Space robot motion planning in the presence of nonconserved linear and angular momenta
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
Abstract On-orbit servicing, active debris removal or assembling large structures on orbit are only some of the tasks that could be accomplished by space robots. In all these cases, a contact between a space robot and the satellite being serviced, deorbited, or assembled will occur. This contact results in a contact force exerted on the space robot, and therefore momenta of the space robot system are no longer conserved. Most of the papers that are concerned with motion planning problems of a space robot manipulator either consider that no external forces or moments are acting on the space robot system or use additional controllers when the space robot is subjected to external forces and moments. Such a controller minimizes end-effector position and orientation errors caused by the changes in system momenta due to external forces and moments acting on this system. The novelty of this work is that it proposes a new method for planning the motion of dual-arm space robot manipulators when linear and angular momenta of the space robot system are not conserved due to external forces and moments acting on the space robot base or/and manipulators’ end-effectors. In the proposed method the changes in system momenta are considered, but no additional controllers are needed. In this paper, we derive the motion planning equations for dual-arm space robot manipulators, where external forces and moments are acting on both satellite and manipulator end-effectors. The proposed method has been verified by numerical simulations, and the results are presented and discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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