Ideas 16-3...Space Research

Modern telescopes employ truly advanced technology, such as adaptive optics moving at 2000 times per second in order to eliminate starlight flickering, by reacting to signals from a laser beam piercing the night sky. Coronographics employs a mask designed to eliminate starlight, so that a dimly lit orbiting body can be resolved. Imaging ultra violet spectrographs are used to measure the composition of a planet's upper atmosphere. Wave front sensor's correct errors produced by convections in the Earth's atmosphere, in a multi-mirror telescope's optics, usually consisting of four lasers which excite sodium atoms 56 miles high up where the telescope is pointing. These look like an artificial sun which each mirror then focuses on. This happens thousands of times per second. This enables it to read objects one to ten million times fainter than a companion star, up to 150 light years away. But all this may not be enough to detect air pollution from alien civilisation's. It may take a generation of telescopes beyond the next ones listed here:

There are four methods for detecting exoplanets:

1...The most common method is transit. This measures the light intensity drop as an exoplanet traverses across the face of a star. This gives an indication of the size of the exoplanet and its orbit. However, it only works if the plain of the exoplanets orbit is not inclined more than about five degrees, otherwise it is not detected, and since all planets tend to be in the same plain, none of the other planets in that solar system will be detected either.

2...The radial velocity method measures the wobble of a star on its axis. This can detect an exoplanet that is close to its star. In our solar system Pluto and its companion Charon orbit about a common centre of gravity. The same is true generally speaking, for gas giant exoplanets that orbit their star in less than about thirty days. The wobble is very slight, but can be detected in solar systems out to about a distance of one hundred light years from Earth. Again the mass and orbit of the exoplanet can be inferred.

3...For years, low frequency radio emissions have been detected coming from Jupiter and its satellite Io. As Io passes through Jupiter's magnetic field an electric current is created which powers Jupiter's aurora. This reaction can be detected in the form of circular polarized low frequency radio emissions. These emissions have been detected from outside of our solar system by the Netherlands Institute of Radio Astronomy (ASTRON). They mainly come from red dwarf stars, which have far larger magnetic fields that our Sun, and also tend to be far more active. Since these stars and their planets are far smaller than ours, it means that Earth sized planets can be detected in greater numbers than previously. These emissions can also be generated by neutron stars reacting with ordinary stars. A visual check must therefore be made to eliminate such a possibility.

4...Wandering rogue planets and dim stars can also be detected through gravitational microlensing or gravity lens caused by dark matter, where the dark matter is in exact alignment between the dense object and the observer. This causes light from the background star to be bent around the objective due to its gravitational field, making it far more identifiable.

Telescopes capable of detecting exoplanets are listed here:

ESA CHEOPS (CHaracterising ExOPlanet Satellite) Space Telescope (1xCCD (charge-coupled device) 300mm aperture, launched December 2019, will observe known Earth to Neptune sized planets.)

USA Mauna Kea... Thirty Metre Telescope (30m 2022)

USA Las Campanas, Chile... Giant Magellan Telescope (24.5m 2025)

ESO Cerro Paranal, Chile... Extremely Large Telescope (39.3m 2024)

ESA PLATO (Planetary Transits & Oscillations of stars) Space Telescope (CCDx4 2026 8 years life)

NASA TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) Space Telescope (CCDx4 2018 2 years life)

NASA JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) (6.5m 2021 10 years life, currently priced at 8.8 billion dollars) Range 42 billion light years, the edge of our universe.

NASA WFIRST (Wide Field Infra-Red Survey Space Telescope) (2.4m 2025 5 years life currently priced at 3.6 billion dollars) Now called the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. It is designed to detect exoplanets through the concept of microlensing, dark energy and infrared astronomy.

NASA LUVOIR (Large UV Optical Infra-Red Surveyor) Space Telescope (2 alternative sizes 8 and 15m 2039)

NASA HabEx (Habitable Exoplanet Imaging Mission) It is a 4 metre diameter space telescope for launch in 2039. Designed to interrogate 9 Sun like stars and 111 feature stars out to a distance of 39 light years. Positioned at L2 Earth - Sun legrange point, it will have an in built chronograph, and an external star shade located 124,000km in front of it, both designed to cut out polarized light from the companion star. Both Luvoir and HabEx are competing with one another for funding.

ESA Ariel (Atmospheric Remote-sensing Infrared Exoplanet Large Survey) This is a four year space mission located at L2. The one metre optical / infrared telescope is designed to analyse 1000 previously detected exoplanets from 2028. Project approved in November 2020. Contracts approved December 2021.

UCL SSTL TWINKLE This is the only privately funded mission listed here. Costing 50 million pounds, it is initially funded by the European Research Council and a host of British universities, led by UCL (University College London). To be launched in 2022, with the mission lasting seven years+. The satellite is built by Surrey Satellite Technology. It is designed to detect 1000 exoplanets by photoscopy, and analyse the atmospheres of 100 previously known exoplanets by spectroscopy. Exoplanets in the habitable zone with greenhouse gasses would indicate a hot planet, whilst reflective clouds would indicate a cooler planet. It will be able to analyse these atmospheres in the 0.5 to 5 micro metre waveband, detecting clouds, methane and phosphine. This is an education programme that definitely deserves contributions from billionaires. This project competes with NASA's LUVOIR project.

Based upon my calculations, such a mission would have to analyse one million exoplanets to stand any chance of finding one with multicellular life. Space telescopes seeking exoplanets with Earth atmospheres can only see out about 100 light years, whilst large exoplanets have been detected out to 13,000 light years. The diameter of our galaxy is 100 to 180 thousand light years. Although the disc is 2000 light years thick, the Milky Way is in fact a sphere, with millions of stars outside the disc. There are an estimated 400 billion stars in our galaxy. To analyse all of them would require telescope arrays, consisting of hundreds of telescopes, at the poles of the Moon, the coldest place in the inner solar system, and the nearest to Earth, that would be ideal for infrared astronomy. Due to the large numbers of telescopes, it would require a manned or android maintenance facility.

In 2020 President Donald Trump signed EISRUSR (Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources), a document produced by the White House, along with continuing support for the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. This is in defiance of the 1979 Moon Agreement which states that non-scientific (commercial) use of space resources must be decided via international agreement. Should the lunar regions of the Moon be handed over to petro-chem companies, for the production of liquid oxygen, hydrogen and helium-3, it would be a scientific disaster that probably couldn't be fixed. Such process plant would stir up huge amounts of dust, that would swamp any such telescope facility. Without these it will not be possible to detect large numbers of Earth sized exoplanets and their atmospheres, whose pollution could be indicative of an advanced civilisation. Currently telescopes can see such exoplanets no further than ten light years away. Without such discoveries, there will be no armada of interstellar space probes sent out to gather more information, moving from one solar system to another. And without that info, there will be no manned interstellar space missions. Currently such a project is beyond the capacity of our capitalist system to finance. World technocracy now?

You are probably also wondering whether it's possible to dispense altogether with mirrors and lenses in telescopes. Employing instead CCD (charge couple device) chips. Currently it is three times more expensive, whilst the direction, colour and light strengths are also problematic. The LSST telescope, which comes online in 2025 has the largest digital camera used in astronomy, weighing 3 tonnes with 3200 mega pixels, it is designed to give a complete inventory of our solar system, including planet nine, Earth crossing asteroids, dark matter and dark energy. This telescope has three mirrors which shortens its length, making it quicker to swing into the direction of study. This will enable it to image the light spectrum of objects found by gravity wave detectors, and UFOs. It is located at the Vera C Rubin observatory in northern Chile. The objective of this telescope is to investigate dark matter and dark energy, map the Milky Way galaxy and our solar system, and also study transient phenomena. Because an estimated 20 terabytes of data will be produced each night, data from these observations wiil be freely available via the Rubin Science Platform on the internet.

The data from space telescopes such as GAIA (ESA), Kepler and Spitzer (NASA) is intended to assist the telescopes listed here, in the search for Earth type exoplanets.

The ground based telescopes listed above may be able to see directly Earth sized exoplanets and analyze their atmospheres. Smaller heavenly bodies, such as Mercury, Mars, Moon, Ganymede, Enceladus and Europa, are likely, only to be seen by LUVOIR and HabEx. These two projects are competing with two other space telescopes for selection by the National Academy of Sciences / NASA, followed by collaborative agreements and funding by Congress. HabEx will be fitted with an internal chronograph and external sunshade, floating in space. It will be able to detect oxygen, water, potassium, sodium, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide and ozone. The latter is indicative of a magnetosphere, without which any oxygen would be blown away by the solar wind. Ozone, oxygen and water are precursors for life, whilst potassium is necessary for the construction of cells, including DNA. These space telescopes will cost billions of dollars each. Only then will we have any idea as to how many Earth type planets, with life, are out there.

