Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Time-Varying Model Predictive Attitude Control for Magnetically Actuated Dual-Spin Satellites

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a nonlinear-propagation LTV MPC policy is the best of three time-varying MPC approaches for magnetically actuated dual-spin CubeSats, using least actuation, satisfying constraints, and sustaining a 300-orbit inertial…

desk verdict A well-structured MPC study for a dual-spin CubeSat that is undermined by sign and scaling errors in the published state-space model, making the headline simulation comparison unreproducible as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07858 v1 pith:M2Q2WRWN submitted 2025-06-09 physics.space-ph

Robert D. Halverson , Ryan J. Caverly This is my paper
classification physics.space-ph
keywords dual-spinsatellitemagneticattitudecontrolmodelpredictivelineartime-varyingsystemssuccessivelinearizationsecond-orderconeprogramCubeSatinertialpointing
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 sets out to show that a power- and space-limited 3U CubeSat can hold an instrument boresight on an inertial target for a full science mission using only one momentum wheel and three magnetic torque rods, provided the model predictive controller forecasts the future with the true nonlinear dynamics. Three time-varying MPC policies are compared: one that schedules its prediction on orbital position, one that iteratively propagates the linearized attitude dynamics, and one that linearizes about a nonlinear propagation of the previous control guess. In twenty two-orbit simulations, the last policy used the least torque-rod actuation in fourteen cases, never failed, and kept pointing-cone violations below 0.04 degrees. In mission-length runs, it held the pointing and spin-rate constraints for 300 orbits (about 19.3 days), while the orbital-scheduling policy became infeasible near orbit 73. If this transfers to flight, it would let small satellites do inertial science pointing without reaction wheels, saving mass, volume, and power.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the receding-horizon MPC problem, formulated as a second-order cone program (SOCP) with a quadratic cost and linear-plus-soft constraints on roll rate and pointing cone. Its prediction model is a linear time-varying (LTV) state-space realization of the dual-spin attitude dynamics linearized about a constant nominal spin rate, in which the system matrix depends on the predicted pitch and yaw through the Euler-angle kinematic mapping and the input matrix depends on the predicted magnetic field vector as $B_u(t) = [0_{3\times1} \; (b_b(t))^\times]^T$ plus the wheel input. The decisive mechanism is the nonlinear-propagation iteration: propagate the previous control sequence through the full nonlinear equations with $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\mathrm{ext}}=0$, linearize that trajectory by a first-order Taylor expansion including the offset term $z^{(i)}(t)$, discretize, re-solve the SOCP, and iterate until the predicted magnetic field directions and roll-rate profile converge. That iteration is what lets the controller anticipate how rotation changes the available magnetic torque, so it can slow the spin before hitting the minimum-rate hard constraint and ride the pointing-cone boundary without exceeding it.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifying observation would be a flight or high-fidelity hardware-in-the-loop experiment in which the same controller loses pointing or spin stability before 300 orbits, for example when torque-rod saturation or magnetic-field model error exceeds the levels at which the paper's simulation succeeded. A more targeted calculation is to recompute the rank of the controllability matrix for the worst-case spin-axis-aligned-with-$b_b$ orientation with the reaction-wheel acceleration saturated at its 10 rad/s$^2$ limit; if the matrix loses rank under actuator saturation, the instantaneous-controllability claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the nonlinear-propagation LTV MPC policy is the preferred prediction method for this problem: it outperforms orbital scheduling and linear propagation in torque-rod effort, constraint satisfaction, and reliability, with a computation time below 0.33 seconds in 99 percent of samples. The policy works by solving the MPC problem as a second-order cone program, then re-solving it after propagating the previous control sequence through the nonlinear equations of motion and linearizing that propagated trajectory, repeating until the predicted magnetic field directions and roll rate converge. The same variable-speed momentum wheel that provides gyroscopic stiffness also acts as a fourth control input, which the paper proves restores instantaneous controllability even in the worst-case orientation where the spin axis aligns with the magnetic field. The author would state the result as: accurate prediction through successive linearization turns an under-actuated magnetic system with tight roll-rate and pointing-cone constraints into one that can