Feasibility of Space-Based Laser Ranging for Resident Space Object Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent high-profile spacecraft collisions have highlighted the critical need for maintaining accurate positional information of resident space objects (RSOs). Ground-based laser ranging systems have proven effective for tracking RSOs; however, operational hours and detectable target sizes are limited. Space-based laser systems may mitigate these limitations by reducing the distance between target and observer and increasing overall visibility. Concerns remain about the achievable range of such systems, particularly when tracking high-speed targets. Through simulations, we demonstrate that the combined laser rangefinder and fast steering mirror system analyzed in this study is unable to detect diffuse-reflecting RSOs due to range limitations below 1 km. We found that this system is capable of tracking retroreflective targets with target acquisition rates exceeding 40% at ranges greater than 50 km. Further, we observe that search patterns generated by a particle filter become more effective as particle density increases, facilitating target acquisition despite high initial uncertainties. These findings indicate that the space-based laser rangefinder configuration studied is unsuitable for detecting the majority of RSOs. Our study highlights the importance of adopting passive cooperative features on spacecraft, such as retroreflectors, to improve the observability of targets by both ground and space-based sensors. The adoption of such features could play a significant role in addressing the growing risks of an increasingly populated orbital environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".