MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028288826 · doi:10.2514/6.2004-5125

On the Autonomous in Orbit Calibration of Satellite Attitude Sensors

2004· article· en· W2028288826 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatelliteCalibrationOrbit (dynamics)Computer scienceRemote sensingAttitude controlAerospace engineeringPhysicsEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typically, satellite attitude control software includes a few algorithms to determine satellite attitude. The most accurate Attitude Determination Mode (ADM) is designated as the primary ADM and is used as the reference base (physical platform) to calibrate redundant auxiliary sensors. They are not involved in closed loop control of satellite attitude in the primary ADM and can therefore be considered as passengers; however, they are used as part of the control loop under special circumstances: e.g. eclipse, primary sensor failure, recovery from Safe Hold Mode, and special attitude manoeuvres. Such a strategy has been adopted by two Canadian satellite missions: RADARSAT–1 and SciSat, both of which are operated by the CSA Mission Control Centre (MCC). In developing its strategies for small and micro satellite design and operation, the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) recognises the benefits of providing this new generation of satellites with the capability of extended operation autonomy. The goal of such autonomy is to reduce the cost and complexity of satellite mission support, which is in line with the microsatellite philosophy. A large part of the early stages of satellite operation is devoted to the evaluation of attitude accuracy and the calibration of attitude sensors in orbit. This article proposes a general approach to solving the sensor calibration problem autonomously using an onboard processor with a sub-optimal Kalman Filter (KF). The approach is illustrated with RADARSAT-1 magnetometer calibration. This paper proposes the transfer of calibration authority from a ground-based MCC to on-board algorithms, while preserving the underlying calibration strategy. A recursive Kalman Filter [5] algorithm is used for real time on-board estimation of the calibration parameters of a satellite’s attitude sensors. To have the method applicable for a microsatellite with an inexpensive, resource-limited processor, some effort was spent to suboptimise the developed Kalman Filter in order to make it more economical from a computational loading point of view. The approach presented in this paper avoids the computation of covariance matrices and weight coefficients – which are the most computationally demanding aspects of Kalman Filtering – by approximating these coefficients as analytical functions of time [2]. The decision concerning the insertion of the derived estimates into the control algorithms is based on a criterion of trust, including evaluation of the values of the estimates and their stability in time after some pre-determined observation period.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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