Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Successive Convexification for Passively-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous on Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 shows that a spacecraft rendezvous to the Gateway on a near rectilinear halo orbit can be planned with sequential convex programming so that passive-safety and approach-cone constraints hold at every instant, with probabilistic…

desk verdict Useful engineering integration for Gateway rendezvous, but the headline safety guarantee is stronger than the linearized BRS approximation can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17251 v1 pith:3CYAEF2V submitted 2025-05-22 math.OC

Purnanand Elango , Abraham P. Vinod , Kenji Kitamura , Behçet Aç{i}kmeşe , Stefano Di Cairano , Avishai Weiss This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 49M3790C25
keywords passivesafetyspacecraftrendezvousnearrectilinearhaloorbitsequentialconvexprogrammingchanceconstraintsbackwardreachablesetscontinuous-timepathisoperimetricreformulation
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 claims that a fuel-optimal rendezvous with the Gateway can be generated while guaranteeing, in continuous time, that the spacecraft's uncontrolled free drift stays outside each phase's keep-out zone and that the approach-cone constraint is satisfied. It argues that existing methods, which enforce such constraints only at discrete nodes, can miss inter-sample violations, and it removes this risk by converting every path constraint into an integral isoperimetric equality that the optimizer drives to zero. The method is demonstrated in a 1000-sample Monte Carlo simulation of a three-phase maneuver from roughly 1000 km range to a 500 m hold point, reporting mean fuel use of 26.3 m/s with no passive-safety violations, including underburn cases. If correct, the approach would make passively-safe cislunar rendezvous tractable on flight-like scenarios with uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the backward reachable set $\mathcal{B}_t(\tau)$ of the keep-out zone under free drift, replaced at each SCP iteration by the polyhedral approximation $\bar{\mathcal{B}}_{k,t}(\tau)$ obtained from linearizing the free-drift dynamics; the signed-distance function $d_{\bar{\mathcal{B}}}$ and its gradient, which turn the geometric safety condition into differentiable affine constraints; and the isoperimetric reformulation that replaces the continuum of path constraints over $[t_k,t_{k+1}]\times[0,t_s]$ with an integral equality whose integrand is a squared exterior penalty. These ingredients convert the stochastic optimal control problem into a sequence of finite-dimensional convex subproblems with slacks, exact $\ell^1$ penalties, and a proximal trust-region term. A fixed-time-of-arrival feedback gain keeps the state-error covariance bounded so the deterministic ellipsoidal backoffs remain feasible.

What would settle it

Take a converged solution from the paper's case study, compute the exact backward reachable set of the 200 m keep-out sphere under the full nonlinear free-drift dynamics for the 24-hour safety horizon, and check whether any point on the optimized nominal trajectory, including the continuum between nodes, belongs to it; if any does, the passive-safety claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that passive safety and approach-cone satisfaction can be guaranteed at all times, not just at discretization nodes, by reformulating the continuous-time constraints as integral constraints and solving the resulting problem by successive convexification. Safety is expressed through approximate backward reachable sets of the free-drift dynamics, linearized around each SCP iterate, and the chance constraints are converted to deterministic ellipsoidal backoffs using quantiles of the chi-squared distribution. In the reported case study the computed maneuver satisfies all decision-point specifications from the IRSIS guidelines, and Monte Carlo evaluation gives 0% passive-safety violations and 0.8% approach-cone violations at confidence level 0.8. The authors state this is the first single approach in the literature addressing all four requirements: continuous-time passive safety, including underburn; the approach-cone path constraint; decision-point specifications; and stochastic uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on treating the linearized backward reachable set from equation (36) as an accurate stand-in for the true nonlinear free-drift reachable set; if that approximation is not conservative, a point the optimizer declares safe could drift into the keep-out zone under the real dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Continuously enforced constraints eliminate the inter-sample safety violations that discrete-node methods can miss.
  • Underburn safety follows because the isoperimetric constraint monitors free drift over the whole safety horizon with zero control, so a shortened thruster firing still leaves the spacecraft outside the avoid set.
  • The chance-constraint backoffs combined with a stabilizing feedback controller allow insertion, actuation, and navigation uncertainty to be handled in a single optimization.
  • Fuel consumption, with a reported mean of 26.3 m/s over 1000 Monte Carlo runs, is comparable to recent NRHO rendezvous studies while adding continuous-time guarantees.
  • The methodology extends in principle to any nonlinear system whose state constraints must hold at all times, such as powered-descent guidance or autonomous driving.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not quantify the gap between the linearized backward reachable set and the exact nonlinear one, so a natural next step is to validate the approximation against a high-fidelity Hamilton-Jacobi reachable set.
  • The ellipsoidal backoffs are asserted to jointly cover the entire continuum of safety-horizon times $\tau$; a formal covering argument or adaptive refinement over $\tau$ would close this gap.
  • The reported 0% passive-safety violations at confidence level 0.8 suggests the formulation is conservative, so tuning the confidence levels or using non-ellipsoidal confidence sets could reduce fuel consumption.
  • The paper's linear measurement model could be extended to angles-only navigation, which is a practical need for deep-space rendezvous.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a successive convex programming (SCP) framework for fuel-optimal rendezvous of a visiting spacecraft with the Gateway in a near rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO). It formulates a stochastic optimal control problem with passive-safety, approach-cone, decision-point, and actuation chance constraints; linearizes the dynamics around SCP iterates; reformulates the chance constraints using ellipsoidal confidence sets; approximates the backward reachable sets (BRS) of the free-drift dynamics by linearized preimages; and converts continuous-time path constraints into integral (isoperimetric) constraints. The numerical case study reports a 1000-sample Monte Carlo simulation with mean fuel consumption of 26.3 m/s and 0% passive-safety violations, based on parameters taken from an external Gateway rendezvous study.

