Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 111 references

High-temperature photovoltaics for solar-electric Oberth maneuvers: ton-class payload feasibility for interstellar-precursor missions

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that laboratory-demonstrated high-intensity, high-temperature (HIHT) solar cells, run near 400 °C at a 0.3 AU perihelion, can power a solar-electric Oberth maneuver that delivers ton-class payloads to 200 AU within 25…

desk verdict A promising architecture concept with a load-bearing mass-model error: the EPS budget sizes the PPU at 1 AU, not at the 0.3 AU perihelion where it must process ~6x more power, so the ton-class payload numbers are currently overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11113 v1 pith:MGKLTI5O submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.IM

Nadim Maraqten , Willem van Lynden , Carlos Gómez de Olea Ballester , Andreas M. Hein This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords high-temperaturephotovoltaicssolarelectricpropulsionOberthmaneuverinterstellarprecursormissionheliopauseexplorationevolutionaryneurocontrolspecificpowernear-Sunsystems
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

This paper argues that a solar-electric Oberth maneuver—burning electric thrusters while skimming the Sun at about 0.3 AU, where the spacecraft moves fastest—could let a single commercial heavy-lift rocket launch an interstellar-precursor mission. The enabling assumption is that high-intensity, high-temperature (HIHT) solar cells, demonstrated in the laboratory near 400 °C, can be built into panels that keep system-level specific power near present-day values. On that basis, optimised trajectories deliver roughly 3,083 kg to 200 AU in 25 years with a Jupiter gravity assist, or 1,551 kg direct; a hundred-kilogram payload remains feasible at specific powers of about 72 and 119 W/kg respectively, close to today's benchmark of about 79 W/kg. The physics doing the work is the Oberth effect: the same $\Delta v$ produces about three times as much escape energy when applied near perihelion as in a 1 AU spiral. If panel-level integration succeeds, high-temperature photovoltaics would become propulsion-enabling hardware rather than merely survival hardware for deep-space missions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the continuous Oberth effect: for finite-time electric thrust the change in heliocentric specific orbital energy is $\Delta\varepsilon=\int v(t)\cdot a_T(t)\,dt$ (Eq. 1), so thrust work delivered at high speed near perihelion buys far more escape energy than the same thrust at 1 AU. Around that identity the paper builds an evolutionary neurocontroller (named SOMBRERO) that maps four normalised state variables—radius, accumulated true anomaly, speed, and the angle between velocity and position—to a thrust angle and a throttle, optimising for maximum payload under a 25-year limit. A closed-form rescaling relation (Eq. 13) transfers the optimised reference trajectory to arbitrary $(\alpha_{\mathrm{EPS}},\mu_s)$ combinations while preserving the thrust-acceleration history, which is what yields the specific-power thresholds. The near-Sun feasibility itself is set by the radiative-equilibrium scaling $r_{\mathrm{SOM}}\propto T^{-2}$ for a temperature-limited array, placing a 400 °C array near 0.24–0.34 AU, and by a conservative power law $P_{\max}(r)\propto r^{-\kappa}$ with $\kappa=1.5$ that avoids over-crediting perihelion power.

What would settle it

Build a representative deployed high-temperature array wing, run it Sun-facing at about 400 °C under the heating of 0.3 AU, and measure its end-of-life power per unit mass at 1 AU: if that ratio falls below about 89 watts per kilogram, the Jupiter-assist ton-class claim fails, and below about 159 watts per kilogram the direct trajectory also fails. A cheaper computational check is a 3D ephemeris-based re-optimisation of the Jupiter-assist case at 89 W/kg; if the 25-year payload drops below 1,000 kg under realistic phasing, the window-dependent version of the claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At architecture level, the authors claim that a single SEP–SOM at $r_{\mathrm{SOM}}\approx0.3$ AU, launched on a conservatively modelled expendable Falcon Heavy ($C_3=0$, $m_0=15{,}189$ kg), delivers $3{,}083$ kg of allocatable payload to 200 AU in 24.97 years with a Jupiter gravity assist, or $1{,}551$ kg in 24.34 years direct, given a system-level electrical-power-system (EPS) specific power $\alpha_{\mathrm{EPS}}=200$ W/kg at 1 AU and 400 °C HIHT survivability. The derived payload-scaling relation (Eq. 13) shows the result does not hinge on that anchor: at $\mu_s=0.30$, 100 kg remains feasible at $\alpha_{\mathrm{EPS}}\approx71.8$ W/kg (JGA) or 118.8 W/kg (direct), and ton-class payloads at about 89.0 W/kg (JGA) or 158.8 W/kg (direct)—roughly 1.1 and 2.0 times the present-day order-of-magnitude system value of 78.8 W/kg. The same low-thrust $\Delta v$ applied as a 1 AU outward spiral would yield only about a third of the specific orbital energy gained by the near-perihelion arc, so the Oberth leverage itself is the central physical discovery that makes the payload numbers possible.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that solar cells that already survive about 400 °C in the laboratory can be built into a full Sun-facing power system that still delivers about 89 watts per kilogram at Earth distance, while running near the Sun—and the paper itself says this panel-level integration, lifetime, and subsystem-hardening step is not yet demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HIHT photovoltaics would shift from survival hardware to propulsion-enabling hardware: the same arrays that tolerate 400 °C also supply the megawatt-class power needed for the perihelion burn.
  • A non-nuclear, commercial-launcher route to heliopause and interstellar-precursor missions becomes plausible, removing reliance on super-heavy launchers or nuclear power.
  • At $\mu_s=0.30$, a hundred-kilogram payload is feasible with a Jupiter assist at about 0.9 times today's system specific power plus 400 °C survivability, and ton-class payloads need about 1.1 times (JGA) or 2.0 times (direct) that benchmark.
  • The same near-Sun energy front-loading can shorten transfers to outer-planet targets, with the caveat that arrival capture must handle the residual hyperbolic excess speed via chemical propulsion or aerocapture.
  • Because the perihelion burn is spread over a thrust arc rather than delivered impulsively, the architecture may be more forgiving of launch and navigation errors than chemical Oberth concepts, a robustness the paper flags but does not quantify.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the pacing problem is not specific power but panel-level thermal integration—the JGA ton-class threshold of about 89 W/kg sits only about 13% above today's order-of-magnitude system value, so closing the 400 °C panel gap matters more than chasing higher watt-per-kilogram array records.
  • Editorial extension: the energy-front-loading logic transfers to any trajectory that already passes near the Sun, including fast outer-planet orbiters and high-energy heliophysics missions, not only escape trajectories.
  • Testable extension: a 3D ephemeris-based re-optimisation with explicit thruster duty cycles could falsify the specific window-dependent payload numbers if the JGA case at $\alpha_{\mathrm{EPS}}=89$ W/kg no longer reaches 1,000 kg within 25 years, while the direct case and the 3× energy-leverage ratio would likely survive.
  • Testable extension: measuring end-of-life system-level specific power of a full high-temperature array wing after sustained 400 °C near-Sun exposure would directly decide whether the 0.3 AU architecture is viable, since cell-level records do not yet settle the integrated-panel question.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper assesses a solar-electric Oberth maneuver (SEP–SOM) at a perihelion of roughly 0.3 AU, enabled by an assumed high-intensity, high-temperature (HIHT) photovoltaic array that survives about 400 °C, with the goal of delivering payload to 200 AU within 25 years on an expendable Falcon Heavy. The authors introduce the SOMBRERO evolutionary neurocontroller, validate it against the InTrance/Ohndorf reference, optimize a Jupiter-gravity-assist (JGA) trajectory and a direct trajectory, and derive a closed-form payload-scaling relation (Eq. 13) used to map ton-class feasibility thresholds in the system-level specific power α_EPS. Reference results are 3,083 kg payload with JGA and 1,551 kg direct at α_EPS = 200 W/kg, with claimed ton-class thresholds of about 89 W/kg (JGA) and 159 W/kg (direct).

