MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030101670 · doi:10.2514/1.g004701

Optimal Planar Powered Descent with Independent Thrust and Torque

2020· article· en· W3030101670 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Taylor P. Reynolds, Mehran Mesbahi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJohnson Space Center
KeywordsThrustDescent (aeronautics)Control theory (sociology)TorqueGradient descentGeneralizationBoundary (topology)MathematicsPlane (geometry)Computer sciencePhysicsMathematical analysisAerospace engineeringGeometryEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A powered descent problem with a body-fixed thrust vector and independent torque input is considered. By assuming that the entire descent maneuver takes place in an inertially-fixed plane, we show by using the maximum principle that the optimal thrust magnitude must lie on its boundary and may exhibit up to four switches with a min–max–min–max–min profile. The optimal torque input may be singular, and an expression for it is derived. Non-singular torque arcs are shown to be intimately related to the boundary conditions that are imposed on the vehicle’s attitude and the presence of minimum thrust arcs at the beginning and end of the descent. Our results can be thought of as a generalization of previous work on three-degree-of-freedom translational powered descent; with new theoretical insights obtained for powered descent problems that consider attitude in the problem formulation.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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