Radiometric Interferometry for Deep Space Navigation using Geostationary Satellites

Hector Rotstein; Moshe Golani; Yoram Rozen

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 20 references

Radiometric Interferometry for Deep Space Navigation using Geostationary Satellites

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two GEO satellites could steer deep-space probes to about 3.7 nanoradians.

desk verdict A credible new space-based VLBI architecture with a real availability advantage, but the headline accuracy rests on an unsupported 0.5 m OD assumption and some arithmetic slips; worth peer review after correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19921 v1 pith:UXHCCQG7 submitted 2025-07-26 astro-ph.IM physics.space-ph

Moshe Golani , Yoram Rozen , Hector Rotstein This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IMphysics.space-ph

keywords Space-basedVLBIGeostationarysatellitesDeepspacenavigationRadiometricinterferometryDifferentialOne-WayRanging(DOR)ErrorbudgetanalysisPhase-basedangulartrackingSystemavailability

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 proposes a space-based version of very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) for navigating deep-space spacecraft: two Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites receive the probe's radio signal, record and time-stamp it, and ground processing cross-correlates the two recordings to recover the angle of arrival. The central claim is that this configuration, called RINGS, achieves a total angular error of about 3.73 nanoradians, within the same order of magnitude as terrestrial VLBI's 2.39 nanoradians, while offering roughly 98% geometric availability versus about 49.66% for ground stations. The reason the comparison matters is that the space baseline can exceed 80,000 km, atmospheric phase errors disappear, and the two platforms keep the target in view almost continuously, so navigation would no longer depend on scarce, Earth-rotation-limited ground network time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is dual-frequency differential phase measurement, the same $\Delta$-DOR principle used by ground VLBI, now applied across a space baseline. For two carrier frequencies separated by $\Delta f_c$, the differentially measured phase is $\Delta\Delta\phi = \frac{2\pi\Delta f_c}{c}\left(B\cos\theta + \frac{r}{c}\Delta V_r\right)$, where $B$ is the GEO-GEO baseline, $\theta$ the angle between baseline and line of sight, $r$ the nominal range, and $\Delta V_r$ the differential radial velocity of the two satellites. The first term encodes the angle; the second is a Doppler-induced systematic that the analysis says must be removed; the frequency separation creates a synthetic wavelength $c/\Delta f_c$ that lifts the $2\pi$ phase ambiguity. The error budget then converts phase noise, clock noise, and baseline uncertainty into a timing error and hence an angular error.

What would settle it

Deploy or simulate a two-GEO recording of a known spacecraft beacon while independently measuring the GEO positions with laser ranging and GNSS to sub-0.5-meter truth; if the residual phase-derived angle corresponds to timing errors above the budgeted 1.044 nanoseconds, or if no published demonstration of 0.5-meter post-processed GEO orbit determination appears, the central claim fails. A simpler check is to compare the predicted Doppler-induced phase drift from Table 2 against the raw differential phase seen in the simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a dual-GEO interferometer is a feasible complementary navigation system for deep-space probes, not a replacement that must beat ground VLBI on every error term. The error budget in Table 3 puts the GEO system's root-sum-square timing error at 1.044 nanoseconds (spacecraft signal-to-noise 30 ps, residual clock instability 300 ps, station location uncertainty 1 ns, dispersive phase 30 ps, plus small Earth-orientation and solar-plasma terms), which converts to 3.73 nrad; the terrestrial comparison is 0.063 ns and 2.39 nrad. The dominant new errors are the clock and the assumed 0.5-meter post-processed orbit knowledge of the GEO satellites, while tropospheric, ionospheric, quasar-coordinate, and quasar-SNR terms vanish. The paper also shows the Doppler-induced phase drift in a symmetric 180-degree GEO configuration can reach hundreds of radians over a 300-second integration and must be modeled and unwrapped, and it reports raw (unfiltered) angle estimates from simulation at baseline-spacecraft angles of about 22 and 72 degrees.

