MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325260323 · doi:10.2514/6.2014-4182

An Approach towards Future Commercial Space Communications and Navigation

2014· article· en· W2325260323 on OpenAlexaff
Eric G. Butte, Julie L. Miller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsTelecommunicationsComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)Space technologyEngineeringAerospace engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (LMSSC) perspective on “Commercial Space Communications and Navigation (CSC&N)” is varied and commercial space business could be possible, but would require unique business cases that need certain barriers removed and enablers added to optimize the CSC&N architecture and maximize the commercial business model. Commercial business ventures usually have multiple customers to serve and/or provide products to sell. A CSC&N system really has one customer today, NASA, with possibilities of other customers within the U.S. Government, International community, and commercial space travel. To enhance these other customer avenues, certain CSC&N architectures might be developed that would not be optimal for NASA, but can be beneficial to multiple customers. A variety of architectures and business models can be investigated to focus on optimizing the commercial potential of CSC&N, rather than focusing on optimizing NASA’s requirements for Deep Space C&N. This section will discuss a subset of these other architectures in relation to certain business models that can be used to commercialize all or parts of the NASA C&N system. The basic premise from Lockheed Martin’s point of view is to look at architectures that can be commercialized for Space Communications and Navigation. To do this we must minimize the technical complexity of the terminals that will use the CSC&N system. By minimizing the size, weight and power requirements for these terminals, we can maximize the science payload capability and human space flight reliability, as well as provide internet capability to the commercial space travel industry. In creating a “standard” set of terminals, we can keep costs for new missions to the moon and moon surface sortie missions, focused on the NASA science missions, provide high-speed communications to commercial space travel, and not on generating new one-of-a-kind communication and navigation terminals for each mission..

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207