operate over hundreds of orbits while minimizing actuation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation environment in Section V, with the WMM 2020 magnetic field, J2-perturbed orbit, gravity-gradient, aerodynamic, and residual-dipole torques, high-solar-activity density, and the single 3U inertia configuration, represents real flight behavior; if the true environment differs, the 300-orbit success of the nonlinear-propagation policy and the 73-orbit failure of the orbital-scheduling policy may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, a magnetically actuated dual-spin CubeSat with a variable-speed wheel can carry out an inertial pointing science mission of roughly 19.3 days without reaction wheels, with a per-step solve time below 0.33 s in 99% of samples on a desktop CPU.
  • The paper's long-run comparison implies that prediction accuracy, not terminal cost, is what preserves feasibility: the orbital-scheduling policy fails near orbit 73 even with a DARE terminal cost, while the nonlinear-propagation policy runs 300 orbits without it.
  • Because a variable-speed momentum wheel, not just magnetic torque rods, is what restores full instantaneous controllability in the worst-case orientation, the dual-spin configuration should be designed with the wheel-rate input available to the controller.
  • In the two-orbit comparison, the nonlinear policy is best in 14 of 20 cases and, in the cases where it is not, its torque-rod usage exceeds the best by only 4.49%, while the alternatives exceed it by 17.05%, suggesting the performance advantage is not driven by a few favorable initial conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not itself claim these solve times carry over to flight hardware; it notes they are 'a rough measure of comparison and feasibility,' so an embedded implementation of the SOCP and a custom integrator still needs to be benchmarked.
  • The paper does not quantify how sensitive the 300-orbit success is to errors in the magnetic field model or atmospheric density; a natural next test is to perturb the WMM coefficients or density within expected uncertainty and measure how violation statistics and iteration counts change.
  • The nonlinear-propagation step neglects external disturbances inside the prediction model, even though the simulation environment includes them; it is an open question whether adding disturbance estimates inside the propagation would buy robustness or merely add runtime.
  • A plausible extension, which the paper leaves to future work, is to convexify non-convex constraints such as sun keep-out zones within the same SOCP framework, which would widen the method from inertial pointing to general small-satellite operations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes three time-varying model predictive control (MPC) policies for the inertial-pointing attitude control of a magnetically actuated dual-spin CubeSat, using a variable-speed momentum wheel plus magnetic torque rods. The prediction models are a constant-magnetic-field baseline, an orbital-scheduling policy that propagates the orbital position, a linear-propagation iterative policy, and a nonlinear-propagation policy with successive linearization. The controllers are compared in a nonlinear simulation with gravity-gradient, aerodynamic, and residual-dipole disturbances over two-orbit and mission-duration (100–300 orbit) horizons. The central claim is that the nonlinear-propagation policy outperforms the other policies in control effort, constraint satisfaction, and reliability, while remaining computationally tractable.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a credible control architecture for a class of small satellites with constrained actuation and science pointing requirements, and the long-duration simulation (300 orbits) is a valuable demonstration beyond typical two-orbit studies. The formulation as an SOCP and the explicit treatment of soft constraints on roll rate and pointing cone are useful contributions. The paper also identifies a realistic controllability benefit of a variable-speed momentum wheel. However, the reported comparison is undermined by errors in the printed state-space model and by tuning and implementation asymmetries between the compared policies, so the central claim cannot be verified from the manuscript as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.D.1, Eq. (4)] The state-space matrices in Eq. (4) are inconsistent with the dynamics in Eqs. (1)-(2). The magnetic actuation block in B_u is printed as b^×, but from τ_mag = m × b the correct block is -I^{-1} b^×; the printed block has the opposite sign and omits the inertia scaling 1/I_i. Similarly, the (3,2) entry of A_dss is printed as σ2/I3 with σ2 = (I1 - I2)γ + I_s ω_s, while the third linearized scalar equation gives δω̇3 = [(I1 - I2)γ - I_s ω_s] δω2 / I3, so the wheel-momentum term has the wrong sign in the printed matrix. Because all MPC policies use this prediction model, the sign error reverses the commanded magnetic torque direction and the inertia scaling changes its magnitude. The paper does not include code or data, so the reader cannot determine whether the simulations used the printed matrices or a corrected implementation; either way the central comparison in Section V is not reproducible from the manuscript as written.