Significance. If the quantitative results held, this would be a significant contribution: it identifies concrete technology targets for HIHT power systems and a reusable, validated trajectory-optimization framework for a non-nuclear, commercial-launch route to high-energy interstellar-precursor missions. The paper has real strengths: the trajectory bookkeeping passes sub-percent analytical-versus-numerical consistency checks (Table 7), the SEP-stage reproduction of the InTrance/Ohndorf reference matches masses to within a few percent (Table 4), the payload-scaling relation is derived from an explicit trajectory-preserving invariant rather than fitted (Appendix C), and the code and optimized chromosomes are publicly released under an MIT license. Against these strengths, the headline payload numbers and thresholds rest on an EPS mass closure that is internally inconsistent in the sizing of the power-processing units (Major 1), and on a cell-to-panel technology translation that the authors themselves describe as open (Major 2).

major comments (1)
  1. [§2.3.2 (Eq. 2), §4.2.1, Tables 5–6, Appendix C (Eq. C.13)] The EPS mass model sizes the entire power system at the 1 AU power P_0, but the power-processing units must be rated for the maximum power actually processed, which is P_max at perihelion. In the JGA reference, the paper's own uniform-scaling split (α_array ≈ 284 W/kg, α_PPU ≈ 675 W/kg, §2.3.2) together with Table 5 (P_0 = 334.2 kW, P_max = 1,954.9 kW, F_T,max = 49.8 N, throttle near unity at perihelion per Fig. 5) implies m_PPU = P_max/α_PPU ≈ 2,896 kg and m_array = P_0/α_array ≈ 1,177 kg, i.e., m_EPS ≈ 4,073 kg versus the 1,671 kg in Table 5; the shortfall of about 2.4 t is more than 75% of the claimed payload. The direct case is worse: P_0 = 424.1 kW, P_max = 2,542.8 kW give m_EPS ≈ 5,260 kg versus the stated 2,120 kg, i.e., a larger shortfall than the claimed 1,551 kg payload. Even with the cited SiC PPU target of 2,500 W/kg, keeping m_EPS = 1,671 kg for the JGA case would require α_array ≈ 376 W/kg at P_max/P_0 ≈ 5.85, well above the ROSA/MegaFlex projections cited in §2.3.2. Because Eq. (13) and Fig. 6 rescale the reference μ_EPS as α_EPS,sim μ_EPS,sim/α_EPS (Appendix C, Eq. C.13), the ton-class thresholds of about 89 W/kg (JGA) and 159 W/kg (direct) inherit this inconsistent closure. The mass model must be re-derived with the PPU rated at perihelion power, and the reference trajectories and sensitivity map re-optimized accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2.2, Eq. (6)] The reference-spiral relation v∞,⊙ ≈ Δv − v_Earth is stated without justification; please specify the quasi-circular continuous-tangential-thrust spiral model underlying it, since the linear subtraction is not self-evident and the “factor of three” claim depends on it.
  2. [§5.2.1 and §7] The “nearly two orders of magnitude” comparison with the 35 kg InTrance/Ohndorf payload is repeated in the conclusions without the caveats (launcher, payload definition, REP stage) that the authors correctly list in §5.2.1; the conclusions should carry the qualifier or the comparison should be softened.
  3. [§1 and §2.2] Minor typographical and formatting issues: “V oyager” appears twice, subscript spacing in “r S OM” and power units (“W kg−1” versus “W kg −1”) is inconsistent, and the acronym expansion “EvolutionaRy” in SOMBRERO should be “Evolutionary”; a final proofreading pass is recommended.
  4. [Appendix B.5, Fig. B.7] The Falcon Heavy injected-mass fit (m_0,max = 15,189 kg, γ = 0.02165 s²/km²) is used to justify the “at least 1.6 t implicit margin” claim; please report the number of fit points and the fit residuals so that the conservatism claim is checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the payload-scaling law is an explicit invariant-based identity, and the trajectory optimizer is validated against an external InTrance/Ohndorf benchmark.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The trajectory optimizer maximizes payload under the 25-year constraint from the assumed launch model, EPS mass rule, and thrust model; Table 4 reproduces the independent InTrance/Ohndorf reference case within a few percent, giving external anchoring. Equation (13) is derived in Appendix C from a trajectory-preserving invariant, alpha_EPS*mu_EPS = const, not fitted to the payload target, and the paper uses it only to map the reference case to alternative alpha_EPS and mu_s values; this is an algebraic sensitivity relation, not a disguised prediction. The threefold Oberth gain follows from integrating Eq. (1) along the optimized trajectory and is checked analytically in Table 7. Self-citations ([15], [16], [22]) are descriptive references to prior work by the same group and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or author-only ansatz is invoked to force the central result. The kappa = 1.5 power scaling is taken from Ohndorf [85] and Fortescue [89] and is explicitly labelled an effective parameter. Section 4.2.2 itself flags the independence of the (T_max, alpha_EPS) pair and the open panel-level integration and lifetime work, which is a stated limitation rather than a circular step. The reviewer's PPU mass-closure objection is a modeling-consistency concern about sizing the EPS at P_0 while the perihelion power P_max is used for thrust; it does not make any reported output equal to its input by construction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The only novel constructs are computational (the SOMBRERO neurocontroller) and modeling parameters (kappa, alpha_EPS, mu_s), which are tracked as free parameters and axioms in this ledger.