As for detecting exoplanets that have intelligent civilisations, right across our galaxy, we will probably have to wait for the generation after that, that can detect air pollution within the atmosphere of these bodies, large space stations and the ion trails of spaceships. Such a telescope array will also have to ascertain the land / sea ratio and their areas, also the area of shallow and deep sea. All these factors are precursors to varied forms of life. Such massive arrays of infra-red telescopes, requiring a cold environment in which to operate, may have to be based at the poles of the Moon, currently thought to be the coldest place in our solar system at -247°C at north pole and -238°C at south pole, together with a radio or 'quantum' telescope array on the far side, for detailed SETI research. This would be a natural follow on from the PLATO satellite project to be launched in 2024 by ESA. The PLAnetary Transits & Oscillations satellite will consist of 34 telescopes / cameras designed to measure a planet's size, mass, age and detect life if present. It is a largely UK based science project, conducted by the University of Warwick and e2v, a UK based CCD (Charge Couple Device) manufacturer. Unfortunately, establishing arrays of telescopes on the Moon will cost trillions of dollars, and decades of time, which only a world technocracy and the abolition of money could handle. These arrays have to be large in order to provide the necessary range of at least one hundred light years. They need to be on a body in order to make maintenance over such a huge system practical. Unlike in space, problematic momentum wheels and coolants would not be necessary. Another telescope proposed for the poles of the Moon employs a swirling mass of mercury. No huge main mirror of glass is necessary, whilst the diameter of this telescope is only limited by the strength of materials used and the Moon's weak gravity. Such a telescope, which can only point directly upwards, would be used to detect the universes first stars 13 billion light years away. The dangers from this research should not be overlooked. Messages received from alien civilisations may contain viruses designed to knock out our technology, turn our technology against us and create an alien master race on Earth. NASA also have a plan for a one kilometre Arecibo type telescope located in a three kilometre diameter crater on the lunar far side. Designed to investigate the dark age after the big bang, it would be constructed by robots employing the NASA JPL DuAxel rover, which is two rovers in one, designed to investigate steep slopes. The project is called LCRT (Lunar Crater Radio Telescope). The need for this astronomical facility became apparent when rising radiation levels were detected from SpaceX's Starlink internet constellation. Such pollution was making radio telescope observations difficult, and soon to be impossible from Earth.

Will we want to go there? Should we go there? These are questions that no mere mortal should have to answer. Thinking about it, we may not have to travel far to find the answer. If many people are to be believed, they are already here. Could it be that our telescopes should be pointing at planet Earth? Assuming that no nation has already done this, I propose that a constellation of infra-red space based telescopes, with the capability to detect 0.2m diameter plasma balls, be positioned in Earth orbit. Even if this phenomena is natural, it will still be good science. It would be an ideal mission for Skylon during its x-spaceplane development phase.

Is interstellar space travel feasible? I believe that the solution does not lie in existing forms of propulsion such as matter - antimatter drive, but lies out there in the realms of dark matter and dark energy research. It's my bet that the first interstellar space mission will not go to make contact with some advanced civilisation, but instead boldly go to harvest cavorite, the gravity shielding material used in H.G. Wells' 'The First Men In The Moon'. It's likely that cavorite is composed of elements of dark matter. That being the case, then at the perceived present rate of progress, it will take at least one thousand years to attain such abilities in space. Only a WT is likely to bring an end to international distrust and tension, in order to create the necessary army of co-operating scientists, engineers and technicians capable of making it so.

The Cherenkov gamma ray telescope array, in Chile, is designed to detect dark matter, which makes up roughly 25% of the mass of our universe. When dark matter collides it gives off gamma rays. Computer simulation infers that dark matter exists within the inner regions of our galaxy and within dwarf galaxies. If gamma rays with no discernible source is detected in large quantities in these areas, then dark matter has caused it, and not neutron stars, which would otherwise be visible by this telescope array.

That brings us to the subject of how does our universe recycle itself over eons. We know that dark matter exist because of the conservation of angular momentum which maintains the shape of spiral galaxies, and causes our universe to accelerate as it expands into the cosmos. Clearly this acceleration is caused by some mammoth process. The only process we know of is the formation of black holes produced by the collapse of large stars at the end of their lives, and the conversion of matter into dark matter by active black holes known as quasars. As the stars in our universe age, the number of black holes increases. We see matter going into a black hole, but apart from matter flung off from the event horizon, we see nothing coming out, because we can't see dark matter and dark energy. Over time, all matter in the universe is converted into fundamental particles we call dark matter and dark energy. Since much of dark matter repels matter, there will eventually be nothing to repel against, at which point the universe will begin to collapse under the force of gravity. During this phase black holes will simply fizzle out. By the time the universe has collapsed into a singularity, only dark matter and dark energy remain. The universe rebounds, much like that that creates a black hole. The big bang then eventually creates matter as we know it, starting with hydrogen and helium during what cosmologists call the dark phase. The whole process of creation starts all over again. However, fundamental values will inevitably be different, probably creating a universe that is not wholesome. However, nature becomes more advanced as time progresses, therefore, does this process exist on a cosmological scale, leading to a more complex and meaningful environment? The time taken for all this to happen is vast. An M type star (red dwarf) of 0.2 solar masses can exist for 560 billion years, whilst a black hole the mass of the Sun will last 10ˆ67 years. This is short lived compared to a black hole at the centre of a galaxy, which can take 10ˆ100 years. CoPilot says it would take at least one trillion years for black holes to mop up all matter in our universe, but that it would be unlikely as black holes are too far apart. However this does not take into consideration the existence of great attractors, which are pulling galaxies, and hence black holes, together. Of course the big question is does the big crunch come after our universe has all been converted from planets, stars, black holes and galaxies to dark matter? If it comes before, then some galaxies in our universe might be left-over's from a previous universe. That might explain a galaxy that's all dark matter, such as Dragonfly 44 and FASTJO139+4328, or the isolated quiescent dwarf galaxy PEARLSDG which has no new stars forming within it. Like the human genome which is 95% junk, dark matter and dark energy may fall into the same category, and contribute little to the universes development. No cosmologist was able to predict the huge variation of solar systems that have been discovered, and it may well be that their predictions for our universe are equally totally removed from reality.

Astrophysicists state that cosmic gravity is 1% weaker than galactic gravity. To confirm this and determine its cause will require more research through the space based observatory Euclid and from ground based observations at the Simon's Observatory in Chile and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument at Kitt Peak National Observatory and elsewhere.

Whether it will take NASA's one hundred years programme to solve interstellar propulsion remains to be seen, but I cannot help thinking that we should sort out our own backyard before polluting the universe with our thoughts and actions. If the human race engaged in interstellar space travel before it had created a truly civilised world order here on Earth, then all it would be doing is transferring its petty squabbles onto the galactic stage. And of course it also beggars the question, how do you police a civilisation ultimately spread over numerous solar systems, hundreds of light years apart? The solution appeared in the original movie, 'The Day The Earth Stood Still'. The aliens were policed by warden robots. If politicians have their way, this space voyage development phase will be frustratingly long, with projects ordered then canceled, repeatedly.

There are numerous propulsion systems for rockets, rockets isn't the only means of getting a payload into space. The space elevator is an obvious system. It requires a high strength fixed tether from the Earth's surface to a space station in geostationary orbit. Like the space tether the concept of an electric linear accelerator has failed to emerge. A more recent idea is to use a sling shot. SpinLaunch has succeeded in firing a projectile through the atmosphere in 2021. The intension is to launch an unshrouded upper stage rocket and payload inside a ballistic capsule into space where the rocket takes over. Payloads up to 200kg, spun up to 5,000mph inside a vacuum chamber, will be launched. The cost will be approximately $0.5 million per launch.

Types of rocket propulsion
existing and in development
(slowest first) are as follows:

Gunpowder (solid fuel 0.7km/s 71s)(exhaust velocity, specific impulse)

Aluminium oxide powder (solid fuel 2.5 to 2.63km/s 255s to 268s) This is far more powerful than gunpowder. It was painted on the side of the Hindenburg airship, but fortunately the Nazis failed to notice. And as can be seen from the disaster which destroyed it, it burns readily. An alternative solid rocket is based upon glucose from sugar impregnated with oxygen.

Liquid Oxygen & Alcohol (cryogenic 1.7 km/s 173s) As used in the A4 (V2) rocket. The alcohol was distilled from potatoes (vodka).

SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets use kerosene. (3km/s 304s)

Unsymmetrical di-methyl hydroxide & nitrogen tetroxide (UMDH + NTO), etc. (hypergolic 2.72 to 3.07Km/s 277s to 313s) As used in the Russia's Proton rocket. These fuels explode on contact, and are hence used extensively in space, as upper stages in rockets and in reaction control systems, because they are easier to ignite in the vacuum of space.

Liquid Oxygen & Liquid Methane (cryogenic 3.2 to 3.7 km/s 330 to 80s) SpaceX's BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)is larger than Apollo's Saturn V Moon rocket. It is powered by methane because it is designed to be refueled with methane extracted from CO² (carbon dioxide) and H²O (water) on Mars, and because it's far cheaper than hydrogen. It is designed to colonize Mars, before I terraform it! Its VTORRL (vertical take off & retro-rocket landing) seven man spaceship is called Dragon 2. Spacex have also launched the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, using LOX (liquid oxygen) and kerosene fuel combination. Spacex is led by Elon Musk, owner of Tesla cars. ESA has a reusable rocket engine in development called Prometheus, designed to power the successor to Ariane 6 called Themis.

