Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Distributed Space Resource Logistics Architecture Optimization under Economies of Scale

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that splitting lunar water ISRU across the Moon and EML1 can lower the cost of a multi-demand cislunar logistics campaign below a single concentrated lunar plant, under the assumed scaling curves.

desk verdict Solid, workmanlike MILP for distributed ISRU logistics with piecewise-linear economies of scale, but the 'distributed is cheaper' conclusion rides on unsourced scaling curves and a cost gap smaller than the acknowledged uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16385 v1 pith:HTROOT52 submitted 2025-04-23 eess.SY cs.SY

Evangelia Gkaravela , Hang Woon Lee , Hao Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 90C1190B1090B06
keywords in-situresourceutilizationspacelogisticsmixed-integerlinearprogrammingeconomiesofscaledistributedISRUcislunartransportationfacilitylocationpiecewiseapproximation
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

The paper argues that the choice between a concentrated lunar ISRU plant and a distributed network of ISRU subsystems can be settled by one optimization model rather than by separate design and logistics studies. The authors embed piecewise linear, concave economies-of-scale curves for structure mass and manufacturing cost into a network-flow mission planning formulation, so plant size, facility location, and commodity routing are optimized together. In the case study, a distributed architecture—soil water extraction on the lunar surface and water electrolysis at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1 (EML1)—achieves a lower total mission cost than a single on-Moon plant under the assumed scaling curves, with a $64 million gap when a one-year setup phase is included. The practical value is that mission planners can now run ISRU technology trade studies and facility-location evaluations in a single mixed-integer linear program whose global optimality is guaranteed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the piecewise linear concave economies-of-scale function family for structure sizing and manufacturing cost: binary interval variables $g_e^r$ and $h_e^{\gamma}$ select one linear segment, and the segment slopes $\alpha_e^r$, $\beta_e^{\gamma}$ with intercepts $f_e^r$, $J_e^{\gamma}$ define structure mass and manufacturing cost as functions of the design quantity. A binary manufacturing variable $Y_e$ plus big-$M$ constraints linearizes the products of binary and continuous variables, so the entire problem remains a mixed-integer linear program. This lets one optimization simultaneously choose how many plants and spacecraft to build, how large each should be, where to deploy ISRU units, and which arcs carry water, oxygen, or propellant.

What would settle it

Re-optimize the same three-year and one-year-setup campaigns with the ISRU productivity and cost discounts set to 0% per 3,000 kg (linear scaling) and with overhead mass reduced from 200% to 100%; if distributed ISRU no longer has lower total mission cost, the paper's architecture conclusion depends entirely on its assumed curves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that economies of scale in ISRU plant sizing and manufacturing can be encoded as piecewise linear concave functions and integrated directly into a network-based space logistics model, making facility deployment and plant manufacturing decisions part of the flow optimization instead of an outer design loop. The model decides how large each ISRU plant should be, whether to build it, where to place it, and how to route water, oxygen, and propellant to meet annual demands. Applied to a three-year cislunar campaign, it finds the distributed layout cheaper: $2.083B versus $2.147B with a one-year setup phase, and $2.916B versus $2.922B without one. The sensitivity analysis shows the cost advantage of the distributed system widens with mission duration and ISRU productivity, while the manufacturing-cost discount has a smaller effect on the ranking.