free parameters (8)
  • Power-law exponent kappa for near-Sun EPS power = 1.5
    Introduced as an effective parameter in Section 4.2.1 to approximate temperature-related photovoltaic efficiency losses; reduces available power at 0.3 AU from 11.1x to 6.1x the 1 AU value and directly sets thrust authority.
  • System-level EPS specific power alpha_EPS at 1 AU (reference) = 200 W/kg
    Reference anchor for the optimized trajectories, motivated by deployable-array development targets but not flight-demonstrated at 400 C; all thresholds in Section 5.4 are expressed relative to this value.
  • Structural/bus mass fraction mu_s = 0.30
    Lumped structural mass fraction adopted from the Loeb/Ohndorf heliopause-probe mass budget and MESSENGER breakdown; payload is linearly sensitive to it in Eq. (13).
  • Thruster specific impulse I_sp = 6000 s
    Reference high-power EP cluster assumption; laboratory-demonstrated for GITs and approached by AF-MPDs, but not with 2 MW-class flight heritage.
  • Thrust efficiency eta = 0.75
    Assumed constant across the power envelope via thruster-string switching; no duty-cycle or lifetime losses are modeled.
  • Perihelion radius r_SOM = 0.3 AU
    Representative perihelion from radiative-equilibrium scaling for T near 400 C; the whole architecture is built around this choice and it is not optimized as a free variable in the reported runs.
  • Launch parameters C3 and theta_launch = C3 = 0 km^2/s^2, theta_launch = 0 deg
    Fixed after exploratory runs to improve convergence; excludes potentially competitive non-zero C3 solutions and affects the delivered mass.
  • JGA periapsis distance = 1.34 Jupiter radii
    Fixed periapsis and favorable phasing for the analytical gravity assist, acknowledged as an optimistic estimate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Planar, two-body heliocentric dynamics with no out-of-plane motion or ephemerides
    Stated in Section 4.2.2 and Section 5; all trajectories are propagated in the Sun-spacecraft plane and JGA is applied analytically.
  • ad hoc to paper Usable solar-electric power scales as P_max(r) = P_1 (r/1 AU)^-1.5
    Section 4.2.1; kappa = 1.5 is an effective parameter chosen by hand to approximate temperature-related PV efficiency loss, not a derived thermal model.
  • domain assumption Jupiter gravity assist is instantaneous, planar, at fixed periapsis with favorable phasing
    Section B.1.3 and Section 5.2.1; the paper states this is an optimistic estimate, and phasing or window probability is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Thruster cluster operates at constant I_sp = 6000 s and eta = 0.75 across the full power range via string switching
    Section 4.2.1; detailed throttling maps, duty cycles, lifetime, and clustering losses are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Spacecraft bus is protected by the shadow of the Sun-facing HIHT arrays, with no dedicated heat shield or active cooling
    Section 4.2.1; residual thermal mass is subsumed into mu_s = 0.30 without explicit mass allocation.
  • domain assumption Evolutionary neurocontrol with the restricted design space produces near-optimal steering laws
    Section 4.2.2; the paper explicitly says reported payloads are near-optimal realizations, not strict upper bounds, and the design space is restricted.
  • standard math Launcher injected mass is described by m0 = m0,max exp(-gamma C3), with m0,max = 15,189 kg and gamma = 0.02165
    Appendix B.5; exponential fit to NASA ELV performance data for Falcon Heavy, used to set launch mass and acknowledged as conservative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-temperature photovoltaics for solar-electric Oberth maneuvers: ton-class payload feasibility for interstellar-precursor missions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MGKLTI5O

@misc{pith2026260811113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-temperature photovoltaics for solar-electric Oberth maneuvers: ton-class payload feasibility for interstellar-precursor missions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MGKLTI5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11113}
}
abstract

In-situ exploration beyond the giant planets remains rare because timely Solar System escape demands very high specific orbital energy, which existing concepts typically achieve only with small payloads, super-heavy launchers, or nuclear-powered propulsion. Motivated by laboratory demonstrations of high-intensity, high-temperature (HIHT) solar cells operating near $400\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, we assess a solar-electric Oberth maneuver that concentrates thrust near a $0.3\,\mathrm{AU}$ perihelion. Evolutionary steering optimisation indicates that an expendable Falcon Heavy could deliver ton-class payloads to $200\,\mathrm{AU}$ within 25 years if HIHT power systems reach specific powers about $10\%$ above present-day conventional levels with a Jupiter gravity assist, or about twice those levels on a direct trajectory, under the stated assumptions. The gain stems from a threefold increase in specific orbital energy for the same $\Delta v$ compared with a $1\,\mathrm{AU}$ spiral. These results suggest HIHT photovoltaics could shift from survival hardware to propulsion-enabling technology for high-energy deep-space missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11113 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Solar-electric propulsion solar Oberth maneuver concept and near-Sun scaling. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolutionary neurocontroller used in SOMBRERO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Launch parametrisation used in the planar trajectory model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimised SEP–SOM trajectory with Jupiter gravity assist. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Accumulated electric-propulsion performance and controller [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Payload mass sensitivity to EPS specific power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. C. Brandt, E. Provornikova, A. Cocoros, D. Turner, R. DeMajistre, K. Runyon, C. Lisse, S. Bale, W. Kurth, A. Galli, et al., Interstellar probe: Humanity’s explo- ration of the galaxy begins, Acta Astronautica 199 (2022) 364–373. URL:https://www.sciencedir ect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576522003

    2022

  2. [2]

    Brandt, E

    P. Brandt, E. Provornikova, S. D. Bale, A. Cocoros, R. DeMajistre, K. Dialynas, H. A. Elliott, S. Eriksson, B. Fields, A. Galli, et al., Future exploration of the outer heliosphere and very local interstellar medium by inter- stellar probe, Space Science Reviews 219 (2023) 18. doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00943-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00943-x 2023

  3. [3]

    Linsky, S

    J. Linsky, S. Redfield, E. Moebius, What lies outside of the heliopause: Connecting the outer heliosphere with the very local interstellar medium, Bulletin of the Amer- ican Astronomical Society 55 (2023) 190. doi:10.384 7/25c2cfeb.bd427cda

    2023

  4. [4]

    Eriksson, A

    S. Eriksson, A. Mallet, M. Swisdak, M. Opher, E. Provornikova, S. Bale, M. Desai, A. Alexandrova, He- lio2050 white paper: Magnetic reconnection science in the outer heliosphere, Bulletin of the American Astro- nomical Society 55 (2021). doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.f 5c0635b

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.f 2021

  5. [5]

