pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20910 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.EP· cs.AI· cs.RO· cs.SY· eess.SY

Recognition: unknown

Planetary Exploration 3.0: A Roadmap for Software-Defined, Radically Adaptive Space Systems

Masahiro Ono , Daniel Selva , Morgan L. Cable , Marie Ethvignot , Margaret Hansen , Andreas M. Hein , Elena-Sorina Lupu , Zachary Manchester
show 18 more authors
David Murrow Chad Pozarycki Pascal Spino Amanda Stockton Mathieu Choukroun Soon-Jo Chung John Day Alexander Demagall Anthony Freeman Chloe Gentgen Michel D. Ingham Charity M. Phillips-Lander Richard Rieber Alejandro Salado Maria Sakovsky Lori R. Shiraishi Yisong Yue Kris Zacny
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EPcs.AIcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords planetary explorationsoftware-defined space systemsadaptive spacecraftouter solar system missionsautonomous sciencespacecraft reconfigurationonboard intelligencesystems engineering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Single missions with software-defined spacecraft can explore unvisited outer-solar-system worlds by adapting to in-situ data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper contends that Mars-style incremental exploration fails for distant bodies because decade-long cruise times prevent follow-up missions. It introduces Planetary Exploration 3.0 as the alternative: one or a few missions that perform both initial reconnaissance and later hypothesis-driven science by updating their own functions in response to their data returns. The central mechanism is software-defined space systems that reconfigure hardware, instruments, and controls through software alone. Workshop results map the required systems engineering, reconfigurable technologies, autonomous intelligence, and concrete mission sketches for Neptune, ocean worlds, and the Oort cloud.

Core claim

Planetary Exploration 3.0 proposes that unvisited worlds are explored by a single or a few missions with radically adaptive space systems. A PE 3.0 mission conducts both initial exploratory science and follow-on hypothesis-driven science based on its own in situ data returns, evolving spacecraft capabilities to work resiliently in previously unseen environments. The key enabler is software-defined space systems that adapt their functions at all levels through software updates.

What carries the argument

Software-defined space systems (SDSSs), which adapt functions at all levels through software updates to achieve reconfigurability, multi-functionality, and modularity across hardware, instruments, and controls.

If this is right

  • A Neptune/Triton smart flyby mission can adjust its trajectory, instruments, and data analysis in real time based on first-encounter measurements.
  • An ocean-world explorer can reconfigure its payload and navigation to investigate subsurface oceans after initial surface observations.
  • An Oort-cloud reconnaissance mission can evolve its detection algorithms and propulsion modes as it encounters new cometary material.
  • Verification and validation must shift from fixed test cases to methods that certify adaptive behavior under open-ended environmental uncertainty.
  • Onboard intelligence must integrate autonomous science planning, navigation, and embodied control so the spacecraft can act without Earth in the loop.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This approach would collapse the decades-long cadence of outer-solar-system missions into a handful of launches, changing how budgets and launch manifests are planned.
  • It requires new ground-test facilities that can generate truly novel environmental conditions to validate adaptation before flight.
  • Success would create pressure to develop common reconfigurable hardware standards so multiple agencies can share and update the same core systems.
  • The same adaptation logic could extend to asteroid or lunar prospecting, where local conditions also vary sharply from pre-launch models.

Load-bearing premise

Software-defined space systems can be realized with enough reconfigurability, autonomy, and resilience to adapt to previously unseen environments without prior calibration or ground intervention.

What would settle it

A controlled test in which a spacecraft receives a software update, then encounters an unanticipated surface or subsurface condition never seen in training, and either fails to restore functionality or requires external commands to continue science operations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20910 by Alejandro Salado, Alexander Demagall, Amanda Stockton, Andreas M. Hein, Anthony Freeman, Chad Pozarycki, Charity M. Phillips-Lander, Chloe Gentgen, Daniel Selva, David Murrow, Elena-Sorina Lupu, John Day, Kris Zacny, Lori R. Shiraishi, Margaret Hansen, Maria Sakovsky, Marie Ethvignot, Masahiro Ono, Mathieu Choukroun, Michel D. Ingham, Morgan L. Cable, Pascal Spino, Richard Rieber, Soon-Jo Chung, Yisong Yue, Zachary Manchester.

Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The inner edge of the Oort Cloud is thought to be located between 2,000 and 5,000 AU from the Sun, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The surface and subsurface of worlds beyond Mars remain largely unexplored. Yet these worlds hold keys to fundamental questions in planetary science - from potentially habitable subsurface oceans on icy moons to ancient records preserved in Kuiper Belt objects. NASA's success in Mars exploration was achieved through incrementalism: 22 progressively sophisticated missions over decades. This paradigm, which we call Planetary Exploration 2.0 (PE 2.0), is untenable for the outer Solar System, where cruise times of a decade or more make iterative missions infeasible. We propose Planetary Exploration 3.0 (PE 3.0): a paradigm in which unvisited worlds are explored by a single or a few missions with radically adaptive space systems. A PE 3.0 mission conducts both initial exploratory science and follow-on hypothesis-driven science based on its own in situ data returns, evolving spacecraft capabilities to work resiliently in previously unseen environments. The key enabler of PE 3.0 is software-defined space systems (SDSSs) - systems that can adapt their functions at all levels through software updates. This paper presents findings from a Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS) workshop on PE 3.0, covering: (1) PE 3.0 systems engineering including science definition, architecture, design methods, and verification & validation; (2) software-defined space system technologies including reconfigurable hardware, multi-functionality, and modularity; (3) onboard intelligence including autonomous science, navigation, controls, and embodied AI; and (4) three PE 3.0 mission concepts: a Neptune/Triton smart flyby, an ocean world explorer, and an Oort cloud reconnaissance mission.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Planetary Exploration 3.0 (PE 3.0), a paradigm for exploring unvisited outer Solar System worlds via one or a few missions using radically adaptive, software-defined space systems (SDSS). These systems would conduct initial exploratory science followed by in-situ hypothesis-driven science by evolving capabilities based on their own data returns, with the paper summarizing a KISS workshop on systems engineering, reconfigurable hardware and multi-functionality technologies, onboard autonomous intelligence and AI, and three illustrative mission concepts (Neptune/Triton smart flyby, ocean world explorer, Oort cloud reconnaissance).

Significance. If realized, the PE 3.0 vision could transform exploration of distant worlds by mitigating the impracticality of iterative missions due to long cruise times, potentially increasing science return and resilience. The workshop summary usefully maps open research directions in adaptive systems engineering and autonomy. As a conceptual roadmap without quantitative models or validation, its primary value lies in framing priorities rather than demonstrating feasibility.

major comments (2)
  1. The section outlining the three mission concepts describes adaptive scenarios at a high level but provides no quantitative analysis, simulations, or technology readiness assessments of the required in-situ reconfigurations, which is load-bearing for the central claim that SDSS can enable resilient operation in unseen environments.
  2. In the technologies and onboard intelligence sections, the discussion of reconfigurable hardware, multi-functionality, and embodied AI does not address specific outer-Solar-System constraints such as radiation effects, power budgets, or verification of autonomous decisions, leaving the resilience assumptions unexamined.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from explicit statements of the current TRL for key SDSS components versus the levels assumed for PE 3.0.
  2. Notation for system levels (e.g., hardware vs. software adaptation) is used inconsistently across the systems engineering and technology sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the potential of the PE 3.0 paradigm to address the challenges of outer Solar System exploration. We have prepared point-by-point responses to the major comments below. The revisions will strengthen the manuscript by more explicitly framing its scope as a conceptual roadmap while incorporating additional discussion of constraints and open challenges.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section outlining the three mission concepts describes adaptive scenarios at a high level but provides no quantitative analysis, simulations, or technology readiness assessments of the required in-situ reconfigurations, which is load-bearing for the central claim that SDSS can enable resilient operation in unseen environments.

    Authors: We agree that the mission concepts are presented conceptually without quantitative analysis or simulations. This is consistent with the paper's purpose as a KISS workshop summary that maps research directions rather than demonstrating feasibility through detailed modeling. The central claim is that SDSS offer a promising direction for resilient exploration, illustrated by the concepts to highlight opportunities and gaps. In revision we will add a dedicated subsection to the mission concepts section that provides high-level TRL estimates for key adaptive elements (e.g., reconfigurable payloads and autonomous decision systems) and explicitly identifies the quantitative modeling and simulation work required to mature these ideas. Full end-to-end simulations remain outside the scope of this roadmap-style paper. revision: partial

  2. Referee: In the technologies and onboard intelligence sections, the discussion of reconfigurable hardware, multi-functionality, and embodied AI does not address specific outer-Solar-System constraints such as radiation effects, power budgets, or verification of autonomous decisions, leaving the resilience assumptions unexamined.

    Authors: The referee is correct that these sections emphasize emerging capabilities without systematically examining outer-Solar-System environmental constraints. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant subsections to discuss radiation effects on reconfigurable hardware, power and thermal budgets for onboard AI, and the verification challenges for autonomous decisions in uncertain environments. These additions will explicitly frame the resilience assumptions as open research problems that must be resolved for PE 3.0 missions, thereby examining the assumptions more directly while preserving the paper's focus on identifying priorities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in conceptual roadmap

full rationale

The manuscript is a high-level conceptual proposal and technology roadmap derived from a KISS workshop, outlining the PE 3.0 paradigm, enabling technologies, and example mission concepts without any equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or mathematical claims. No load-bearing steps reduce to self-referential definitions, prior author results, or fitted inputs; the text frames open research directions in reconfigurability and autonomy rather than asserting derivations from its own premises. The content is therefore self-contained as a forward-looking systems overview.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central proposal rests on unproven assumptions about the maturity and reliability of adaptive technologies rather than on any derived quantities or new entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Software-defined space systems can be engineered to adapt functions at all levels and operate resiliently in unseen environments based on in-situ data.
    Invoked as the key enabler for PE 3.0 missions to perform both initial and follow-on science without prior knowledge of the target.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5740 in / 1301 out tokens · 28613 ms · 2026-05-10T00:03:36.660273+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons,

