stated lexicographic objective under the paper's M-selection rule; this must be corrected before the results can be fully trusted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (36), Eq. (40); Appendix A, Lemma A2/Theorem A1] The stated condition 'M > sum_i c_i' is not sufficient to make the round-level score J_r(a) in Eq. (40) implement the lexicographic gain G_r(a) = (average primary, average secondary). Because J_r averages over |K| laser states, a one-satellite primary advantage in a single state contributes only M/|K| to J_r, while the secondary advantage can approach the per-state maximum C in every state. With |K|=168, M > C implies M/|K| << C, so a non-full-subnetwork action can outscore a full-subnetwork action. Concretely, a full-subnetwork action with zero secondary support scores M*N; a non-full action with one satellite missing in one state (average primary N-1/168) but maximum secondary C in all states scores M*N - M/168 + C, which is larger when C > M/168. Thus Lemma A2 fails and Theorem A1's optimality-preserving claim is not established. The fix is to impose the stronger condition M > |K| * m
  2. [Section I and Section IV-C] The main empirical comparison is conducted largely with metrics that are direct components of the optimized objective: ground-connected laser-subnetwork size, A1/A4 classification, and microwave-visibility support. The reported 'more favorable' evolution therefore partially restates that the proposed sequence maximizes the chosen networking objective, rather than independently validating that this objective is the right one for operators. The paper is explicit about the networking-perspective scope in Section IV-D, and I do not treat this as an internal inconsistency; however, the abstract's unqualified claim should be tempered or supplemented by independent performance metrics (e.g., PDOP continuity, timing-error accumulation, or end-to-end throughput under DFCP/DTopo-ILP) to support the broader assertion of a 'more favorable hybrid-network evolution.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I and Section III-C] The actual value of M and the bound used to select it are not reported. Since the correctness of the lexicographic weighting now depends on a much stronger inequality, this should be stated explicitly and included in Table I.
  2. [Figures 4–7] The numeric annotations over each round (e.g., 'Size of laser subnet') are not defined in the captions or the legend. Please state whether these are averages over laser states, and clarify the units.
  3. [Section IV-B] The computational feasibility result would be more reproducible if the Gurobi MIP gap/tolerance, the number of variables and constraints per ILP instance, and any solver time limits were reported alongside the total evaluation time.
  4. [Appendix A] The proof would be clearer if the lexicographic comparison were written directly on the ordered pair (average primary, average secondary) rather than on a scalar weighted sum. This would also make the required magnitude of M transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planning objective is defined transparently, and the reported gains are either direct consequences of that objective or independently computed; the main concern in the appendix is a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The action gain G_r(a) is explicitly defined in Eq. (13) as (S_bar(a), C_bar(a)), the state-level ILP objective in Eq. (36) is a lexicographic combination of connected-laser-subnetwork size and microwave-visibility support, and Eq. (40) aggregates state-level scores into J_r(a); the planner then selects a*_r = arg max J_r(a). Reporting that the resulting sequence yields earlier growth of the ground-connected laser subnetwork and fewer A4 (outside-subnetwork, ground-invisible) satellites is partly a restatement of that objective rather than an independent validation, but the paper does not present it as an external prediction or a fitted result. The microwave-layer waiting-delay results are produced with a separate scheduler, DFCP, and the laser-link utilization metrics use the DTopo-ILP refinement, so those evaluation components are not identical to the planning input by construction. Self-citations such as [13], [15], and [24] are used for parameter settings and motivating extensions, not as load-bearing proofs of the central claim. Separately, the appendix's Theorem A1 appears to require a stronger choice of M (on the order of |K| times the maximum state-level secondary term) to preserve lexicographic priority after averaging in Eq. (40), while Section III-C only states M > sum_i c_i; this is a correctness concern with the optimality-preserving proof, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the paper's own definition of network gain, on standard flow-based ILP machinery, and on several hand-set engineering parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential free choices are the feeder-link thresholds, the laser-terminal count, and the GEO/IGSO-only high-rate ground-access assumption, all of which shape the recommended sequence. The FSA and DTN assumptions are inherited from prior literature, while the lexicographic objective is ad hoc to this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Feeder-link thresholds (eta, beta) = (1,1), (10,2), (20,3)
    Hand-chosen in Section IV-A3b to force the number of high-rate satellite-to-ground links to scale with laser-subnetwork size; the recommended sequence depends on these thresholds and no sensitivity study is given.
  • Laser terminals per satellite = 3
    Each satellite is assumed to carry 3 laser terminals (Section IV-A3c), following prior work in [11]. This limits connectivity and drives the link-utilization results.
  • Ground-station high-rate link capacity = 2 simultaneous links per station
    Assumed in Section IV-A3c; affects how many feeder links can be active and therefore the feasible laser subnetwork size.
  • Temporal FSA and pointing parameters = Laser FSA 1 h, microwave FSA 5 min, superframe 1 min, slot 3 s; pointing ranges 70/80/60/45/85 degrees
    Chosen from representative prior settings (Table I); the visibility graphs and all downstream results depend on these values.
  • Lexicographic weight M = arbitrarily large, M > sum_i c_i
    Chosen in Eq. (36) to enforce primary-objective dominance; exact value does not affect the lexicographic outcome but is a hand-set constant.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FSA abstraction: if two satellites remain visible for an entire state, their link is modeled as static in that state
    Introduced in Section II-B1 following [16]; converts continuous visibility into discrete snapshots. Central to both topology models.
  • standard math Single-commodity flow constraints (25)-(29) enforce that every selected laser satellite is connected to the selected root ground station
    Standard flow-based connectivity encoding; used implicitly in the ILP and the correctness of the search proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The lexicographic objective (36) with primary term = connected laser-subnetwork size and secondary term = microwave-visibility support correctly captures 'networking gain'
    This is the paper's own definition of value (Eq. 13). It is not derived from external requirements and is the main load-bearing modeling choice.
  • domain assumption In the microwave layer, waiting delay (in slot multiples) dominates propagation delay, a DTN regime
    Stated in Section II-B2 following [18]; used to interpret the A4 waiting-delay results.
  • domain assumption Only GEO and IGSO satellites can host high-rate satellite-to-ground terminals; MEO satellites cannot due to platform and visibility
    Argued in Section IV-A3b using Fig. 3; this assumption drives the early-launch strategy of GEO/IGSO and is not derived from a formal engineering model.
  • domain assumption Round-wise greedy decisions without look-ahead are an acceptable approximation to the real replacement problem
    The paper explicitly chooses per-round optimality over global optimality (Section II-A) and notes in Section IV-D that batch or look-ahead actions may be preferable when launches are close in time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Progressive Replacement Sequence Planning for Laser-Enhanced BeiDou Navigation Constellations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EOOTKJTO