  2. [Section III.D.2] The claim that Rank(C)=n for γ≠0 in all satellite configurations but one, and that the variable-speed wheel restores full instantaneous controllability, is asserted but not demonstrated. The text says this is shown analytically using the LTV dynamics in Eq. (4), but no rank computation, no explicit controllability matrix, and no specific theorem or reference are provided. Since this controllability property motivates the actuator configuration, please include the calculation or a precise citation that covers this LTV system.
  3. [Section V.B] The cost weights Q, R, ψ_i and the horizon parameters N, Δt were tuned using the nonlinear-propagation policy, and the exact tuning procedure is omitted. This introduces a potential bias in the Section V.C.1 comparison: the nProp policy may operate with better-tuned parameters than the other policies. Please report the tuning ranges considered and verify that the ranking of the three policies, and particularly the 17.05% versus 4.49% input differences in Table 1, is robust to reasonable variations in these weights.
  4. [Section V.D] The 100-orbit orbital-scheduling simulation was augmented with a terminal cost based on the discrete algebraic Riccati equation, while the 300-orbit nProp simulation used the nominal cost function. This is not a controlled comparison: the two policies were evaluated with different objective functions. Please either apply the same terminal cost to all policies or report the nProp result without the terminal cost, so the long-horizon failure of orbProp and success of nProp can be attributed to the prediction model rather than to the controller formulation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.A] The notation "1 ∈ R^{n×n}" and "1_m ∈ R^{n×1}" is unconventional and can be confused with the scalar 1; consider using I_n for the identity and e_m for the basis vector.
  2. [Eq. (4) block matrix] The block partitions in Eq. (4) are difficult to read because the matrix formatting is garbled; please separate the sub-blocks unambiguously so the 6×6 and 6×4 partitions are apparent.
  3. [Section IV.D, Step 5] The statement that "this linearization recovers the true attitude states, Θ and ω, and that the constraints in the MPC problem in Eq. (5) should be modified accordingly" is unclear; if the states are changed from perturbations to true states, the cost function and constraints need to be written out explicitly.
  4. [Introduction] The minimum spin rate requirement is attributed to the EXACT mission, but the cited reference [7] appears to be about single-vector inertial aiding; please verify that this is the correct source for the stated mission requirement.
  5. [Section V.C.1] In Fig. 11, the histograms for the three policies are difficult to distinguish in grayscale; consider separate panels or distinct hatching so the reader can compare the distributions, especially after excluding linProp in Fig. 11b.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the nProp-vs-others comparison is an independent closed-loop simulation result, not an identity or a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The attitude dynamics in Eq. (1), the linearization in Section III.D, and the MPC problem in Eq. (5) are all stated explicitly; the three LTV policies differ only in how the time-varying prediction dynamics A(t) and B_u(t) are computed (constant field, orbital scheduling, linear iterative propagation, and nonlinear propagation with successive linearization). The performance comparison in Section V is a closed-loop simulation against the same nonlinear truth model with gravity-gradient, aerodynamic, and residual-dipole disturbances, so the nProp policy's lower torque-rod usage and fewer constraint violations are observed outcomes rather than quantities fitted to the comparison metric. No equation reduces to its own input: the prediction models are not defined in terms of the performance scores, and the cost function in Eq. (5) is identical across policies. The only mild procedural overlap is that the horizon and timestep were tuned using the nProp policy before comparing all policies (Section V.B: 'The simulations for this procedure use the nonlinear propagation MPC policy described in Section IV.D...'); this gives nProp a small tuning advantage, but Δt and N are common controller hyperparameters, not fitted parameters of the prediction, and the policies still solve distinct optimization problems, so the advantage is not by construction. Self-citations, including Ref. [28] for the LTI baseline and the S_b^a = 1 kinematic approximation, are descriptive and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice. The printed sign/scaling issue in Eq. (4) noted by the skeptic is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a circularity one. Overall, no definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation circularity was found.

