Bio-Inspired Strategies Are Adaptable to Sensors Manufactured on the Moon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bio-inspired strategies for robotic sensing are essential for in situ manufactured sensors on the Moon. Sensors are one crucial component of robots that should be manufactured from lunar resources to industrialize the Moon at low cost. We are concerned with two classes of sensor: (a) position sensors and derivatives thereof are the most elementary of measurements; and (b) light sensing arrays provide for distance measurement within the visible waveband. Terrestrial approaches to sensor design cannot be accommodated within the severe limitations imposed by the material resources and expected manufacturing competences on the Moon. Displacement and strain sensors may be constructed as potentiometers with aluminium extracted from anorthite. Anorthite is also a source of silica from which quartz may be manufactured. Thus, piezoelectric sensors may be constructed. Silicone plastic (siloxane) is an elastomer that may be derived from lunar volatiles. This offers the prospect for tactile sensing arrays. All components of photomultiplier tubes may be constructed from lunar resources. However, the spatial resolution of photomultiplier tubes is limited so only modest array sizes can be constructed. This requires us to exploit biomimetic strategies: (i) optical flow provides the visual navigation competences of insects implemented through modest circuitry, and (ii) foveated vision trades the visual resolution deficiencies with higher resolution of pan-tilt motors enabled by micro-stepping. Thus, basic sensors may be manufactured from lunar resources. They are elementary components of robotic machines that are crucial for constructing a sustainable lunar infrastructure. Constraints imposed by the Moon may be compensated for using biomimetic strategies which are adaptable to non-Earth environments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".