MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multi-impulse Shape-based Trajectory Optimization for Target Chasing in On-orbit Servicing Missions

2021· article· en· W3172431426 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendezvousOrbital maneuverOrbit (dynamics)Trajectory optimizationComputer scienceTrajectoryPareto principleSpace debrisOrbital mechanicsImpulse (physics)Range (aeronautics)Geocentric orbitAerospace engineeringControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationOptimal controlEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceSatelliteSpacecraftControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On-orbit servicing is a range of orbital services that comprises visual inspection, refueling, repairing, upgrading, assembly, and debris removal. It intends to increase the satellites' lifetime and enhance their performance. This paper proposes a methodology for designing smooth trajectories for long-range rendezvous of servicing satellites with moving targets, in on-orbit servicing missions. The methodology employs a multi-impulse shape-based trajectory planning algorithm for in-plane orbit transfer, based on the two-body problem. A multiobjective constrained optimization architecture is developed using a genetic algorithm to determine the optimal trajectories in the sense of Pareto optimality. Transfer time and control effort are considered as Pareto cost functions. Arriving at an orbiting target upon completion of the transfer and limitations in orbital elements are included as constraints. The latter constraint will help reduce the risk of collision in populated orbits by not entering those orbits, but maybe crossing them. The design variables are the orbital elements of the intermediate orbits, and the number and location of impulses. The location of the first impulse in the parking orbit indicates the waiting time before the commencement of orbit transfer that can impact the optimal solution when chasing a dynamic target. Compared to trajectory design methods using continuous thrust, the proposed technique has fewer design variables. The set of Pareto frontier solutions provides an on-orbit servicing mission with decision-making capabilities to choose a solution compatible with the priority requirements of the mission. The proposed methodology is specifically valid for the low Earth orbital regime (100-2000 Km altitude), where the gravitational field of the Earth dominates disturbances such as solar pressure, and the gravity of other celestial objects. To remain in this regime, constraints on intermediate orbits are imposed to ensure the altitude at apoapsides do not exceed 2000 km and at periapsides remains above 100 km. The performance of the resulting methodology is then compared with that of an optimal Lambert approach, in different case studies.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207