    URL:https: //oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10 /ig-24-001.pdf

    NASA Office of Inspector General, NASA’s Transition of the Space Launch System to a Commercial Services Contract, Technical Report IG-24-001, National Aero- nautics and Space Administration, 2023. URL:https: //oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10 /ig-24-001.pdf

    2023

  6. [6]

    URL:https:// www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-awards-lau nch-services-contract-for-goes-u-mission/, accessed 2026-01-29

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nasa awards launch services contract for goes-u mission, NASA News Release C21-025, 2021. URL:https:// www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-awards-lau nch-services-contract-for-goes-u-mission/, accessed 2026-01-29

    2021

  7. [8]

    J. D. Richardson, L. F. Burlaga, H. Elliott, W. S. Kurth, Y . D. Liu, R. von Steiger, Observations of the outer he- liosphere, heliosheath, and interstellar medium, Space Science Reviews 218 (2022) 35. doi:10.1007/s11214 -022-00899-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214 2022

  8. [9]

    Fuselier, S

    S. Fuselier, S. Petrinec, M. Bobra, I. Cairns, Reconnec- tion at the heliopause: Comparing the voyager 1 and 2 heliopause crossings, in: Journal of Physics: Confer- ence Series, volume 1620, 2020, p. 012004. doi:10.108 8/1742-6596/1620/1/012004

    2020

Show all 111 references
  1. [10]

    Uri, V oyager’s Grand Tour, NASA Technical Report JSC-CN-40453, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States, 2017

    J. Uri, V oyager’s Grand Tour, NASA Technical Report JSC-CN-40453, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States, 2017. URL:https://ntrs.nasa. gov/citations/20170009181, public Use Permitted

    2017

  2. [11]

    A. J. Butrica, V oyager: The Grand Tour of Big Sci- ence, in: P. E. Mack (Ed.), From Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA Collier Trophy Re- search Project Winners, NASA SP-4219, 1998, p. 251. URL:https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998 fesb.conf..251B

    1998

  3. [12]

    J. J. Benkoski, W. Lloyd Luedeman, N. N. De, M. C. Brupbacher, M. Presley, D. M. Deglau, J. A. Scroggins, W. M. Buchta, D. Zhang, J. D. Mitchell, Combined heat shield and solar thermal propulsion system for an oberth maneuver, Journal of Propulsion and Power 39 (2023) 284–293....

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    A. R. Davoyan, J. N. Munday, N. Tabiryan, G. A. Swart- zlander, L. Johnson, Photonic materials for interstellar solar sailing, Optica 8 (2021) 722–734. doi:10.1364/ OPTICA.417007

    2021

  5. [14]

    Mazouffre, Electric propulsion for satellites and spacecraft: established technologies and novel ap- proaches, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 25 (2016) 033002

    S. Mazouffre, Electric propulsion for satellites and spacecraft: established technologies and novel ap- proaches, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 25 (2016) 033002. doi:10.1088/0963-0252/25/3/033 002

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    Genovese, N

    A. Genovese, N. Maraqten, Advanced electric propul- sion concepts for fast missions to the outer solar system and beyond, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS) 76 (2023) 114–121. URL:https://bis-space .com/shop/product/jbis-076-04-0114/

    2023

  7. [16]

    Maraqten, D

    N. Maraqten, D. Fries, A. Genovese, Advanced elec- tric propulsion systems with optimal specific impulses for fast interstellar precursor missions, in: Proceedings of the 75th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Preprint.25 Milan, Italy, 2024. URL:https://www.researchg...

    2024

  8. [17]

    E. A. Bering, A. Parker, M. Giambusso, M. Carter, J. Squire, F. C. Díaz, S. M. Hörst, Solar and hybrid elec- tric propulsion to the kuiper belt and beyond, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 53 (2021) 307. URL:https://assets.pubpub.org/5diirw34/316 17915631527.pdf. ...

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    Ohndorf, B

    A. Ohndorf, B. Dachwald, W. Seboldt, K.-H. Schartner, Flight times to the heliopause using a combination of so- lar and radioisotope electric propulsion, in: 32nd In- ternational Electric Propulsion Conference, IEPC-2011- 051, Wiesbaden, 2011. URL:https://elib.dlr.de/ 70898/1/...

    2011

  10. [19]

    E. E. Perl, J. Simon, J. F. Geisz, M. L. Lee, D. J. Friedman, M. A. Steiner, Measurements and model- ing of iii-v solar cells at high temperatures up to 400 ◦c, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics 6 (2016) 1345–1352. doi:10.1109/JPHOTOV.2016.2582398

    2016

  11. [20]

    E. E. Perl, J. Simon, D. J. Friedman, et al., (al)gainp/gaas tandem solar cells for power conversion at elevated tem- perature and high concentration, IEEE Journal of Photo- voltaics 8 (2018) 640–645. doi:10.1109/JPHOTOV.20 17.2783853

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    Y . Sun, J. Faucher, D. Jung, M. Vaisman, C. McPheeters, P. Sharps, E. Perl, J. Simon, M. Steiner, D. Friedman, et al., Thermal stability of gaas solar cells for high tem- perature applications, in: 2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), IEEE, 2016, pp. 2385–

    2016

  13. [22]

    Maraqten, A

    N. Maraqten, A. Genovese, W. van Lynden, Stream- lined evolutionary neurocontrol for re-evaluation of low thrust solar oberth maneuvers to the heliopause, Con- ference presentation, First European Interstellar Sympo- sium (FEIS), Luxembourg, 2024. URL:https://www. researchgate...

    2024

  14. [23]

    Oberth, Wege zur Raumschiffahrt, R

    H. Oberth, Wege zur Raumschiffahrt, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich–Berlin, Germany, 1929. URL:https: //archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19720 008133/page/n9/mode/2up, original work in Ger- man. English translation available asWays to Spaceflight (NASA TT F-622, 1970)

    1929

  15. [24]

    R. W. Lyman, M. E. Ewing, R. S. Krishnan, D. M. Lester, J. Ralph L. McNutt, Solar thermal propulsion for an in- terstellar probe, in: 37th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, American Institute of Aeronau- tics and Astronautics (AIAA), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 20...

    2001 doi

  16. [25]

    Sauder, M

    J. Sauder, M. Preudhomme, J. Mueller, D. Cheikh, E. Sunada, R. R. Karimi, A. Couto, N. Arora, J. Rap- inchuk, L. Alkalai, System engineering a solar thermal propulsion mission concept for rapid interstellar medium access, Advances in Astronautics Science and Technol- ogy 4 (20...

