MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Feasibility of Space Environment Emulation using an Omnidirectional Drone

2021· article· en· W3216355168 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Barari, Philip Ferguson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmulationDroneOmnidirectional antennaComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)Aerospace engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spacecraft control systems are crucial to a space mission making them an important focus of pre-launch verification activities. Currently, some of the passive dynamic emulation testbeds are parabolic flight tests, neutral buoyancy facilities, and air-bearing-based testbeds. Unlike passive methods, active dynamic emulation methods can actively provide the required force/torque to emulate the desired environment. One way to achieve active dynamic emulation is using a feed-forward scheme. However, active methods may destabilize the system. Therefore, investigating the stability of the active method using the feed-forward term is critical. Using a feed-forward scheme for emulating inertia (inertia shaping) has been studied for haptic devices by researchers. This paper introduces a drone-based feed-forward dynamic emulation method and investigates its feasibility for spacecraft dynamic emulation. First, we introduce a mathematical model of translational and rotational dynamic emulation and study the stability in the presence of sensor delays. Then, numerical simulations in MATLAB/Simulink are presented to demonstrate the feasibility of the dynamic emulation method. Lastly, we conclude that the proposed dynamic emulation method is feasible as long as emulated mass and inertia are less than two times of drone’s mass and inertia, respectively.

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 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207