Stabilizing tethered satellite systems using space manipulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of space manipulators to stabilize a two-body tethered satellite system (TSS) during the stationkeeping and retrieval phases, is considered. The uncontrolled motion of the system in the stationkeeping phase is marginally stable, while during the retrieval phase it is unstable. The stabilization is carried out by means of a two-link space manipulator, similar to the CANADARM. The motion is considered to be planar and the joint torques are considered as inputs. The equations of motion for the system are analytically generated, using FLXSIM, a symbolic computer code based on Kane's method. For the stationkeeping phase, the equations of motion are linearized around the trim condition (fixed point) and the LQR method is used to devise a state-feedback based controller for the system. The results prove the method to be practical. For the retrieval case, with a non-autonomous set of equations, a modified feedback linearization technique is employed to alleviate the problem of not having enough inputs for the standard feedback linearization technique.>
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".