Significance. If the guarantees stated in the abstract and conclusion were rigorously established, this would be a valuable contribution to NRHO rendezvous guidance: it integrates continuous-time path-constraint satisfaction, underburn safety, decision-point specifications, and chance constraints in a single SCP framework. The isoperimetric reformulation is a sensible mechanism for avoiding inter-sample constraint violations, and the 1000-sample Monte Carlo result, together with externally sourced parameters from [9], provides a falsifiable empirical check. Notably, the ellipsoidal chance-constraint reformulation in Eq. (23) does supply a joint bound over the continuum of tau by using a common confidence ellipsoid, so that particular concern about per-tau backoffs does not land. The main weakness is that the central safety claim rests on unquantified approximations, especially the linearized BRS, and the manuscript does not sufficiently qualify the unconditional wording of that claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C, Eqs. (34)-(36)] The exact backward reachable set B_t(tau) in Eq. (3) is replaced by the linearized preimage \bar{B}_{k,t}(tau) in Eq. (36), and this approximate set is then used in the passive-safety chance constraint (27c) and in the isoperimetric constraint (37a). The paper gives no inclusion relation and no error bound between \bar{B}_{k,t}(tau) and the true BRS of the nonlinear free-drift dynamics in Eq. (29a). If \bar{B}_{k,t}(tau) under-approximates the true set of states that drift into the avoid set, a trajectory satisfying (37a) can still enter the keep-out zone over the 24 h safety horizon under the actual nonlinear dynamics. The 1000-sample Monte Carlo is encouraging for the tested distribution, but it is not a boundary-oriented validation of the BRS approximation, and it does not justify the unconditional 'ensures passive safety at all times' statement in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Section III.B, Eqs. (21)-(25)] The chance constraints (23) and (25) use \tilde{\Sigma}^m_k(t), the covariance of the measured state propagated by (21b)-(21d), whereas the random variable in the original path chance constraints (10c)-(10d) is the true spacecraft state defined in (22). No argument is given that the measured-state covariance dominates the true-state covariance; indeed, the true state includes the estimation error zeta_k and the feedback control depends on the noisy measurement. Without such a dominance relation, the reformulated constraints do not guarantee the stated confidence levels beta_ps and beta_ac for the true state.
  3. [Section III.D-E, Eqs. (37a)-(43)] The isoperimetric reformulation is applied to the linearized path constraints, and the convex subproblem enforces the resulting integral equalities only through the relaxed inequality (42) with tolerance epsilon and slack variables rho, penalized in (43c). The stopping criteria (44a)-(44b) allow positive residuals and step sizes, so at convergence the nominal trajectory satisfies the original continuous-time constraints only up to linearization error and penalty tolerances. The manuscript should either provide a convergence or feasibility guarantee, for instance by making explicit which results of CT-SC VX [41] carry over, or explicitly qualify the 'at all times' claim as approximate.
  4. [Section IV] The Monte Carlo verification is not specified in enough detail: it is not stated how continuous-time passive safety and the underburn scenario were simulated or evaluated, nor whether inter-sample times were checked. If only the discretization nodes are checked, the Monte Carlo result does not validate the continuous-time claim. The paper should describe the simulation protocol, including the underburn model and the time grid used for constraint checking.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (26a)-(26b)] As printed, a_ac_{k,j}(t) is defined using \nabla g_ac_1 and b_ac_{k,j}(t) is defined using g_ac_2 for both j=1,2, which makes the two approach-cone constraints in (25) identical; these definitions should use \nabla g_ac_j and g_ac_j respectively.
  2. [Eqs. (13)-(14), (22)] The symbol x_k is used for both the nominal deterministic state and the random state; this makes the derivation of the covariance update and the chance constraints hard to follow. Using \bar{x}_k for the nominal state and a bold symbol for the random state would clarify the presentation.
  3. [Section III.B, Eqs. (10e), (20)] The original chance constraint (10e) is on u_k + mu_k, while the reformulation (20) uses the closed-loop input u_k + mu_k + K_k(x^m_k - \bar{x}_k); the relationship between these two formulations should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Table 2] The row for the time grid lists 'N2, N3, N' with values '4, 8, 12', but the text in Section II.C introduces N2 and N3 separately; please format the row and the surrounding notation consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are an algorithm and a numerical demonstration, not a fitted constant or a self-derived prediction; the linearized-BRS gap is a soundness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The passive-safety constraint (10c) is defined via the true nonlinear backward reachable set B_t(τ) in Eq. (3), and the algorithm then approximates B_t(τ) by the linearized preimage \bar B_{k,t}(τ) in Eq. (36). This is a modeling approximation with an unquantified error (the skeptic's point), but it is not circular: \bar B is computed from the linearized free-drift dynamics and the avoid set A, not from the safety outcome being claimed. The isoperimetric reformulation (37a) is a mathematical equivalence between a nonnegative integral vanishing and pointwise constraint satisfaction; it is not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The Monte Carlo fuel-consumption statistics (mean 26.3 m/s, 0% passive-safety violations) are simulation results from an externally parameterized scenario (parameters from [9]), not predictions of a fitted constant. The paper relies on the prior CT-SC VX framework [41] by overlapping authors for the SCP convergence machinery, but that is a dependency on independent prior work with stated assumptions, not a circular justification of the present paper's specific claims. The main caveats, such as the absence of an error bound between the linearized and exact BRS, are correctness risks that do not reduce the derivation to its inputs. Thus the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on case-study parameters from [9] and prior SCP theory [41], not on fitted constants. No new physical entities are introduced. The main uncharged assumptions are the linearized BRS approximation and the per-tau chance-constraint backoff.

