Satellite Launcher Navigation with One Versus Three IMUs: Sensor Positioning and Data Fusion Model Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using multiple IMUs allows both their distribution along vehicle structures and a reliance on integration methods, which is not possible with a single IMU. This paper addresses the issue of relying on three IMUs instead of only one of a higher quality in the context of a satellite launcher. The impact of the IMU positions was tested by comparing collocated IMUs against IMUs installed in the head of each launcher stage. For multi-IMU configurations, three integration methods were tested: all IMUs fused in a single INS, multiple INSs fused in a stacked filter, and multiple INSs fused in a stacked filter with geometrical constraints. All navigation solutions were aided by a three-axis attitude reference sensor and were tested with and without a GPS receiver. The results show that distributing IMUs along the launcher structure does not improve navigation performances compared to having them collocated. The fusion of multiple IMUs in one INS provides equivalent results as one IMU. However, fusing multiple INSs greatly reduces estimation errors. Performances are further improved with the addition of geometrical constraints. During long GPS outages, relative velocity and position constraints should not be exploited, as they may lead to filter divergence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".