Review of in-space assembly technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>With the rapid development of space technology and the increasing demand for space missions, the traditional spacecraft manufacturing, deployment and launch methods have been unable to meet existing needs. In-space assembly (ISA) technologies can effectively adapt to the assembly of large space structures, improve spacecraft performance, and reduce operating costs. In this paper, the development and technologies for ISA are reviewed. ISA is classified from multiple angles, and the research status of ISA is shown clearly through the visual mapping knowledge domain. Then the development status of autonomous robot assembly in the United States, Europe, Japan, Canada and China is reviewed. Furthermore, the key technologies of ISA are analyzed from three aspects: assembly structure design, robot technologies and integrated management technologies. ISA technologies are still facing major challenges and need to be further explored to promote future development. Finally, future development trends and potential applications of ISA are given, which show that ISA will play a vital role in human space exploration in the future.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".