free parameters (13)
  • beta_ps = 0.8
    Chance-constraint confidence for passive safety in (10c); user-chosen, not derived.
  • beta_ac = 0.8
    Chance-constraint confidence for approach cone in (10d); user-chosen.
  • beta_act = not stated in Table 2
    Confidence for actuator chance constraint (10e); appears in the formulation but its value is not reported.
  • SCP penalty and proximal weights w_ep, w_px = not reported
    Weights in objective (43a) controlling slack penalization and trust-region step; values affect whether constraints are satisfiable.
  • convergence tolerances epsilon, epsilon_ep, epsilon_px = not reported
    Relaxation tolerance (42) and stopping criteria (44); nonzero epsilon means the path constraint integral is not enforced exactly.
  • time grid and decision points t1,...,tN (N2=4, N3=8, N=12) = 0,30,38,42,43,44,45,46,47.25,47.5,47.75,48 hr
    Hand-selected grid to limit control action frequency; affects all linearizations and fuel cost.
  • burn durations t_burn = 15 min (phases 1 and 2), 7.5 min (phase 3)
    Finite-burn pulse model parameters from the operational case study.
  • approach cone half-angle theta_ac = 55 deg
    IRSIS-based cone parameter; changes which trajectories are admissible.
  • control bound u_max = 120 km/hr^2
    Infinity-norm bound on admissible control, from case study [9].
  • avoid set half edge lengths r_A1, r_A2, r_A3 = 10, 1, 0.2 km
    Polyhedral open boxes representing rendezvous, approach, and keep-out spheres; scale of safety requirement.
  • initial and final states x_i, x_f = RLVLH(0,-600,800,2.5,30,-20), RLVLH(0,0,0.5,0,0,0)
    Scenario boundary conditions from [9].
  • stochastic covariances Sigma_i, Sigma_rr, Sigma_act = Table 2
    Insertion, navigation and actuation uncertainties; assumed Gaussian and fixed for the case study.
  • decision point range constraints a_2^+, a_2^-, a_3^+, a_3^- = 55, 45, 6.5, 3.5 km
    Expected position bounds at D2 and D3 in (10f), from IRSIS and the case study.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The disturbances x1, mu_k, and zeta_k are independent Gaussian random variables with the stated covariances.
    Used to derive covariance propagation (15), (19) and ellipsoidal chance-constraint backoffs in Sections III.A and III.B.
  • domain assumption First-order linearization of the relative dynamics and free-drift is an adequate approximation over both planning and safety horizons.
    Section III.C equations (31) to (36) replace the exact BRS (3) with polyhedral linearized sets; no error bound is supplied.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-tau ellipsoidal backoffs in (23) and (25) provide a valid bound on the joint chance constraints over all tau in [0, ts].
    The implication in Section III.B is asserted without a union bound or joint-distribution argument; this is needed for (10c) and (10d).
  • domain assumption The fixed-time-of-arrival feedback gain K_k = -(rE B_k)^-1 rE A_k is well-defined and yields a stabilizing closed-loop covariance evolution.
    Requires rE B_k to be invertible and A_cl to be stable; used in covariance update (19) and control backoff (20).
  • domain assumption Measurement covariance can be linearly interpolated between decision points.
    Section IV assumes the range decreases roughly monotonically; affects the continuous-time covariance in path chance constraints.
  • domain assumption The SCP convergence guarantees from [41] apply to the exact-penalty proximal subproblem (43) with approximate BRS and epsilon relaxation.
    Convergence to constraints of (10) is asserted at the end of Section III.E without proof; the epsilon relaxation and approximate BRS are outside the cited framework.
  • domain assumption The open avoid sets and the non-strict relaxation of the signed-distance inequality are benign.
    Section II.B relaxes the strict inequality in (5); boundary contact is treated as safe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Successive Convexification for Passively-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous on Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CYAEF2V

