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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Ganesha Udupa, Ganesh Sundaram, Pooja Poduval, Aditya A.P., Kenneth Pillai, N. H. Deepak Kumar, Nikhil Shaji, Nikhil P.C., Praveen Ramacharan, Sreerag S. Rajan

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.039
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

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207