MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106015984 · doi:10.2322/astj.24.s60

The Evaluation of Two-Step Landing Characteristics for SLIM

2025· article· en· W7106015984 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY JAPAN THE JAPAN SOCIETY FOR AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsThe Audio Recording Academy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTouchdownSoft landingTerrainSpacecraftMoon landingShock (circulatory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Small Lunar Landing Demonstration spacecraft, SLIM, planned to land using a new method called the two-step landing. On January 20, 2024 (JST), SLIM successfully achieved a soft landing while maintaining functionality. However, the attitude and speed before touchdown deviated from expectations, leading to the postponement of the two-step landing method demonstration to a future mission. This method is particularly effective for landing on gravitational bodies using elongated spacecraft that fully utilize the rocket's fairing envelope, especially on sloped terrain or for small exploratory spacecraft with strict mass reduction requirements. This paper presents an analysis based on the landing dynamics simulations conducted for SLIM, focusing on factors such as the forces acting on the shock absorbers and the spacecraft during landing, as well as trends in attitude and terrain that contribute to stabilizing the two-step landing.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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