@misc{pith2026250517251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Successive Convexification for Passively-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous on Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CYAEF2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17251}
}
read the original abstract

We present an optimization-based approach for fuel-efficient spacecraft rendezvous to the Gateway, a space station that will be deployed on a near rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) around the Moon. The approach: i) ensures passive safety and satisfies path constraints at all times, ii) meets the specifications for critical decision points along the trajectory, iii) accounts for uncertainties that are common in real-world operation, such as due to orbital insertion, actuation, and navigation measurement, via chance constraints and utilizes a stabilizing feedback controller to bound the effect of uncertainties. We leverage sequential convex programming (SCP) and isoperimetric reformulation of path constraints, including passive safety, to eliminate the risk of inter-sample constraint violations that is common in existing methods. We demonstrate the proposed approach on a realistic simulation of a rendezvous to the Gateway.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Passively Safe Convex Guidance for Cislunar Rendezvous and Proximity Operations

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Purely convex second-order cone programs can design passively safe approach, arrival, and abort maneuvers for cislunar rendezvous, verified by Monte Carlo simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [41]

    Successive Convexification for Trajectory Optimization with Continuous-Time Constraint Satisfaction,

    Elango, P ., Luo, D., Kamath, A. G., Uzun, S., Kim, T., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Successive Convexification for Trajectory Optimization with Continuous-Time Constraint Satisfaction,” , 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404. 16826

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404 2024

  2. [9]

    Rendezvous trajectory design of logistics resupply missions to the lunar gateway in near-rectilinear halo orbit,

    Nakamura, R., Kikuchi, J., Sasaki, T., Matsumoto, Y., Hidaka, M., Murakami, N., Ueda, S., and Satoh, N., “Rendezvous trajectory design of logistics resupply missions to the lunar gateway in near-rectilinear halo orbit,”Journal of Space Safety Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2023, pp. 144–154.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2023.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsse.2023.03.001 2023

  3. [1]

