Spinning-Base Space Robot for Seamless Capture and Stabilization of Rotating Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces an innovative guidance and control method for simultaneously capturing and stabilizing a target satellite using a spinning-base servicing satellite equipped with a robotic manipulator, joint locks, and reaction wheels (RWs). We assume the target satellite reaches a state of minimum kinetic energy due to the slow dissipation of energy caused by internal friction, resulting in a pure major axis spin. The method involves controlling the RWs of the servicing satellite to replicate the spinning motion of the target satellite while locking the manipulator's joints to achieve spin-matching. This maneuver makes the target stationary with respect to the rotating frame of the servicing satellite located at its center-of-mass (CoM), simplifying the robot capture trajectory planning and eliminating post-capture trajectory planning entirely. In the next phase, the joints are unlocked, and a coordination controller drives the robotic manipulator to capture the target satellite while maintaining zero relative rotation between the servicing and target satellites. The spin stabilization phase begins after completing the capture phase, where the joints are locked to form a single tumbling rigid body consisting of the rigidly connected servicing and target satellites. An optimal controller applies negative control torques to the RWs to dampen out the tumbling motion of the interconnected satellites as quickly as possible, subject to the actuation torque limit of the RWs and the maximum torque and force exerted by the manipulator's end-effector.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".