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    Hibberd, A

    A. Hibberd, A. M. Hein, Project lyra: catching 1i/‘oumuamua–using nuclear thermal rockets, Acta As- tronautica 179 (2021) 594–603. doi:10.1016/j.acta astro.2020.11.038

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Hibberd, M

    A. Hibberd, M. Lingam, A. M. Hein, Can we fly to planet 9?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10207 (2022). URL:http s://arxiv.org/abs/2208.10207

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    C. A. Bailer-Jones, The sun diver: Combining solar sails with the oberth effect, American Journal of Physics 89 (2021) 235–243. doi:10.1119/10.0002178

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    Davoyan, H

    A. Davoyan, H. Helvajian, L. Johnson, M. Velli, Ex- treme Metamaterial Solar Sails for Breakthrough Space Exploration: NIAC Phase II Final Report, Contractor or Grantee Report NASA/NIAC Final Report, NASA In- novative Advanced Concepts (NIAC), Washington, DC,

  21. [30]

    C. A. Kluever, Trajectory Optimization of an Interstellar Mission Using Solar Electric Propulsion, NASA Con- tractor Report NASA/CR-97-206527, NASA Lewis Re- search Center, Cleveland, OH, 1997. URL:https: //ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980004505, final Report for NASA grant NAG3-1731

    1997

  22. [31]

    H. W. Loeb, K.-H. Schartner, B. Dachwald, A. Ohndorf, W. Seboldt, An interstellar–heliopause mission using a combination of solar/radioisotope electric propulsion, in: 32nd International Electric Propulsion Conference, IEPC-2011-052, Wiesbaden, 2011. URL:https://el ectricrocke...

    2011

  23. [32]

    Hibberd, T

    A. Hibberd, T. M. Eubanks, A. Hein, Catching 3i/atlas using a solar oberth, 2026. URL:https://arxiv.or g/abs/2601.02533.arXiv:2601.02533. Preprint.26

    2026

  24. [33]

    P. C. Liewer, R. A. Mewaldt, J. A. Ayon, R. A. Wal- lace, Nasa’s interstellar probe mission, in: M. S. El- Genk (Ed.), Space Technology and Applications Interna- tional Forum–2000, volume 504 ofAIP Conference Pro- ceedings, American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY , 2000, p...

  25. [34]

    Hibberd, A

    A. Hibberd, A. M. Hein, Project lyra: Catching 1i/’oumuamua – using laser sailcraft in 2030, 2020. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03891. doi:10 .48550/arXiv.2006.03891.arXiv:2006.03891

    2020 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    J. M. Shoji, P. E. Frye, J. A. McClanahan, Solar ther- mal propulsion status and future, in: AIAA Space Pro- grams and Technologies Conference (AIAA Space Fo- rum), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau- tics (AIAA), Huntsville, AL, USA, 1992. doi:10.2514/ 6.1992-1719

    1992

  27. [36]

    Edwards, A

    S. Edwards, A. Irvine, R. Hetterich, M. Rodriguez, Design Reference Mission Development for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Enabled Science Missions, Techni- cal Report 20205007947, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, 2020. URL:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/cita tions/20205007947, presented...

    2020

  28. [37]

    Scott, Analysis of nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) enabled heliopause trajectories, using solar-oberth ma- neuvers, in: Conference Paper, 2018

    D. Scott, Analysis of nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) enabled heliopause trajectories, using solar-oberth ma- neuvers, in: Conference Paper, 2018. URL:https: //www.researchgate.net/publication/3895921 46_ANALYSIS_OF_NUCLEAR_THERMAL_PROPULSION_ NTP_ENABLED_HELIOPAUSE_TRAJECTOR...

    2018

  29. [38]

    C. L. Zola, Interplanetary Probe Missions with Solar- Electric Propulsion Systems, NASA Technical Note NASA-TN-D-5293, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center, 1969. URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/1969 0020360/downloads/19690020360.pdf

    1969

  30. [39]

    D. H. Rodgers, J. R. Brophy, Ion propulsion technology for fast missions to pluto, in: Proceedings of the Interna- tional Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), IEPC-01- 179, Pasadena, 2001. URL:https://electricrock et.org/IEPC/176_1.pdf

    2001

  31. [40]

    A. V . Ilin, L. D. Cassady, T. W. Glover, M. D. Carter, F. R. Chang Díaz, A Survey of Missions using V ASIMR for Flexible Space Exploration, Technical Report JSC- 65825, Ad Astra Rocket Company (prepared for NASA under PO NNJ10HB38P), 2010. URL:https://www. adastrarocket.com/t...

    2010

  32. [41]

    Dupré, R

    O. Dupré, R. Vaillon, M. A. Green, Thermal Behavior of Photovoltaic Devices: Physics and Engineering, Energy, 1 ed., Springer Cham, 2017. doi:10.1007/978-3-319 -49457-9

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Porsche, Helios mission: Mission objectives, mission verification, selected results, in: Solar system and its exploration, ESA SP-164, 1981

    H. Porsche, Helios mission: Mission objectives, mission verification, selected results, in: Solar system and its exploration, ESA SP-164, 1981. URL:https://ui.a dsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ESASP.164...43P

    1981

  34. [43]

    A. Boca, P. Blumenfeld, K. Crist, K. De Zetter, B. Richards, C. Sarver, P. Sharps, R. Stall, M. Stan, Uv-exposure experiments for the solar probe plus array, in: 2013 IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2013, pp. 3115–3120. doi:10.1109/PVSC.201 3.6745119

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    N. E. Raouafi, L. Matteini, J. Squire, S. Badman, M. Velli, K. Klein, C. Chen, W. Matthaeus, A. Szabo, M. Linton, et al., Parker solar probe: Four years of discoveries at solar cycle minimum, Space Science Re- views 219 (2023) 8. URL:https://link.springe r.com/article/10.1007/...

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    Lyngvi, N

    A. Lyngvi, N. Rando, L. Gerlach, A. Peacock, The solar orbiter thermal design, in: 56th International Astronau- tical Congress of the International Astronautical Federa- tion, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law, IAC-05-C2.6....