    Gateway Program Development Progress,

    Fuller, S., Lehnhardt, E., Olansen, J., Mason, J. S., Connell, D., Travis, T., and Fleming, C., “Gateway Program Development Progress,”75th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), International Astronautical Federation (IAF), 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Gateway destination orbit model: a continuous 15 year NRHO reference trajectory,

    Lee, D. E., “Gateway destination orbit model: a continuous 15 year NRHO reference trajectory,” Tech. rep., NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    A review of space robotics technologies for on-orbit servicing,

    Flores-Abad, A., Ma, O., Pham, K., and Ulrich, S., “A review of space robotics technologies for on-orbit servicing,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 68, 2014, pp. 1–26.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2014.03.002

    doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2014.03.002 2014

  6. [4]

    Practical rendezvous scenario for transportation missions to cis-lunar station in earth-moon L2 halo orbit,

    Ueda, S., Ikenaga, T., Maeda, M., Yamamoto, T., and Ikeda, H., “Practical rendezvous scenario for transportation missions to cis-lunar station in earth-moon L2 halo orbit,”Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics (ISSFD), 2015, pp. 1–24

    work page 2015

  7. [5]

    International Rendezvous System Interoperability Standards (IRSIS),

    NASA, ROSCOMOS, JAXA, ESA, and CSA, “International Rendezvous System Interoperability Standards (IRSIS),” Tech. rep., NASA, ESA, CSA, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, Mar. 2019. URL https://internationaldeepspacestandards. com/

    work page 2019

  8. [6]

    Fail-safe Rendezvous Control on Elliptic Orbits using Reachable 25 Sets,

    Marsillach, D. A., Di Cairano, S., and Weiss, A., “Fail-safe Rendezvous Control on Elliptic Orbits using Reachable 25 Sets,”2020 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, 2020, pp. 4920–4925. https://doi.org/10.23919/acc45564. 2020.9147957

    work page arXiv 2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    Terminal Guidance System for Satellite Rendezvous,

    Clohessy, W. H., and Wiltshire, R. S., “Terminal Guidance System for Satellite Rendezvous,”Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 9, 1960, pp. 653–658.https://doi.org/10.2514/8.8704

    1960 doi

  2. [8]

    Gemini Rendezvous Program,

    Chamberlin, J. A., and Rose, J. T., “Gemini Rendezvous Program,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 13–18.https://doi.org/10.2514/3.27585

    1964 doi

  3. [10]

    Control Strategy for Long-Term Station-Keeping on Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbits,

    Muralidharan, V ., Weiss, A., and Kalabic, U. V ., “Control Strategy for Long-Term Station-Keeping on Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbits,”AIAA SCITECH 2020 Forum, AIAA, 2020, pp. 1–19.https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-1459

    2020 doi

  4. [11]

    Rendezvous in Lunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits,

    Bucci, L., Colagrossi, A., and Lavagna, M., “Rendezvous in Lunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits,”Advances in Astronautics Science and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018, pp. 39–43.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42423-018-0012-6

    2018 doi

  5. [12]

    Rendezvous design in a cislunar near rectilinear Halo orbit,

    Blazquez, E., Beauregard, L., Lizy-Destrez, S., Ankersen, F., and Capolupo, F., “Rendezvous design in a cislunar near rectilinear Halo orbit,”The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 124, No. 1276, 2019, pp. 821–837. https://doi.org/10.1017/ aer.2019.126

    2019

  6. [13]

    Chance-constrained Model Predictive Control for Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit spacecraft rendezvous,

    Sanchez, J. C., Gavilan, F., and Vazquez, R., “Chance-constrained Model Predictive Control for Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit spacecraft rendezvous,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 100, No. 105827, 2020. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ast.2020.105827

    2020

  7. [14]

    Ephemeris validation of Rendezvous Guidance in Lunar NRHO,

    Bucchioni, G., and Innocenti, M., “Ephemeris validation of Rendezvous Guidance in Lunar NRHO,”AIAA SCITECH 2021 Forum, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, 2021, pp. 1–17.https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0975

    2021 doi

  8. [15]

    Fail-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous on Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbits,

    Marsillach, D. A., Di Cairano, S., Kalabic, U., and Weiss, A., “Fail-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous on Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbits,”2021 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, 2021, pp. 2980–2985. https://doi.org/10.23919/ acc50511.2021.9483328

    2021

  9. [16]

    Robust Trajectory Optimization and GN&C Performance Analysis for NRHO Rendezvous,

    Woffinden, D., Shuster, S., Geller, D., and Bieniawski, S., “Robust Trajectory Optimization and GN&C Performance Analysis for NRHO Rendezvous,”Proceedings of the 2022 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, American Astronautical Society, Charlotte, NC, 2022, pp. 1–18. U...

