Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 10, 2011, two identical spacecraft were launched from the Kennedy Space Center Space Launch Complex-17B on their 4-month, low-energy trajectory to the moon. The primary objective of the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission was to collect a global gravity map of the moon with a resolution approximately 1000 times better than existing knowledge. Lockheed Martin had the responsibility of designing, developing, assembling, testing, launching, and operating the twin spacecraft. With a dry mass of 200.6 kg each, these GRAIL spacecraft were among the lightest ever to be selected for a NASA Discovery-class mission. This paper discusses some of key trade studies performed and the resulting design features of these two small spacecraft. Among the areas of discussion are the following: • Spacecraft architecture and its significant heritage from Experimental Small Satellite #11 (XSS-11) • Increasing the delta-v capability required for the lunar orbit insertion • Solar array sizing for the science collection phase • Mounting position for the Ka-band antenna, one of the key components of the science instrument • Launch configuration trade study: stacked design vs. side-by-side design • Spacecraft similarity trade study: mirror image buses vs. identical buses with a rotated science orientation • Limited redundancy approach and its associated fault protection This paper also discusses some of the on-orbit performance during GRAIL’s primary mission including: • Spacecraft performance and anomalies • Science results from the primary mission • Analysis performed to justify and gain approval for a 6-month extended mission Not only have the GRAIL spacecraft returned a wealth of scientific data, but they paved the way for future Lockheed Martin small satellite applications including an entry in NASA’s Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) catalog.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".