    2005

  37. [46]

    Oberhüttinger, H

    C. Oberhüttinger, H. Nesswetter, D. Quabis, C. Zim- mermann, Simulating large area, high intensity am0 illumination–test results from bepicolombo and solar or- biter qualification, in: E3S Web of Conferences, vol- ume 16, EDP Sciences, 2017, p. 02007. doi:10.1051/ e3sconf/20171602007

    2017

  38. [47]

    C. G. Marirrodriga, A. Pacros, S. Strandmoe, M. Ar- cioni, A. Arts, C. Ashcroft, L. Ayache, Y . Bonnefous, N. Brahimi, F. Cipriani, et al., Solar orbiter: Mission and spacecraft design, Astronomy & Astrophysics 646 (2021) A121. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038519

    2021 doi

  39. [48]

    D. A. Scheiman, G. A. Landis, V . G. Weizer, High- bandgap solar cells for near-sun missions, in: AIP Con- ference Proceedings, volume 458, American Institute of Physics, 1999, pp. 616–620. doi:10.1063/1.57701

    1999 doi

  40. [49]

    Spitzer, J

    M. Spitzer, J. Dingle, R. Gale, P. Zavracky, M. Boden, D. Doyle, Gallium arsenide concentrator solar cells with highly stable metallization, in: Conference Record of the Twentieth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 1988, pp. 930–933 vol.2. doi:10.1109/PVSC.1988.10 5840....

    1988 doi

  41. [50]

    Bailey, R

    S. Bailey, R. Raffaelle, Silicon Carbide Solar Cells Inves- tigated, NASA Technical Memorandum 2002-211614, NASA Glenn Research Center, 2001. URL:https: //ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/2005020166 8/downloads/20050201668.pdf, accessed: 2025-10- 16

    2002

  42. [51]

    Nishioka, T

    K. Nishioka, T. Takamoto, T. Agui, M. Kaneiwa, Y . Uraoka, T. Fuyuki, Evaluation of temperature characteristics of high-efficiency ingap/ingaas/ge triple- junction solar cells under concentration, Solar energy materials and solar cells 85 (2005) 429–436. doi:10.1 016/j.solmat....

    2005

  43. [52]

    Brandt, C

    C. Brandt, C. Baur, A. Caon, P. Müller-Buschbaum, C. Zimmermann, T. Andreev, The influence of high tem- peratures on radiation damage of gainp 2/gaas/ge triple junction cells, in: 2012 IEEE 38th Photovoltaic Spe- cialists Conference, PVSC 2012, number PART 2 in Conference Reco...

    2012 doi

  44. [53]

    Grandidier, A

    J. Grandidier, A. P. Kirk, P. Jahelka, M. A. Stevens, P. K. Gogna, D. Crisp, M. L. Osowski, T. E. Vandervelde, H. A. Atwater, J. A. Cutts, Photovoltaic operation in the lower atmosphere and at the surface of venus, Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 28 (2020)...

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    Y . Zhao, M. Xu, X. Huang, J. Lebeau, T. Li, D. Wang, H. Fu, K. Fu, X. Wang, J. Lin, H. Jiang, Toward high efficiency at high temperatures: Recent progress and prospects on ingan-based solar cells, Materials Today Energy 31 (2022) 101229. doi:10.1016/j.mtener.2 022.101229

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    Petry, C

    D. Petry, C. Grunwald, A. Lohberg, A. Brandi, C. Oxynos-Lauschke, T. Andreev, R. Van Der Ven, U. Schuhmacher, S. Fugger, A. Caon, H. K. Fiebrich, The Bepi Colombo Mercury Transfer Module And Mer- cury Planetary Orbiter Solar Array Design And Devel- opment, in: 9th European Spa...

    2011

  47. [56]

    Lindner, C

    A. Lindner, C. Oberhüttinzer, C. Paarmann, J. Müller, S. Strandmoe, I. Costello, Solar orbiter solar array- exceptional design for a hot mission, in: 2019 European Space Power Conference (ESPC), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–7. doi:10.1109/ESPC.2019.8932039

    2019

  48. [57]

    N. S. Fatemi, H. E. Pollard, H. Q. Hou, P. R. Sharps, Solar array trades between very high-efficiency multi- junction and si space solar cells, in: Conference Record of the Twenty-Eighth IEEE Photovoltaic Spe- cialists Conference-2000 (Cat. No. 00CH37036), IEEE, 2000, pp. 1083...

  49. [58]

    M. A. Mejía Escobar, C. Algora, Surveying the potential of flexible and high-specific-power photovoltaic assem- blies and arrays for space applications, Joule 9 (2025) 102194. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2025.102194

    2025

  50. [59]

    Nassiri Nazif, A

    K. Nassiri Nazif, A. Daus, J. Hong, N. Lee, S. Vaziri, A. Kumar, F. Nitta, M. E. Chen, S. Kananian, R. Is- lam, et al., High-specific-power flexible transition metal dichalcogenide solar cells, Nature Communications 12 (2021) 7034. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27195-7

    2021 doi

  51. [60]

    A. W. Ho-Baillie, H. G. Sullivan, T. A. Bannerman, H. P. Talathi, J. Bing, S. Tang, A. Xu, D. Bhattacharyya, I. H. Cairns, D. R. McKenzie, Deployment opportunities for space photovoltaics and the prospects for perovskite so- lar cells, Advanced Materials Technologies 7 (2022) ...

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    Y . Tu, J. Wu, G. Xu, X. Yang, R. Cai, Q. Gong, R. Zhu, W. Huang, Perovskite solar cells for space applications: progress and challenges, Advanced Materials 33 (2021) 2006545. doi:10.1002/adma.202006545

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    Kaltenbrunner, G

    M. Kaltenbrunner, G. Adam, E. D. Głowacki, M. Drack, R. Schwödiauer, L. Leonat, D. H. Apaydin, H. Groiss, M. C. Scharber, M. S. White, et al., Flexible high power- per-weight perovskite solar cells with chromium oxide– metal contacts for improved stability in air, Nature Ma- t...

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    S. Kang, J. Jeong, S. Cho, Y . J. Yoon, S. Park, S. Lim, J. Y . Kim, H. Ko, Ultrathin, lightweight and flexible per- ovskite solar cells with an excellent power-per-weight performance, J. Mater. Chem. A 7 (2019) 1107–1114. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C8TA10585E. doi:10.1039/...

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    Jackson, M

    J. Jackson, M. Allen, R. Myers, E. Soendker, B. We- lander, A. Tolentino, S. Hablitzel, C. Yeatts, S. Xu, C. Sheehan, J. Cardin, J. S. Snyder, R. R. Hofer, T. Tofil, D. Herman, 13kW Advanced Electric Propulsion Flight System Development and Qualification, in: Proceed- ings of ...

    2017

  56. [65]

    Foekema, High Efficiency Solar Arrays – Executive Summary Report, Executive Summary Report HESA- ESR-ADSN-SA-001, Airbus Netherlands B.V

    R. Foekema, High Efficiency Solar Arrays – Executive Summary Report, Executive Summary Report HESA- ESR-ADSN-SA-001, Airbus Netherlands B.V . (Airbus NL), 2023. URL:https://nebula.esa.int/sit es/default/files/neb_tec_study/2428/publ ic/HESA- ESR- ADSN- SA- 001%20HESA%20Execut ...