    2022

  10. [17]

    Robust Trajectory Design For Rendezvous in a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit,

    Goulet, T., Woffinden, D., Collins, N., and Andrews, B., “Robust Trajectory Design For Rendezvous in a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit,”45th Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) Conference, 2023, pp. 1–25

    2023

  11. [18]

    Angles-Only Robust Trajectory Optimization for NRHO Rendezvous,

    Cavesmith, T., Woffinden, D., and Collins, N., “Angles-Only Robust Trajectory Optimization for NRHO Rendezvous,” Proceedings of the 46th Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, American Astronautical Society, Breckenridge, CO, 2024, pp. 1–23. URLhttps://ntrs.na...

    2024

  12. [19]

    Robust Trajectory Optimization for NRHO Rendezvous Using SPICE Kernel Relative Motion,

    Cunningham, D. A., Russell, R. P ., and Woffinden, D. C., “Robust Trajectory Optimization for NRHO Rendezvous Using SPICE Kernel Relative Motion,”Proceedings of the 47th Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, American Astronautical Society, Breckenridge, CO, 2...

    2025

  13. [20]

    T.,Practical Methods for Optimal Control and Estimation Using Nonlinear Programming, 2 nd ed., Advances in Design and Control, Vol

    Betts, J. T.,Practical Methods for Optimal Control and Estimation Using Nonlinear Programming, 2 nd ed., Advances in Design and Control, Vol. 19, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2010

    2010

  14. [21]

    Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajectories Reliably and Efficiently,

    Malyuta, D., Reynolds, T. P ., Szmuk, M., Lew, T., Bonalli, R., Pavone, M., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajectories Reliably and Efficiently,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2...

    2022

  15. [22]

    Safe trajectories for autonomous rendezvous of spacecraft,

    Breger, L., and How, J. P ., “Safe trajectories for autonomous rendezvous of spacecraft,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1478–1489.https://doi.org/10.2514/1.29590

    2008 doi

  16. [23]

    Abort-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous in case of Partial Thrust Failure,

    Marsillach, D. A., Di Cairano, S., and Weiss, A., “Abort-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous in case of Partial Thrust Failure,” 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1490–1495. https://doi.org/10.1109/cdc42340. 2020.9303782

    2020

  17. [24]

    Successive Convexification for Real-Time Six-Degree-of-Freedom Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,

    Szmuk, M., Reynolds, T. P ., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Successive Convexification for Real-Time Six-Degree-of-Freedom Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,”J. Guid. Control Dyn., Vol. 43, No. 8, 2020, pp. 1399–1413

    2020

  18. [25]

    Optimization with Temporal and Logical Specifications via Generalized Mean-based Smooth Robustness Measures,

    Uzun, S., Elango, P ., Garoche, P .-L., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Optimization with Temporal and Logical Specifications via Generalized Mean-based Smooth Robustness Measures,” , May 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405. 10996, arXiv:2405.10996 [math]

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [26]

    Multiphase Mixed-Integer Optimal Control Approach to Aircraft Trajectory Optimization,

    Olivares, A., Soler, M., Staffetti, E., and Bonami, P ., “Multiphase Mixed-Integer Optimal Control Approach to Aircraft Trajectory Optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1361–1371. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.60492

    2013 doi

  20. [27]

    Real-Time Sequential Conic Optimization for Multi-Phase Rocket Landing Guidance,

    Kamath, A. G., Elango, P ., Yu, Y., Mceowen, S., Chari, G. M., Carson, J. M., III, and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Real-Time Sequential Conic Optimization for Multi-Phase Rocket Landing Guidance,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2023, pp. 3118–3125.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.1444

    2023 doi

  21. [28]

    Advances in trajectory optimization for space vehicle control,

    Malyuta, D., Yu, Y., Elango, P ., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Advances in trajectory optimization for space vehicle control,” Annual Reviews in Control, Vol. 52, 2021, pp. 282–315.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2021.04.013

    2021 doi

  22. [29]

