MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007911081 · doi:10.2514/1.g004751

Achievable Halo Phasing with Short-Range Trajectories

2020· article· en· W3007911081 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Qi, Anton de Ruiter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhaserHaloHalo orbitControl theory (sociology)ComputationOrbit (dynamics)Impulse (physics)Computer sciencePhysicsMathematicsAerospace engineeringAlgorithmEngineeringOpticsClassical mechanicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-range halo phasing orbits, which are a type of phasing orbit remaining around the halo orbit, are investigated in the Earth–moon system. The influence of the start and end points on the halo phasing problem is investigated by numerical computation. Under the limitation of the thrust engine, an optimization problem for two-impulse phasing orbits is proposed to achieve the maximum phase change. Numerical computations show that, for the given maximum possible impulsive burn, there exist four types of locally optimal preceding phasing orbits and four types of locally optimal receding phasing orbits. The results of the eight types of optimal phasing orbits are discussed in detail. The “leapfrogging” strategy, composed of several two-impulse phasing arcs, is proposed for phasing missions requiring a large phase difference. Furthermore, halo phasing orbits with continuous thrusts are constructed and investigated. By first using the backstepping method to transform impulsive maneuvers into continuous thrusts and then using the backstepping results as initial guesses, optimal continuous phasing orbits are further constructed.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Guidance Control and DynamicsSame topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207