Investigating Formation Flying and COTS in an Integrated Simulation Environment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Canadian Space Agency’s (CSA) Software and Ground Segment (SGS) section has the mandate to develop innovative software and ground segment technologies. The implementation of formation flying concepts for Canadian missions is also currently under investigation at CSA's Spacecraft Engineering section. To that end, there is an ongoing development of a simulation environment to test COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) and formation flying technologies. Some of today's spacecraft are laboriously custom designed for a specific mission and a limited set of tasks. Development time can be lengthy (several years), which means that designs do not take advantage of the most recent technology. Designs also tend to be extremely inflexible, creating a spacecraft that cannot be easily adapted to future missions. A design ethic that promotes reusability is much more cost-effective and increases the time available to advance new technologies. COTS offer advantages such as a reduced development time, an increased product selection, faster and cheaper parts replacement, and extensively tested advanced designs. The main drawbacks to COTS use in space are susceptibility to radiation and in some cases decreased reliability. Since one of the main advantages of formation flying is the reduced mission sensitivity to a spacecraft failure, the risk associated with COTS, which has hindered its use in conventional space missions, is less concerning in the context of a multiple spacecraft mission. Achieving some level of standardization is a problem currently confronting the space industry, which must be addressed to realize the cost savings that can come from mass production and spacecraft interoperability. The use of standard components with standard interfaces also reduces development time. As well, since part of the goal is to have spacecraft already in orbit regroup and possibly join with new spacecraft to accomplish other missions, some forwards and backwards compatibility between generations of spacecraft will be necessary. This paper describes an integrated simulation environment that uses COTS spacecraft and simulation components to investigate formation flying scenarios and their benefits and challenges. A few of the well-known industry software and hardware tools incorporated into the environment include Analytical Graphic's STK, Mathwork's Matlab/Simulink, CAE Electronic's Real-time Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (ROSETM), Intel's StrongARM processor, and the PC-104 architecture for rugged embedded systems. There are short term plans to incorporate goal decomposition hierarchies to implement autonomous operations and robust fault tolerance. This will be implemented on high-speed logic based controller cards, known as Q4 cards, developed by Xiphos Technologies Inc. The simulation environment was developed to allow spacecraft designers or mission operators to test their respective technologies or ideas in a modular structure rapidly, accurately, and cheaply. This will enhance the successful use of formation flying spacecraft and improve the technologies needed to make formation flying a feasible and a cost effective reality.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».