@misc{pith2026260725235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Progressive Replacement Sequence Planning for Laser-Enhanced BeiDou Navigation Constellations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EOOTKJTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25235}
}
read the original abstract

The early satellites of the third-generation BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS-3) are approaching the end of their design lifetime, making progressive constellation replacement an inevitable engineering task. Meanwhile, laser inter-satellite links (LISLs) provide high-precision time transfer, sub-millimeter-level ranging, and high-rate data forwarding capabilities, offering a promising upgrade path for future BeiDou satellites. This paper investigates the replacement-sequence planning problem for progressively replacing legacy microwave satellites with laser-enabled satellites from a networking perspective. To address this problem, three main contributions are made: (i) BeiDou progressive replacement is formulated as a network-aware launch sequence planning problem over evolving laser--microwave hybrid constellation states; (ii) an integer linear programming (ILP) model is developed to evaluate the networking gain of each candidate launch action under practical engineering constraints; and (iii) a priority-aware search heuristic is introduced to reduce the action evaluation space for efficient round-wise decision making. Simulations based on the actual BDS-3 constellation demonstrate that the proposed replacement sequence achieves a more favorable hybrid-network evolution than the historical BDS-3 launch order, including earlier formation of a ground-accessible laser-enhanced network structure, better utilization of laser-link resources, fewer residual non-anchor satellites, and lower microwave-layer waiting delay. The proposed framework can serve as a network-aware decision-support tool for future BeiDou evolution, and the resulting replacement sequence can provide direct engineering guidance for BeiDou replacement planning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25235 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Intermediate laser–microwave hybrid constellation during progres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hierarchical topology abstraction of the laser–microwave hybrid con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Number of laser FSA states in which each satellite is visible to at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of A1–A4 satellite types under the proposed ILP-based re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of A1–A4 satellite types under the historical BDS-3 launch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of high-rate satellite-to-ground links and activated LISLs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of high-rate satellite-to-ground links and activated LISLs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average and maximum satellite-to-ground delay of the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average and maximum satellite-to-ground delay of the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average and maximum waiting delay for A4/non-anchor satellites to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Average and maximum waiting delay for A4/non-anchor satellites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Innovation and technology characteristics of beidou-3,