Load-bearing premise

The case-study economies-of-scale curves are assumed rather than measured: ISRU productivity grows 10% per 3,000 kg of plant mass, manufacturing cost falls 10% per 3,000 kg, and support subsystems add a 200% overhead mass, so the entire cost ranking between distributed and concentrated ISRU rests on these curves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Facility location, ISRU plant sizing, spacecraft manufacturing, and commodity routing become decisions within one globally optimal mixed-integer linear program, so trade studies no longer require enumerating architectures by hand.
  • Distributed ISRU with soil water extraction on the Moon and water electrolysis at EML1 yields a lower total mission cost than concentrated ISRU in the assumed cislunar scenario, with a $64 million saving when a one-year setup phase is allowed.
  • The distributed cost advantage grows with mission duration and with ISRU productivity, and volume discounts on productivity affect total cost more than volume discounts on manufacturing cost.
  • The modeling approach is not tied to lunar water: any nonlinear sizing or cost relationship that can be approximated by piecewise linear concave segments can be inserted into the same network-flow formulation for other ISRU technologies or logistics networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the true economies-of-scale curves are flatter than the assumed 10% per 3,000 kg improvement, the distributed architecture's cost edge could shrink or reverse, since the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows mission cost moves strongly with these curves.
  • Beyond the paper: because the model charges the full ISRU manufacturing cost within the mission horizon, a multi-mission campaign that amortizes a reusable plant over a longer lifetime would systematically favor the larger concentrated plant, making the architecture ranking horizon-dependent.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct test would fix the optimal plant sizes, substitute measured SWE and DWE productivity and cost data from prototype hardware, and re-run the same campaigns to see whether distributed ISRU still wins.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) framework for the concurrent design of distributed space resource logistics systems, integrating piecewise-linear sizing and cost models based on economies of scale into a network-based multicommodity flow formulation. The framework simultaneously handles ISRU technology sizing, facility deployment location, spacecraft manufacturing, and commodity routing. A cislunar case study compares a concentrated lunar-water ISRU architecture (SWE and DWE both on the Moon) with a distributed architecture (SWE on the Moon, DWE at EML1). The authors report that the distributed architecture has lower total mission cost in the baseline scenario, and they conduct sensitivity analyses over mission duration, ISRU productivity, volume/cost discounts, and mass-scaling intervals.