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

The claimed ranking of MPC policies depends on hand-tuned controller weights, a selected prediction horizon, and a simulation environment assembled from standard models. No new physical entities are introduced; the variable-speed reaction wheel is an existing hardware component.

free parameters (5)
  • Q state weighting matrix = Q = Δt×10^-3/7.5 diag{10^-12, 1, 1, 10, 10^-2, 10^-2}
    Hand-tuned through simulation iteration; Section V.B says the exact procedure is omitted for brevity.
  • R control weighting matrix = R = 7.5×10^5/Δt diag{10, 1, 1, 1}
    Hand-tuned to heavily penalize reaction wheel input so the MPC relies mainly on magnetic actuation.
  • Soft constraint weights ψ1, ψ2, ψ3 = ψ1=10^4, ψ2=10^4, ψ3=10^5
    Selected by design requirements and intuition, not derived from first principles.
  • Prediction horizon N and timestep Δt = N=15, Δt=6 s
    Chosen via the tuning procedure in Section V.B as a performance/computation tradeoff.
  • Convergence tolerances ξ_diff,tol and γ_diff,tol = not stated
    Used in the iterative convergence checks of Sections IV.C and IV.D, but no numeric values are reported, hampering exact replication.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spacecraft body axes are aligned with principal axes of inertia.
    Section III.D sets I_Bc^b = diag{I1, I2, I3} before deriving the linearized dynamics.
  • domain assumption The nominal spin rate γ is constant during linearization.
    Section III.D assumes γdot=0 and removes higher-order perturbation terms.
  • domain assumption Perturbations about the nominal spin are small enough for first-order linearization.
    Section III.D keeps only first-order terms; the constant-field prediction in Section IV.A also assumes S≈I.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear prediction can ignore external disturbances during propagation.
    Section IV.D step 2 sets τ_ext=0 when propagating the nonlinear dynamics to form the reference trajectory.
  • domain assumption WMM 2020 and the disturbance models (gravity gradient, aerodynamic, residual dipole) represent the real LEO environment.
    Section V uses these models for all results, including the mission-duration feasibility claim.
  • standard math Discrete-time LTV dynamics via zero-order hold are adequate for prediction.
    Section III.D.1 converts the continuous-time system to discrete time with a zero-order hold; accuracy depends on the choice of Δt.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-Varying Model Predictive Attitude Control for Magnetically Actuated Dual-Spin Satellites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2Q2WRWN

@misc{pith2026250607858,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-Varying Model Predictive Attitude Control for Magnetically Actuated Dual-Spin Satellites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2Q2WRWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07858}
}
read the original abstract

Attitude control hardware for small satellites is often limited in power and space availability given the importance of the science instruments they exist to transport. To mitigate this, a dual-spin stabilized satellite actuated via magnetic torque rods reduces the space and power required of the attitude control system, but may require advanced control policies. This paper explores the attitude control of a magnetically actuated dual-spin stabilized CubeSat with model predictive control using time-varying prediction dynamics. An inertial pointing objective is used as a representative mission, where the satellite is able to deviate from its nominal orientation within some allowable amount. Three time-varying MPC policies are developed and compared to ensure the system does not violate constraints while minimizing control effort. These policies include a prediction model that accounts for the orbital position of the satellite and two iterative approaches that incorporate control inputs through either propagation of the linear dynamics, or nonlinear propagation with successive linearization. Results demonstrate that the nonlinear prediction policy outperforms other prediction methods with regards to not only minimal actuation, but to constraint satisfaction as well while imparting minimal computational burden.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    AttitudeControlofDual-SpinSatellitesinLow-EarthOrbitviaPredictive Control and Magnetic Actuation,

