MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381734468 · doi:10.2514/1.a35598

Starling Formation-Flying Optical Experiment (StarFOX): System Design and Preflight Verification

2023· article· en· W4381734468 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Kruger, Adam W. Koenig, Simone D’Amico

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spacecraft and Rockets · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific Research
KeywordsSpacecraftOrbit (dynamics)Computer scienceA priori and a posterioriCubeSatTrajectoryRange (aeronautics)Orbit determinationSwarm behaviourObservabilityStarlingSatelliteControl theory (sociology)SimulationAerospace engineeringArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Starling Formation-Flying Optical Experiment (StarFOX) is intended as the first on-orbit demonstration of autonomous distributed angles-only navigation for spacecraft swarms. StarFOX applies the angles-only Absolute and Relative Trajectory System (ARTMS), a navigation architecture consisting of three innovative algorithms: image processing, which identifies and tracks multiple targets in images from a single camera without a priori relative orbit knowledge; batch orbit determination, which autonomously initializes orbit estimates for visible swarm members; and sequential orbit determination, which continuously refines the swarm state by fusing measurements from multiple observers exchanged over an intersatellite link. Nonlinear dynamics and measurement models provide sufficient observability to estimate absolute orbits, relative orbits, and auxiliary states using only bearing angles without maneuvers. StarFOX will be conducted using a four-CubeSat swarm as part of the NASA Starling mission, and simulations of experiment scenarios demonstrate that ARTMS meets mission performance requirements. Results indicate that mean bearing angle errors are below 35′′ ([Formula: see text]), initial target range errors are below 20% of true separation, and steady-state range errors are below 2% ([Formula: see text]). Absolute orbit estimation accuracy is on the order of 100 m. Hardware-in-the-loop tests display robust navigation under a variety of conditions, enabling autonomous, ubiquitous navigation with minimal ground interaction for future distributed missions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spacecraft and RocketsSame topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207