Liquid Oxygen & Liquid Hydrogen (cryogenic 13 MJ/kg 4.44km/s 453s)(megaJoules per kilogramme)....These fuels are used on upper stages, including the second and third stages of NASA's Saturn V Moon rocket and the space shuttle.

Choosing different fuels isn't the only way to increase performance. Studies by NASA's Rapid Analysis & Manufacturing Propulsion Technology (RAMPT) department has created the Rotating Detonation Rocket Engine (RDRE) which has increased performance for chemical engines from 37% for a standard gas turbine, to 59% for RDRE. In an RDRE the standard immediate supply of fuel to the ignition chamber, has been replaced by a rotating deflagration (ignition). By creating a swirling vortex contained within the rocket nozzle, self pressurization occurs. This closely coupled shock wave compresses, heats, then combusts the propellants to a far higher efficiency. This supersonic combustion, or detonation, produces more power whilst using less fuel. The dynamically complex process requires accurate timing and fuel delivery rates. Manufacture of these rocket engines is possible by 3D printing with special high temperature materials like GRCop-42 (copper, chromium, niobium) and nickel based GRX-810 alloy. Indeed almost all parts of a rocket, not just the engine, can be made by additive engineering techniques. This has reduced substantially the weight, time involved and expenditure.

The aerospike rocket engine is another method to achieve higher efficiency. Used in the NASA Lockheed Martin X-33 Venture Star, a vertically launched single stage to orbit spaceplane, fitted with XRS-2200 linear aerospike cryogenic engines, it was cancelled after the fuel tank, made from man made fibre, ruptured.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (8.3 km/s 830 to 1000s) ....NERVA was developed in the 1960s for missions to Mars. It heats low molecular weight propellant (hydrogen) in a nuclear reactor, which expands through a rocket nozzle. The reactor consists of a cluster of graphite hexagonal tubes (fuel elements) containing pyrocarbon coated uranium carbide particles in a graphite substrate. With six fuel elements around it, the seventh tube of pyrolytic graphite contains a zirconium hydride moderator. After cooling down the rocket nozzle's jacket, the liquid hydrogen is pumped to the reactor, where it is heated to up to 2550 degrees Kelvin, whilst passing through small pipes in each hexagonal tube, and thence to the rocket nozzle. The nuclear engines were built at Los Alamos, and then tested at Jackass Flats, Nevada from 1955 to 1972. The engine was designed to be an upper stage to the Saturn 5 Moon rocket, known as the Saturn S-N. It was also to be used as a lunar tug, as well as for Mars missions (120 days each way). Although several types were successful, the project was canceled due to budget constraints. Research into NTP continues at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA employing low energy uranium. See two hyperlinks at the end of this chapter. NASA has canceled similar nuclear thermal rocket projects, namely SNTP and Prometheus since. The Prometheus project was started in 2003, but is believed to have been handed over to the military in 2005. NASA is currently collaborating with DARPA on the DRACO project that includes nuclear thermal propulsion propelling a manned spacecraft, current designation X-NTRV, to Mars. Projected first flight is in 2027.

The Gas Core Nuclear Rocket is more efficient than a solid core. With is specific impulse of 3000 to 5000s (30 to 50 km/s) with the fission gas (uranium tetrafluoride) core at 25,000C.

Nuclear Electric Rocket (Ion Drive 16 to 100 km/s) ....This uses fission reaction of radioisotope decay to generate electricity, by thermionics (RTG - Radioisotope Thermal Generator), to power an ion thruster. It only works in a zero gravity, vacuum environment, because it produces very low thrust e.g. 68mN. Because it can be run continuously for days, it can reach a very high terminal speed. It employs inert gas such as argon or xenon, which is stripped of its electrons. The resultant plasma is subjected to a complex electro-magnetic field, microwaves, grids and anodes, which accelerate it into space. The thrust is extracted from the ion current in the plasma, which is neutralized in the plume. Its economic use of inert gas makes it an ideal propulsion system for the interplanetary space transportation of small payloads. The largest so far was announced in January 2025 by Rosatom in Russia. It was tested in a 4m diameter by 14 m long vacuum chamber for 2,400 hours. Producing 6 Newtons of thrust it could get to Mars in one month. Powered by 300kW, produced by an as yet to be developed nuclear reactor. There are numerous designs such as VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket), Hall Effect.

Magdrive (Ion Drive 10 to 30 km/s)....This compact pulsed plasma thruster uses a high density propellant such as the metals iron, aluminium and copper. It results in a compact drive which can be used for interplanetary space travel, since it could be refueled at an asteroid. Its variable thrust allows for rendezvous and docking.

Howe Industries are developing a PPR (Pulsed Plasma Rocket) in collaboration with NIAC (NASA Innovated Advanced Concepts). The PPR is designed to achieve 10,000 Newtons thrust at 5,000 seconds specific impulse (maximum velocity of 49 km/s) requiring 2.5 GW minimum power source. The project is anticipated to be concluded in 2045. It is designed to be lifted by the Space Launch System, and deliver cargo, including humans, to Mars in three months. The latter would provide water shielding to protect humans against solar and cosmic radiation.

MPD (Magnetoplasmadynamic) Thruster (5.7N max., 20 to 300 km/s 50% efficient)(One Newton is the force necessary to move one kilogramme one metre per second per second)....This employs ionized lithium accelerated by an electric current flowing through it, plus a magnetic field. Interaction of the two produces a lorentz force which propels the gas through the exhaust chamber. This engine requires hundreds of kilowatts to power it. This is beyond the capacity of photo-voltaics and RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators). The USSR's TOPAZ and RORSAT satellites had that capability.

The Dual Stage 4 Grid ion thruster was developed in 2005 by the ESA and Australia. With 250kW power it would produce 2.5N 210 km/s.

Light Sail Propulsion....This may not sound as glamorous as the roar of rocket engines, but the truth is that they can perform interstellar missions taking no longer than those powered by nuclear fusion. Light sails, powered by a star or by lasers, can be used for acceleration and deceleration. They can be deployed to decelerate a disused satellite, and thereby bring it out of orbit prematurely. Flexible sails would be made from aluminium on the sunward side and chromium on the other, and as large as 1000km diameter. There are also designs for electric solar sails, consisting of wires, extending up to 40km diameter, interacting with the solar wind. The most notable of these space probes is IKAROS, launched by the Japanese Space agency, JAXA. LCD panels provide attitude control. The sail is 20m across diagonally. Launched in 2010, it is still being monitored, after passing Venus.

Nuclear Uranium Fission Pulse Drive (60,000,000 MJ/kg 20,000 km/s speed 10%C) Project Orion was conceived as being powered by nuclear explosions. The partial nuclear test ban treaty 1963, ended the project.

Nuclear Fusion Drive (350,000,000 MJ/kg) Conceived by the British Interplanetary Society, Project Daedalus was designed to travel to Barnard's star at 12.7% of the speed of light, getting there in fifty years. Today this research is in the form of the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA, and HiPER by Euratom in France, EU. Laser based inertial confinement fusion should happen when a pellet of deuterium and tritium weighing a few milligrams, is hit by a powerful laser beam inside a water cooled blast chamber. This reaction could generate either electricity or thrust in a rocket.

The helical reactionless drive and em drive are believed to be unrealistic, however the quest for a propulsion unit that can travel at a fraction of the speed of light continues.

Now, Direct Fusion Drive (DFD), also known as Nuclear Electric Propulsion, might be coming to the rescue at 15%C (15% of the speed of light - 45,000 km/s). Based on the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) nuclear fusion reactor, which is under development at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the DFD could provide sufficient thrust from its quasi-neutral plasma to deliver 1,000 kg to Pluto in four years travel time. The containment vessel is cooled by inert gases which when heated is then passed through a Brayton cycle to generate electricity. This electricity can be used to power resistojets similar to Aerojet MR-501 for control purposes, or auxiliary thrust. Because the DFD produces electrical power as well as propulsion, it could deliver 1 MW on arrival. Early studies show 5 Newtons of thrust per megawatt of fusion power at an Isp of 10,000 sec and 200 kW (kiloWatt) of available electrical power. The reactor is small because the low frequency radio waves used to heat the gases, cannot penetrate far. The reactor is 2m diameter by 10m long. It heats up deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen, found in sea water) and helium-3 (produced from lithium, but also found on the Moon and in the atmosphere of our major planets) into a rotating plasma contained by a magnetic field (pinch), before being ejected from the magnetic rocket nozzle at 25,000,000 m/s (metres per second). It is in effect a nuclear fusion powered plasma propulsion system. It can generate 10 MW (megawatt) in total, weigh 10 tonnes and cost only $20 million, which is peanuts considering ESO's Extremely Large Telescope will cost $1 billion, and NASA's James Webb Space Telescope $9 billion+. Being developed by Princeton Satellite Systems. There are two competitors, Helion Energy using the same fuels, and Tri-Alpha Energy, using boron and protons. Also, there is a Russian 'equivalent' called TEM (Transport & Energy Module) by Rosatom. In the UK Pulsar Fusion is developing a DFD, otherwise known as magneto-hydrodynamic and gyro kinetic drive, to be static tested in 2025 and tested in space two years later. This is in collaboration with PPPL. Pulsar Fusion will provide the plasma control, based upon work done on JET and elsewhere. PPPL physicist Fatima Ebrahimi has come up with a more productive DFD which employs a magnetic thruster. The thruster would use magnetic fields to shoot plasma particles, electrically charged gas, into the vacuum of space. The rocket design would accelerate the plasma particles using magnetic reconnection instead of electric fields. Magnetic Reconnection Plasma Thruster (500 km/s) Being developed by U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) with Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). Reconnection of plasma can be seen on the surface of the Sun, producing much energy. Project is in the theoretical stage. This would dramatically reduce the travel time to Mars and the asteroid belt for the mining of minerals. However, with the introduction of radarsats (see LunaSonde) that can detect minerals down to a depth of three miles on Earth, mining beyond Earth may prove uneconomic. DFD is also being developed by Pulsar Fusion at Bletchley, UK in collaboration with Princeton Satellite Systems and Rolls-Royce Nuclear.