    Stern, S. A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., Gladstone, G., Grundy, W., McKinnon, W., Moore, J., Olkin, C., Spencer, J., Weaver, H., et al., “The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons,”Science, Vol. 350, No. 6258, 2015, p. aad1815

    2015

  2. [2]

    Lessons learned from OSIRIS-REx autonomous navigation using natural feature tracking,

    Lorenz, D. A., Olds, R., May, A., Mario, C., Perry, M. E., Palmer, E. E., and Daly, M., “Lessons learned from OSIRIS-REx autonomous navigation using natural feature tracking,”2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–12

    2017

  3. [3]

    In situ evidence for an ancient aqueous environment at Meridiani Planum, Mars,

    Squyres, S. W., Grotzinger, J. P., Arvidson, R. E., Bell III, J. F., Calvin, W., Christensen, P. R., Clark, B. C., Crisp, J., Farrand, W. H., Herkenhoff, K. E., et al., “In situ evidence for an ancient aqueous environment at Meridiani Planum, Mars,”science, Vol. 306, No. 5702, 2004, pp. 1709–1714

    2004

  4. [4]

    A habitable fluvio-lacustrine environment at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars,

    Grotzinger, J. P., Sumner, D. Y., Kah, L., Stack, K., Gupta, S., Edgar, L., Rubin, D., Lewis, K., Schieber, J., Mangold, N., et al., “A habitable fluvio-lacustrine environment at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars,”Science, Vol. 343, No. 6169, 2014, p. 1242777. 30

    2014

  5. [5]

    The detection of a potential biosignature by the perseverance rover on mars,

    Hurowitz, J. A., Tice, M. M., Allwood, A. C., Cable, M. L., Hand, K. P., Murphy, A., Uckert, K., Bell, J. F., Bosak, T., Broz, A., et al., “The detection of a potential biosignature by the perseverance rover on mars,”56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2025, p. 2581

    2025

  6. [6]

    ToBoldlyGoWhereNo RobotsHaveGoneBefore–Part1: EELSRobottoSpearheadaNewOne-ShotExplorationParadigmwithIn-SituAdaptation,

    Ono,M.,Thakker,R.,Georgiev,N.,Gavrilov,P.,Archanian,A.,Drevinskas,T.,Etheredge,R.,etal.,“ToBoldlyGoWhereNo RobotsHaveGoneBefore–Part1: EELSRobottoSpearheadaNewOne-ShotExplorationParadigmwithIn-SituAdaptation,” AIAA SciTech Forum, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    The Enceladus Orbilander mission concept: Balancing return and resources in the search for life,

    MacKenzie, S. M., Neveu, M., Davila, A. F., Lunine, J. I., Craft, K. L., Cable, M. L., Phillips-Lander, C. M., Hofgartner, J. D., Eigenbrode, J. L., Waite Jr, J. H., et al., “The Enceladus Orbilander mission concept: Balancing return and resources in the search for life,”The Planetary Science Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021, p. 77

    2021

  8. [8]

    IsSimplicityGolden? A Survey of Post-Launch Adaptation in Planetary Missions and Lessons Learned,

    Ono,M.,Rieber,R.,Freeman,T.,Choukroun,M.,Ingham,M.,Gentgen,C.,Murrow,D.,andSelva,D.,“IsSimplicityGolden? A Survey of Post-Launch Adaptation in Planetary Missions and Lessons Learned,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2026

    2026

  9. [9]

    Science traceability,

    Weiss, J. R., Smythe, W. D., and Lu, W., “Science traceability,”2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2005, pp. 292–299

    2005

  10. [10]

    NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements,

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements,” Tech. Rep. NPR 7120.5, NASA, 2023. URLhttps://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_ 7120_005&page_name=main, originally issued as NPG 7120.5 in 1995

    2023

  11. [11]

    NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements,

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements,” Tech. Rep. NPR 7123.1, NASA, 2022. URL https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7123_ 001&page_name=main

    2022

  12. [12]

    Planning for a Martian Road Trip: The Mars 2020 Mobility Systems Design,

    Rieber, R., McHenry, M., Twu, P., and Stragier, M. M., “Planning for a Martian Road Trip: The Mars 2020 Mobility Systems Design,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2022, pp. 01–18

    2020

  13. [13]

