MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2224855748 · doi:10.5589/q03-013

Evasion (E<sup>3</sup>) Orbits

2003· article· en· W2224855748 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
V. A. Wehrle, Shawn M. Beaudette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian aeronautics and space journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftCircular orbitPhysicsRADIUSOrbital planeOrbit (dynamics)EclipseOrbital periodEarth radiusAstrophysicsGeodesyAstronomyAerospace engineeringEngineeringGeologyComputer scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is shown there exist two families of earth-eclipse evasion (E3) orbits in which spacecraft do not experience eclipses of the Sun by the Earth. One family is Sun-synchronous, and has two members: circular, with allowable altitudes in the range 1432 ≤ h ≤ 3291 km, and elliptic, with allowable apogees as high as 12 091 km and whose orbit planes rotate, in-plane, at a frequency of either +1, 0, –1, or –2 revolutions per year. The other family is not Sun-synchronous, but requires that the number of spacecraft orbits per year, N, be an even integer ≤ 64. The typical orbital radius for members of this family is >35% that of the Moon, sufficiently large that lunar and, to a lesser degree, solar perturbations are significant and limit the duration of E3 behaviour. Nevertheless E3 durations of up to 10.25 years are possible in this family (e.g., at N = 50) by the judicious selection of initial orbital parameters. Some potential advantages of E3 orbits are suggested regarding both spacecraft simplifications and mission applications.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.169
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian aeronautics and space journalSame topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207