The difference between ion thrusters and MHD drives is as follows. Ion thrusters use electric fields, whilst MHD use magnetic fields and plasma to generate thrust.

DFD's high electrical output would make it ideal for carrying out a radar survey of all the planets and major satellites in our solar system, as well as powering a surface rover from orbit, via microwave transmission. Unfortunately it is not possible to radar scan the surface of our four large gas giants, because they have no surface. Results from NASA's Jupiter orbiter, JUNO, indicate that the planet's solid rocky core, which is 5 to 10 Earth masses, is surrounded by rubble floating in metallic hydrogen. At high pressure and temperature, hydrogen is converted into a metal, which makes up 50% of the planet's mass. Hydrogen gas would rain down onto it. A similar process probably occurs on Saturn, whilst Uranus and Neptune are not thought to have metallic hydrogen, as their mass and pressures are too low. Their cores are enveloped in water, which in turn is covered with a liquid hydrogen mantle. DFD could however transport astronauts to Mars in four months. The fuel, helium-3 is found in Jupiter and Saturn, and on the lunar surface, having been deposited there by the Sun over billions of years. Helium-3 reacts with the other fuel, deuterium, which was produced naturally by the big bang, and can be found in Earth's seas in small quantities, and in the clouds of Jupiter. It can also be obtained commercially from India, who use it in heavy water reactors. It is extracted from water, as shown in the movie 'Heroes of Telemark' about the sabotage of the Vemork Norsk Hydro plant in the town of Rjukan, Norway during WWII. Heavy water can be extracted from lunar water ice using sunlight on photo-voltaics or mirrors. Heavy water, which contains a larger proportion of deuterium than ordinary water, is used as a neutron moderator in nuclear fission reactors, slowing down neutrons so that they react with uranium 235. Via reference 7 in Wikipedia's Direct Fusion Drive article, it is possible to see an animation of this engine working. See also hyperlink list at the end of this chapter.

Of course all these nuclear ion rockets require an initial source of electricity to start them up. Such a source may come from 'initial electrostatic confinement' being developed by an Australian company HB11 Energy Pty Limited. It is based upon a process known as laser inertial confinement, as opposed to magnetic confinement in Tokamaks. It is a compact reactor consisting of a sphere with two lasers connected to it. The first laser creates a magnetic containment field, whilst the second triggers an avalanche fusion chain reaction by directing hydrogen into a 14 milligramme boron 11 pellet resulting in HB11 fusion, equivalent to 300kWh. This is a non thermal laser reaction produced by a 10 petawatt CPA (Chirped Pulse Amplification) laser in a 1 pico-second pulse causing a release of positively charged helium plasma roughly every second, which upon close contact with the enclosing 1m diameter charged (1.4 megavolts) steel sphere, generates electricity by transferring its charge to a capacitor bank. The reactor is enclosed in one thousand layers of metal, boron and water one metre deep to absorb x-rays and alpha radiation. The compact design makes it ideal for the powering of ships and aircraft. Assuming all hurdles in the design can be overcome a commercially viable design is not likely until at least 2040 CE. It is a non-lingering radioactive process, that does not require heavy steam turbines and generators. It is not capable of a meltdown, so could therefore be located on a housing estate, thereby reducing transmission loses. A link to the HB11 Energy company website is at the end of this chapter. See also nuclear fusion systems in chapter 28...The economic crisis & stimulus plan/nuclear fusion

There are two other types of nuclear electric drive being developed in the USA, one for the DoD (Department of Defence) through DARPA (Defence Advanced Projects Agency), and the other by NASA, employing 5-20% enriched U235. The DoD project, known as DRACO (Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cis-Lunar Operation).

Faster than nuclear, is of course light. NASA is researching numerous ways of using lasers, both for communication and propulsion. Photonic propulsion would get payloads to Mars in just 3 days. The boost beam would come from a power source in Earth orbit, whilst the drag beam would be from a source in Mars orbit. Called photonic propulsion, the light would bounce off a reflective surface on the space vehicle, transferring kinetic energy in the process.

There are numerous proposed projects for the development of man in space, including Skylon and Sänger II spaceplanes. However the only advancement upon that of expendable launchers so far, is the SpaceX rockets and the USAF unmanned X-37B OTV.

The use of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion propulsion does beggar the question, just how safe is this, for the human race? These spacecraft will presumably be launched from the far side of the Moon at lagrange point 2, in the cislunar region, where radioactive exhaust gases will be blown into deep space by the solar wind. Here gravitational fields cancel each other out. It is therefore an ideal location for employing rocket engines that have low thrust, but over time, can achieve a very high terminal speed. Alternatively, the Lunar Gateway (Boeing Deep Space Gateway) will be employed, located in an elliptical orbit around the Moon. This orbit enables landing at the poles or equatorial regions. It would serve as a safe haven, assembly point for Moon and Mars' missions, ensure recyclability of rocket stages, communication relay centre, plus enable remote control of surface equipment, such as excavators and process plant. It is a collaboration between the USA, EU, Canada and Russia.

To get from low Earth orbit to low lunar orbit requires a space tug. This requires the use of a vehicle being designed by the Ad Astra Rocket company, powered by the VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket) ion drive. It has a solar-voltaic powered ion engine designed to transport small cargoes, and therefore safe to use in a near Earth environment. It would be powered by a nuclear-electric power source for large payload interplanetary missions. It's VF200 motor is a 200kW version. They are designed to be used in a cluster with opposing coils, not just to increase total power output, but also to counteract side forces created when the magnetic field of the motor interacts with the Earth's magnetosphere. It could deliver a 7 tonne payload from low Earth orbit to low lunar orbit, using a single VF200 motor running on argon inert gas, and taking 6 months. Tests on the International Space Station have been rejected as the ISS does not have enough electrical power available. Running an ion drive on the ISS, in order to compensate for atmospheric drag, by raising its altitude, would cut the $210 million annual cost to about $10.5 million. VASIMR, like all large ion drives, including DFD, suffers from the fact that nuclear reactors and waste heat radiators are a weight and maintenance problem. To supply space station's for Moon and Mars bases require large spaceships. Unlike Apollo, which sent three astronauts to the Moon for a couple of days, NASA intends sending four astronauts to the poles for at least one week. This requires large spacecraft that will have to be launched as modules and assembled at the lunar gateway. To circumvent the need for nuclear power, NASA is developing 50kW thin film solar voltaic arrays, half the weight of those on the ISS, with a surface area of 200m². A manned mission to an asteroid would need 250kW, whilst a manned mission to Mars, 800kW. The ion drive, consisting of a hall thruster, would use xenon inert gas, and have a working life of at least ten years.

Considered the most advanced ion thruster is NASA's X3. It is a three channel, 100kW, 5.4N thrust ionic drive, weighing 500 pounds, being tested at the Glenn Research Center, Ohio, whilst designed at the University of Michigan. ESA on the other hand are working on an ion thruster that can employ nitrogen and oxygen as fuel in the Earth's rarefied atmosphere. This would be ideal for low orbiting satellites, such as those engaged in gravity, weather and pollution monitoring. Ion thrusters are ten times more fuel efficient than chemical rockets, whilst a chemical rockets terminal speed is around 1.86 miles per second, compared to 25 miles per second for ion drive.

Spacex is an American private venture, as is Blue Origin, founded by Jeff Bezos, founder of the Amazon internet based market. Blue Origin also uses recoverable rockets powered by liquid methane and oxygen. During the re-entry phase a ring fin moves the aerodynamic centre. Then eight drag brakes are deployed, whilst steering fins direct the rocket stage to the landing pad. The throttlable engines reignite, whilst the landing legs deploy shortly before touchdown. Their manned missions are named after astronauts. New Shepard - sub orbital, New Glenn - orbital, New Armstrong - lunar? Their manned spaceship is simply called Crew Capsule 2. Methane rockets were first developed by ORBITEC in 2005, now part of Sierra Nevada Corp. whose spaceship is called Dreamchaser. The Boeing / Bigelow Aerospace spaceship is called the CST-100 Starliner, which together with the CTORRL Dragon 2 is designed to support the ISS (International Space Station). Boeing also make the VTOHL (vertical take off & horizontal landing) X-37 unmanned USAF shuttle, whilst developing the Phantom Express winged VTOHL small satellite launcher, supported by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) of the USG's DoD (United States Government's Department of Defence).

