Uncertainty-based Optimization Algorithms in Designing Fractionated Spacecraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fractionated spacecraft is an innovative application of a distributive space system. To fully understand the impact of various uncertainties on its development, launch and in-orbit operation, we use the stochastic missioncycle cost to comprehensively evaluate the survivability, flexibility, reliability and economy of the ways of dividing the various modules of the different configurations of fractionated spacecraft. We systematically describe its concept and then analyze its evaluation and optimal design method that exists during recent years and propose the stochastic missioncycle cost for comprehensive evaluation. We also establish the models of the costs such as module development, launch and deployment and the impacts of their uncertainties respectively. Finally, we carry out the Monte Carlo simulation of the complete missioncycle costs of various configurations of the fractionated spacecraft under various uncertainties and give and compare the probability density distribution and statistical characteristics of its stochastic missioncycle cost, using the two strategies of timing module replacement and non-timing module replacement. The simulation results verify the effectiveness of the comprehensive evaluation method and show that our evaluation method can comprehensively evaluate the adaptability of the fractionated spacecraft under different technical and mission conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".