Satellite simulator with a hydraulic manipulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A system emulation that can be used for testing a spacecraft control system with all of its hardware in place, in a 1-g laboratory environment, is presented. The system is comprised of a manipulator whose end-effector rigidly grasps a functional spacecraft, a six-axis force/moment (F/M) sensor placed at the interface of the spacecraft and the manipulator, and a control system. The controller takes the values of the force/moment as well as the manipulator's joint angles and velocities and issues torque command to drive the manipulator so that the motion of the spacecraft model in the presence of external forces replicates 0-g motion dynamics of a flight spacecraft. The control system can also modify the inertia! properties of the spacecraft so as to match those of an actual spacecraft, even if the latter is flexible and the former is rigid. The stability of the overall system is analytically investigated, and the results show that the system remains stable provided that the inertia! properties of two spacecraft are different. Important practical issues such as calibration and analysis of the sensitivity to noise and disturbance are also presented. Finally, the concept of the 0-g emulation of spacecraft is demonstrated by conducting an experiment using a robotic testbed at the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".