MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040784661 · doi:10.1177/0954410012462784

Stability of an impulsive control scheme for spacecraft formations in eccentric orbits

2012· article· en· W2040784661 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftPerturbation (astronomy)Control theory (sociology)Impulse (physics)Eccentricity (behavior)Circular orbitStability (learning theory)Halo orbitPhysicsElliptic orbitScheme (mathematics)Orbit (dynamics)Computer scienceAerospace engineeringMathematicsControl (management)Classical mechanicsEngineeringMathematical analysisAstrophysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An N-impulse control scheme for spacecraft formations in elliptical orbits is developed to regulate the differential elements of the deputy spacecraft in the presence of the J 2 perturbation. The presented control scheme is an extension of an existing circular-orbit formation control scheme and is shown to perform well at large eccentricities where the circular control scheme fails. For the case of two impulses being applied at arbitrary firing times, a discrete-time approach for ascertaining the stability of the controlled spacecraft formation, under the assumption of small impulsive thrusts, is presented. It is found that stability is guaranteed for the majority of firing time pairs; however, the requisite Δ V can be prohibitive for some firing time pairs. The control scheme and stability predictions for formations in high eccentricity orbits are validated in numerical simulation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
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