There are a number of small rockets designed to launch cubesats, and small shuttles. Some of these can be launched from a carrier aircraft, one of which, and the largest aircraft in the world, is the Stratolaunch, by Scaled Composites operating out of Mojave Air & Spaceport, California. It has a twin fuselage, six engines and twenty-eight wheels. It is bigger than Howard Hughes' spruce goose, which flew in 1947.

Bigelow, a company financed by Robert Bigelow, the once owner of hotel chain Budget Suites of America, build huge inflatable space station modules, made from vectran, a man made material twice as strong as kevlar. Its BEAM (Bigelow Expandable Activity Module) (16 cubic metres) is attached to the ISS, for testing. Lack of suitably sized launchers has held back progress. Bigelow propose to build an orbiting hotel for tourists, a commercial orbiting research facility and a base on the Moon, using their inflatable modules. Modules will be launched by ULA (United Launch Alliance), such as the B-330 (330 cubic metres) to low lunar orbit in 2022 and supplied by Boeing or Spacex spaceships.

NASA's manned spaceship is called Orion, and forms part of the Space Launch System, which includes the Gateway lunar station, cis-lunar transfer vehicle, Artemis spacesuits, lunar terrain vehicle and Human Landing System for the support of research on the Moon and later on Mars. ESA has no manned spaceship. It engages in research on the ISS, whilst building the service module for NASA's Orion, which is based upon its automated transfer vehicle, used to transport cargo to the ISS. ESA's robotic missions, such as Exomars satellite in 2016, rover in 2022, and the Luna 27 to the Moon's south pole, are its preferred choice for exploration, both of which are collaborations with Russia.

Meanwhile in Russia the manned Soyuz spaceship is being replaced by the Roscosmos/RKK Energia Federatsiya, of which there will be manned (4 to 6 cosmonauts), unmanned and lunar versions. A Russian heavy lift rocket to support the cislunar space station (Lunar Gateway) has been approved. The PRC's space agency, CMSEO (China Manned Space Engineering Organisation), has the Shenzhou spaceship which will support the Tianhe-1 module, initial part of the new Tiangong-3 space station. The UK has Skylon, a follow on from the BAe HOTOL, a horizontal take off and landing spaceplane, that has been in development for the last 35 years. Elsewhere, ISRO, the Indian Space Research Organisation, launched the winged VTOHL RLV-TD (Reusable Launch Vehicle - Technology Demonstrator) in 2016 from Sriharikota space centre on the coast of SE India, simulating a landing over the sea. ISRO and JAXA intend to launch a lunar sample return mission and rover to the Moon in 2024. Israel intends to repeat its failed attempt in a similar mission soon.

Looking at this list of spacecraft, there appears to be too many people chasing after dreams, and not enough investment in scientific payloads. Something that the billionaires of this world should address. We need mobile drilling rigs to determine the lunar geology and infra-red telescopes at the poles of the Moon to find Earth type exoplanets, and brown dwarf solar systems and planet x in our own back yard, in order to justify much of this investment. However, the problems presented to humans by just being there, are daunting. It's estimated that a 5kg rock travelling at 72,000km/h (kilometres per hour) can create a crater nine metres in diameter, ejecting seventy-five tonnes over hundreds of metres. The Moon also has weather. In addition to extreme temperatures of 106C (degrees Celsius) in sunlight and -183C in shadow, there is also a dust haze that is created when sunlight heats up the volatiles in the lunar regolith, causing them to flash off, sending dust high above the surface. Dust particles at the poles are likely to remain frozen in darkness, thereby reducing this problem. But if a solution to razor sharp lunar dust destroying seals and bearings is not resolved, then no one, except expendable androids, are going anywhere. The iron in lunar dust is suspected of causing raised blood pressure, 275/125, plus life threatening heart rhythm disturbances. Over a period of about one year in zero G, it has been noticed that the heart suffers from noticeable shrinkage, like that from long distance swimmers. The option of employing androids instead of humans on the Moon therefore appears to be more likely. However, my dream of AI taking total control of our solar system appears to be unlikely as NASA appears to have finally found a solution to all that lunar dust. Using electric arcs to ablate material, creating free ionized particles, that can then be sorted according to mass, is a way of mining surface material. On a smaller scale it could also be used to attract dust particles away from axle bearings, astronaut and airlock seals, and clean astronaut EVA suits and other equipment inside the airlock. It could theoretically keep astronaut gloves and boots clean during EVA, in order to make them last longer.

Currently, NASA says it will fit a back door into its space suits, similar to existing Russian suits, so that they are docked with an airlock and therefore left outside. However, recent photos from NASA show spacesuits with the conventional two part waist connector. But Apollo type suits would need repair, and parts such as gloves will require replacing after a short period of time. In addition, man made materials do not last long in extreme temperature environments. It is thought however, that temperatures in lava tunnels could be a near constant 20C. NASA's 'swamp works' is developing an excavator to access them, consisting of a pair of contra-rotating buckets, to enable Moon base modules entry. Looking at all these problems, there are no doubt many accountants out there, who feel that the cost cannot be justified. HMG plans on spending about 30 billion pounds on Covid-19 test and trace. That's enough to finance a manned mission to Mars, never mind a Moon base. If the solutions don't work, then the politicians will simply stop funding, again. I will be very surprised if space agencies can get a space suit to last ten days in a lunar test chamber, at lunar temperatures, with lunar dust blown constantly on it as it moves.

And then of course, there are the health risks, silicosis (dust inhalation) and genome degradation (radiation), not to mention the psychological effects of living in a totally enclosed environment devoid of loved ones and nature for months on end. The only truly reliable space suit is likely to be that worn by an android, NASA's Valkyrie android. Research data from the THEMIS five satellite system, suggests that during solar storms the Sun can link up with the Earth's magnetosphere, and produce energized electrons that would pose extreme danger to astronauts, particularly those working on the surface of the Moon, who have no shelter to get to in time. Another problem is that of materials. Man made materials don't last very long in places of extreme temperature, such as fibre glass boats in the Arctic. On the Moon, materials will go through a very high and low temperature cycle every month. Thermal fatigue stress will be a paramount problem. Could insulated materials cope with such a situation? Domes can be covered in regolith but tall structures made from spent fuel tanks is problematic, and of course are more vulnerable to meteorite impact. And just how do you shield a pressurized rover from extreme temperatures? Looking at all the problems associated with man in space, I cannot help thinking that the humane outcome would be to leave such exploration and development to AI and androids (humanoid robots). It should be remembered that astronauts working on the International Space Station are protected from natural radiation by the Earth's magnetosphere, but there is no such protection on the Moon nor Mars.

Once the initial survey of the Moon or Mars has been been carried out by satellites, and from within pressurised rovers, the prime location of a manned base can be decided. There are many designs for these, but in my opinion they are too complex. SpaceX are considering sending androids to Mars on the first mission, to assemble the base. However, the environment, consisting of extreme temperatures that distort materials, and dust that hampers the creation of a hermetic seal, could very well defeat them. The same problems exists on the Moon. It would be better to use the fuel tanks on the landers as pressurised habitation modules. The structural walls, floors, ladders, shelves, beds, recycling plant, hydroponics, etc. could be prefitted inside the tanks, whilst and sensitive equipment like communications equipment, photo-voltaics, batteries, nuclear batteries, seeds, fertiliser, toiletries, electric loo, and computers could be attached outside, to be brought inside after landing. These vehicles would then be wheeled into a prearranged lava tube, where radiation and temperature levels would be acceptable. These bases would be close to deposits of PGM (ruthenium, platinum, palladium, osmium, rhodium and iridium) high value Platinum Group Metals found in meteorites. Robo mining equipment would be employed to extract these, and after processing in a solar furnace, the load would be transported to Earth, initially employing an electrically powered rail gun. By the time this plant is set up, it is highly likely that androids and AI will be so advanced that a human presence will no longer be required, except possibly in the field of research, and the occasional intricate maintenance challenge.

Since lava tubes are likely to be in the wrong location, or their entrance too deep, requiring the removal of thousands of tonnes of regolith, perhaps it would be best to construct an equivalent shield on the surface. Instead of using additive machine tools to build pressurized habitation modules, why not use them to construct a large tunnel in sunlight, enclosed at one end, on the surface adjacent to landing pads? This would require minimum excavation. The walls would be thick enough to protect the internal structures from ejector and radiation. Nuclear thermal rockets would carry payloads, strapped to their sides like the Apollo lunar rover. These rockets would have wheels, not pads. They would be towed into the artificial tunnel. The hydrogen fuel tanks would be converted into accommodation, C³ (command, control & communications) and laboratories. The nuclear engines would be dual use and left on the lunar surface later serving as electricity generators, to power a radiation shield protecting workers at the many process plants, once the technology is developed. The process plants would be built into the hydrogen fuel tanks before lift off from Earth. The plant producing and storing water would be contained within the artificial tunnel, to prevent freezing. The tunnel's main axis would be north-south to enable the greatest surface area of tunnel wall to be exposed to the Sun. The wall thickness would be designed to store solar heat for as long as possible, radiating out into the tunnel, as a means of normalising temperatures. For this reason, a stable temperature may last long in a deep lava tube than a tunnel on the surface, which would impose less thermal stress.