Load-bearing premise

The whole accuracy claim rests on the unproven assumption that the two GEO satellites' positions can be known to half a meter after the fact and that their clocks stay within 300 picoseconds after calibration; ordinary GEO orbit knowledge is ten to a hundred times worse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Deep-space missions could receive angular measurements on nearly twice as many days, because the two GEO platforms keep line of sight to ecliptic targets about 98% of the time.
Ground-network scheduling pressure would ease: RINGS is an independent, space-based navigation asset that does not consume scarce ground station time.
Tropospheric and ionospheric calibration hardware and algorithms become unnecessary, since the receivers sit above the atmosphere.
The angular error, while larger in absolute terms than ground VLBI, stays within the same order of magnitude, so RINGS can serve as a complement rather than a competitor.
Improvements in spaceborne clocks, inter-satellite synchronization links, and orbit determination would cut the two dominant error terms.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the 3.73 nrad figure depends on 0.5-meter post-processed GEO orbit knowledge; conventional GEO orbit determination is 10-100 meters, and the paper does not demonstrate a mechanism for reaching 0.5 m in this signal-recorded, ground-correlated scenario. If the true OD error were 2 m, the timing contribution would grow to several nanoseconds and the angular error would exceed ter
Editorial inference: a relatively inexpensive validation would use two existing GEO communication satellites to record a strong known beacon, with independent laser-ranging or GNSS truth for satellite positions; comparing measured versus predicted phase would directly test the error budget.
Editorial inference: the availability advantage is likely largest for small spacecraft that cannot secure ground network time, so the concept may pair naturally with cubesat deep-space missions.
Editorial inference: because the Doppler correction scales with $\Delta V_r$, non-symmetric GEO spacings or inclined GEO orbits would need re-derivation; the 180-degree symmetric case is the optimistic geometry.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the RINGS concept is a legitimate new application—two GEO satellites as a VLBI baseline for deep-space tracking—and the availability result (98% vs ~50%) is the strongest thing in the paper. The error budget, however, does not yet support the 3.73 nrad headline. The dominant term is a 0.5 m post-processed GEO OD accuracy assumption, stated without a reference or mechanism, when conventional GEO OD is 10–100 m. And the OD derivation has an arithmetic problem: Eq. (61) gives δθ ≈ (δB/B)θ, which at θ=1 mrad with δB=0.5 m yields 6.25 prad, not the 6.25 nrad used in §4.4. The correct relation from B cosθ = cΔt is δθ = (δB/B)cotθ, which is geometry-dependent and much larger at small angles. The clock term is also inconsistent: 300 ps at 32 GHz is ~60 rad, not 20 rad. These are fixable, but they mean the central claim of near-parity with terrestrial VLBI is not yet established.

What is genuinely good: the system architecture is clearly described, the simulation shows the concept can estimate angle of arrival, and the availability analysis is a real operational advantage that is independent of the error budget. The paper is honest about limitations—it says standard GEO OD is 10–100 m and that the simulation assumes perfect synchronization—but that honesty makes the unsupported leap to 0.5 m more glaring. The SNR/CRLB part is fine and not the issue.

Who benefits: someone working on deep-space navigation architectures or VLBI systems will get a clear picture of a plausible alternative to ground-based DOR. It deserves a serious referee, but only with the expectation of a corrected error budget, a sensitivity analysis over OD and clock residuals, and either a demonstration that 0.5 m OD is achievable in the RINGS scenario or a revised headline. I would not cite the 3.73 nrad number until that is fixed.

Recommendation: send to peer review, not desk reject, but the review must insist on the OD/clock cleanup.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and analyzes RINGS, a space-based VLBI concept in which two geostationary satellites receive a deep-space spacecraft signal and perform differential one-way ranging and phase interferometry. It derives the VLBI angle equation, dual-frequency ambiguity resolution, Doppler, clock, orbit-determination, and atmospheric error models, and assembles them into Table 3, giving an RSS timing error of 1.044 ns and an angular error of 3.73 nrad, compared with 0.063 ns and 2.39 nrad for terrestrial VLBI. STK/MATLAB simulations are presented for angle estimation and for geometric availability (about 98% for the GEO pair versus 49.66% for DSN). The paper concludes that GEO-based VLBI is a feasible complementary deep-space navigation system.

