Networked control systems and their applications to smart satellites: a survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advancement of Earth observation satellite research in past decades has demonstrated itself to be productive and increasingly important. Utilized for applications such as climate monitoring, communication, GPS, defense, and space research, our dependence on reliable satellite systems is ever-increasing. The success of satellites in these scenarios is fundamentally the result of its attitude determination system, consisting of control and estimation subsystems, which govern its sensors and actuators. For simple missions, attitude pose determination can be computed onboard the satellite. Typically, however, ground stations or other satellites (i.e. constellations) are involved in a satellite’s operation, processing large amounts of data or complex control algorithms. This information and control cycle is enabled through the application of Networked Control Systems (NCS). The NCS uses a wireless network or communication system as the intermediate line of communication between plant, actuators, sensors, and other systems. This enables relatively fast communication and data transmittance over long distances, as well as the decentralization of navigation and control through system distribution. However, this method is vulnerable to various forms of time delay and packet loss, which ultimately affects the control performance of a satellite. It is demonstrated in literature that the effects of these NCS properties can be mitigated, increasing its viability, through various implementations of smart systems into the satellite framework. Using techniques such as neural networks and reinforcement learning, the satellite can perceive and act based on environmental information, while considering experiential memory and attention allocation. The following comprehensive survey discusses methods for improving the robustness of networked satellite systems from a smart systems perspective, providing an advanced foundation for these concepts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".