MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113206998 · doi:10.3390/en14248493

Performance Analysis of Mars-Powered Descent-Based Landing in a Constrained Optimization Control Framework

2021· article· en· W3113206998 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

VenueEnergies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDescent (aeronautics)Mars Exploration ProgramComputer scienceAstrobiologyAerospace engineeringAeronauticsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is imperative to find new places other than Earth for the survival of human beings. Mars could be the alternative to Earth in the future for us to live. In this context, many missions have been performed to examine the planet Mars. For such missions, planetary precision landing is a major challenge for the precise landing on Mars. Mars landing consists of different phases (hypersonic entry, parachute descent, terminal descent comprising gravity turn, and powered descent). However, the focus of this work is the powered descent phase of landing. Firstly, the main objective of this study is to minimize the landing error during the powered descend landing phase. The second objective involves constrained optimization in a predictive control framework for landing at non-cooperative sites. Different control algorithms like PID and LQR have been developed for the stated problem; however, the predictive control algorithm with constraint handling’s ability has not been explored much. This research discusses the Model Predictive Control algorithm for the powered descent phase of landing. Model Predictive Control (MPC) considers input/output constraints in the calculation of the control law and thus it is very useful for the stated problem as shown in the results. The main novelty of this work is the implementation of Explicit MPC, which gives comparatively less computational time than MPC. A comparison is done among MPC variants in terms of feasibility, constraints handling, and computational time. Moreover, other conventional control algorithms like PID and LQR are compared with the proposed predictive algorithm. These control algorithms are implemented on quadrotor UAV (which emulates the dynamics of a planetary lander) to verify the feasibility through simulations in MATLAB.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.182 · 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