Collaborative Space and Ground Interactions with Varying Space Vehicle Autonomy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-4389.vid A typical satellite control scheme centers on the ground applications managing the tasking and commanding. While generating a command load for the vehicle, the ground software manages the constraints and controls the state of the space vehicle. When considering autonomous vehicle actions, the system must still manage the vehicle state and constraint set during this time. Operational options typically lengthen the time to return to the mission after autonomous action or severely limit the satellite's capabilities. They are due to the recovery time necessary to bring the satellite back into a nominal mission or the limited set of behaviors that the satellite can execute on its own. At Lockheed Martin, we developed a space system architecture across the space vehicle and ground system that minimizes the drawbacks of autonomous vehicle actions. Through intentional constraint design and implementation in CONOPS, the entire architecture works together to enable remote-sensing capabilities. It enables interweaving different space vehicle actions for mission purposes, whether ground directed or fully autonomous. These hybrid operational use cases empower new collection CONOPS for remote-sensing data gathering and enterprise decision-making.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it