At an equatorial Moon base, electricity would be produced on the lunar surface by banks of photo-voltaic (PV) panels. These would charge up huge lithium ion or graphite batteries stored in environmentally controlled buildings, to cater for the two weeks of continuous darkness, every month. Offset lunar orbiting PV satellites could also beam down electricity by microwave, during the long nights. They could also use mirrors to reflect light onto the surface to illuminate exploration and maintenance activity. Where large amounts of electricity are required, such as in the mining of Helium3, a portable nuclear fission power station, such as Project Pele involving Rolls-Royce, would be needed. Since to produce one gramme of Helium-3 requires the mining of 150 tonnes of lunar regolith, the concept does not appear practical, even if it was only a bi-product of the mining of frozen volatiles to fuel chemical rockets. Traces of water, particularly at the poles, were found by the Indian lunar satellite Chandrayaan-1 in 2009. Forty craters at the north pole were estimated to contain at least 1.3 trillion pounds of water ice. The coldest recorded temperature at the north pole is -247C, and at the south pole -238C, making it one of the coldest places in our solar system, and hence ideal for infra-red astronomy arrays. Of course a Moon base could use lunar water, by electrolysis, to produce oxygen and hydrogen, and to power a lunar tug to lower lunar orbit. It sounds simple but is it? The compounds are there. Remnants of comets, volatiles transported by the solar wind, plus evidence that some of this water came from Earth. But it's water, acetylene and a host of other gases. It's all mixed in with lunar regolith. Presumably, it would be excavated, placed in a solar oven, and separated out by distillation. Before you know it, you've got yourself a petro-chemical industry, on the Moon, with all the associated problems. Lack of research during the Apollo programme leaves a huge question mark in this respect, and of course, they never put any telescopes at the lunar poles.

The creation of a Moon base should be on an international basis, not a piecemeal affair as on Antarctica. It would be a base for astronauts, cosmonauts, takionauts and research scientists from an international cadre. Without such co-operation, there would be nothing to stop a dusty quarry being created next to an astronomical telescope facility, thereby resulting in the dust and vibrations interfering with observations, plus incompatible life support connections and rescue procedures.

One assumes that NASA wants to grab essential real estate on the Moon before anyone else. Lunar lava tubes, which would provide protection from radiation, have a less severe temperature range, and provide protection from micrometeorites and ejector, are considered essential for a permanent base. Lava tubes have been detected at Marius Hills, Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) on the western edge near side, that has an entrance 65m diameter and 80m deep, connected to a rile 100m wide and 50km long, and at Mare Ingeii, on the outer edge of the south pole Aitken Basin, that are 120m wide and 1.7km long. They were detected by NASA's Grail gravity satellites called Ebb and Flow, and India's lunar spacecraft Chandrayaan-1. These lava tubes would be large enough to house an entire Moon base. However they could be already accommodating large amounts of ice, resulting from volatiles rising from deep below ground over millennia. The subterranean habitation modules would be lighter, since they would not require heavy radiation shielding, whilst the one sixth Earth's gravity would assist their relocation from the surface. There would be relatively little dust in this subterranean world, whilst the floor of the lava tube would be solid enough to anchor machines, unlike the broken regolith on the surface. Lighter space suits could be worn in the reduced radiation environment. However, outside of the construction zone, since no solar wind and sunshine reaches these areas, it is likely that the surfaces will be razor sharp, necessitating the use of more durable rigid spacesuits NASA is currently (2020) engaged in developing crawlers that can explore these lava tubes. A project known as AXEL. However, it would be quicker and easier to use an autonomous flying vehicle, fitted with LIDAR to obtain a 3D image of the structure, assuming the necessary rocket system was available.

As for surface space suits, NASA is now working on Smart Suits consisting of reactive fabrics and amorphous adaptation. In other words suits that can react to radiation, heat, light, voice and eye movement activated commands, self repairing, lights up the soles as you walk, trackable, deploys an air bag, or equivalent, when you trip over, fires retro-rockets as you fall off a cliff and automatically does up the laces, presumably. Flashing lights on space suits, fixed structures and vehicles are essential, due to the high contrast between light and darkness, as it would be too easy to be hit by a moving vehicle, whose driver was blinded by sunlight. 3D head up displays would be essential, showing locations of personnel, vehicles, roads, sink holes, landing pads, rocks, crater walls, etc.

It is likely that there would be no transition from bright light to absolute darkness, since there would be no dust in the atmosphere to reflect light, and of course no atmosphere. There would however be Earth shine, but it's doubtful that it would be enough to overcome the Sun's glare from a crater rim at the south pole. LED floodlights in the helmet would illuminate the workplace, but how do you find the workplace with your Sun visor down? For crater navigation there is a lunar sat-nav system, which I think is being developed by ESA. But this would be infrequent, or not at all if radio astronomers have their way. Alternatively LNB (Lunar Navigation Beacons) located along the crater rim could provide a GPS style service, but this is over short ranges, and may not be accurate enough. The NASA Artemis astronauts are expected to land in Shackleton Crater, measuring 13 miles (21 km) in diameter and 2.6 miles (4.2 km) deep.

An alternative would be say 10 short LIDAR masts on the crater rim, that would locate EINs (electronic identification numbers) by triangulation, relay data to data centre. From these masts detailed infrared images of the entire crater floor could be taken, which could be superimposed on the astronauts head up display. Other data on the display could be EINs that are attached to fixed process plant, road & path markers and rovers. By winking at an EIN on the display, more info about this equipment would be displayed, such as how to operate it, health & safety, etc. By using masts instead of a radio controlled rocket powered platform, images can be taken daily with little preparation. In the event of a serious incident, images can be taken at short notice, whilst remedial work can be monitored from it. The images would form a numbered mosaic across the entire crater floor.

The astronaut's location is displayed on the moving map head-up display located within the helmet, which has its visor down to avoid being blinded by the Sun on the horizon. EINs use a LIDAR, plus laser reflectors on the space helmet, to determine the astronaut's position. This is a lightweight solution that has minimum power requirements. Paths and roads would be designated with EINs to ensure a safe route for astronauts. If necessary the route ahead could be illuminated with infrared sensors on the space helmet, and then included on the in-helmet display. This system can be used by someone wearing a space helmet, driving a pressurised rover, since the EINs on the rover would serve as the traveler in the helmet display. The exact position of the EINs from the masts would be determined using a laser distance and angle measuring device, soon after its installation. The masts would be powered by vertical photo-voltaic arrays. All electrical equipment would have to be highly insulated and heated, to prevent failure in such an extreme environment. Whatever is displayed on the astronaut's head-up display, can also be seen in the control room.

After much serious thought, I have concluded that the fundamental idea is wrong. Artemis should land on the crater rim in daylight, with EVAs restricted to the two week periods of daylight only. No astronauts should ever be allowed to enter these dark craters, for safety reasons. At such low temperatures there is no guarantee that the materials that make up the astronaut suit will not fail, nor that of other equipment. On Earth, mining companies do not send their employees into such adverse environments, so why do it on the Moon. Clearly research and mining will have to be carried out by nuclear powered autonomous vehicles. One vehicle will carry out a GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) survey, and take core samples, which it will then analyse. Another vehicle will carry out quarrying operations, skimming the surface to remove spoil one minute, and extracting valuable resources the next. Autonomous trucks will transport this material to the process plant, which will be located in a tunnel that promotes benign temperatures, because it will require numerous modification and maintenance over years. A benign environment will also be necessary to hasten refinery processes. Autonomous trucks are already in use in quarries on Earth. Any maintenance necessary inside the crater, will have to be done by androids, presumably from either Tesla, Boston Dynamics, Honda, Toshiba, or the like. It is a sad fact that it is easier to get funding for such missions if astronauts are involved, due to the prestige value. However, this should not blind management to safety considerations. In the UK, health and safety is everyone's responsibility, and that is also how it should be on the Moon and elsewhere. Some illustrations of lunar facilities leave a question mark. Where is the dozer blade on the front of exploratory pressurized rovers? Why fit skylights to buried pressurized domes, when there is nothing to see, except incoming ejector? Most, if not all, facilities will have to be underground, especially the process plant, inside an accommodating lava tube, or an artificial tunnel on the surface. The roof of a lava tube could be unstable, which is why the inner surface would have to be reinforced, prior to the road surface in the tube being cleared, leveled and fused together. Despite lengthy preperation, a lava tube probably offers a more stable temperature, since there is more mass in the surrounding rock for the Sun's radiant heat to be stored in.

