Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the dynamics of possible configurations for multi-tethered satellite formations. Two main possibilities are studied, one where there is a central body (hub) from which stem tethers (spokes), each of which has a satellite at its end. The other is the closed-hub-and-spoke configuration, where tethers connecting one peripheral satellite to the next are added to the configuration described above. The configurations are nominally in two-dimensions, but three-dimensional motion is studied. The cables must always be held taut to keep the satellites in place with respect to one another. This is achieved by giving an initial spin rate to the whole system, where the spin plane can be either the orbital plane or the plane normal to the orbit. The relative motion of the satellites is examined for both configurations and for varying number of bodies. The non-linear equations of motion for a circular orbit at LEO were analyzed to determine the stability properties of the configurations and examine the usefulness of the outer connections in improving stability. When the configuration spins in the orbital plane, it was found that for up to four bodies, the hub-and-spoke configuration is stable. Above that number, outer tethers are necessary. For a formation spinning in the plane normal to the orbit, similar results were obtained. The hub-and-spoke configuration is stable for up to four bodies, and outer tethers are necessary above that number.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".