MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295789121 · doi:10.1109/jmass.2022.3206713

Flight Software Development for a CubeSat Application

2022· article· en· W4295789121 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Koffi V. C. Kevin de Souza, Yassine Bouslimani, Mohsen Ghribi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Miniaturization for Air and Space Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationUniversité de MonctonCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of New Brunswick
KeywordsCubeSatSoftwareComputer scienceSTM32Operating systemEmbedded systemSoftware developmentSatelliteEngineeringTelecommunicationsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a development of a CubeSat mission software running on an STM32-based on-board computer (OBC). This was conducted under the Canadian CubeSat Project, initiated by the Canadian Space Agency in 2018 to support the development of 15 CubeSats across Canada. The proposed mission software has a multilayered architecture and is divided into five layers from a low layer dedicated to the peripherals to the top layer dedicated to the Mission Applications. The CubeSat protocol (CSP) is used at the communication layer for easing connectivity between subsystems and to communicate with the ground segment. The mission software running on the OBC is built to meet many requirements defined for this satellite, such as version control, classifications, margins, etc. The CubeSat will be able to accomplish two scientific missions related to the study of space weather once the satellite is put into orbit from the International Space Station. An overview of the software running on the OBC is presented, written in C Language, and includes the implementation of the CSP. FreeRTOS used as an operating system for the OBC is also presented. A Command Line Interface was designed for testing purposes to ensure software efficiency and some results are discussed in this article. The flight software consists of three main tasks and subtasks. Of the 1024 kB of flash memory, only 240 kB was used which represents less than 20% of the total memory. The CPU load is 34% for normal, manual, and maintenance modes and 16% for failure modes.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal on Miniaturization for Air and Space SystemsSame topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207