Advancing Engineering Education through University Ground Stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground stations are essential for space missions to conduct data retrieval, telemetry, tracking, and control. In the past, ground station use has been limited to government and private space sectors due to their cost. As a result, this has led to few laboratory activities that employ ground station technologies in engineering programs. More recently, the cost of ground station components has decreased, along with an increase in publicly available designs, making ground stations more accessible to universities. In this paper, the integration of ground stations into university curricula is investigated and an approach to leverage ground stations to improve educational outcomes for aerospace engineering students is outlined. An overview of foundational information on ground stations, their components, and use in government and industry is provided. A review of the current integration of ground stations into university activities and curricula is presented, with an emphasis on the approaches for integration and alignment with curriculum. Learning objectives were developed by using the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology's (ABET) requirements for aerospace engineering programs alongside Bloom's Taxonomy to leverage university ground stations. The specific ground station requirements and design considerations that are necessary to achieve the desired functionality for execution of the learning objectives are outlined. The framework for laboratory activities designed to fulfill the learning objectives and integrations into aerospace curricula were examined to connect the developed laboratory activities to undergraduate courses and academic projects.
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".