Significance. If the headline error budget were valid, the contribution would be significant: roughly an order-of-magnitude longer baseline than terrestrial VLBI, elimination of tropospheric and ionospheric path errors, and near-continuous availability are all attractive properties for deep-space navigation. The paper is also to be credited for making the error budget explicit in a common framework and for providing a concrete availability simulation. However, the 3.73 nrad result is not a derived prediction in the usual sense: it is dominated by an assumed 0.5 m GEO orbit-determination accuracy and a 300 ps residual clock error, neither of which is supported by a reference, a mechanism, or an error-bar analysis, and several of the supporting numerical evaluations are internally inconsistent. The architecture and availability claims are supported, but the central accuracy claim requires substantial revision.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.4, Eq. (61), Eq. (63), Table 3] The orbit-determination error term is the largest single contributor to the headline result, but its propagation is not correct. From Eq. (2), cos θ = cΔt/B, differentiating at fixed Δt gives δθ = (δB/B) cot θ, not the δθ ≈ (δB/B)θ used in Eq. (61). The numerical evaluation in Eq. (63) is also inconsistent with the stated formula: (0.5/80,000,000)×10^-3 = 6.25×10^-12 rad = 6.25 prad, not 6.25 nrad; the value 6.25 nrad is δB/B without the θ factor. Moreover, the conversion in §4.6 from a 0.5 m baseline error to δtOD ≈ 1 nsec is not dimensionally consistent: δt = δB/c = 1.67 ns, while 1 ns corresponds to 0.3 m. Because this term contributes 1.000 ns of the 1.044 ns RSS in Table 3, the headline 3.73 nrad must be recomputed with a correct geometry-dependent OD sensitivity, and the assumed 0.5 m post-processed GEO OD accuracy needs a supporting mechanism or reference rather than the bare statement in §4.4 that it is conservatively assumed.
[Section 4.3, Section 4.6, Table 3] The clock residual is internally inconsistent and the phase conversion is arithmetically wrong. Section 4.3.1 states that a post-calibrated timing uncertainty of 100 ps is conservatively estimated and Eq. (57) correctly gives 2π×32 GHz×100 ps ≈ 20 rad; however, Table 3 and §4.6 use 300 ps and then state that this corresponds to about 20 radians. The correct value for 300 ps is 2π×32 GHz×300 ps ≈ 60 rad. The 300 ps figure is introduced without a clock model, Allan-deviation curve, or reference, and Section 5.1 explicitly assumes perfect time synchronization in the simulation, so the simulation provides no validation of this residual. Since the clock term (0.300 ns) is the second-largest entry in Table 3, this needs to be reconciled and justified.
[Section 4.1.5, Section 4.6, Table 3] The SNR (CRLB) contribution contains numerical errors that propagate into Table 3. With N=120,000 and SNR=2.82, Eq. (44) gives σΔϕ = sqrt(1/(120,000×2.82)) ≈ 1.7×10^-3 rad, not 5.4×10^-3 rad as printed after Eq. (47). The timing conversion in §4.6 is also off by a factor of 1000: 0.0054 rad/(2π×32 GHz) ≈ 2.7×10^-14 s ≈ 0.027 ps, not 27 ps. At face value, the Spacecraft SNR entry in Table 3 should therefore be about 10^-5 ns rather than 0.030 ns. Although this entry is not the dominant term, the error budget should be recomputed with correct arithmetic before the RSS totals are reported.
[Section 4.2, Table 2] The Doppler-induced phase errors in Table 2 do not agree with Eq. (55) for the stated parameters. For θ=85°, Eq. (55) with Δfc=10^5 Hz, VGEO=3075 m/s, and T=300 s gives Δϕ ≈ 3.8×10^3 rad, not 513 rad; the tabulated values correspond to an integration time of about 40 s, not 300 s. The same factor of approximately 7.5 appears in the θ=5° and θ=45° rows. Because Section 4.2 uses these numbers to argue that Doppler terms dominate the phase budget and must be corrected, the table should be recomputed or the integration time stated consistently.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract / Section 3] The abstract says the spacecraft signal is received and cross correlated onboard Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites, whereas Section 3 states that signals are stored onboard, downloaded, and cross-correlated at a central ground facility; please reconcile the architecture description.
[Section 4.1.2] The phase-noise variance σ²_φ = 10^-2 rad² is introduced as a conservative upper bound without an oscillator specification or reference; since it enters the effective SNR, it should be justified or explicitly treated as an adjustable parameter.
[Section 2.4, Eqs. (17)-(22)] The sign of the Doppler correction in Eq. (18) appears inconsistent with the standard relation λd = c/fd: for fd = f0(1 + vr/c), the first-order wavelength correction is 1 - vr/c, not 1 + vr/c. Please check the derivation leading to Eq. (22).
[Table 3] Several entries in the satellite VLBI column (e.g., Dispersive Phase 0.030 nsec and Solar Plasma Effects 0.006 nsec) are not derived or referenced in the text; add the models or citations used to obtain them.
[Section 5.1] The simulation uses S-band (3 GHz) and assumes perfect time synchronization, whereas the error budget in Table 3 is for Ka-band (32 GHz) with residual clock errors; the text should state explicitly that the simulation is a proof-of-concept for angle estimation and not a validation of the Ka-band error budget.
[References] Reference [5] is cited only as G. BOOK without a formal report title or number; please provide the full bibliographic details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RINGS error budget is a conditional arithmetic estimate built from explicitly stated inputs, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity is the RSS error budget in Table 3, assembled from standard VLBI error terms. The dominant terms are explicitly stated as assumptions: Section 4.4 says 'we conservatively assume that a post-processed orbital knowledge of 0.5 meters (50 cm) is achievable,' and Section 4.6 says 'the residual clock error is estimated at approximately 300 picoseconds.' Computing sqrt(sum of squares) from those inputs to obtain 1.044 ns and 3.73 nrad is a legitimate conditional error-budget calculation, not a circular derivation: the inputs are not fitted to the output, and the output is not used to define the inputs. There are no self-citations in the reference list, no invocation of the authors' own prior 'uniqueness theorems', and no known result renamed as a new prediction. The unsupported realism of the 0.5 m GEO OD and 300 ps clock assumptions is a correctness and validation risk, and the paper itself flags these as assumptions rather than demonstrated capabilities; however, that is not circularity under the stated criteria. Some numerical inconsistencies also exist (e.g., Eq. 61 uses δθ ≈ (δB/B)θ but the Section 4.4 numeric example at θ = 1 mrad gives 6.25 nrad instead of 6.25 prad; the text goes from 100 ps in Eq. 57 to 300 ps in Table 3), but these are correctness concerns rather than circular reasoning. The availability comparison is an STK simulation result independent of the error-budget arithmetic. Therefore no circularity steps are identified and the score is 0.