    Space-based reconfigurable software defined radio test bed aboard international space station,

    Reinhart, R., and Lux, J. P., “Space-based reconfigurable software defined radio test bed aboard international space station,” SpaceOps 2014 conference, 2014, p. 1612

    2014

  14. [14]

    MASPEX-Europa: the Europa Clipper neutral gas mass spectrometer investigation,

    Waite Jr, J., Burch, J., Brockwell, T., Young, D., Miller, G., Persyn, S., Stone, J., Wilson IV, P., Miller, K., Glein, C., et al., “MASPEX-Europa: the Europa Clipper neutral gas mass spectrometer investigation,”Space Science Reviews, Vol. 220, No. 3, 2024, p. 30

    2024

  15. [15]

    Affordance Based Design: A Relational Theory for Design,

    Maier, J. R. A., and Fadel, G. M., “Affordance Based Design: A Relational Theory for Design,”Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20, 2009, pp. 13–27

    2009

  16. [16]

    Enceladus Vent Explorer Mission Architecture Trade Study,

    Chodas, M., Ono, M., Weber, J., Rodriguez, L., Ingham, M., Hockman, B., Mitchell, K., and Cable, M., “Enceladus Vent Explorer Mission Architecture Trade Study,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2023, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/aero55745. 2023.10115635

    work page doi:10.1109/aero55745 2023

  17. [18]

    ReactivePlanningStrategyforEvent-DrivenObservationinHeterogeneous Sensor Webs,

    Gorr,B.,Jaramillo,A.A.,Erwin,C.,andSelva,D.,“ReactivePlanningStrategyforEvent-DrivenObservationinHeterogeneous Sensor Webs,”IGARSS 2024-2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, IEEE, 2024, pp. 704–708

    2024

  18. [19]

    D-SHIELD: Distributed Spacecraft with Heuristic Intelligence to Enable Logistical Decisions,

    Sreeja Nag, Mahta Moghaddam, Daniel Selva, Jeremy Frank, Vinay Ravindra, Richard Levinson, “D-SHIELD: Distributed Spacecraft with Heuristic Intelligence to Enable Logistical Decisions,”IGARSS 2020. 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium., 2020

    2020

  19. [20]

    Vision-Based Detection of Uncooperative Targets and Components on Small Satellites,

    Grauer, H., Lupu, E.-S., Lee, C., Chung, S.-J., Rowen, D., Bycroft, B., Leeds, P., and Brader, J., “Vision-Based Detection of Uncooperative Targets and Components on Small Satellites,” , 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12084

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [21]

    Dynamic Targeting to Improve Earth Science Missions,

    Candela, A., Swope, J., and Chien, S. A., “Dynamic Targeting to Improve Earth Science Missions,”Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, Vol. 20, No. 11, 2023, pp. 679–689. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I011233

    work page doi:10.2514/1.i011233 2023

  21. [22]

    Federated Autonomous Operations: A New Paradigm for Large-Scale Observation Systems,

    Zilberstein, I., Candela, A., and Chien, S., “Federated Autonomous Operations: A New Paradigm for Large-Scale Observation Systems,”International Conference on Space Operations, 2025

    2025

  22. [23]

    Decentralized consensus-based algorithms for satellite observation reactive planning with complex dependencies,

    AguilarJaramillo,A.,Gorr,B.J.,Gao,H.,Mehta,A.,Sun,Y.,Ravindra,V.,David,C.,Allen,G.,andSelva,D.,“Decentralized consensus-based algorithms for satellite observation reactive planning with complex dependencies,”AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum, 2025, p. 1148. 31

    2025

  23. [24]

    3D-CHESS: Decentralized, Distributed, Dynamic, and Context-aware Heterogeneous Sensor Systems,

    David, C. H., Ravindra, V., Nag, S., Mehta, A., Sun, Y., Viros Martin, A., Jaramillo, A. A., Gorr, B., Gao, H., and Allen, G., “3D-CHESS: Decentralized, Distributed, Dynamic, and Context-aware Heterogeneous Sensor Systems,” 2022

    2022

  24. [25]

    Reinforcement learning for the agile earth-observing satellite scheduling problem,

    Herrmann, A., and Schaub, H., “Reinforcement learning for the agile earth-observing satellite scheduling problem,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 59, No. 5, 2023, pp. 5235–5247

    2023

  25. [26]

    Autonomous robotics is driving Perseverance rover’s progress on Mars,

    Verma, V., Maimone, M. W., Gaines, D. M., Francis, R., Estlin, T. A., Kuhn, S. R., Rabideau, G. R., Chien, S. A., McHenry, M. M., Graser, E. J., Rankin, A. L., and Thiel, E. R., “Autonomous robotics is driving Perseverance rover’s progress on Mars,”Science Robotics, Vol. 8, No. 80, 2023, p. eadi3099. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.adi3099, URL https:...

