Experimental method for the planar landing of a three-legged asteroid probe: The effects of asymmetric configuration and element forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focused on an asteroid probe with three-legged cushioning, this paper discusses the effects of the asymmetric configuration and the element forces form of the planarized cushioning mechanism on the method for developing the landing experiment. The main objectives are to present an accurate experimental analysis of the planar landing and to facilitate the construction of a micro-gravity experimental platform through the theoretical analysis in advance. Probe models based on the planar symmetric and asymmetric configurations of the cushioning mechanism were constructed and their parametric characterization was determined. Mathematical models of the element forces on cushioning legs were established and differences between each set of corresponding element forces were analyzed. Then, dynamics models explaining the landing process were established. On this basis, the maximum initial safe attitude angle and the change process of the attitude variables were researched. The results revealed that the asymmetric configuration greatly reduced the safety margin of the attitude angle and it was determined by the M-R(I) landing as 23°. In addition, the simplified version of the ground friction force could be employed for developing the experiment at the initial attitude angle of 20°, but it affected the results at the initial attitude angles of 0°, 5°, and 10°. At the initial attitude angle of 20°, which is more significant as the critical condition for dangerous landing, the normal footpad-ground contact of the merged leg could adopt the same stiffness coefficient as that of the real leg to facilitate the experimental design without affecting the experimental results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".