MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299573227 · doi:10.2514/1.g001781

Dynamics of Double-Pyramid Satellite Formations Interconnected by Tethers and Coulomb Forces

2016· article· en· W2299573227 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Qi, Arun K. Misra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeostationary orbitSatellitePhysicsCoulombPyramid (geometry)Orbit (dynamics)Classical mechanicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tethered formation and the coulomb formation are two important concepts in constructing satellite formation architecture, and they have the advantage that the relative motion between satellites can be maintained quite accurately with minimal active control. In this study, a formation termed the “coulomb tether double-pyramid” is proposed to combine the best features of the tethered formation and the coulomb formation. Chief and deputy satellites are charged bodies and located in the Earth-facing plane normal to the geostationary orbit, with the chief at the center. Each deputy is connected with two anchor satellites via a massless, straight tether, such that the Earth-facing plane can be maintained by using gravity-gradient torques. First, the equations of motion are obtained via Lagrange equations. Then, the charges and tether extensions necessary to support a Hill-frame stationary formation are analytically determined. Finally, open-loop charge control strategies are designed to maintain the spinning formation or carry out reconfiguration. The proposed coulomb tether double-pyramid formation has great potential to enhance the surveillance and imaging of Earth objects in future missions.

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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

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 head0.194
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Guidance Control and DynamicsSame topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207