Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The Whipple shield, an innovation first proposed in the 1940s, is a common way by which spacecraft are protected from the threat of meteoroid impact. Engineers and scientists have learned how to track and respond to potential collisions with other spacecraft and observable objects, so it is now the smallest untraceable debris that pose the greatest risk. This work explores the design and optimisation of a two-layer metallic Whipple shield. The ‘new’ Cour-Palais ballistic limit equations are used in conjunction with various correction factors and modifiers from additional works and assembled into a model found to be 78.9% accurate against a bank of test data. A brute-force optimisation algorithm analyses a broad range of configurations against a minimum critical projectile diameter and selects three solutions based on minimum mass and proposed “performance” and “value” factors. The relationship between the performance factor and the shield’s configuration are considered. Finite element (FE) and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) methods are explored as numerical solutions, but ultimately relinquished and recommended for future work.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".