Powered swing-by in the elliptic restricted three-body problem
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the powered swing-by is investigated in the planar elliptic restricted three-body problem. A calculation method of the energy variation for the one-impulse powered swing-by is proposed. The comparison with the result of numerical integration verifies the feasibility of our method. Influences of three categories of parameters are numerically analysed. The optimization of the one-impulse powered swing-by is implemented and discussed. Then, we extend the calculation method to the two-impulse case, and propose an optimization method for the two-impulse powered swing-by correspondingly. Based on numerical results, we find that in the Earth–Moon system, the optimal strategy for two-impulse orbits with larger and smaller impulsive manoeuvres is different. For a larger manoeuvre, two impulsive manoeuvres should be performed separately, and can obtain a larger energy gain or loss than the one-impulse powered swing-by. For a smaller manoeuvre, two impulses should be merged into one, and conducted at the entering point of the neighbourhood around the Moon. Finally, two applications of the powered swing-by in the interplanetary mission are demonstrated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it