    A survey on convex optimization for guidance and control of vehicular systems,

    Wang, Z., “A survey on convex optimization for guidance and control of vehicular systems,”Annual Reviews in Control, Vol. 57, No. 100957, 2024, pp. 1–41.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2024.100957

    2024

  23. [30]

    Customized Real-Time First-Order Methods for Onboard Dual Quaternion-based 6-DoF Powered-Descent Guidance,

    Kamath, A. G., Elango, P ., Mceowen, S., Yu, Y., Carson, J. M., Mesbahi, M., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Customized Real-Time First-Order Methods for Onboard Dual Quaternion-based 6-DoF Powered-Descent Guidance,”AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, 2023, p. 2003.https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2003. 27

    2023 doi

  24. [31]

    Hardware in the Loop Performance of Terrestrial Powered Descent Dual Quaternion Guidance With a Custom First-Order Solver,

    Doll, J. A., Kamath, A. G., Smith, K. W., Harper, J. M., Rowe, I., Açıkme¸ se, B., Pedrotty, S. M., and Mendeck, G. F., “Hardware in the Loop Performance of Terrestrial Powered Descent Dual Quaternion Guidance With a Custom First-Order Solver,”AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum, AIAA, 20...

    2025 doi

  25. [32]

    Scaling and Balancing for High-Performance Computation of Optimal Controls,

    Ross, I. M., Gong, Q., Karpenko, M., and Proulx, R. J., “Scaling and Balancing for High-Performance Computation of Optimal Controls,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 41, No. 10, 2018, pp. 2086–2097. https: //doi.org/10.2514/1.g003382

    2018 doi

  26. [33]

    Constraint Preconditioning and Parameter Selection for a First-Order Primal- Dual Method applied to Model Predictive Control,

    Chari, G. M., Yu, Y., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Constraint Preconditioning and Parameter Selection for a First-Order Primal- Dual Method applied to Model Predictive Control,”63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1676–1683.https://doi.org/10.1109/cdc56724.20...

    2024

  27. [34]

    Optimal Preconditioning for Online Quadratic Cone Programming,

    Kamath, A. G., Elango, P ., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Optimal Preconditioning for Online Quadratic Cone Programming,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, Vol. 9, 2025, pp. 108–113.https://doi.org/10.1109/lcsys.2025.3563219

    2025

  28. [35]

    Chance-Constrained Optimal Path Planning With Obstacles,

    Blackmore, L., Ono, M., and Williams, B. C., “Chance-Constrained Optimal Path Planning With Obstacles,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1080–1094.https://doi.org/10.1109/tro.2011.2161160

    2011

  29. [36]

    Optimal Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear Stochastic Systems,

    Liu, F., Rapakoulias, G., and Tsiotras, P ., “Optimal Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear Stochastic Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 70, No. 4, 2025, pp. 2289–2304. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.2024. 3472788

    2025 doi

  30. [37]

    Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering,

    Kumagai, N., and Oguri, K., “Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering,” , 2025.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.01907

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [38]

    Dispersion Sensitive Optimal Control: A Conditional Value-at-Risk-Based Tail Flattening Approach via Sequential Convex Programming,

    Echigo, K., Sheridan, O., Buckner, S., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Dispersion Sensitive Optimal Control: A Conditional Value-at-Risk-Based Tail Flattening Approach via Sequential Convex Programming,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2024, pp. 2468–2475....

    2024

  32. [39]

    Abort-safe spacecraft rendezvous under stochastic actuation and navigation uncertainty,

    Vinod, A. P ., Weiss, A., and Di Cairano, S., “Abort-safe spacecraft rendezvous under stochastic actuation and navigation uncertainty,”60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, 2021, pp. 6620–6625. https: //doi.org/10.1109/cdc45484.2021.9683322

    2021

  33. [40]

    Trajectory optimization with inter-sample obstacle avoidance via successive convexification,

    Dueri, D., Mao, Y., Mian, Z., Ding, J., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Trajectory optimization with inter-sample obstacle avoidance via successive convexification,”56th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.1109/cdc.2017.8263811

    2017

  34. [42]

    A survey of the maximum principles for optimal control problems with state constraints,

    Hartl, R. F., Sethi, S. P ., and Vickson, R. G., “A survey of the maximum principles for optimal control problems with state constraints,”SIAM Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, 1995, pp. 181–218.https://doi.org/10.1137/1037043. 28

