MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316058011 · doi:10.2514/6.2009-6292

Formation Flying Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulation Using a Cold-Gas Thruster

2009· article· en· W2316058011 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrustSpacecraftSolenoid valveAerospace engineeringHardware-in-the-loop simulationNozzleController (irrigation)ActuatorSimulationEngineeringComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Mechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper involves a thruster hardware setup and Hardware-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation. The hardware that was used in the simulation is a simple cold gas thruster, which was constructed out of a solenoid valve and a nozzle with N2 gas being fed through air tubing from a compressed tank. The thruster was tested to characterize its performance. The thruster characteristic like time to reach on state, consistency of maximum thrust in steady state, the time it takes to reach an off state, and the input pressure vs. thrust profile were examined. The simulation is comprised of a non-linear dynamic model of two spacecraft formation flying, a Fuzzy Logic controller used to control the relative motion of spacecraft in formation, and an actuator block to fire the thruster and read the thrust measurement. The whole process and results are further explained in the paper.

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.

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 score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.241 · 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