MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146940856 · doi:10.2514/6.2011-123

Developing Planetary Rover Traction Systems

2011· article· en· W2146940856 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Visscher, B. G. Jones, Peter Radziszewski

Bibliographic record

Venue49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityNeptec Design Group (Canada)Ontario Drive & Gear (Canada)
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsTraction (geology)Computer sciencePlanetary explorationAerospace engineeringAstrobiologyAeronauticsEngineeringPhysicsMechanical engineeringMars Exploration Program

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface mobility will be a critical aspect of any robotic or manned planetary surface mission. The Lunar and Martian surfaces have a wide variety of terrain types, from wideranging plains to steep mountainous regions; from rock-infested boulder fields to soft sand. Prospecting rovers must have the ability to climb steep slopes and traverse soft, deep sand, while ISRU-specific rovers require high levels of traction to accomplish land-forming tasks. Whereas their terrestrial counterparts generally rely on rubber pneumatic tires, rubber tracks, or segmented steel tracks to provide high levels of traction in extreme terrain, environmental conditions and mass constraints preclude the use of these traction devices for space exploration applications. At Argo/ODG, alternative technologies are being developed in an effort to provide planetary rovers with high levels of traction while surviving the extreme environmental conditions. The metallic track developed by Argo/ODG shares characteristics of both the heavyduty steel segmented track and the high performance, lightweight rubber track used more commonly in the power-sports industry. In addition to traction characteristics, consideration was given to reliability, durability, failure modes, and efficiency over different terrain. Testing in soft, fine-grained sand has shown that the metallic track is able to produce high levels of traction, while more qualitative testing in rocky and steep terrain has shown the metallic tracks to be reliable and durable. For scenarios in which mass constraints are more severe, and very high traction levels are not required, a lightweight compliant metal wheel may provide a better compromise between traction, mass, and simplicity. Using some of the techniques and technologies that arose from track development, a simple, lightweight compliant wheel was designed for the Juno Rover. Prototyping and testing is scheduled for summer/fall of 2010 to characterize its performance against both the baseline rubber pneumatic tire and the metallic tracks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace ExpositionSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207