    2023

  57. [66]

    URL: https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/9879, lead organization: Angstrom Designs, Inc.; page updated 18 Dec 2025

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, MegaFlex solar array scale-up, up to 175 kw per wing, NASA TechPort project database 9879, 2026. URL: https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/9879, lead organization: Angstrom Designs, Inc.; page updated 18 Dec 2025

    2026

  58. [67]

    D. R. Jovel, M. L. R. Walker, D. A. Herman, Review of High-Power Electrostatic and Electrothermal Electric Propulsion, Journal of Propulsion and Power 38 (2022) 1051–1081. URL:https://hpepl.ae.gatech.ed u/sites/default/files/files/Review%20of% 20HP%20ES%20ET%20EP_JPP%20Nov%202...

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    L. R. Piñero, K. E. Bozak, W. Santiago, R. J. Schei- degger, A. G. Birchenough, Development of high- power hall thruster power processing units at nasa grc, in: AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Or- lando, FL, USA, 2015. URL:https://ntrs.nasa.go v/citations/2015002309...

    2015

  60. [69]

    B. Reese, Silicon carbide (sic) power processing unit (ppu) for hall effect thrusters, NASA Technical Re- ports Server (NTRS); publication inAn Overview of SBIR Phase 2 In-Space Propulsion and Cryogenic Flu- ids Management, 2015. URL:https://ntrs.nasa.go v/citations/2016000534...

    2015

  61. [70]

    J. E. Polk, D. M. Goebel, J. S. Snyder, A. C. Schneider, L. K. Johnson, A. Sengupta, A high power ion thruster for deep space missions, Review of Scientific Instru- ments 83 (2012). doi:10.1063/1.4728415

    2012 doi

  62. [72]

    Zheng, H

    J. Zheng, H. Liu, Y . Song, C. Zhou, Y . Li, M. Li, H. Tang, G. Wang, Y . Cong, B. Wang, et al., Integrated study on the comprehensive magnetic-field configuration perfor- mance in the 150 kw superconducting magnetoplasma- dynamic thruster, Scientific Reports 11 (2021) 20706. ...

    2021 doi

  63. [73]

    Monheiser, K

    J. Monheiser, K. Goodfellow, C. Aubuchon, J. Wang, B. Ferraiuolo, G. Williams, G. Soulas, R. Shastry, N. Arthur, A summary of the next-c flight thruster proto-flight testing, in: AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, 2021. URL:h ttps: //nt rs.n asa. gov/ api/citations/20210018563/...

    2021

  64. [74]

    Goebel, J

    D. Goebel, J. Polk, A. Sengupta, Discharge cham- ber performance of the nexis ion thruster, in: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA-2004-3813, 2004, p. 3813. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay -Polk/publication/237750382_Discharge_C...

    2004

  65. [75]

    Randolph, J

    T. Randolph, J. Polk, An overview of the nuclear electric xenon ion system (nexis) activity, in: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA-2004-3450, 2004. doi:10.2514/6. 2004-3450

    2004 doi

  66. [76]

    Foster, T

    J. Foster, T. Haag, H. Kamhawi, M. Patterson, S. Malone, F. Elliot, The High Power Elec- tric Propulsion (HiPEP) Ion Thruster, in: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA-2004-3812, 2004. URL:https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/24298640. doi...

    2004

  67. [77]

    M. S. Konstantinov, V . G. Petukhov, H. W. Loeb, Ap- plication of rit-22 thruster for interhelioprobe mission, Moscow Aviation Institute, No. 60 (2012). URL:https: //mai.ru/upload/iblock/d34/application-o f-rit_22-thruster-for-interhelioprobe-mis sion.pdf

    2012

  68. [78]

    Killinger, H

    R. Killinger, H. Leiter, RITA-An Ion Thruster System for Commercial and Scientific Applications, in: 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, AIAA-2005-3886, 2005. doi:10.2514/6.20 05-3886

    2005 doi

  69. [79]

    Boxberger, A

    A. Boxberger, A. Behnke, G. Herdrich, Current advances in optimization of operative regimes of steady state ap- plied field mpd thrusters, in: 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, IEPC-2019-585, Vienna, 2019. URL:https://electricrocket.org/2019/585.pd f

    2019

  70. [80]

    Kuriki, S

    K. Kuriki, S. Morimoto, K. Nakamaru, Flight perfor- mance test of MPD thruster system, in: 15th Interna- tional Electric Propulsion Conference, 1981. doi:10.2 514/6.1981-664

    1981

  71. [81]

    Boxberger, G

    A. Boxberger, G. Herdrich, Integral measurements of 100 kw class steady state applied-field magnetoplasma- dynamic thruster sx3 and perspectives of af-mpd tech- nology, in: 35th International Electric Propulsion Con- ference, IEPC-2017-339, Atlanta, GA, 2017, pp. 8–12. URL:htt...

    2017

  72. [82]

    Sperber, A

    A. Sperber, A. Behnke, D. Wanke, G. Herdrich, Per- formance characterization and laboratory model devel- opment of AF-MPD thrusters at IRS, in: 11th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences (EU- CASS), 2025. URL:https://www.researchgate .net/publication/406508331...

    2025

  73. [83]

    R. L. McNutt Jr., R. F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, M. Gruntman, S. M. Krimigis, E. C. Roelof, P. C. Brandt, S. R. Vernon, M. V . Paul, R. W. Stough, J. D. Kinnison, Interstellar probe - Destination: Universe!, Acta Astro- nautica 196 (2022) 13–28. doi:10.1016/j.actaastr o.2022.04.001

    2022 doi

  74. [84]

    Dachwald, A

    B. Dachwald, A. Ohndorf, Global Optimization of Continuous-Thrust Trajectories Using Evolutionary Neurocontrol, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 33–57. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10501-3 _2

    2019 doi

  75. [85]

    Ohndorf, Multiphase low-thrust trajectory optimiza- tion using evolutionary neurocontrol, Ph.D

    A. Ohndorf, Multiphase low-thrust trajectory optimiza- tion using evolutionary neurocontrol, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2016. doi:10.4233/uuid: b3d888aa-0a97-4c5e-83c5-23504656f893

    2016 doi

  76. [86]

    Dachwald, Optimization of very-low-thrust trajecto- ries using evolutionary neurocontrol, Acta Astronautica 57 (2005) 175–185

    B. Dachwald, Optimization of very-low-thrust trajecto- ries using evolutionary neurocontrol, Acta Astronautica 57 (2005) 175–185. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2005 .03.004

    2005 doi

  77. [87]

    B. Dachwald, Evolutionary neurocontrol: a smart method for global optimization of low-thrust trajectories, in: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, AIAA-2004-5405, 2004. URL:https: //www.researchgate.net/profile/Bernd-Dac hwald/publication/224787115. doi:1...

