MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Technical Requirements for Lunar Structures

2008· article· en· W1981596145 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander M. Jablonski, Kelly A. Ogden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerospace Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologySystems engineeringRelation (database)Space explorationComputer scienceAerospace engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The moon has recently regained the interest of many of the world’s space agencies. Lunar missions are the first steps in expanding manned and unmanned exploration inside our solar system. The moon represents various options; it can be used as a laboratory in low gravity, it is the closest and most accessible planetary object from the Earth, and it possesses many resources that humans could potentially exploit. This paper has two objectives: to review the current status of the knowledge of lunar environmental requirements for future lunar structures, and to attempt to classify different future lunar structures based on the current knowledge of the subject. The paper divides lunar development into three phases. The first phase is building shelters for equipment only; in the second phase, small temporary habitats will be built, and finally in the third phase, habitable lunar bases will be built with observatories, laboratories, or production plants. Initially, the main aspects of the lunar environment that will cause concerns will be lunar dust and meteoroids, and later will include effects due to the vacuum environment, lunar gravity, radiation, a rapid change of temperature, and the length of the lunar day. This paper presents a classification of technical requirements based on the current knowledge of these factors, and their importance in each of the phases of construction. It gives recommendations for future research in relation to the development of conceptual plans for lunar structures, and for the evolution of a lunar construction code to direct these structural designs. Some examples are presented along with the current status of the bibliography of the subject.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.015

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207