MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216978753 · doi:10.1109/taes.2021.3126567

Robust Guidance for a Reusable Launch Vehicle in Terminal Phase

2021· article· en· W3216978753 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingxia Mu, Guo Xie, Xiang Yu, Ban Wang, Youmin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGuidance and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Provincial Department of EducationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Control theory (sociology)TrajectoryComputer scienceMissile guidanceGuidance systemTerminal guidanceDomain (mathematical analysis)Nonlinear systemVehicle dynamicsEngineeringControl engineeringAerospace engineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the 3-D guidance strategy for a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) during terminal area energy management (TAEM) phase. Based on sliding-mode and shrinking-horizon techniques, the proposed scheme consists of trajectory generation and correction mechanisms, which can enhance the guidance precision and robustness against disturbances. The RLV guidance model, in the form of a set of highly nonlinear differential equations in the time domain, is recast as an altitude-domain model. By this means, the main characteristics of TAEM gliding motion are extracted. The altitude-domain model is thereby used for trajectory generation. A sliding surface and a guidance law are proposed. Hybrid TAEM constraints can be fully satisfied when the proposed guidance law drives the altitude-domain vehicle model to the designated altitude. Using the proposed guidance law as the input of the altitude-domain model, a constrained TAEM trajectory is generated, leading to TAEM guidance commands simultaneously. The commands are utilized to drive the time-domain model to the terminal target. In an attempt to compensate for model uncertainties and initial deviations, the guidance commands are modified periodically by the shrinking-horizon correction mechanism according to current states. Simulations on different scenarios are provided to demonstrate the performance of the proposed guidance strategy.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic SystemsSame topicGuidance and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207