Assessment of an Automated Touchdown Detection Algorithm for the Orion Crew Module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orion Crew Module (CM) touchdown detection is critical to activating the post-landing sequence that safe?s the Reaction Control Jets (RCS), ensures that the vehicle remains upright, and establishes communication with recovery forces. In order to accommodate safe landing of an unmanned vehicle or incapacitated crew, an onboard automated detection system is required. An Orion-specific touchdown detection algorithm was developed and evaluated to differentiate landing events from in-flight events. The proposed method will be used to initiate post-landing cutting of the parachute riser lines, to prevent CM rollover, and to terminate RCS jet firing prior to submersion. The RCS jets continue to fire until touchdown to maintain proper CM orientation with respect to the flight path and to limit impact loads, but have potentially hazardous consequences if submerged while firing. The time available after impact to cut risers and initiate the CM Up-righting System (CMUS) is measured in minutes, whereas the time from touchdown to RCS jet submersion is a function of descent velocity, sea state conditions, and is often less than one second. Evaluation of the detection algorithms was performed for in-flight events (e.g. descent under chutes) using hi-fidelity rigid body analyses in the Decelerator Systems Simulation (DSS), whereas water impacts were simulated using a rigid finite element model of the Orion CM in LS-DYNA. Two touchdown detection algorithms were evaluated with various thresholds: Acceleration magnitude spike detection, and Accumulated velocity changed (over a given time window) spike detection. Data for both detection methods is acquired from an onboard Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor. The detection algorithms were tested with analytically generated in-flight and landing IMU data simulations. The acceleration spike detection proved to be faster while maintaining desired safety margin. Time to RCS jet submersion was predicted analytically across a series of simulated Orion landing conditions. This paper details the touchdown detection method chosen and the analysis used to support the decision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".