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.adi3099 2023

  26. [27]

    Onboard Planning and Execution of Mobility and Telecommunications for the Endurance Lunar Rover,

    Ingham, M. D., Hasnain, Z., Amini, R., Ardito, S., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bocchino, R., Gaut, A., Mestar, L., Rabideau, G., and Rouquette, N., “Onboard Planning and Execution of Mobility and Telecommunications for the Endurance Lunar Rover,”AIAA ASCEND 2024, AIAA, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-4889, URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2024-4889

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2024-4889 2024

  27. [28]

    Towards a prescriptive semantic basis for change-type ilities,

    Ross, A. M., and Rhodes, D. H., “Towards a prescriptive semantic basis for change-type ilities,”Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 44, 2015, pp. 443–453

    2015

  28. [29]

    Ilities semantic basis: research progress and future directions,

    Ross, A. M., and Rhodes, D. H., “Ilities semantic basis: research progress and future directions,”Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 153, 2019, pp. 126–134

    2019

  29. [30]

    Classification of change-related ilities based on a literature review of engineering changes,

    Colombo, E. F., Cascini, G., and de Weck, O. L., “Classification of change-related ilities based on a literature review of engineering changes,”Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2017, pp. 3–23

    2017

  30. [31]

    A process framework of affordances in design,

    Kannengiesser, U., and Gero, J. S., “A process framework of affordances in design,”Design Issues, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2012, pp. 50–62

    2012

  31. [32]

    Set-Based Design: A Review and New Directions,

    Toche, B., Pellerin, R., and Fortin, C., “Set-Based Design: A Review and New Directions,”Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 31, 2020, pp. 315–332

    2020

  32. [33]

    Real Options by Spreadsheet: Parking Garage Case Example,

    de Neufville, R., Scholtes, S., and Wang, T., “Real Options by Spreadsheet: Parking Garage Case Example,”Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2003, pp. 107–111

    2003

  33. [34]

    Using natural value-centric time scales for conceptualizing system timelines through epoch-era analysis,

    Ross, A. M., and Rhodes, D. H., “Using natural value-centric time scales for conceptualizing system timelines through epoch-era analysis,”INCOSE International symposium, Vol. 18, Wiley Online Library, 2008, pp. 1186–1201

    2008

  34. [35]

    ProductPlatformDesign: MethodandApplication,

    Simpson,T.W.,Maier,J.R.A.,andMistree,F.,“ProductPlatformDesign: MethodandApplication,”ResearchinEngineering Design, Vol. 13, 2001, pp. 2–22

    2001

  35. [36]

    Value-Centric Design Methodologies for Fractionated Spacecraft: Progress Summary from Phase I of the DARPA System F6 Program,

    Brown, O., Eremenko, P., and Collopy, P., “Value-Centric Design Methodologies for Fractionated Spacecraft: Progress Summary from Phase I of the DARPA System F6 Program,”AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-6540

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2009-6540 2009

  36. [37]

    Modeling methods and conceptual design principles for reconfigurable systems,

    Siddiqi, A., and de Weck, O. L., “Modeling methods and conceptual design principles for reconfigurable systems,” 2008

    2008

  37. [38]

    Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future Directions,

    Fu, K. K., Yang, M. C., and Wood, K. L., “Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future Directions,”Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138, No. 10, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034105

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4034105 2016

  38. [39]

    DesignHeuristics: ExtractionandClassificationMethods With Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Architecture Team,

    Fillingim,K.B.,Nwaeri,R.O.,Borja,F.,Fu,K.,andParedis,C.J.,“DesignHeuristics: ExtractionandClassificationMethods With Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Architecture Team,”Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 142, No. 8, 2020, p. 081101

    2020

  39. [40]

    Alexander, C.,A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction, Oxford university press, 1977

    1977

  40. [41]

    Design patterns: Abstraction and reuse of object-oriented design,

    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J., “Design patterns: Abstraction and reuse of object-oriented design,” European conference on object-oriented programming, Springer, 1993, pp. 406–431

    1993

  41. [42]

    W.,The art of systems architecting, CRC press, 2009

    Maier, M. W.,The art of systems architecting, CRC press, 2009

    2009

  42. [43]

    Crawley, E., Cameron, B., and Selva, D.,System architecture: strategy and product development for complex systems, Prentice Hall Press, 2015

    2015

  43. [44]

    Principles for Architecting Autonomous Systems,

    Nesnas, I. A., Rasmussen, R., and Day, J., “Principles for Architecting Autonomous Systems,”Proceedings of the 44th Annual American Astronautical Society Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2022, edited by M. Sandnas and D. B. Spencer, Springer International Publishing, 2024, pp. 341–366. 32

    2022

  44. [45]

    Adaptive Stress Testing for Autonomous Vehicles,

    Koren, M., Alsaif, S., Lee, R., and Kochenderfer, M. J., “Adaptive Stress Testing for Autonomous Vehicles,”IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.01909, arXiv:1902.01909