    1995 doi

  35. [43]

    16, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543388

    Fehse, W.,Automated Rendezvous and Docking of Spacecraft, Cambridge Aerospace Series, Vol. 16, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543388

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    A.,Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications, 4 th ed., Microcosm Press, 2013

    Vallado, D. A.,Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications, 4 th ed., Microcosm Press, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Output-Feedback Full-State Targeting Model Predictive Control for Station-Keeping on Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbits,

    Shimane, Y., Cairano, S. D., Ho, K., and Weiss, A., “Output-Feedback Full-State Targeting Model Predictive Control for Station-Keeping on Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbits,”arXiv, Vol. 2502.05013, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2502.05013

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Computer control: An overview,

    Wittenmark, B., Åström, K. J., and Årzén, K.-E., “Computer control: An overview,” Tech. rep., Department of Automatic Control, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden, 2002

    2002

  39. [47]

    M.,Planning Algorithms, Cambridge University Press, 2006

    LaValle, S. M.,Planning Algorithms, Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  40. [48]

    Borrelli, F., Bemporad, A., and Morari, M.,Predictive Control for Linear and Hybrid Systems, Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    P ., and Vandenberghe, L.,Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, 2004

    Boyd, S. P ., and Vandenberghe, L.,Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10. 1017/CBO9780511804441

    2004

  42. [50]

    MOSEK Cookbook 3.3.0,

    MOSEK ApS, “MOSEK Cookbook 3.3.0,” https://docs.mosek.com/modeling-cookbook/index.html, 2024. Ac- cessed: 03-26-2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Optimal filtering and linear prediction applied to a midcourse navigation system for the circumlunar mission,

    McLean, J. D., Schmidt, S. F., and McGee, L. A., “Optimal filtering and linear prediction applied to a midcourse navigation system for the circumlunar mission,” Tech. rep., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1962. Technical Note D-120

    1962

  44. [52]

    Chance-constrained sequential convex programming for robust trajectory optimization,

    Lew, T., Bonalli, R., and Pavone, M., “Chance-constrained sequential convex programming for robust trajectory optimization,”2020 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1871–1878. https://doi.org/10.23919/ ecc51009.2020.9143595

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    On polyhedral approximations of the second-order cone,

    Ben-Tal, A., and Nemirovski, A., “On polyhedral approximations of the second-order cone,”Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2001, pp. 193–205.https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.26.2.193.10561

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    Constrained Reachability and Controllability Sets for Planetary Precision Landing via Convex Optimization,

    Eren, U., Dueri, D., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Constrained Reachability and Controllability Sets for Planetary Precision Landing via Convex Optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 11, 2015, pp. 2067–2083. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.g000882

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    On a Correspondence between Probabilistic and Robust Invariant Sets for Linear Systems,

    Hewing, L., Carron, A., Wabersich, K. P ., and Zeilinger, M. N., “On a Correspondence between Probabilistic and Robust Invariant Sets for Linear Systems,”2018 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1642–1647. https://doi.org/10.23919/ecc.2018.8550160. 29

    2018

  48. [56]

    Hamilton–Jacobi Reachability: Some Recent Theoretical Advances and Applications in Unmanned Airspace Management,

    Chen, M., and Tomlin, C. J., “Hamilton–Jacobi Reachability: Some Recent Theoretical Advances and Applications in Unmanned Airspace Management,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 1, No. Volume 1, 2018, 2018, pp. 333–358.https://doi.org/10.1146/annu...

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems,

    Domahidi, A., Chu, E., and Boyd, S., “ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems,”2013 European Control Conference (ECC), 2013, pp. 3071–3076.https://doi.org/10.23919/ECC.2013.6669541

    2013

  50. [58]

    Version 10.1., 2024

    MOSEK ApS,The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 10.1., 2024. URL http://docs.mosek. com/latest/toolbox/index.html

    2024

  51. [59]

    Proportional-integral projected gradient method for conic optimiza- tion,

    Yu, Y., Elango, P ., Topcu, U., and Açıkme¸ se, B., “Proportional-integral projected gradient method for conic optimiza- tion,”Automatica, Vol. 142, No. 110359, 2022.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2022.110359

    2022

  52. [60]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02796-7

    Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B., and Lemarechal, C.,Convex Analysis and Minimization Algorithms I: Fundametals, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02796-7 . 30

    1993 doi

Pith tools

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