MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220660157 · doi:10.52912/jsta.2022.2.1.30

Scenario Design for Verification of Rendezvous Docking Technology for Nanosatellite

2022· article· en· W4220660157 on OpenAlexaff
Kiduck Kim, Hae‐Dong Kim, Dong‐Hyun Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Space Technology and Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersKorea Aerospace Research Institute
KeywordsRendezvousThrustAerospace engineeringComputer scienceTrajectorySystems engineeringSimulationEngineeringSpacecraftPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper illustrates the trajectory design of drift distance recovery after initial launch and proximity operation when verifying rendezvous/docking technology using nanosatellites. The rendezvous/docking is a technology that is the basis of on-orbit servicing technology and is a preemptive process essential for approaching a target object. In particular, since it is difficult to verify in space, nanosatellites have recently been used to reduce the risk and cost of the development stage. Therefore, this paper not only introduces the configuration and specifications of thrusters for nanosatellites but also designs relative trajectories that can take into account the thrust limitations which come from the small size and low power of nanosatellites. In addition, we intend to be helpful in later designing scenarios according to the improvement of available thruster performance through comparison of trajectories and thrust usage with cases without thrust limitations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Space Technology and ApplicationsSame topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207