The extraction and filtration of water for drinking, breathing oxygen, and for cryogenic rocket fuel, and energy storing fuel cells, could be achieved by drilling outside of the crater, employing directional drilling (slant drilling). It is likely that thick viscous 'hydrocarbons' lie on the surface, with thinner less viscous compounds deeper down, including frozen layers entrapping liquid water below it. The actual configuration is likely to be highly complex. It is going to take more than an intelligent radarsat from LunaSonde and mining equipment from the NASA SwampWorks to create a solution. Consultants from the mining industries will need to get involved. Drilling will also be necessary in the search for large voids, which will be used for the storage of water and cryogenics, the latter enabling quick transfer of liquid hydrogen and oxygen to Earth-Gateway-Moon space tugs. Helium-3, to fuel DFD (Direct Fusion Drive) fusion propulsion, will also be skimmed off the lunar regolith, even though it is thought by many not to be a practical mining process. The regolith would have to be heated by solar energy to separate out the helium-3 gas, which would then have to be stored in flat pack tanks, in cold storage, until it can be shipped to the interplanetary spaceship being assembled in lunar orbit. An alternative is to produce the gas in a nuclear reactor on Earth.

Space suits would have a liquid layer of sealant between two impermeable layers. The liquid layer would not only seal ruptures in the fabric but also act as a radiation shield. The double visor would protect against impact. There would probably have to be a system of reverse electrostatics to prevent build up of dust on the space suit, or assist cleaning it after each task. This dust problem may have been caused by Apollo suits incorporating steel (magnetized?) threads, whilst the water present in regolith may have resulted in hydrogen bonding, causing dust to attach itself firmly to the space suits.

There are designs showing space suits clamped to the exterior of rovers, with astronauts entering the vehicle by a hatch in the back of the suit. This way the dirty suit does not contaminate the interior of the vehicle. However, experience with Apollo shows that these suits deteriorate rapidly, particularly the gloves. Therefore disposable outer gloves and shoes should be available from an exterior dispenser. Eventually space suits will have to be brought indoors to be repaired. They will have to pass through an air blast cleaning station like that used at bio research labs and chip fab plants. It may use the sort of technology found in manta rays, which keep their lungs cleaned through a sophisticated filtration system. Failure to solve this problem will preclude the long term habitation of both the Moon and Mars. If you have any ideas you want to develop to do with space science, then I suggest you submit them to NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) scheme, which offers financial inducements.

An alternative refuge could be provided by an artificially produced magnetoshield, to deflect radiation. Natural magnetoshields, known as tattoos or swirls, so named because they change the colour of lunar surface dust, creating swirl patterns, exist at numerous places on the Moon, but probably not at an ideal location for a Moon base. Theory suggests that lava tubes became magnetic as they cooled, and these provide a magnetic field near these swirls. Due to the extremely low temperatures on the Moon, superconductors may operate there, producing a magnetic field based upon the Meissner effect. Without such a shield, long duration expeditions, in open top rovers similar to that used in Apollo, will not be possible. Space suits do not protect astronauts against severe radiation of which there are three types, galactic, solar and orbital. Radiation in space, in the form of protons and heavy ions, comes from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) from stars, neutron stars, gamma ray bursts, caused by exploding stars, and highly energetic quasars or radio galaxies, the first galaxies to be created after the big bang. The solar radiation from the Sun brings us protons in the form of flares and coronal mass ejections (CME). There is also momentary orbital radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt encircling Earth, trapped there by the Earth's magnetosphere. A person on Earth would experience 0.3 millisieverts annually, an astronaut on ISS 80ms in 6 months, whilst an astronaut in deep space or on the Moon 300ms in six months, and on Mars only 300ms in 500 days, because Mars is further from the Sun than the Moon and has a tenuous atmosphere. Unacceptable levels of radiation results in damage to DNA, resulting in cataracts in eyes, cancer and deformities. There is concern within the industry that Cherencov radiation in the long term, will accelerate the death of brain cells within the central nervous system. It is a sad fact that as regards radiation for an astronaut, 6 months in space is equivalent to 40 years on Earth. To put it another way, after 6 months in space, your body cells are that of an elderly person. Six months would probably be the time an astronaut would take to get to Mars and back, if employing nuclear propulsion.

Whilst there are many solutions in overcoming the effects of radiation, including the use of specialised drugs, there are few when it comes to the effects of weightlessness. Studies carried out on astronauts and cosmonauts from the ISS, indicate a serious problem when it comes to long spaceflights. After over fifty days in space, 11 of them had blood systems found wanting. Seven showed signs of blood flow stagnation, or even reversal, from the brain. Two had partial blood clots in the left internal jugular vein. These blood clots could travel to the lungs, where they could result in a pulmonary embolism, which could prove fatal. The solution to long trips is of course artificial gravity, but none exist at the moment. Reducing manned journeys to Mars can currently only be achieved through DFD propulsion. This report is in JAMA medical journal, first reported on BBC news website. Anaemia is also an insurmountable problem on long endurance missions. Astronauts suffer a 30% loss of red blood cells, whereas on Earth it is 20%. These are constantly replaced but the levels remain the same. Astronauts become weak due to loss of muscle strength, in addition to bone loss. This is dangerous in space since all controls will have to be by push button to switch on mechanical assistance, since strength cannot be relied upon. Astronauts will need to take iron tablets and consume more calories, but even one year back on Earth the effects are still measurable. In 2024 University College London realised that kidneys shrink in size when exposed to long spaceflights. The effect is delayed for months, which could result in essential dialysis on the return voyage.

Whilst thinking about this problem, I concluded that instead of building huge centrifugal space modules, all you probably need to do is attach the astronauts sleeping capsule to a centrifugal frame inside a pressurized module, possibly no more than five to six metres in diameter. The centrifuge would rotate 2 to 6 astronauts, equispaced apart, in order to balance the system whilst they are sleeping. G forces would be greater at the feet than at the head, but since the astronauts would be sleeping, they should not experience nausea. It would stop rotating when they show signs of awakening. The system would probably not have to rotate very fast, just enough to exercise the heart and provide blood flow sufficient enough to prevent neurone loss. Due to the overall diameter of the centrifuge, this system would have to be located in an inflatable module. This obviates the need to rotate entire sections of a spacecraft used for daytime operations. Astronauts experiencing one third of their voyage time subjected to an Earth type gravity would slow down or even inhibit degradation of the human body due to the long term effects of weightlessness. Similar systems may prove ideal in the accommodation of chickens, rabbits and even fish in a gravity farm, not for consumption in space, but merely to transport farm animals to colonies on the Moon and Mars. Research into the reproduction of artificial meats may make this concept obsolete however, before it is enabled. Exercising whilst in a centrifuge may also reduce the affects of weightlessness. Midget or child prodigy astronauts should prove ideal for such a compact system.

Weightlessness in space also ensures that boiling water becomes one large bubble, because gases and liquids do not separate. Also, in a fire in space, flames become dome shaped. They don't flicker. The process is called molecular diffusion. Fuels can continue to burn even when the flames have gone out.

The long term effect of weightlessness also dictates that much of this work will have to be supervised using remote control from Earth / Gateway. Ultimately, androids will be employed, once the technology becomes reliable. They would also be more interesting for the general public, scientists, and budget approving congressmen and women to witness. The alternative of employing midgets and highly intelligent children should also not be dismissed out of hand. Being less mass they require less rocket fuel to transport. It is about time that individual diversity in space was addressed. Leaving highly capable children in school until they are eighteen years of age, wasting away the most productive years of their lives, to some is regarded as cruel. Some Olympic athletes are school children, so why not astronauts? Humans will be needed to perform complex research such as hydroponics, plus unforeseen maintenance, where intuitive behaviour may prove fruitful. Moon base will be used as an essential means of determining how a Mars base should be designed and built. It is an essential step in man's exploration of space.

Another threat to astronauts doing EVAs is of course micrometeorites. The main mirror of the James Webb Space Telescope has been hit roughly once per month. The main mirror has an area of 25.4m whilst an astronaut has a total area, front and rear, of 3m
By calculation (25.4 x 28) & 3 = 237m days
However an EVA is roughly 0.25 of a day, therefore: 237 x 4 = 948 6 hour EVAs per astronaut.
An EVA suit is likely to wear out long before this, due to other factors. However this simple calculation does not take into account a higher density of impacts caused by the Moon's gravity, nor the effect of ricochet off the lunar surface/equipment, nor the constant wear and tear on gloves, seals and other connections due to dust, etc. In addition windows are likely to become translucent due to abrasive impacts. This is important because due to the sharp contrast between light and dark, everything will have to be illuminated and segregated, to prevent rovers from colliding into vital parts, including astronauts. Due to swings in temperature between Sun illuminated areas and locations in the shade, the thermal stress will be considerable. Few modern materials can withstand it for long. Just walking at the lunar south pole could be like walking on sandpaper, as the dust is likely to be frozen solid. Wear on gloves is likely to be horrendous, with dust everywhere. There is likely to be little dust upon arrival, but with all that driving around, there will be dust everywhere. Plans are underway to zap the surface with a laser beam to fuse the regolith. However, without an international agreement on health & safety on the Moon, such ideas may prove ineffective. Handles should be coated with soft materials that can absorb micro-meteorite impact, and prevent gloves from coming into contact with an otherwise pitted metal surface, as on the ISS. Alternatively, all equipment should be remotely operated from within an astronauts suit, ground control centre, and gateway, so that physical contact with dusty equipment is not necessary. This includes air locks. So will astronaut suits and associated equipment be able to withstand abrasive dust, micrometeorites, radiation, the dark and thermal stress? This is why Moon bases will have to be underground, either in lava tubes or buried. Even the loss of one astronaut is unacceptable, especially when a solution to the problem is out of reach. Such incidents will cause anxiety and resignations amongst key personnel, the affects of which could take a year or more to rectify. This is why only androids should be employed. They are expendable. After all, this is what ET has apparently decided, isn't it?

