\relax 
\citation{Holland1975}
\citation{Kirkpatrick1983}
\citation{Joslin1999}
\citation{baluja1995}
\citation{Muraoka1998}
\citation{Potter1998}
\citation{Sherwood1998}
\citation{Potin1998}
\citation{Frank2002}
\citation{Sherwood1998}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {I}Abstract}{1}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {II}Introduction}{1}}
\citation{Sherwood1998}
\citation{Potter1998}
\citation{Rao1998}
\citation{Lamaitre1998}
\citation{Lamaitre2000}
\citation{Wolfe2000}
\citation{Frank2002}
\citation{Frank2003}
\citation{Globus2002schedule}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {III}Model Problems}{2}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {IV}EOS Scheduling by Evolutionary Algorithms and Other Optimization Techniques}{2}}
\citation{Syswerda1991}
\citation{Syswerda1991}
\newlabel{EQUATION:weightedSum}{{1}{3}}
\citation{Holland1975}
\citation{Frank2002}
\citation{Lohn1999}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {V}Results}{4}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {VI}Future Work}{4}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {I}{\ignorespaces Comparison of search techniques. Search-technique/transmission operator pairs ordered by mean fitness. Techniques are ordered by fitness (low values are better schedules for all measures). Priority is the sum of the priority of all unscheduled tasks. TakeImage is the number of unscheduled takeImages. All data are the mean of 94 searches. Values are rounded down to the next lowest whole number. All differences are statistically significant (as measured by Student's T-Test) except for fitness: HC with 0 and 5 restarts with 1 swap, and the worst three; priority: only the worst three; and several of the takeImage comparisons.}}{5}}
\newlabel{TABLE:results}{{V}{5}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces A comparison of the evolutionary history of simulated annealing, hill climbing, and the genetic algorithm. Lower fitness values indicate better schedules.}}{5}}
\newlabel{FIGURE:compareFitnessEvolution}{{1}{5}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {II}{\ignorespaces Comparison of shared target vs separate targets for a two satellite constellation using GA with only single swap mutation and crossover. All comparisons are statistically significant. The shared case is 25-40\% better depending on the measure used for comparison.}}{5}}
\newlabel{TABLE:shared}{{II}{5}}
\bibcite{baluja1995}{1}
\bibcite{Frank2002}{2}
\bibcite{Frank2003}{3}
\bibcite{Globus2002schedule}{4}
\bibcite{Holland1975}{5}
\bibcite{Joslin1999}{6}
\bibcite{Kirkpatrick1983}{7}
\bibcite{Lamaitre1998}{8}
\bibcite{Lamaitre2000}{9}
\bibcite{Lohn1999}{10}
\bibcite{Muraoka1998}{11}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces The slew history for one satellite in the best schedule generated. The horizontal axis is time; a total of one week. The vertical axis is the amount of cross-track slew necessary to execute the scheduled takeImages for this satellite. Note the preference for extreme slews. The extreme slews apparently minimize the total slewing time sufficiently to overcome the fitness pressure towards small slews.}}{6}}
\newlabel{FIGURE:slewing}{{2}{6}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {VII}Summary}{6}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {VIII}Acknowledgements}{6}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{References}{6}}
\bibcite{Rao1998}{12}
\bibcite{Potin1998}{13}
\bibcite{Potter1998}{14}
\bibcite{Sherwood1998}{15}
\bibcite{Syswerda1991}{16}
\bibcite{Wolfe2000}{17}
\bibcite{Yamaguchi1998}{18}