MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W162707953

Development of a simulation environment to test space missions COTS technologies

2002· article· en· W162707953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sid Saraf, AK Knoll, Philip Melanson, Mak Tafazoli

Bibliographic record

VenueView · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystems engineeringCommercial off-the-shelfSpacecraftCommercializationSoftwareSpace explorationComputer scienceEngineeringCost reductionEmbedded systemAerospace engineeringOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Space Agency's (CSA) Software and Ground Segment Section (SGS) has the mandate to develop innovative emerging software and on-board satellite and ground segment computer technologies. To that end, there is an ongoing development of a simulation environment to test COTS (Commercial-Of-The-Shelf) technologies. There are severe cost constraints in all aspects of many space missions due to the limited return on investment and scarce commercialization opportunities that come with many science missions. There is an opportunity to explore the innovative implementation of COTS technologies to reduce the mission cost and maximize performance available from COTS components. However, using COTS technologies in the space environment has ist constraints and therefore designing a spacecraft mission has to involve some new techniques that allow implementation of these components and minimize the risk of failure. The goal of our project is to develop a simulation environment, itself using COTS components, and then to allow the seamless integration of various components to test spacecraft mission concepts. For example, one of the aspects of using COTS processors in space is to protect them from the radiation environment. The current state of the simulation tests an innovative software EDAC (Error Detection and Correction) package and a redundant processor configuration to investigate protection against the effects of radiation and other failures on a generic mission. It also includes the capability to test formation-flying concepts that have the potential to revolutionize cost reduction efforts for space missions and to enable new space applications. This paper describes the simulation environment in detail and illustrates some of the technologies being tested for possible future space missions. The paper concludes with a look at the future development of the simulation environment and possible benefits of its use as well as the lessons learned to date.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViewSame topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207