MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129077040 · doi:10.1109/robot.2006.1642297

Satellite simulator with a hydraulic manipulator

2006· article· en· W2129077040 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farhad Aghili, Mehrzad Namvar, George Vukovich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftTorqueEmulationControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMoment of inertiaController (irrigation)SimulationEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysicsControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.148
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207