Evaluation of On-orbit Array Assembly Methods for Space-Based Solar Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space-based solar power has recently gained significant traction within government and industry as a potential source of renewable energy. Many of the proposed concepts for space-based solar power missions have outlined a need for robotic on-orbit assembly of the large structures required for power collection and beaming. Various advances have been made in space-based solar power system architectures, and some approaches for assembly have recently been outlined. However, frameworks for systematic evaluation of the various methods to deploy and transport components on-orbit, as well as for the traversal and maintenance of the large structure during assembly, have not been proposed to date. Hence, in this paper, a novel framework for the evaluation of design alternatives for component movement and structure maintenance in the assembly of space-based solar power structures is proposed. The framework provides a set of criteria, attribute evaluation strategies, and a multi-criteria decision-making methodology to narrow the design space for on-orbit assembly designs. Finally, the framework was successfully demonstrated on a case study, which featured six design alternatives for the on-orbit assembly of a flat satellite array.
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 | 0.002 | 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".