MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162709813 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4879

A NEW COURSE ON COMPUTING FOR SMALL SPACECRAFT ENGINEERING

2013· article· en· W2162709813 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayload (computing)SpacecraftAerospaceSystems engineeringSatelliteProcess (computing)Spacecraft designCubeSatComputer scienceCourse (navigation)EngineeringAerospace engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trend towards smaller and less expensive spacecraft continues. The University of Manitoba has participated in the design and implementation of a triple-pico-satellite (code TSat) since 2010, with over 100 undergraduate and graduate students from five faculties and 16 departments, as well as 50 advisors from academia, aerospace industries, business, military, and government. Such small satellites are used for atmospheric study and testing of new research concepts such as new forms of data communications, and constellations of space robots. A graduate course on small spacecraft engineering has recently been developed to address the needs of many students in this area. The course provides foundations for the design, implementation and testing of nano-, pico- and femto-satellites. The topics cover the anatomy of a small spacecraft, its design process with the specific design of its mission and payload, orbital mechanics, spacecraft subsystems, and mission operations handling. The specific subsystems include (i) attitude determination and control (ADC), (ii) telemetry, tracking, and command (TTC), (iii) command and data handling (CDH), (iii) power (PWR), (iv) thermal (TRM), (v) structures (STR), and (vi) guidance and navigation (GAV) [1-3]. Emphasis is given to the algorithms and computing tools for such small satellites. The basis for modeling and simulation is the Systems Tool Kit (STK) from Analytical Graphics Incorporated (AGI). The course is supported by our experience in developing the TSat1 nano-satellite. This paper describes the structure of the course, the methodology used, the set of topics covered, the set of course projects, and the lessons learned from the delivery of this unique course. Although the course is now intended for electrical and computer engineering students only, its scope will be expanded to accommodate mechanical and other engineering students.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.179
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207