How did you manage meaningful attitude control with only torque rods? They would need to big (read: heavy) to be useful — was this just stabilising in inertial frame or active pointing?
Mag dipoles in chassis and components tend to lock tumbling satellites into the Earth’s magnetic field. Did you see this? Or did you see atmospheric drag dominate at this altitude?
I'm AyJay, Topher's co-founder and Albedo's CTO. We'll actually be publishing a paper here in a few weeks detailing how we got 3-axis torque rod control so you can get the real nitty gritty details then.
We got here after stacking quite a few capabilities we'd developed on top of one another and realizing we were beginning to see behavior we should be able to wrap up into a viable control strategy.
Traditional approaches to torque rod control rely on convergence over long time horizons spanning many orbits, but this artificially restricts the control objectives that can be accomplished. Our momentum control method reduced convergence time by incorporating both current and future magnetic field estimates into a special built Lyapunov-based control law we'd be perfecting for VLEO. By the time the issue popped up, we already had a lot of the ingredients needed and were able to get our algorithms to control within an orbit or two of initialization and then were able to stay coarsely stable for most inertial ECI attitudes albeit with wide pointing error bars as stated in the article. For what we needed though, it was perfect.
I'd love to read this paper! This was on my mind when I was GNC lead for an undergraduate project at Michigan Tech (Oculus-ASR - Nanosat-6 winner). We had a combined controller for reaction wheels and magtorque rods.
> the listening circuit must also be tuned to resonate at the expected frequency of proton precession, which will depend on Earth’s magnetic field at your location
> the frequency of these tones matches the magnetic field at my location to about 1 percent
I don’t doubt the physics, but I’m not sure about the experiment design. Being able to hear the correct frequency may just mean you’ve built an oscillator and tuned it.
Yep, sold to DAZN. Who in turn do all their development out of Hyderabad, India. Almost entire tech team locally is gone now with handover done to that team.
Honestly par for the course for human treatment of chickens. See chick culling [1]. Billions of baby chicks are macerated live because they are not commercially useful.
> Worldwide: As of 2015, approximately 7 billion male chicks were culled annually around the world
Hard disagree. Burning something alive in a slow and agonizing death for zero purpose other than cruelty is nowhere near the same thing as near instantaneously killing an animal for animal husbandry purposes.
Could we do better or have better practices? Sure. Is there an argument for not eating meat at all? Sure.
But if you were going to die you would have a lot bigger problem being slowly roasted alive versus instant brain destruction.
Not really, this is still a point of debate among vegan communities. Many of us have no moral issue with food grown using animal-derived biotech, as this does not require animal agriculture at all
1. Observations of genetic drift and biodiversity are consistent with our model of evolution at every scale. This model is the best fit to the data regardless of politics and media
2. Our ability to replicate something gives zero information on its origin. I’m not sure I understand the algorithm comment
3. Sure, GP simplified a bit too much there. Your comment is consistent with modern models of evolution. Each genome has a pool of random variations, which may or may not be expressed in an organism. Each organism is a test of those gene expressions.
A genome changes over time when an organism passes this test (e.g. reproduces), increasing the expression of its genes across the population. This occurs in parallel for many possible variations.
—
Ah, I should have read the rest of your comment first, but I’ll leave this here anyway. I don’t think your explanation is valid— we are biologically and socially primed for religious ideology, but its use as a world model is very limited.
We will eventually find answers to these questions, as the ratchet of scientific progress clicks along. Religion has never been useful in the same way
"Observations of genetic drift and biodiversity are consistent with our model of evolution at every scale."
We've actually seen observations of some similar features across species. We see that in most human designs, too. So, it's isnt proof of evolution if it could be the designer reusing tools, techniques, or design patterns across their designs. They'll have to prove those processes actually produce those artifacts.
2. Evolutionists claim these things can be produced by chance events without a designer. They're so complex and advanced they humans can't produce them. They argues against their premise. It also favors God having designed them.
3. I'd have to let a biologist non-evolutionist speak to that one. They'd have more expertise.
"We will eventually find answers to these questions, as the ratchet of scientific progress clicks along. Religion has never been useful in the same way"
God's Word gave us truth, humans' inherant dignity, loving others, character education plus knowledge, wisdom, and justice. Old Testament also had most concepts in our legal system today. These drive human progress to be done in a beneficial way. These principles, though not scientific, are highly valuable both to please God and help people.
Science is a tool that's morally neutral. It uses controlled, replicated experiments to make empirical claims. It can only tell us what we're wrong about or might be wrong about later. Other tools include reason (eg logic), first-hand experience, eyewitness testimony, and supernatural revelation. (Most of science is actually faith-based belief in eyewitness claims that are never done first-hand.)
Godless, evolutionary science... taken to its conclusions of everything being pointless and survival or reproction of the fittest over all other principles... led to the most atrocious things people have done. The Holocaust aiming to boost a "master race," atheist communists killing over 50 million people (torturing many), forced sterilization by liberals in California, Genesis Khan's mass rapes spread his genes everywhere... each can be supported as morally good under godless evolution. If opposed, you need a reason to say such things are 100%, objectively wrong.
So, God gave us an objective reason to do right, even with science, when His Word came through Moses with supernatural events. Later, He confirmed it when the one, perfect man proved He was God by miracles and being raised from the dead. All who repent and commit to Him are transformed by the power of God. Over 4,000 people impacted by the same message. So, we keep sharing it on top of doing solid science. :)
reply