Space Manipulator Collision Avoidance Using a Deep Reinforcement Learning Control
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
Recent efforts in on-orbit servicing, manufacturing, and debris removal have accentuated some of the challenges related to close-proximity space manipulation. Orbital debris threatens future space endeavors driving active removal missions. Additionally, refueling missions have become increasingly viable to prolong satellite life and mitigate future debris generation. The ability to capture cooperative and non-cooperative spacecraft is an essential step for refueling or removal missions. In close-proximity capture, collision avoidance remains a challenge during trajectory planning for space manipulators. In this research, a deep reinforcement learning control approach is applied to a three-degrees-of-freedom manipulator to capture space objects and avoid collisions. This approach is investigated in both free-flying and free-floating scenarios, where the target object is either cooperative or non-cooperative. A deep reinforcement learning controller is trained for each scenario to effectively reach a target capture location on a simulated spacecraft model while avoiding collisions. Collisions between the base spacecraft and the target spacecraft are avoided in the planned manipulator trajectories. The trained model is tested for each scenario and the results for the manipulator and base motion are detailed and discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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