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.01909 2019

  45. [46]

    An Engineering Life-Cycle Assurance Process for Autonomous Space Systems,

    Pinto, A., Wagner, C., Havelund, K., and Rouquette, N., “An Engineering Life-Cycle Assurance Process for Autonomous Space Systems,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2026. To appear

    2026

  46. [47]

    AI-Assisted V&V for Adaptive Space Systems: A Search-in-the-Loop Approach,

    Ethvignot, M., Ono, M., and Rieber, R., “AI-Assisted V&V for Adaptive Space Systems: A Search-in-the-Loop Approach,” AIAA ASCEND Conference, 2026. To appear

    2026

  47. [48]

    Recent Progress and Perspectives of Space Electric Propulsion Systems Based on Smart Nanomaterials,

    Levchenko, I., Xu, S., Teel, G., Mariotti, D., Walker, M. L. R., and Keidar, M., “Recent Progress and Perspectives of Space Electric Propulsion Systems Based on Smart Nanomaterials,”Nature Communications, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2018, p. 879

    2018

  48. [49]

    HeatPipeswithVariableThermal Conductance Property for Space Applications,

    Kravets,V.,Alekseik,Y.,Alekseik,O.,Khairnasov,S.,Baturkin,V.,Ho,T.,andCelotti,L.,“HeatPipeswithVariableThermal Conductance Property for Space Applications,”Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2017, pp. 2613–2620

    2017

  49. [50]

    Coupled Behavior of Shape Memory Alloy-Based Morphing Spacecraft Radiators: Experimental Assessment and Analysis,

    Bertagne, C., Walgren, P., Erickson, L., Sheth, R., Whitcomb, J., and Hartl, D., “Coupled Behavior of Shape Memory Alloy-Based Morphing Spacecraft Radiators: Experimental Assessment and Analysis,”Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2018, p. 065006

    2018

  50. [51]

    Optical Calibration and First Light for the Deformable Mirror Demonstration Mission CubeSat (DeMi),

    Morgan, R., Douglas, E., Allan, G., do Vale Pereira, P., Gubner, J., Haughwout, C., Holden, B., Murphy, T., Merk, J., Egan, M., Furesz, G., Roascio, D., Xin, Y., and Cahoy, K., “Optical Calibration and First Light for the Deformable Mirror Demonstration Mission CubeSat (DeMi),”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, Vol. 7, 2021, p. ...

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.7.2.024002 2021

  51. [52]

    AAReST Autonomous Assembly Reconfigurable Space Telescope Flight Demonstrator,

    Underwood, C., Pellegrino, S., Priyadarshan, H., Simha, H., Bridges, C., Goel, A., Talon, T., Pedivellano, A., Leclerc, C., Wei, Y., Royer, F., Ferraro, S., Sakovsky, M., Marshall, M. M., Jackson, K., Sommer, C., Vaidhyanathan, A., Sooraj, V. S., and Baker, J., “AAReST Autonomous Assembly Reconfigurable Space Telescope Flight Demonstrator,”69th Internatio...

    2018

  52. [53]

    Reconfigurable Antennas: A Review of Recent Progress and Future Prospects for Next Generation,

    Beneck, R. J., Das, A., Mackertich-Sengerdy, G., Chaky, R. J., Wu, Y., Soltani, S., and Werner, D. H., “Reconfigurable Antennas: A Review of Recent Progress and Future Prospects for Next Generation,”Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 171, 2021

    2021

  53. [54]

    Radar: The Cassini Titan Radar Mapper,

    Elachi, C., Allison, M. D., Borgarelli, L., Encrenaz, P., Im, E., Janssen, M. A., Johnson, W. T. K., Kirk, R. L., Lorenz, R. D., Lunine, J. I., Muhleman, D. O., Ostro, S. J., Picardi, G., Posa, F., Rapley, C. G., Roth, L. E., Seu, R., Soderblom, L. A., Vetrella, S., Wall, S. D., Wood, C. A., and Zebker, H. A., “Radar: The Cassini Titan Radar Mapper,”Space...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-004-1438-9 2004

  54. [55]

    Reconfigurable Metasurfaces: From Inverse Design to Implementation,

    Popescu, C. C., He, Z., Yang, F., Dao, K. P., Gu, T., and Hu, J., “Reconfigurable Metasurfaces: From Inverse Design to Implementation,”Journal of Optics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2026, p. 012501

    2026

  55. [56]

    Electro-Optically Tunable Multifunctional Metasurfaces,

    Shirmanesh, G. K., Sokhoyan, R., Wu, P. C., and Atwater, H. A., “Electro-Optically Tunable Multifunctional Metasurfaces,” ACS Nano, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2020, pp. 6912–6920

    2020

  56. [57]

    Radio Science Investigations with Voyager,

    Divine, N., et al., “Radio Science Investigations with Voyager,” Tech. Rep. NTRS 19950015039, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1994. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950015039

    work page arXiv 1994

  57. [58]

    The vertical profile of winds on Titan,

    Bird, M. K., Allison, M., Asmar, S. W., Atkinson, D. H., Avruch, I. M., Dutta-Roy, R., Dzierma, Y., Edenhofer, P., Folkner, W. M., Gurvits, L. I., Johnston, D. V., Plettemeier, D., Pogrebenko, S. V., Preston, R. A., and Tyler, G. L., “The vertical profile of winds on Titan,”Nature, Vol. 438, No. 7069, 2005, p. 800–802. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04060,...