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

The RINGS error budget relies on several hand-picked values: 300 ps residual clock error, 0.5 m OD accuracy, and 1e-2 rad^2 phase noise variance. These are not derived from external benchmarks; they are chosen to fit a feasible-looking total. The Doppler and synchronization assumptions in the simulation are not tested with realistic residuals.

free parameters (5)

Residual clock error after calibration = 300 ps
Assumed in Section 4.6 and Table 3; not derived from any clock model or hardware data. Directly sets the clock term in the RSS.
Post-processed GEO orbit determination accuracy = 0.5 m
Chosen in Section 4.4 as 'conservatively assume'; conventional GEO OD is 10-100 m. This is the dominant error term (1 ns) in the final budget.
Phase noise variance = 1e-2 rad^2
Set as a conservative upper bound in Section 4.1.2 based on [17]; no measurement or propagation model is used.
Frequency separation for Doppler analysis = 100 kHz
Selected in Section 4.2 to compute Doppler phase drift; not optimized or justified.
Integration time and sampling period = T=120-300 s, Ts=1 ms
Chosen for the CRLB calculation in Section 4.1.5; any T,Ts changes the SNR-limited error.

assumptions (5)

standard math Far-field plane wave propagation of the spacecraft signal
Used in the phase model Eq. (6); standard for VLBI at the distances discussed.
domain assumption Dual-frequency phase difference removes the 2π ambiguity
Used in Eq. (11)-(13); assumes the frequency separation is small enough to keep the group-delay measurement unambiguous and that both frequencies are available.
domain assumption Doppler-induced phase drift can be modeled perfectly and corrected with no residual
Section 4.2 computes errors of tens to hundreds of radians, but Table 3 has no Doppler residual term; the simulation 'accounts for Doppler correction' (Section 5.1) with no residual noise.
ad hoc to paper Perfect time synchronization between the two GEO satellites in the simulation
Section 5.1 explicitly states 'At this stage, perfect time synchronization was assumed', so the simulation does not test the clock error that dominates the error budget.
domain assumption GEO satellites can host 5 m parabolic antennas and support Ka-band reception
Required for the link budget in Section 4.1.4; no current GEO communication satellite with a 5 m Ka-band receive antenna in this role is cited.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiometric Interferometry for Deep Space Navigation using Geostationary Satellites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXHCCQG7

