Target Tracking Control of Space-Manipulators on Lie Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a full-pose end-effector control approach on Lie groups for free-floating space manipulators with non-zero momentum while tracking a moving target during proximity operations. We model space-manipulators as open-chain multi-body systems with 1-degree-of-freedom joints where the configuration space of the spacecraft is isomorphic to the Special Euclidean group SE(3). We formulate the dynamics of the spacecraft-manipulator via the Lagrange-Poincare equations and the dynamics of its target via Euler-Poincare equations to avoid kinematic singularities associated with parametrization of their poses. This model reduces the phase space of the space-manipulator by exploiting its inherent independence of the spacecraft's pose. We consider the full pose of the end-effector relative to the target as the system output, which transforms the output-tracking control problem into an output-regulation problem. To avoid parametrization singularities of this output, we perform feedback linearization on the matrix Lie group SE (3) in the reduced phase space of the space-manipulator. We then propose a feedback/feedforward proportional-integral-derivative workspace controller, based on coordinate-free pose and velocity error functions defined on the matrix Lie group associated with the target's relative pose. We provide analytical proof of the almost-global stability of the presented controller when regulating the end-effector's pose relative to the target towards identity.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".