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04060 2005

  58. [59]

    Structural batteries take a load off,

    Lutkenhaus, J. L., and Flouda, P., “Structural batteries take a load off,”Science Robotics, Vol. 5, No. 45, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abd7026, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abd7026

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abd7026 2020

  59. [60]

    Development of multifunctional structures for spacecraft applications,

    Sairajan, K., Mishra, L., Channi, A. V., Rajesha Kumar, S., Kotresh, M., and Shanthi, D., “Development of multifunctional structures for spacecraft applications,”Advances in Space Research, Vol. 77, No. 2, 2026, p. 2389–2410. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.asr.2025.10.103, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2025.10.103

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2025.10.103 2026

  60. [61]

    Hot Structure Concepts and Materials for Space Exploration Project,

    Walker, S. P., and Wise, K. E., “Hot Structure Concepts and Materials for Space Exploration Project,” NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), Document ID: 20210021278, 2021. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210021278. 33

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [62]

    Structural Health Monitoring in Composite Structures by Fiber-Optic Sensors,

    Güemes, A., Fernández-López, A., Díaz-Maroto, P., Lozano, A., and Sierra-Perez, J., “Structural Health Monitoring in Composite Structures by Fiber-Optic Sensors,”Sensors, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2018, p. 1094. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18041094, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18041094

    work page doi:10.3390/s18041094 2018

  62. [63]

    DEVELOPMENT OF MODULAR MULTI- FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE PANEL,

    Tschepe, C., Lender, S., Ruess, F., Marzai, P., Das, S., and Rodrigues, G., “DEVELOPMENT OF MODULAR MULTI- FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE PANEL,” 2021

    2021

  63. [64]

    Experimental Study of Alternative Rover Configurations and Mobility Modes for Planetary Exploration,

    Bouton, A., Reid, W., Brown, T., Daca, A., Sabzehi, M., and Nayar, H., “Experimental Study of Alternative Rover Configurations and Mobility Modes for Planetary Exploration,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2023, pp. 1–13

    2023

  64. [65]

    PolyBot: amodularreconfigurablerobot,

    Yim,M.,Duff,D.,andRoufas,K.,“PolyBot: amodularreconfigurablerobot,”Proceedings2000ICRA.MillenniumConference. IEEEInternationalConferenceonRoboticsandAutomation.SymposiaProceedings(Cat.No.00CH37065),ROBOT-00,Vol.1, IEEE, ????, p. 514–520. https://doi.org/10.1109/robot.2000.844106, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2000.844106

    work page doi:10.1109/robot.2000.844106 2000

  65. [66]

    Self-reconfigurable molecule robots as 3D metamorphic robots,

    McGray, C., and Rus, D., “Self-reconfigurable molecule robots as 3D metamorphic robots,”Proceedings. 1998 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Innovations in Theory, Practice and Applications (Cat. No.98CH36190), IROS-98, Vol. 2, IEEE, ????, p. 837–842. https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.1998.727303, URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.110...

    work page doi:10.1109/iros.1998.727303 1998

  66. [67]

    M-blocks: Momentum-driven, magnetic modular robots,

    Romanishin, J. W., Gilpin, K., and Rus, D., “M-blocks: Momentum-driven, magnetic modular robots,”2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, 2013, p. 4288–4295. https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2013. 6696971, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2013.6696971

    work page doi:10.1109/iros.2013 2013

  67. [68]

    Autonomous

    Romanishin, J., Bern, J. M., and Rus, D., “Self-Reconfiguring Robotic Gantries Powered by Modular Magnetic Lead Screws,” 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 2022, p. 4225–4231. https://doi.org/10.1109/ icra46639.2022.9811863, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICRA46639.2022.9811863

    work page doi:10.1109/icra46639.2022.9811863 2022

  68. [70]

    FireAntV3: A Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robot Toward Free-Form Self-Assembly Using Attach-Anywhere Continuous Docks,

    Swissler, P., and Rubenstein, M., “FireAntV3: A Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robot Toward Free-Form Self-Assembly Using Attach-Anywhere Continuous Docks,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 8, No. 8, 2023, p. 4911–4918. https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2023.3290796, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2023.3290796