@misc{pith2026250719921,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiometric Interferometry for Deep Space Navigation using Geostationary Satellites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXHCCQG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19921}
}

read the original abstract

Deep space navigation presents significant challenges due to the unavailability of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals and severe signal attenuation over interplanetary distances. Traditional terrestrial systems, such as NASA Deep Space Network (DSN) and ESA ESTRACK, rely on Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) for angular positioning. However, these systems are limited by relatively short baselines, atmospheric distortions requiring extensive calibration, and reduced visibility availability due to Earth rotation. This research proposes a complementary deep space navigation approach using space based interferometry, in which radio signals from the spacecraft are received and cross correlated onboard Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites. By replacing terrestrial VLBI stations with dual GEO platforms, the method significantly extends the effective baseline, removes atmospheric phase errors, and provides almost continuous visibility to deep space targets. Unlike Earth based systems, GEO based interferometry maintains persistent station mutual visibility, enabling higher measurement availability and more flexible mission support. A complete system model is presented, including the principles of dual frequency phase based angular tracking and a structured error budget analysis. Theoretical results show that the GEO based system achieves a total angular error of approximately 3.73 nanoradians, within the same order of magnitude as terrestrial VLBI. Space based architecture nearly doubles the geometrical availability for interferometric tracking, while eliminating atmospheric distortions. These findings support the feasibility of the GEO based VLBI concept and motivate continued research and field validation for future deep space navigation applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19921 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Space-based Dual-GEO satellite DOR array. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** General system block diagram for the GEO satellite based VLBI (RINGS). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Block diagram of the STK-MATLAB simulation for the RINGS system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Simulation results for interferometric angle estimation at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Simulation results for interferometric angle estimation at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Number of sites visible to deep space reference location (SEL1) vs. time, over 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Autonomous navigation for deep space small satellites: Scientific and technological advances,

E. Turan, S. Speretta, and E. Gill, “Autonomous navigation for deep space small satellites: Scientific and technological advances,” Acta Astronautica 193, pp. 56–74, 2022. 24

work page 2022
[2]

Vittorio, Autonomous navigation for interplanetary CubeSats at different scales

F. Vittorio, Autonomous navigation for interplanetary CubeSats at different scales . PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Performance analysis of multi-constellation and multi-frequency gnss receivers in deep space,

Y . Park, J.-H. Won, and K.-H. Kwon, “Performance analysis of multi-constellation and multi-frequency gnss receivers in deep space,” in Proceedings of the 30th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2017, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

An overview of autonomous optical naviga- tion for deep-space cubesats,

E. Andreis, V . Franzese, F. Topputo, et al., “An overview of autonomous optical naviga- tion for deep-space cubesats,” inInternational Astronautical Congress: IAC Proceedings, pp. 1–11, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Delta-dor—technical characteristics and performance,

G. BOOK, “Delta-dor—technical characteristics and performance,” 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Delta-dor: The one-nanoradian navigation measure- ment system of the deep space network—history, architecture, and componentry,

D. W. Curkendall and J. S. Border, “Delta-dor: The one-nanoradian navigation measure- ment system of the deep space network—history, architecture, and componentry,” The Interplanetary Network Progress Report 42, p. 193, 2013

work page 2013
[7]

Comparison of deep space navigation using optical imaging, pulsar time-of-arrival tracking, and/or radiometric tracking,

T. Ely, S. Bhaskaran, N. Bradley, T. J. W. Lazio, and T. Martin-Mur, “Comparison of deep space navigation using optical imaging, pulsar time-of-arrival tracking, and/or radiometric tracking,” The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 69(2), pp. 385–472, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

D. J. Mudgway, Uplink-downlink: a history of the nasa deep space network, 1957-1997 , vol. 4227, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2001

work page 1957

Show all 20 references

[9]

Esa tracking network–a european asset,

Y . Doat, M. Lanucara, P.-M. Besso, T. Beck, G. Lorenzo, and M. Butkowic, “Esa tracking network–a european asset,” in 2018 SpaceOps Conference, p. 2306, 2018

2018
[10]

The evolution of technology in the deep space network: A history of the advanced systems program,