Significance. If the framework and case-study assumptions are accepted, the contribution is a useful modeling capability: it brings facility location, nonlinear economies-of-scale sizing/cost, and spacecraft manufacturing into a single global-optimal MILP, which is a genuine step beyond earlier network-flow logistics models that either linearized sizing or omitted facility deployment. The paper also usefully demonstrates that the distributed-ISRU trade depends on setup phase and scaling assumptions. However, the central quantitative claim—that distributed ISRU is lower-cost—is not robustly supported: the baseline cost difference is about 0.2% and falls within the uncertainty band the authors themselves cite, and the case-study scaling curves are mostly assumed rather than measured. The manuscript's value is therefore primarily methodological and illustrative, not a validated quantitative comparison. The model-class inconsistency between the claimed concave economies-of-scale model and the convex productivity curves used in the case study also needs correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.B and §III.A, Eqs. (5), (38)–(39)] The framework in §II.B defines a concave piecewise-linear economies-of-scale model and explicitly states that the slopes must be strictly decreasing (α1 > α2 > ... > αR). The case-study sizing functions in Eqs. (38)–(39), however, use slopes 10.5, 10.5×1.1, 10.5×1.1², ..., which are strictly increasing. Thus the productivity-versus-mass curves are convex, not concave, and the model class used in the case study contradicts the model class defined in the methodology. The text's statement that 'switching the x and y axes ... derivation is still valid' is mathematically correct only in the sense that the inverse of a concave mass-versus-productivity function is convex; it does not reconcile the case-study curves with the decreasing-slope assumption in Eq. (5). This inconsistency affects the interpretation of the 'economies of scale' results and must be resolved, either by using decreasing slopes as claimed or by explicitly modeling the inverse relationship as convex and relabeling the effect.
  2. [§III.A, Eqs. (38)–(40), Tables 3–4] The headline result that distributed ISRU achieves lower total mission cost than concentrated ISRU rests on unsourced and partly arbitrary scaling assumptions. The 10% productivity gain per 3000 kg of structure mass in Eqs. (38)–(39) is presented without citation; the 10% cost discount per 3000 kg is attributed only to generic cost-estimation references [16,17]; and the 200% support-subsystem overhead is an assumption. The paper's own sensitivity analysis (Figs. 10–12) shows that total costs respond strongly to these parameters, but the paper never reports the cost ranking at zero productivity discount, zero cost discount, or the break-even value of these parameters. Section III.C concedes that the cost difference is 'less than 5%' and 'within the range of uncertainty typical for space mission cost estimates'; the actual baseline difference in Table 4 is about 0.2%. A quantitative conclusion whose sign can reverse within the acknowledged uncertainty band is not a supported finding. The conclusion should be reframed as an illustrative trade-study result, and the zero-discount/break-even scenarios should be reported to show where the ordering changes.
  3. [§III.B.3 and §III.C] The sensitivity analysis does not directly address the robustness of the architecture ranking with respect to the assumptions that drive it. For example, Fig. 11 varies the 'volume discount productivity' and Fig. 12 varies the cost discount, but the figures do not identify the discount level at which the distributed and concentrated curves cross, nor do they report confidence intervals or cost-model uncertainty bands. Since the authors acknowledge in §III.C that real deployment may introduce 'unexpected cost and mass deviations,' the claim that 'distributed ISRU continues to demonstrate long-term benefits' needs a more explicit robustness condition, such as the minimum productivity or discount value required for the distributed architecture to be cost-competitive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (10)] The piecewise-linear formulation does not state the continuity conditions on the intercepts f^r_e at the breakpoints; if the intercepts are chosen independently, the function can have downward or upward jumps between intervals. The intercepts should be defined so that α^r_e M^r_e + f^r_e = α^{r+1}_e M^r_e + f^{r+1}_e for every breakpoint M^r_e.
  2. [§III.B.2] The 'With Setup Phase' results are difficult to interpret because the one-year setup phase changes not only the setup duration but also the total demand satisfied within the planning horizon; the lower total cost in Table 4 may partly reflect less delivered mass rather than an intrinsic advantage. The text should clarify how the comparison is made equal in total delivered payload and oxygen.
  3. [§III.A, Eq. (40)] The cost function in Eq. (40) has a flat segment from 0 to 1000 kg with J_ISRU(F) = J_ISRU(1000), which is inconsistent with the notation of Eq. (11) where each interval has a slope and intercept; please clarify whether this is a constant-cost initial segment or a typo.
  4. [§III.B.3] The sentence beginning 'The baseline productivity rates of the ISRU systems, exploring how different levels of resource processing efficiency impact mission costs' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten.
  5. [Nomenclature and §II.A] The notation A is used both for the set of directed arcs and, in §II.A, for the tuple {V, N, T}; this should be disambiguated, as should the vector dimensions of q^r and the right-hand side of Eq. (31).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MILP framework is a mathematical formulation, and the case-study conclusions are explicit outputs of assumed cost and productivity curves, not predictions equivalent to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's contribution is a mixed-integer linear programming formulation that embeds piecewise-linear economies-of-scale sizing and cost functions into a network logistics model. Equations (5)-(14) are ordinary definitions of concave piecewise-linear approximations, and Eqs. (29)-(37) integrate them with flow, manufacturing, and deployment constraints. No parameter is fitted to the case-study outcome, and no quantity later called a prediction is defined in terms of the result. The ISRU productivity and cost curves, Eqs. (38)-(40), are stated assumptions based on cited subsystem modeling and generic engineering-cost references; they are inputs to the optimization, not outputs. The lower-cost conclusion for distributed ISRU is the solution of the MILP under those assumptions, and the paper explicitly limits the claim to 'the assumed mission scenario' and acknowledges in Sec. III.C that 'the cost difference between concentrated and distributed ISRU is relatively small and less than 5%. This is within the range of uncertainty typical for space mission cost estimates.' The overlapping-author citation [15] supplies baseline productivity and cost values, but it is used as a parameter source with stated assumptions and does not contain the paper's distributed-versus-concentrated conclusion, so it is not a load-bearing circular step. The sensitivity analysis further shows that the ranking is conditional on the assumed scaling relationships rather than disguised as a first-principles result. Hence no circular step is present.

