Observations of the Spin-Period Variations of Inactive Box-Wing Geosynchronous Satellites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground-based broadband photometric observations of four inactive geosynchronous satellites of “box-wing” design were frequently performed between March 2012 and December 2013 to commence a long-term study of their attitude dynamics. The brightness of the satellites was observed to vary in a periodic fashion, which was interpreted to mean that reflected sunlight was being modulated due to satellite spin. The average observed spin periods inferred from the light curves ranged from 158 to 1548 s. The variation of each satellite’s inferred spin period was observed to be small or negligible over hourly timescales but varied significantly (from 15 to 25% of the average) and smoothly (possibly cyclically) over monthly to yearly timescales. The characteristics of the observed spin-period variations, including the amplitudes, timescales, and shapes, differed greatly between satellites and suggest a relationship between the average observed spin period and the variation amplitude. The observed spin-period variations were interpreted as being due to one or more external disturbance torques acting on the spacecraft. The most significant torque was found to be solar radiation pressure acting on the large-area solar panels. The magnitude of this torque produced sufficient angular accelerations to explain the observed spin-period variations. A first-order phenomenological model is proposed to explain the high-level aspects of the observed phenomena.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".