MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883481734 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.048

Certain Investigations on Soft Lander for Lunar Exploration

2018· article· en· W2883481734 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Patient Safety Institute
KeywordsSoft landingComputer scienceAerospace engineeringInterfacingDrop testKinematicsDrop (telecommunication)Marine engineeringSimulationArduinoGeologyEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As all expeditions on moon are of great importance and people are more curious to know more and more about it, a lunar module is required to carry instruments safely to lunar surface. The lunar module has to be landed on its legs and with minimal shock on all kinds of surface after being dropped from a height, be it a hard or soft surface. So simulations and experiments on lunar landers are indispensable for a successful launch. Based on a model of the lunar lander, a CAD model was designed using SolidWorks and was tested for kinematics, dynamics by simulating its free fall using ADAMS. With the insight gained, a scaled physical model of the lander was fabricated with two-wheeler rear wheel spring-dampers in primary struts and packaging foam in footpads as cost-effective shock absorbing mechanisms. With a focus on impact forces on footpads, being one of the most important parameters, interfacing Arduino-UNO-Wifi-board with load cells a force measurement and wireless data acquisition system was developed, calibrated and incorporated into the footpads. Drop test experiments and simulations were carried out for different drop heights and angles of landing surface and the impact forces on the footpads and soil penetration depths were measured, and a basic shock and energy analysis was carried out. Our results indicate that shocks are within limits up to a certain height and landings are stable for the anticipated landing surface angles for the chosen model parameters and surface 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.223 · 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