MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W182541644 · doi:10.26077/x30s-am95

Energy Storage Options for Low-Cost Spacecraft Applications

2025· article· en· W182541644 on OpenAlex
D.F. Pennington, S.E. Wecker, Raymond D. Wright, D. Coates

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsEaglePicher (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several energy storage options currently exist for small satellite power systems. These include nickel-hydrogen, nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride batteries. Nickel-hydrogen is available only as a spaceflight qualified system and is therefore relatively high in cost. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are available only in a small capacity, commercial cylindrical version which limits usefulness in aerospace applications. Both aerospace and commercial nickel-cadmium batteries are available, providing another degree of freedom in matching battery selection to the specific cost and power requirements of the spacecraft. Other near-term options which may become available include aerospace grade nickel-metal hydride, silver-metal hydride and lithium ion batteries. Other options for specialized applications include lead-acid batteries and silver-zinc and a variety of primary systems such as lithium-carbon monofluoride, lithium-thionyl chloride or thermal batteries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.183 · 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