MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robust Control of Spacecraft Formation Flying

2007· article· en· W2102399877 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 Aerospace Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)SpacecraftRobustness (evolution)Robust controlLyapunov functionLyapunov stabilityController (irrigation)Bounded functionComputer scienceRelative motionControl systemControl engineeringEngineeringMathematicsControl (management)PhysicsNonlinear systemAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a robust control scheme for two spacecraft in formation subjected to time-variant external disturbances in the space environment was developed. The proposed controller consists of two parts, the first part is for the nominal system without disturbances and the second part is to compensate for effects of system disturbances. A dynamic relative motion error model was established to design the second part of the controller and to analyze the stability of the closed-loop system using Lyapunov stability theory. Furthermore, the robustness of proposed control method to the system disturbances is analyzed based on robust control theory. It is proven that the relative motion error of two spacecraft in formation is uniformly ultimately bounded under the proposed controller for the assumed disturbances in the dynamic model.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.165 · 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