    Halverson,R.D.,Gebre-Egziabher,D.,andCaverly,R.,“AttitudeControlofDual-SpinSatellitesinLow-EarthOrbitviaPredictive Control and Magnetic Actuation,”AIAA SciTech Forum, Orlando, FL, 2024, p. 2278. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-2278. 30

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2024-2278 2024

  2. [1]

    Modern Small Satellites-Changing the Economics of Space,

    Sweeting, M. N., “Modern Small Satellites-Changing the Economics of Space,”Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 106, No. 3, 2018, pp. 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2806218

    work page arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Towards the Thousandth CubeSat: A Statistical 28 Overview,

    Villela, T., Costa, C. A., Brandão, A. M., Bueno, F. T., Leonardi, R., et al., “Towards the Thousandth CubeSat: A Statistical 28 Overview,”International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5063145

    doi:10.1155/2019/5063145 2019

  4. [3]

    CubeSat Evolution: Analyzing CubeSat Capabilities for Conducting Science Missions,

    Poghosyan, A., and Golkar, A., “CubeSat Evolution: Analyzing CubeSat Capabilities for Conducting Science Missions,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 88, 2017, pp. 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2016.11.002

    doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2016.11.002 2017

  5. [4]

    de Ruiter, A. H. J., Damaren, C. J., and Forbes, J. R.,Spacecraft Dynamics and Control: An Introduction, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    C.,Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2004

    Hughes, P. C.,Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [6]

    SignalofOpportunityTimeDifferenceofArrivalEstimationUsingAdaptive Filtering Techniques,

    Runnels,J.,Gebre-Egziabher,D.,andGlesener,L.,“SignalofOpportunityTimeDifferenceofArrivalEstimationUsingAdaptive Filtering Techniques,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, 2017, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2017.7943932

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    Applications of a Single-Vector Inertial Aiding Scheme for 3U CubeSats,

    Laughlin, K., Gebre-Egziabher, D., and Bageshwar, V. L., “Applications of a Single-Vector Inertial Aiding Scheme for 3U CubeSats,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2022, pp. 637–650. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A35066

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a35066 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Magnetic Attitude Control of a Spinning Satellite,

    Ergin, E. I., and Wheeler, P. C., “Magnetic Attitude Control of a Spinning Satellite,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1965, pp. 846–850. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.28302

    1965 doi

  2. [9]

    Magnetic Spacecraft Attitude Control: A Survey and Some New Results,

    Silani, E., and Lovera, M., “Magnetic Spacecraft Attitude Control: A Survey and Some New Results,”Control Engineering Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2005, pp. 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2003.12.017

    2005 doi

  3. [10]

    A Survey on Active Magnetic Attitude Control Algorithms for Small Satellites,

    Ovchinnikov, M. Y., and Roldugin, D. S., “A Survey on Active Magnetic Attitude Control Algorithms for Small Satellites,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 109, 2019, p. 100546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.05.006

    2019 doi

  4. [11]

    Optimal Periodic Control for Spacecraft Pointing and Attitude Determination,

    Pittelkau, M. E., “Optimal Periodic Control for Spacecraft Pointing and Attitude Determination,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 16, No. 6, 1993, pp. 1078–1084. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.21130

    1993 doi

  5. [12]

    Magnetic AttitudeControl forEarth-Pointing Satellitesin thePresence of Gravity Gradient,

    Zhou, K., Huang, H., Wang, X., andSun, L., “Magnetic AttitudeControl forEarth-Pointing Satellitesin thePresence of Gravity Gradient,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 60, 2017, pp. 115–123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2016.11. 003

    2017 doi

  6. [13]

    SatelliteControlUsingMagneticMoments: ControllabilityandStabilizationAlgorithms,

    Morozov,V.M.,andKalenova,V.I.,“SatelliteControlUsingMagneticMoments: ControllabilityandStabilizationAlgorithms,” Cosmic Research, Vol. 58, 2020, pp. 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010952520030041