J. Layland and L. Rauch, “The evolution of technology in the deep space network: A history of the advanced systems program,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, TDA Prog. Rep 89, 1997

1997
[11]

Vlbi: A fascinating technique for geodesy and astrometry,

H. Schuh and D. Behrend, “Vlbi: A fascinating technique for geodesy and astrometry,” Journal of geodynamics 61, pp. 68–80, 2012

2012
[12]

Satellite observations with vlbi,

A. Hellerschmied, “Satellite observations with vlbi,” 2018

2018
[13]

Deep space orbit determination via delta-dor using vlbi antennas,

F. Fiori, P. Tortora, M. Zannoni, A. Ardito, M. Menapace, G. Bellei, F. Budnik, T. Morley, M. Mercolino, and R. Orosei, “Deep space orbit determination via delta-dor using vlbi antennas,” CEAS Space Journal 14(2), pp. 421–430, 2022

2022
[14]

Astra: Interdisciplinary study on enhancement of the end-to-end accuracy for spacecraft tracking techniques,

L. Iess, M. Di Benedetto, N. James, M. Mercolino, L. Simone, and P. Tortora, “Astra: Interdisciplinary study on enhancement of the end-to-end accuracy for spacecraft tracking techniques,” Acta Astronautica 94(2), pp. 699–707, 2014

2014
[15]

D. B. Spencer and D. Conte, Interplanetary Astrodynamics, CRC Press, 2023

2023
[16]

Autonomous spacecraft navigation with pulsars,

W. Becker, M. G. Bernhardt, and A. Jessner, “Autonomous spacecraft navigation with pulsars,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.4842 , 2013

2013 arXiv
[17]

Felli and R

M. Felli and R. E. Spencer, V ery Long Baseline Interferometry: Techniques and Applica- tions, vol. 283, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 25

2012
[18]

Johnson-nyquist noise,

C. S. Turner, “Johnson-nyquist noise,” url: http://www. claysturner . com/dsp/Johnson- NyquistNoise , 2012

2012
[19]

M. I. Skolnik et al., Introduction to radar systems, vol. 3, McGraw-hill New York, 1980

1980
[20]

Cramer-rao lower bounds for estimation of phase in lbi based localization systems,

M. Pourhomayoun and M. Fowler, “Cramer-rao lower bounds for estimation of phase in lbi based localization systems,” in 2012 Conference Record of the F orty Sixth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR) , pp. 909–911, IEEE, 2012. 26

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Autonomous navigation for deep space small satellites: Scientific and technological advances,

E. Turan, S. Speretta, and E. Gill, “Autonomous navigation for deep space small satellites: Scientific and technological advances,” Acta Astronautica 193, pp. 56–74, 2022. 24

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Vittorio, Autonomous navigation for interplanetary CubeSats at different scales

F. Vittorio, Autonomous navigation for interplanetary CubeSats at different scales . PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Performance analysis of multi-constellation and multi-frequency gnss receivers in deep space,

Y . Park, J.-H. Won, and K.-H. Kwon, “Performance analysis of multi-constellation and multi-frequency gnss receivers in deep space,” in Proceedings of the 30th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2017, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

An overview of autonomous optical naviga- tion for deep-space cubesats,

E. Andreis, V . Franzese, F. Topputo, et al., “An overview of autonomous optical naviga- tion for deep-space cubesats,” inInternational Astronautical Congress: IAC Proceedings, pp. 1–11, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Delta-dor—technical characteristics and performance,

G. BOOK, “Delta-dor—technical characteristics and performance,” 2013

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Delta-dor: The one-nanoradian navigation measure- ment system of the deep space network—history, architecture, and componentry,

D. W. Curkendall and J. S. Border, “Delta-dor: The one-nanoradian navigation measure- ment system of the deep space network—history, architecture, and componentry,” The Interplanetary Network Progress Report 42, p. 193, 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Comparison of deep space navigation using optical imaging, pulsar time-of-arrival tracking, and/or radiometric tracking,

T. Ely, S. Bhaskaran, N. Bradley, T. J. W. Lazio, and T. Martin-Mur, “Comparison of deep space navigation using optical imaging, pulsar time-of-arrival tracking, and/or radiometric tracking,” The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 69(2), pp. 385–472, 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

D. J. Mudgway, Uplink-downlink: a history of the nasa deep space network, 1957-1997 , vol. 4227, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2001

work page 1957