    J. Xie and G. Wang, “Innovation and technology characteristics of beidou-3,”Space Int, vol. 11, pp. 4–7, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    General design of the third generation beidou nav- igation satellite system,

    Z. Chen and X. Wu, “General design of the third generation beidou nav- igation satellite system,”Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 835–845, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Engineering innovation and the development of the bds-3 navigation constellation,

    J. Xie and C. Kang, “Engineering innovation and the development of the bds-3 navigation constellation,”Engineering, 2021. 16

    2021

  4. [4]

    Time transfer by laser link: data analysis and validation to the ps level,

    P. Exertier, E. Samain, N. Martin, C. Courde, M. Laas-Bourez, C. Fous- sard, and P. Guillemot, “Time transfer by laser link: data analysis and validation to the ps level,”Advances in Space Research, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 2371–2385, 2014

    2014

  5. [5]

    Cooperative time synchronization via laser/radio inter-satellite links in navigation constellations,

    N. Yang, X. Guo, L. Sun, S. Liu, G. Chen, and J. Y ANG, “Cooperative time synchronization via laser/radio inter-satellite links in navigation constellations,”SCIENTIA SINICA, vol. 51, no. 1, p. 019516, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Precise point positioning with kepler,

    P. Henkel, “Precise point positioning with kepler,” in2019 IEEE 90th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Fall). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–5

    2019

  7. [7]

    Study on integrated technique of laser ranging and communication and its applications in deep space,

    L. Xiangnan, L. Yingfei, X. Chengyong, C. Ming, and L. Xiaoliang, “Study on integrated technique of laser ranging and communication and its applications in deep space,”Journal of Deep Space Exploration, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 147–153, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Advanced technologies for satellite navigation and geodesy,

    G. Giorgi, T. D. Schmidt, C. Trainotti, R. Mata-Calvo, C. Fuchs, M. M. Hoque, J. Berdermann, J. Furthner, C. G ¨unther, T. Schuldtet al., “Advanced technologies for satellite navigation and geodesy,”Advances in Space Research, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1256–1273, 2019

    2019

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Laser communications in space i optical link and terminal technology,

    L. Liu, “Laser communications in space i optical link and terminal technology,”Chinese Journal of Lasers, vol. 34, no. 1, p. 3, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    Inter-satellite link assignment for the laser/radio hybrid network in navigation satellite systems,

    S. Liu, J. Yang, X. Guo, and L. Sun, “Inter-satellite link assignment for the laser/radio hybrid network in navigation satellite systems,”GPS Solutions, vol. 24, no. 2, p. 49, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Contact plan design for gnss constellations: A case study with optical intersatellite links,

    A. Nardin, J. A. Fraire, and F. Dovis, “Contact plan design for gnss constellations: A case study with optical intersatellite links,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1981–1995, 2021

    1981

  4. [12]

    Topology design algorithm for optical inter-satellite links in future navigation satellite networks,

    L. Zeng, X. Lu, Y . Bai, B. Liu, and G. Yang, “Topology design algorithm for optical inter-satellite links in future navigation satellite networks,” Gps Solutions, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 57, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Contact plan design for cross-linked gnsss: An ilp approach for extended applications,

