MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low Thrust Trajectory Design for CRAFTI

2001· article· en· W19806037 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsteroidPayload (computing)Near-Earth objectSpacecraftTrajectoryAerospace engineeringSpace explorationIon thrusterInterplanetary spaceflightPropulsionThrustOrbit (dynamics)Computer scienceAstrobiologyPhysicsEngineeringAstronomyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Robotic Asteroid Flyby and (Tentatively) Impact project (CRAFTI) proposes to accomplish an interplanetary mission to explore an asteroid while maintaining a budget of ~US$10 million. This cost target implies a launch as a secondary payload and hence a microsatsized spacecraft. The mission objective is to send two spacecraft to encounter the near-Earth asteroid Toutatis in 2008; one of these will fly by Toutatis at close range, while the other impacts the asteroid. An electric propulsion system is being considered to provide the thrust for the orbital manoeuvres. However, the thrust level achievable by this kind of system is very low, requiring long burn times that complicate the orbital analysis. A lowthrust orbit propagator that has been developed to support the CRAFTI mission analysis, and the preliminary trajectory design work that has been carried out, is described in this paper.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207