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3290796 2023

  69. [71]

    Snail-inspired robotic swarms: a hybrid connector drives collective adaptation in unstructured outdoor environments,

    Zhao, D., Luo, H., Tu, Y., Meng, C., and Lam, T. L., “Snail-inspired robotic swarms: a hybrid connector drives collective adaptation in unstructured outdoor environments,”Nature Communications, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2024. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47788-2, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47788-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47788-2 2024

  70. [72]

    Self-reconfigurable multilegged robot swarms collectively accomplish challenging terradynamic tasks,

    Ozkan-Aydin, Y., and Goldman, D. I., “Self-reconfigurable multilegged robot swarms collectively accomplish challenging terradynamic tasks,”Science Robotics, Vol. 6, No. 56, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abf1628, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abf1628

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abf1628 2021

  71. [73]

    Colonial Architectures for Centimeter-Scale Underwater Robot Swarms,

    Spino, P., Bäckert, M., Yin, L., and Rus, D., “Colonial Architectures for Centimeter-Scale Underwater Robot Swarms,”IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2026. To appear

    2026

  72. [74]

    MoonBot: Modular and On-demand Reconfigurable Robot Towards Moon Base Construction,

    Uno, K., Neppel, E., Diaz, G. H., Mishra, A., Karimov, S., Jain, A. S., Habib, A., Pama, P., Gozbasi, H., Santra, S., et al., “MoonBot: Modular and On-demand Reconfigurable Robot Towards Moon Base Construction,”IEEE Transactions on Field Robotics, 2025

    2025

  73. [75]

    Microbots for large-scale planetary surface and subsurface exploration NIAC phase II year I report,

    Dubowsky, S., “Microbots for large-scale planetary surface and subsurface exploration NIAC phase II year I report,” 2006

    2006

  74. [76]

    Multi-agent autonomy for space exploration on the cadre lunar technology demonstration,

    de la Croix, J.-P., Rossi, F., Brockers, R., Aguilar, D., Albee, K., Boroson, E., Cauligi, A., Delaune, J., Hewitt, R., Kogan, D., et al., “Multi-agent autonomy for space exploration on the cadre lunar technology demonstration,”2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–14

    2024

  75. [77]

    LaNoising: A data-driven approach for 903nm ToF LiDAR performance modeling under fog,

    Liang, G., Luo, H., Li, M., Qian, H., and Lam, T. L., “FreeBOT: A Freeform Modular Self-reconfigurable Robot with Arbitrary Connection Point - Design and Implementation,”2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2020, p. 6506–6513. https://doi.org/10.1109/iros45743.2020.9341129, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1109/I...

    work page doi:10.1109/iros45743.2020.9341129 2020

  76. [78]

    ModQuad: The Flying Modular Structure that Self-Assembles in Midair,

    Saldana, D., Gabrich, B., Li, G., Yim, M., and Kumar, V., “ModQuad: The Flying Modular Structure that Self-Assembles in Midair,”2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 2018, p. 691–698. https: //doi.org/10.1109/icra.2018.8461014, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2018.8461014

    work page doi:10.1109/icra.2018.8461014 2018

  77. [79]

    Turn-key use of an onboard 3D printer for international space station operations,

    O’Hara, W. J., Kish, J. M., and Werkheiser, M. J., “Turn-key use of an onboard 3D printer for international space station operations,”Additive Manufacturing, Vol. 24, 2018, p. 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.029, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.029 2018

  78. [80]

    Archinaut: In-spacemanufacturingandassemblyfornext-generation space habitats,

    Patane,S.,Joyce,E.R.,Snyder,M.P.,andShestople,P.,“Archinaut: In-spacemanufacturingandassemblyfornext-generation space habitats,”AIAA SPACE and astronautics forum and exposition, 2017, p. 5227

    2017

  79. [81]

    Ultralight,strong,andself-reprogrammablemechanicalmetamaterials,

    Gregg, C. E., Catanoso, D., Formoso, O. I. B., Kostitsyna, I., Ochalek, M. E., Olatunde, T. J., Park, I. W., Sebastianelli, F. M., Taylor,E.M.,Trinh,G.T.,andCheung,K.C.,“Ultralight,strong,andself-reprogrammablemechanicalmetamaterials,”Science Robotics,Vol.9,No.86,2024. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.adi2746,URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.adi2746

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.adi2746 2024

  80. [82]

    and Padgett, Curtis and Alexis, Kostas and Spieler, Patrick , month = mar, year =

    Formoso, O., Gregg, C., Trinh, G., Cheung, K., and Sebastianelli, F., “Robotic Assembly and Reconfiguration of Modular Power Management and Distribution Systems,”2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2024, p. 1–7. https://doi.org/10. 1109/aero58975.2024.10521421, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO58975.2024.10521421

    work page doi:10.1109/aero58975.2024.10521421 2024

Showing first 80 references.