MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313509477 · doi:10.1061/9780784484470.072

Lunar Base Construction Planning

2023· article· en· W4313509477 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewInternational Space StationAeronauticsProcurementHuman spaceflightMission control centerSpace explorationEngineeringComputer scienceBusinessAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous lunar missions and campaigns have been restricted to using robotic landers and lunar orbiting satellites as well as sortie type of operations using astronaut crews (NASA Apollo program). Now, the next phase of lunar exploration has begun under NASA’s Artemis program and there has been an international response where other nations such as China, Russia, India, Canada, Japan, and the European Union of nations, have all expressed interest in either collaborating or competing with NASA on the Moon. This next phase has an overarching goal of achieving a permanent human presence on the Moon via sustainable methods. A lunar base with human occupancy will require infrastructure to provide shelter, utilities, landing/launch pads, roads, communications, power, and all the other necessities to sustain human life and protect equipment. Since human biology is not well suited for surviving in the lunar environment, there will be many forms of automated equipment, autonomy, and robotic helpers that will minimize the amount of extra-vehicular activity (EVA) required by the crew. This will mean that the radiation dosage received by the crew will stay within acceptable and safe career doses. Radiation shielding via the use of regolith can also mitigate radiation dangers. The required infrastructure must be constructed, but the mass and logistics of bringing all the construction materials from Earth are prohibitive, which makes the necessary construction difficult to achieve. In situ resource utilization (ISRU) aims to solve this challenge by sourcing construction materials locally or “in situ.” This means that their transportation can be completely eliminated, resulting in large cost savings by avoiding the launch out of Earth’s deep gravity well and subsequent trans lunar injection, lunar orbit capture, and landing. This paper will give a historical review and current status of lunar construction planning and a high level introduction to the required infrastructure and construction equipment that will be required to robotically build a lunar base using in situ resources. It will also organize these tasks into logical groupings so that technology development and implementation can be pursued within a framework that can be referenced by all involved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207