    H. Yan, J. A. Fraire, Z. Yang, and K. Zhao, “Contact plan design for cross-linked gnsss: An ilp approach for extended applications,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 62, pp. 6751– 6770, 2026

    2026

  6. [14]

    Demand and key technology for a leo constellation as augmentation of satellite navigation systems,

    Y . Yang, Y . Mao, X. Ren, X. Jia, and B. Sun, “Demand and key technology for a leo constellation as augmentation of satellite navigation systems,”Satellite Navigation, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 11, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Joint contact planning for navigation and communication in gnss–libration point systems,

    H. Yan, J. A. Fraire, Z. Yang, and K. Zhao, “Joint contact planning for navigation and communication in gnss–libration point systems,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 8565–8580, 2026

    2026

  8. [16]

    Fsa-based link assignment and routing in low-earth orbit satellite networks,

    H. S. Chang, B. W. Kim, C. G. Lee, S. L. Min, Y . Choi, H. S. Yang, D. N. Kim, and C. S. Kim, “Fsa-based link assignment and routing in low-earth orbit satellite networks,”IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 1037–1048, 1998

    1998

  9. [17]

    Distributed contact plan design for gnsss,

    Z. Yan, J. A. Fraire, K. Zhao, H. Yan, P. G. Madoery, W. Li, and H. Yang, “Distributed contact plan design for gnsss,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 660–672, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Design challenges in contact plans for disruption-tolerant satellite networks,

    J. A. Fraire and J. M. Finochietto, “Design challenges in contact plans for disruption-tolerant satellite networks,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 163–169, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Bds-3 perfor- mance assessment: Pnt, sbas, ppp, smc and sar,

    C. Hongliang, M. Yinan, G. Changjiang, G. Weiguang, Z. Tianqiao, L. Gang, S. Bo, X. Jie, L. Hongyang, M. Yueet al., “Bds-3 perfor- mance assessment: Pnt, sbas, ppp, smc and sar,”Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, vol. 50, no. 4, p. 427, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Inter-satellite time synchronization and ranging link assignment for autonomous navigation satellite constellations,

    L. Sun, J. Yang, W. Huang, L. Xu, S. Cao, and H. Shao, “Inter-satellite time synchronization and ranging link assignment for autonomous navigation satellite constellations,”Advances in Space Research, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 2421–2432, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Launch list,

    China Satellite Navigation Office, “Launch list,” 2026. [Online]. Available: http://www.beidou.gov.cn/xt/fsgl/

    2026

  14. [22]

    Beidou-3,

    Satellite Encyclopedia (SatWiki), “Beidou-3,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://sat.huijiwiki.com/wiki/BeiDou3 (in Chinese)

    2026

  15. [23]

    Atmospheric effects on satellite–ground free space uplink and downlink optical transmissions,

    N. Maharjan, N. Devkota, and B. W. Kim, “Atmospheric effects on satellite–ground free space uplink and downlink optical transmissions,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 21, p. 10944, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Optimized contact plan design for reflector and phased array terminals in cislunar space networks,

    H. Yan, J. Fraire, Z. Yang, and K. Zhao, “Optimized contact plan design for reflector and phased array terminals in cislunar space networks,” Science China Information Sciences, 2026

    2026

  17. [25]

    From earth to orbit: Launch sequence optimization for LEO mega- constellations,

    T. Huang, Q. Li, C. Xu, M. Xu, S. Wang, G. Huang, and X. Liu, “From earth to orbit: Launch sequence optimization for LEO mega- constellations,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 8625–8641, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    A high-speed laser backbone node deployment approach for next-generation gnss,

    B. XU, K. HAN, R. DONG, W. GONG, and Q. REN, “A high-speed laser backbone node deployment approach for next-generation gnss,” Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, vol. 46, no. 9, 2025. APPENDIXA PROOF OF THEOPTIMALITY-PRESERVINGPROPERTY OF THEPRIORITY-AWARESEARCH This appe...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.