    2020 doi

  7. [14]

    Magnetic Torquer Attitude Control via Asymptotic Periodic Linear Quadratic Regulation,

    Psiaki, M. L., “Magnetic Torquer Attitude Control via Asymptotic Periodic Linear Quadratic Regulation,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001, pp. 386–394. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.4723

    2001 doi

  8. [15]

    Three-Axis Magnetic Attitude Control Algorithms for Small Satellites,

    Reyhanoglu, M., and Hervas, J. R., “Three-Axis Magnetic Attitude Control Algorithms for Small Satellites,”5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, Istanbul, Turkey, 2011, pp. 897–902. https://doi.org/10.1109/RAST. 2011.5966973

    2011

  9. [16]

    Autonomous Station Keeping of Satellites in Areostationary Mars Orbit: APredictiveControlApproach,

    Halverson, R. D., Weiss, A., Lundin, G., and Caverly, R. J., “Autonomous Station Keeping of Satellites in Areostationary Mars Orbit: APredictiveControlApproach,”Acta Astronautica,2025. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.01.064. 29

    2025 doi

  10. [17]

    Electric Satellite Station Keeping, Attitude Control, and Momentum Management by MPC,

    Caverly, R. J., Di Cairano, S., and Weiss, A., “Electric Satellite Station Keeping, Attitude Control, and Momentum Management by MPC,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1475–1489. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2020.3014601

    2020

  11. [18]

    Real-Time Optimization and Model Predictive Control for Aerospace and Automotive Applications,

    Di Cairano, S., and Kolmanovsky, I. V., “Real-Time Optimization and Model Predictive Control for Aerospace and Automotive Applications,”American Control Conference, Milwaukee, WI, 2018, pp. 2392–2409. https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC.2018. 8431585

    2018 doi

  12. [19]

    Safeand ConstrainedRendezvous, ProximityOperations, andDocking,

    Petersen, C., Caverly, R.J., Phillips, S., andWeiss, A., “Safeand ConstrainedRendezvous, ProximityOperations, andDocking,” American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, 2023, pp. 3645–3661. https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC55779.2023.10155826

    2023

  13. [20]

    Model Predictive Control in Aerospace Systems: Current State and Opportunities,

    Eren, U., Prach, A., Koçer, B. B., Raković, S. V., Kayacan, E., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Model Predictive Control in Aerospace Systems: Current State and Opportunities,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2017, pp. 1541–1566. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002507

    2017 doi

  14. [21]

    Explicit Model Predictive Control of a Satellite with Magnetic Torquers,

    Krogstad, T., Gravdahl, J. T., and Tondel, P., “Explicit Model Predictive Control of a Satellite with Magnetic Torquers,”IEEE International Symposium on, Mediterrean Conference on Control and Automation Intelligent Control, Lymassol, Cyprus, 2005, pp. 491–496. https://doi.org/...

    2005 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Regulation of Magnetically Actuated Satellites Using Model Predictive Control with Disturbance Modelling,

    Wood, M., and Chen, W.-H., “Regulation of Magnetically Actuated Satellites Using Model Predictive Control with Disturbance Modelling,”IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, Sanya, China, 2008, pp. 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNSC.2008.4525305

    2008

  16. [23]

    Model Predictive Control of Cube Satellite with Magneto-torquers,

    Chen, X., and Wu, X., “Model Predictive Control of Cube Satellite with Magneto-torquers,”IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, Harbin, China, 2010, pp. 997–1002. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICINFA.2010.5512149

    2010

  17. [24]

    Model Predictive Control of an Underactuated Spacecraft with Two Reaction Wheels,

    Petersen, C. D., Leve, F., and Kolmanovsky, I., “Model Predictive Control of an Underactuated Spacecraft with Two Reaction Wheels,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2017, pp. 320–332. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000320

    2017 doi

  18. [25]

