MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321994003 · doi:10.2514/6.2011-6084

Ariane 5-ME and Electric Propulsion: GEO Insertion Options

2011· article· en· W2321994003 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Duchemin, Antoine Caratge, Nicolas Cornu, Jean-Michel Sannino, François Lassoudiere, Anthony Lorand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeostationary orbitElectrically powered spacecraft propulsionPropulsionAerospace engineeringSatelliteOrbit (dynamics)Payload (computing)Low earth orbitSpecific impulseComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric propulsion is now widely used on commercial satellites, and the prospects of allelectric satellites may be considered for future comsats where all propulsive duties are fulfilled by the electric propulsion subsystem, including orbit raising. In such a configuration, the full benefits of using higher specific impulse devices for the satellite onboard propulsion would be realized. These benefits may be expressed in terms of increased payload capability in geostationary orbit, but also in terms of increased satellite operational life or decreased launch costs, depending on market demands. This study examines the best match options between electric propulsion and a launch vehicle with frozen specification, with Ariane 5-ME taken as a reference example. Departure orbit options before the electric orbit raising to GEO are traded in order to realize the full potential of both the launch vehicle performance and electric propulsion. The selection of the best options is discussed, depending on the priority given to fast electric orbit raising and low radiation fluence versus improved dry mass capability to geostationary orbit.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207