Mitigation of Misalignment Errors Over Inter-Satellite FSO Energy Harvesting : (Invited Paper)
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
In this paper, the impact of the acquisition, tracking, and pointing (ATP) module utilization on inter-satellite energy harvesting is investigated for 1U (0.1 × 0.1 × 0.1 m) and 12U (0.2 × 0.2 × 0.3 m) satellites for adaptive beam divergence and the corresponding distances while maintaining the spot diameters. Random elevation and azimuth misalignment error angles at both the transmitter and the receiver are modeled with Gaussian distribution hence the radial pointing error angle is modeled with Rayleigh distribution. The Monte Carlo approach is used to determine mean radial error angles for both transmitter and receiver in the non-ATP and ATP cases. The average harvested powers are analyzed as a function of the transmit powers and inter-satellite distances for both 1U and 12U satellites while considering the minimum power requirements. Our simulation results show that in the non-ATP case, the minimum required average harvested power cannot be achieved beyond 680 and 1360 km distances for 1U and 12U satellites, respectively, with a maximum transmit power of 1 kW. However, 2 W of average harvested power can be achieved at around 750 and 1500 km for 1U and 12U satellites, respectively, with a transmit power of 27 W in the presence of an ATP mechanism.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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