MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331649965 · doi:10.2514/6.2016-0088

Formulation of Torque-Optimal Guidance Trajectories for a CubeSat with Degraded Reaction Wheels

2016· article· en· W2331649965 on OpenAlexaff
Siddharth Kedare, Steve Ulrich

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCubeSatTorqueComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Automotive engineeringAeronauticsAerospace engineeringEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the theory and design of a torque-optimal guidance algorithm for CubeSat applications. CubeSats and nano-satellites provide mission-exible low-cost platforms for the academic and scientic communities to conduct cutting-edge research in the harsh environment of space. The mission life of nano-satellites may be limited by the attitude actuators, and it is therefore benecial to reduce torque and angular momentum usage during reorientation maneuvers. The algorithm focuses on being computationally lightweight and robust, while including the eects of gyroscopic moments, environmental torques, and degraded reaction wheels. Results indicate that this torque-optimal guidance algorithm demonstrates substantial improvements in performance and pointing accuracy over an Eigenaxis controller for similar maneuvers, with low to moderate computational overhead. In doing so, it presents a signicant advancement towards the development of intelligent GN&C systems for small satellites.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control ConferenceSame topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207