    Magnetic Control of Dual-Spin and Bias-Momentum Spacecraft,

    De Ruiter, A. H., “Magnetic Control of Dual-Spin and Bias-Momentum Spacecraft,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2012, pp. 1158–1168. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.55869

    2012 doi

  19. [26]

    Spacecraft Attitude Control Using Magnetic and Mechanical Actuation,

    de Angelis, E. L., Giulietti, F., de Ruiter, A. H., and Avanzini, G., “Spacecraft Attitude Control Using Magnetic and Mechanical Actuation,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,Vol.39,No.3,2016,pp.564–573. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000957

    2016 doi

  20. [27]

    Dual-SpinAttitudeStabilizationofMagneto-CoulombicSatelliteUsingLinearTime-VariantModel Predictive Control,

    Basak,K.,andGiri,D.K.,“Dual-SpinAttitudeStabilizationofMagneto-CoulombicSatelliteUsingLinearTime-VariantModel Predictive Control,”AIAA SciTech Forum, Orlando, FL, 2024, p. 0506. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-0506

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Stability Conditions for Linear Time-Varying Model Predictive Control in Autonomous Driving,

    Lima, P. F., Mårtensson, J., and Wahlberg, B., “Stability Conditions for Linear Time-Varying Model Predictive Control in Autonomous Driving,”IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, Melbourne, Australia, 2017, pp. 2775–2782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10...

    2017

  22. [30]

    A Linear Time-Varying Model Predictive Control-Based Motion Uueing Algorithm for Hexapod Simulation-Based Motion Platform,

    Qazani, M. R. C., Asadi, H., Khoo, S., and Nahavandi, S., “A Linear Time-Varying Model Predictive Control-Based Motion Uueing Algorithm for Hexapod Simulation-Based Motion Platform,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, Vol. 51, No. 10, 2019, pp. 6096–61...

    2019

  23. [31]

    L.,Modern Control Theory, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991

    Brogan, W. L.,Modern Control Theory, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991

    1991

  24. [32]

    Controllability and Observability in Time-Variable Linear Systems,

    Silverman, L. M., and Meadows, H., “Controllability and Observability in Time-Variable Linear Systems,”Journal on Control, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1967, pp. 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1137/0305005

    1967 doi

  25. [33]

    R., and Ning, A.,Engineering Design Optimization, Cambridge University Press, 2021

    Martins, J. R., and Ning, A.,Engineering Design Optimization, Cambridge University Press, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    L.,Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems, 4th ed., AIAA, 2018

    Schaub, H., and Junkins, J. L.,Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems, 4th ed., AIAA, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Model Predictive Control of Swarms of Spacecraft Using Sequential Convex Programming,

    Morgan, D., Chung, S.-J., and Hadaegh, F. Y., “Model Predictive Control of Swarms of Spacecraft Using Sequential Convex Programming,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2014, pp. 1725–1740. https: //doi.org/10.2514/1.G000218

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    The US/UK World Magnetic Model for 2020-2025: Technical Report,

    Chulliat, A., Brown, W., Alken, P., Beggan, C., Nair, M., Cox, G., Woods, A., Macmillan, S., Meyer, B., and Paniccia, M., “The US/UK World Magnetic Model for 2020-2025: Technical Report,” 2020. https://doi.org/10.25923/ytk1-yx35

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Measured-State Driven Warm-Start Strategy for Linear MPC,

    Otta, P., Santin, O., and Havlena, V., “Measured-State Driven Warm-Start Strategy for Linear MPC,”European Control Conference, Linz, Austria, 2015, pp. 3132–3136. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECC.2015.7331015

    2015

  30. [38]

    YALMIP: A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB,

    Lofberg, J., “YALMIP: A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB,”IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004, pp. 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1109/CACSD.2004.1393890

    2004 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Mosek Optimization Toolbox for Matlab,

    ApS, M., “Mosek Optimization Toolbox for Matlab,”User’s Guide and Reference Manual, Version, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2019, p. 116. 31

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.