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

The central modeling machinery is standard OR: piecewise-linear approximation and big-M linearization of binary-continuous products. The case-study result is not a prediction from physics; it is a computation from hand-set scaling parameters and a fixed demand scenario. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • ISRU productivity gain per mass block = 10% per 3000 kg; baseline slopes 10.5 and 35 kg water per kg reactor per year
    Eqs. (38)-(39) define piecewise slopes increasing by 10% per 3000 kg. This is an assumption with no cited data and is the main driver of factory sizing and the cost comparison.
  • ISRU manufacturing cost discount per mass block = 10% per 3000 kg; baseline $10,000/kg
    Eq. (40) and the surrounding text: cost per kg decreases 10% every 3000 kg. Assumed, affects total manufacturing cost and the advantage of larger distributed plants.
  • ISRU support-subsystem overhead = 200% of reactor mass
    Section III.A: 'we added a 200% overhead mass for these subsystems' to baseline productivity; directly changes effective productivity to 10.5 and 35 kg water per kg plant per year.
  • Initial 1000 kg ISRU plant at mission start = 1000 kg
    Section III.B.1: both scenarios start with a 1000 kg plant to mitigate setup phase; this changes the comparison, especially for distributed ISRU which needs longer lead time.
  • Mission demand scenario = 25,000 kg payload to GEO, 15,000 kg to Moon, 5,000 kg oxygen at EML1 and GEO annually
    Table 2; chosen scenario, not fitted, but determines all flows and hence the conclusion.
  • ISRU maintenance spares = 5% of plant mass per year at $10,000/kg
    Section III.A; assumed maintenance burden, contributes to annual cost.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Multicommodity network-flow with transformation and concurrency matrices is an adequate model for cislunar logistics
    Adopted from refs [7-10]; all mission-planning conclusions inherit this modeling reduction.
  • domain assumption All ISRU plants and spacecraft are manufactured on Earth
    Explicit in Section II.C.1; sets launch costs and excludes off-Earth manufacturing options.
  • domain assumption Deployed ISRU is used only for the proposed mission time span, with no residual value or lifecycle cost spreading
    Stated in Section II.D; this makes the cost comparison sensitive to mission duration.
  • domain assumption Time of flight along every arc is one time step and ISRU operates continuously
    Section III.A; ignores lunar night, boil-off timing, and variable transfer durations.
  • standard math Piecewise-linear economies-of-scale functions are concave with strictly decreasing slopes
    Section II.B assumes decreasing slopes; however the case-study sizing model in Eqs. (38)-(39) uses increasing slopes, so the case study does not satisfy the model assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed Space Resource Logistics Architecture Optimization under Economies of Scale." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTROOT52

@misc{pith2026250416385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed Space Resource Logistics Architecture Optimization under Economies of Scale},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTROOT52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16385}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes an optimization framework for distributed resource logistics system design to support future multimission space exploration. The performance and impact of distributed In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) systems in facilitating space transportation are analyzed. The proposed framework considers technology trade studies, deployment strategy, facility location evaluation, and resource logistics after production for distributed ISRU systems. We develop piecewise linear sizing and cost estimation models based on economies of scale that can be easily integrated into network-based mission planning formulations. A case study on a multi-mission cislunar logistics campaign is conducted to demonstrate the value of the proposed method and evaluate key tradeoffs to compare the performance of distributed ISRU systems with traditional concentrated ISRU. Finally, a comprehensive sensitivity analysis is performed to assess the proposed system under varying conditions, comparing concentrated and distributed ISRU systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Molten Regolith Electrolysis Reactor Modeling and Optimization of In-Situ Resource Utilization Systems,

    Schreiner, S. S., “Molten Regolith Electrolysis Reactor Modeling and Optimization of In-Situ Resource Utilization Systems,” Master’s thesis, Aeronautics and Astronautics Dept., MIT, Cambridge, MA, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    System Modeling, Design, and Control of the Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment (MOXIE) and Implications for Atmospheric ISRU Processing Plants,

    Meyen, F. E., “System Modeling, Design, and Control of the Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment (MOXIE) and Implications for Atmospheric ISRU Processing Plants,” Ph.D. thesis, Aeronautics and Astronautics Dept., MIT, Cambridge, MA, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    18 Months of MOXIE (Mars oxygen ISRU experiment) operations on the surface of Mars - Preparing for human Mars exploration,

    Hoffman, J. A., Hinterman, E. R., Hecht, M. H., Rapp, D., and Hartvigsen, J. J., “18 Months of MOXIE (Mars oxygen ISRU experiment) operations on the surface of Mars - Preparing for human Mars exploration,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 210, pp. 547-553, Sep., 2023. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.04.045

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.04.045 2023

  4. [4]

    The ROxygen Project: Outpost-scale Lunar Oxygen Production System Development at Johnson Space Center,

    Lee, K. A., Oryshchyn, L., Paz, A., Reddington, M., and Simon, T. M., “The ROxygen Project: Outpost-scale Lunar Oxygen Production System Development at Johnson Space Center,”Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2013, pp. 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000230

    work page arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    FieldTestResultsofthePILOTHydrogenReductionReactor,

    Clark,D.L.,Keller,B.W.,andKirkland,J.A.,“FieldTestResultsofthePILOTHydrogenReductionReactor,” AIAASPACE2009 Conference & Exposition, AIAA 2009-6475, Pasadena, CA, 14-17 Sep., 2009. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009- 6475

    doi:10.2514/6.2009- 2009

  6. [6]

