MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of 6DOF Hardware-In-the-Loop Ground Testbed for Autonomous Robotic Space Debris Removal

2024· preprint· en· W4401781485 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmad Al Ali, Bahador Beigomi, Zheng Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsTestbedComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Unmanned ground vehicleSimulationSoftwareRobotic spacecraftRobotic armRobotArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of a hardware-in-the-loop ground testbed featuring active gravity compensation via software-in-the-loop integration, specially designed to support research in autonomous robotic removal of space debris. The testbed is designed to replicate six degrees of freedom (6DOF) motion maneuvering to accurately simulate the dynamic behaviors of free-floating robotic manipulators and free-tumbling space debris under microgravity conditions. The testbed incorporates two industrial 6DOF robotic manipulators, a 3-finger robotic gripper, and a suite of sensors, including cameras, force/torque sensors, and tactile tensors. Such a setup provides a robust platform for testing and validating technologies related to autonomous tracking, capture, and post-capture stabilization within the context of active space debris removal missions. Preliminary experimental results have demonstrated advancements in motion control, computer vision, and sensor fusion. This facility is positioned to become an essential resource for the development and validation of robotic manipulators in space, offering substantial improvements in the effectiveness and reliability of autonomous capture operations in space missions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207