    2004

  78. [88]

    G. A. Landis, Solar power for near-sun, high- temperature missions, in: 2008 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–5. doi:10.1 109/PVSC.2008.4922857

    2008

  79. [89]

    Fortescue, G

    P. Fortescue, G. Swinerd, J. Stark, Spacecraft systems engineering, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2011. URL: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Spacecraft+Sys tems+Engineering%2C+4th+Edition-p-9780470 750124

    2011

  80. [90]

    J. R. Wertz, D. F. Everett, J. J. Puschell (Eds.), Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD, vol- ume 28 ofSpace Technology Library, Microcosm Press, Hawthorne, CA, USA, 2011. URL:https://microc osmpress.com/publishing/space-mission-eng ineering-the-new-smad/

    2011

  81. [91]

    The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Labora- tory, MESSENGER launch press kit, Press kit (PDF),

  82. [92]

    URL:https://elvperf.ksc.nasa .gov/Pages/Default.aspx, accessed: 2025-01-08

    NASA, Expendable launch vehicle (elv) performance website, 2025. URL:https://elvperf.ksc.nasa .gov/Pages/Default.aspx, accessed: 2025-01-08

    2025

  83. [93]

    URL:https://www.spac ex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy, accessed: 2025- 12-20

    SpaceX, Falcon heavy, 2025. URL:https://www.spac ex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy, accessed: 2025- 12-20

    2025

  84. [94]

    G. A. Landis, Chapter fourteen - space photovoltaics for extreme high-temperature missions, in: Photovoltaics for Space, Elsevier, 2023, pp. 393–410. doi:10.1016/ B978-0-12-823300-9.00012-1

    2023

  85. [95]

    G. A. Landis, Power systems for venus surface missions: A review, Acta Astronautica 187 (2020) 424–431. doi:10 .1016/j.actaastro.2020.09.030

    2020

  86. [96]

    Bermudez-Garcia, P

    A. Bermudez-Garcia, P. V oarino, O. Raccurt, Environ- ments, needs and opportunities for future space photo- voltaic power generation: A review, Applied Energy 290 (2021) 116757. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.202 1.116757

    2021 doi

  87. [97]

    Verduci, V

    R. Verduci, V . Romano, G. Brunetti, N. Yaghoobi Nia, A. Di Carlo, G. D’Angelo, C. Ciminelli, Solar energy in space applications: Review and technology perspectives, Advanced Energy Materials 12 (2022) 2200125. doi:10 .1002/aenm.202200125

    2022

  88. [98]

    J. Li, A. Aierken, Y . Liu, Y . Zhuang, X. Yang, J. Mo, R. Fan, Q. Chen, S. Zhang, Y . Huang, et al., A brief review of high efficiency iii-v solar cells for space appli- cation, Frontiers in Physics 8 (2021) 631925. doi:10.3 389/fphy.2020.631925

    2021

  89. [99]

    R. L. McNutt, Jr., M. Gruntman, S. Krimigis, P. Brandt, E. Provornikova, M. Paul, P. Ostdiek, J. Mastandrea, M. Leary, S. Vernon, S. Hill, Nuclear electric propulsion for fast interstellar precursor missions: Physical limits on performance, in: Proceedings of the 76th Interna-...

  90. [100]

    M. E. Duchek, A. D. Boylston, D. P. Langford, S. J. Greenhalge, K. A. Polzin, R. M. Myers, Nuclear elec- tric propulsion for Saturn and Enceladus science mis- sions, Journal of Electric Propulsion 4 (2025) 54. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44205-025-00145-x. doi:10.1007/s44205...

    2025 doi

  91. [101]

    Woodcock, L

    G. Woodcock, L. Kos, L. Johnson, J. Jones, A. Trausch, B. Eberle, H. J. Brady, Benefits of nuclear elec- tric propulsion for outer planet exploration, in: 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2002-3548, 2002. URL:https: Preprint.30 //ntrs.n...

    2002

  92. [102]

    A. P. Girija, Aerocapture enabled fast uranus orbiter mis- sions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14514 (2023). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.14514. doi:10.485 50/arXiv.2310.14514.arXiv:2310.14514

    2023 doi arXiv

  93. [103]

    Johnson, N

    L. Johnson, N. Barnes, M. Ceriotti, T. Y . Chen, A. Davoyan, L. Friedman, D. Garber, R. Kezerashvili, K. Kobayashi, G. Matloff, C. McInnes, P. Mulligan, G. Swartzlander, S. G. Turyshev, Solar sail propulsion by 2050: An enabling capability for heliophysics missions,

  94. [104]

    J. J. Benkoski, Phase I Final Report: Combined Heat Shield and Solar Thermal Propulsion System for an Oberth Maneuver, Final Report 21-NIAC22B-0053, NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, 2023. URL:ht tps://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250001946

    2023

  95. [105]

    Walter, Astronautics: The Physics of Space Flight, 3rd ed., Springer, 2019

    U. Walter, Astronautics: The Physics of Space Flight, 3rd ed., Springer, 2019. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-743 73-8

    2019 doi

  96. [106]

    K. E. Tsiolkovsky, The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices, 1903. URL:https://ar chive.org/details/issledovaniye_mirovykh _prostranstv_reaktivnymi_priborami, original work in Russian. A later reprint (1914) is available at https://archive.org/details/issle...

    1914

  97. [107]

    Messerschmid, S

    E. Messerschmid, S. Fasoulas, Raumfahrtsysteme: Eine Einführung mit Übungen und Lösungen, Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017. URL:https://li nk.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-496 38-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49638-1. Preprint.31

    2017 doi

  98. [484]

    doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.07.011

    2022 doi

  99. [2004]

    URL:https://www.jhuapl.edu/sites/def ault/files/2023-03/MESSENGER_Launch_Press _Kit.pdf, accessed 2026-01-22

    2023

  100. [2023]

    arXiv:2301.01297

    URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.01297. arXiv:2301.01297

    arXiv

  101. [2024]

    Dis- tribution: Public

    URL:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/ 20250008150, contract/Grant: 80NSSC21K0954. Dis- tribution: Public. Use by or on behalf of the U.S. Gov- ernment permitted

  102. [2025]

    URL:https://iafastro.directory/iac /paper/id/96464/summary/, paper code: IAC- 25,D4,4,1,x96464; Session D4.4

  103. [2388]

    doi:10.1109/PVSC.2016.7750068

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.