    2010 Field Demonstration of the Solar Carbothermal Regolith Reduction Process to Produce Oxygen,

    Gustafson, R. J., White, B. C., and Fidler, M. J., “2010 Field Demonstration of the Solar Carbothermal Regolith Reduction Process to Produce Oxygen,”49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, AIAA 2011-434, Orlando, FL, 04-07 Jan., 2011. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-434

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2011-434 2010

  7. [7]

    Generalized Multicommodity Network Flow 26 Model for the Earth–Moon–Mars Logistics System,

    Ishimatsu, T., de Weck, O. L., Hoffman, J. A., Ohkami, Y., and Shishko, R., “Generalized Multicommodity Network Flow 26 Model for the Earth–Moon–Mars Logistics System,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2016, pp. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33235

    doi:10.2514/1.a33235 2016

  8. [8]

    DynamicModelingandOptimizationforSpaceLogisticsUsingTime- Expanded Networks,

    Ho,K.,deWeck,O.L.,Hoffman,J.A.,andShishko,R.,“DynamicModelingandOptimizationforSpaceLogisticsUsingTime- Expanded Networks,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 105, No. 2, 2014, pp. 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.10.026

    doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.10.026 2014

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Integrated Space Logistics Mission Planning and Spacecraft Design with Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming,

    Chen, H., and Ho, K., “Integrated Space Logistics Mission Planning and Spacecraft Design with Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2018, pp. 365–381. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33905

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Multifidelity Space Mission Planning and Infrastructure Design Framework for Space Resource Logistics,

    Chen, H., Sarton du Jonchay, T., Hou, L., and Ho, K., “Multifidelity Space Mission Planning and Infrastructure Design Framework for Space Resource Logistics,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2021, pp. 538–551. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34666

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Cislunar-1000: Transportation Supporting a Self-Sustaining Space Economy,

    Kutter, B. F., “Cislunar-1000: Transportation Supporting a Self-Sustaining Space Economy,”AIAA SPACE 2016, AIAA 2016-5491, Long Beach, CA, 13-16 Sep., 2016. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-5491

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Inventoryplacementinacyclicsupplychainnetworks,

    Magnanti,T.L.,MaxShen,Z.-J.,Shu,J.,Simchi-Levi,D.,andTeo,C.-P.,“Inventoryplacementinacyclicsupplychainnetworks,” Operations Research Letters, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2006, pp. 228–238. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2005.04.004

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    Effective Zero-Inventory-Ordering Policies for the Single- Warehouse Multiretailer Problem with Piecewise Linear Cost Structures,

    Chan, L., Muriel, A., Shen, M., Simchi-levi, D., and Teo, C., “Effective Zero-Inventory-Ordering Policies for the Single- Warehouse Multiretailer Problem with Piecewise Linear Cost Structures,”Management Science, Vol. 48, 2002, pp. 1446–1460. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.11...

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    A mean-CVaR approach to the risk-averse single allocation hub location problem with flow-dependent economies of scale,

    Ghaffarinasab, N., Özlem Çavuş, and Kara, B. Y., “A mean-CVaR approach to the risk-averse single allocation hub location problem with flow-dependent economies of scale,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 167, 2023, pp. 32–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/1...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Integrated In-Situ Resource Utilization System Design and Logistics for Mars Exploration,

    Chen, H., Sarton du Jonchay, T., Hou, L., and Ho, K., “Integrated In-Situ Resource Utilization System Design and Logistics for Mars Exploration,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 170, pp. 80-92, Sep., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.031

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Scale economies and the “0.6 rule

    Tribe, M., and Alpine, R., “Scale economies and the “0.6 rule”,”Engineering Costs and Production Economics, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1986, pp. 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-188X(86)90053-4

    1986 doi

  9. [17]

    An economic production lot size for continuous decrease in unit production cost

    Ouyang, B. C., and Rau, H., “An economic production lot size for continuous decrease in unit production cost.”Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 25, No. 05, 2008, pp. 673–688. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217595908001948

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Centaur Upperstage Applicability for Multi-Day Mission Durations with Minor Insulations Modifications,

    De Kruif, J. S., and Kutter, B. F., “Centaur Upperstage Applicability for Multi-Day Mission Durations with Minor Insulations Modifications,”43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, AIAA 2007-5845, Cincinnati, OH, 08-11 Jul., 2007. https://doi.org/10.2514/...

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.