MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886885161 · doi:10.2514/1.g003422

Study of Correction Maneuver for Lunar Flyby Transfers in the Real Ephemeris

2018· article· en· W2886885161 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEphemerisLibration (molecule)TrajectoryRight ascensionAerospace engineeringGeodesyOrbit (dynamics)Lunar orbitPhysicsComputer scienceSpacecraftPoint (geometry)AstrobiologyGeologyAstronomyMathematicsEngineeringSatelliteGeometryDeclination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the trajectory correction maneuver (TCM) problem of several lunar flyby transfers is investigated in the ephemeris model. The error analysis indicates that the state error of a transfer orbit will be enlarged by lunar flyby; hence, a TCM must be executed before lunar flyby. A TCM approach based on the shooting method is proposed in the ephemeris model. This method is then applied to design the TCM of two kinds of lunar flyby transfers: transfers between the sun–Earth/moon libration point orbits, and transfers from the Earth to the sun–Earth/moon libration point orbits. Some regions with abnormally large fuel costs are found and explained by the numerical method. Furthermore, several TCM strategies of lunar flyby transfers under practical constraints are presented and discussed. Finally, the effect of the navigation errors on the TCM problem is investigated.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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