However, all these ideas do not dismiss the fact that humans should ideally not go into space. Mars should be terraformed and left as a nature reserve, with human visits banned. As for space stations, it is now obvious that the ISS was designed badly. It was designed with detente in mind, not safety and cost effectiveness. It should have been launched as one large module every five years, in order to keep experiments up to date and avoid dangerous and expensive maintenance. The space station should have been designed to enable experiments to be operated primarily both remotely, automatically or by android. The Experiment modules should have been attached to racks along the centreline of the module. This would have made the inside surface of the pressurized module clearly visible. In the event of a breach caused by space debris impact, a pressure sensor would have released sealing balls which would drift to the hole and seal it, automatically. In September 2021 the Russians are now saying that the ISS is close to redundancy after cracks were found in the shell of the Zarya module. Roscosmos, Russia’s space agency, is contracted to stay on the ISS until 2024. After that it is likely to switch its allegiance to the Chinese, who are pouring money into space research.

When one ponders the question, "how is a UFO propelled?" One comes to the conclusion that it must be based upon some science that they have on their exoplanet, but we don't. Lunar swirls is one such phenomena that we should investigate. Lunar research to investigate swirls is obviously needed, in addition to searching for the origins of life, etc. Craters in perpetual darkness at the poles are an ideal location for telescope arrays, production of liquid oxygen and hydrogen, employing near continuous photo-voltaic power, plus almost continuous communication with Earth. The Moon offers far more opportunities for scientific research, and being closer to workshops on Earth, is a better launch pad for interplanetary and interstellar missions than is Mars. As for colonizing Mars, I have this to say. Who wants to live permanently in Antarctica? Setting up the basic colony on Mars will be much like doing it on the Moon. How are you going to set up a base at the poles of the Moon without subjecting your astronauts to unnecessary risk. You do so by assembling payloads at the lunar gateway.

First would be the unmanned exploration rovers equipped with GPR (ground penetrating radar) to detect sink holes, and resistivity / metal detectors to fine tune the radar results, and to determine the surfaces load bearing capacity, lidar to determine most economical road route across boulder fields and craters, surface drilling equipment and a laboratory for the examination of rocks and volatiles, whilst searching for primordial life. After that exhaustive survey comes the excavators / sprayers. If permafrost is detected, then means must be found to distribute the load of structures to the ground without causing subsidence. After that the Moon base equipment. Communication and power masts, landing pads and vehicle maintenance pads fitted with retractable roofs, plus pressurized accommodation and storage modules will be delivered. All are assembled at the lunar gateway, strapping retro rockets to them, prior to sending them to the lunar surface. The entire operation would be pre-programmed and remote controlled. No astronauts would go down to the surface until the base was near completion, and then probably only for maintenance purposes initially. As for the rocket fuel plant, that would not be designed and built until rock samples had been analyzed on Earth, and a pilot plant built and tested there.

As for the astronomical arrays, you have to damp down the local regolith with some kind of Earth produced adhesive in order to prevent the formation of suspended dust in the lunar microclimate. That will probably be the first task to perform after all the excavating is completed. And ten day missions on the surface simply isn't long enough. Bi-products from the production of local fuels would probably be used to coat the lunar surface with an additional adhesive, to prevent clouds of dust forming, then settling on telescope lenses and space suits. These extended missions would be safer than Apollo, since manned pressurized rovers would offer some protection against ejector, solar radiation and cosmic rays. The idea of sending members of the general public to Mars without such a preparation fills me with dread. If all the president wants is a morale and vote catching show for the media, then like Apollo, the vision written here will likely never materialize.

As on the Moon, most of a Mars base would have to be buried in order to shield the occupants from radiation from the Sun's solar wind. It is unlikely that caves and lava tubes would be accommodating. They would either be in the wrong place, too small, fragile, or have an inaccessible entrance. At a Mars base the generation of electrical energy would be by photo-voltaics. The wind is unlikely to be strong enough for the use of wind turbines, most of the time. However Mars has long duration dust storms, lasting months, that cover the entire planet. On such occasions PV panels will not suffice. Small scale nuclear fission generators will ultimately give way to nuclear fusion. Since Mars' core is considered dead, the use of geothermal energy does not apply. Wave, ocean current, hydroelectric, coal, and oil are not relevant. However, there was one incident where a heat source was detected by a rover. This suggests the existence of natural gas, which implies life. The only alternative is a nuclear electric power station, a HB11 or MAST nuclear fusion energy source, but they may prove difficult to maintain.

An alternative would be a Mars orbiting PV (photo voltaic) power station. This would microwave energy down to the base, when in view, to be stored in batteries, in an environmentally controlled building. The PV power station could also power space vehicles and surface rovers. But an orbiting PV facility could not be used during a major dust storm. The PV panels on the Mars surface would be self cleaning, when tilted vertically in the rarefied dry atmosphere. Alternatively, Mars' water could be split by electrolysis. The hydrogen would be combined with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to create methane, which would be combusted with the oxygen to power a Mars tug to lower Mars orbit, or return to Earth.

It all sounds exciting, but if there is no evidence for life on Mars, then there is little justification for having a Mars base. It would probably be easier to find primordial life on Enceladus, Ganymede or Europa, by robotic means. Whilst present emissions of carbon dioxide maybe of organic origin, where do you look? Maybe in lava tubes. How do you explore caves and scale cliffs in a space suit, in a frozen environment? It's better to use androids. Safer and cheaper. As with the Moon, you don't need to bring androids back to Earth. Any harmful organisms can be retained on the Moon or Mars, to be studied remotely. Of course we all know that as long as there is capitalism and national governments, that won't happen. The space race is on. The USA verses the PRC. Whilst the scientists want their rewards also. Without a world technocracy and the abolition of money, man's basic instinct for prestige, wealth and fame, will preside over common sense. It could ultimately ensure the end of the world, as we know it. I am a space enthusiast, but health and safety comes first.

One non-thermal source of electricity is the nuclear battery. Called betavoltaics, it employs tritium which emits beta particles (electrons) to build up an electrical charge, causing two piezo-electric plates to produce a reciprocating electro-mechanical motion, up to 120Hz (Hertz - cycles per second), to generate millivolts. It is only 7% efficient.

Another source of electricity is the RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators), which has been used extensively on satellites and space probes. It operates on the Seebeck effect. Two plates of different metals are welded together at the ends. One end is connected to the hot radioactive source (plutonium dioxide) and the other end is connected to the cold external radiator fins. During heat transfer an electro-motive force of about 0.5W per gram from PuO² (plutonium dioxide)is produced. The Russian's used 90Sr (strontium 90) as their heat source. RTGs are used in heart pacemakers. The Americans used them to power Igloo radar stations in Alaska. The Russians went one further and used them for civilian use on lighthouses and beacons. Unfortunately, over time the records got lost, and many were abandoned. Some were stolen, or simply picked up out of curiosity, with obvious resulting burns. As for the Americans, they don't come out of this scot-free either. The next time you watch the movie 'Apollo 13', ask yourself the question, "what happened to the RTG attached to the lunar rover?" PuO² has a half life of 87.7 years. 90Sr has a half life of 28.8 years. I am given to understand that they could be used as dirty bombs by terrorists. It is mistakes like this that have held back man in space programmes. Objections to nuclear programmes have come from scientists, government departments and congress, apparently to no avail.

An Advanced RTG is under development in the USA which needs only 25% of the current fuel, at half the weight. It uses 1.2kg of plutonium dioxide to generate 130W of electricity for 14 years. It weighs 32kg in total and is 26% efficient. A competitor is Kilopower, which uses a self regulating stirling engine to generate 4kW of heat energy and 1kW of electricity. It is a modular design, which can be resized for alternate uses. It is therefore called the MMRTG (multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator).

To date nuclear reactors in space (not RTG) consist of the USA's SNAP 10A, which shut down after 43 days due to a systems fault, and the Soviet Union's Kosmos 954 which crashed at Slave Lake in Canada in December 1977, requiring extensive decontamination of the area by military personnel in hazmat suits. As a result TOPAZ I (Cosmos 1818) and TOPAZ II (Cosmos 1867) satellites were launched into higher orbits. Ultimately they leaked sodium potassium coolant from their enriched uranium oxide reactors, but they're still up there. TOPAZ II was designed to produce only 5kW of electricity from 12 kg of fuel for 3 to 5 years. It ran for 1300 hours. All these nuclear satellites were for radar ocean surveillance (RORSAT) and none remained in operation for more than one year. It is assumed that by the time these satellites come down, their fuel will be inert, barring collisions with other satellites. A detailed article on these satellites appears in the BIS Spaceflight magazine in April 2021, the details of which I find horrifying. You also have all those nuclear weapons lost by the US Strategic Air Command, the details of which are top secret, plus the flying and crashing of Russia's nuclear powered cruise missile. No wonder aliens don't want to know us. To them we are the Flintstones.