MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785073677 · doi:10.1007/s10569-017-9800-x

Autonomous optical navigation using nanosatellite-class instruments: a Mars approach case study

2018· article· en· W2785073677 on OpenAlexafffund
John Enright, Ilija Jovanovic, Laila Kazemi, Harry Zhang, Tom Dzamba

Bibliographic record

VenueCelestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpacecraftStar trackerExtended Kalman filterComputer scienceMars Exploration ProgramPosition (finance)Exploration of MarsOrbital mechanicsEstimatorOrbital elementsOrbit determinationCelestial navigationBitTorrent trackerKalman filterPhysicsGeodesyRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceSatelliteAstronomyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the effectiveness of small star trackers for orbital estimation. Autonomous optical navigation has been used for some time to provide local estimates of orbital parameters during close approach to celestial bodies. These techniques have been used extensively on spacecraft dating back to the Voyager missions, but often rely on long exposures and large instrument apertures. Using a hyperbolic Mars approach as a reference mission, we present an EKF-based navigation filter suitable for nanosatellite missions. Observations of Mars and its moons allow the estimator to correct initial errors in both position and velocity. Our results show that nanosatellite-class star trackers can produce good quality navigation solutions with low position ( $$<300\,\text {m}$$ < 300 m ) and velocity ( $$<0.15\,\text {m/s}$$ < 0.15 m/s ) errors as the spacecraft approaches periapse.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCelestial Mechanics and Dynamical AstronomySame topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207