MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982665290 · doi:10.2514/1.36024

Time-Optimal Low-Thrust Formation Maneuvering Using a Hybrid Linear/Nonlinear Controller

2008· article· en· W1982665290 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)ThrustNonlinear systemController (irrigation)Computer scienceAerospace engineeringEngineeringPhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

M AINTAINING two spacecraft in a formation with a conventional fuel-based propulsion system could be challenging in its own right. But this problem becomes more difficult when the propulsion system has limited capabilities or control actuation is available in only one or two axes and timeoptimal and fuel-optimal control is desired. Fortunately, for the spacecraft relative motion problem, because the relative equations of motion are coupled, motion in more than one direction can be controlled by control actuation in only one direction. In this Note, we formulate a hybrid linear/nonlinear controller that can efficiently maneuver a spacecraft formation by applying control only in the along-track direction. We also assume that the available control is very small in magnitude. This type of problem could be anticipated when dealing with low-thrust systems such as plasma thrusters, control with differential drag or solar radiation pressure, or any other system with very-low-thrust capability. One of the very early papers on underactuated control of a spacecraft formation with low-thrust capability by Leonard [1] presented an elegant algorithm to control a formation with only differential drag (assumed to be a constant and acting only in the along-track direction). Although the derived control was proven to be time-optimal control, it was not fuel-optimal. This was because differential drag was assumed to be a free resource with no need to economize it. However, for a spacecraft relying on expendables for control (plasmic thrusters), fuel economy would be highly desired. Some of the recent papers on this topic [2,3] also address the problem of spacecraft formation control with limited resources. The idea is to use linear or nonlinear controllers with a saturation function. The resultant controllers are robust and globally stable but not time-optimal. In the applied control field, the problem to control less frequently andmore efficiently ismore often an issue and elegant solutions exist for the same problem [4,5]. In this Note, we borrow some ideas discussed from [1,5] and apply them to the spacecraft formation-control problem. The result is a time-optimal controller that is easy to implement for underactuated formation control with limited resources. Although the controller is not proven to be fueloptimal, it is shown to consume less fuel than a conventional timeoptimal or a linear robust controller.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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