JuanCastillo29/space-mission-intelligence-data huggingface dataset:
Mission Commitment Year, Ym (cy): The calendar year when the commitment to developing the mission is made. The required technology must be mature enough for reliable trade studies at this point, specifically TRL ≥ 6. Currently only the Precursor Era missions satisfy that condition. Mission development begins at the start of the Mission Commitment Year and extends to the Launch Year.
Launch Year, Yl (cy): The launch date is often cited as a primary mission goal, but the decisions needed to meet that goal are made years earlier. The challenge in developing the analysis is that sometimes this will be an
pg 36 of 69

Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx input value, and sometimes a calculated value, depending on what are set as the driving parameters.

The launch year follows the start of the Research Commitment Year and encompasses the sum of Technology Maturation Duration and Mission Development Duration.
Arrival Year, Ya (cy): This is the year the spacecraft reaches the destination, or more specifically, when its scientific instruments are within functional range of the target—able to begin acquiring and transmitting data back to Earth.
First Data Arrival Year, Yd (cy): This is when the first data arrives at Earth, thus confirming that the spacecraft has arrived and is still functioning.
Mission End Year, Ye (cy): This is the point when all data from the probe has been received on Earth.
The final facet of starting a mission is the basic question, "Why?" Of all the facets of an interstellar mission, this facet is seldom examined. In the prior literature, the motives were often implicit, but with the implication that first arrival was the main purpose. Accordingly, there was often discussion about what is now called the Incessant Obsolescence Postulate, (that a newer probe will pass the older, so why launch yet?) and how that was an impediment to progress toward interstellar research. The postulate favors waiting until the technology has reached some peak performance before committing to a mission (such as possible mission durations of less than 30 years). However, this posture is only valid if the motivation is to reach the destination first.
There are many other motivations for an interstellar mission other than the bravado of being the first to the goal line. Another motivation is the survival of humanity, where the relevant technologies of sustainable habitats would have value on Earth long before any interstellar world ships would be possible. Another motivation is technology development, of launching missions for the goal of testing the technology and testing the environment through which future probes will follow. A closely related motive is commercial endeavors, where the technology developed under the theme of interstellar flight would have nearer-term commercial applications. Perhaps this is a significant motive for StarShot, where powerful lasers and further miniaturized spacecraft have marketable potential, even if the technology never reaches the levels for enabling an interstellar mission. And last, but certainly not least, are the motives of science and curiosity—finding out what is really out there.
Sum of Motives, Wm (#): This variable is introduced to bring this often implicit and overlooked motivation factor into the discussion. In principle, for any given interstellar mission, that mission would be considered more valuable, and hence fundable, if it satisfies multiple ambitions and multiple stakeholders: NASA, commercial space, science, national security, global security, and general public interest. To provoke discussion on those relative motives, table 9 lists a number of motives, the consequential emphasis of each, and a subjective provisional value score. These provisional scores are based on Maslow's hierarchy of human needs (survival, security, belonging, selfactualization). Sum of Motives is calculated simply as the sum of importance scores for each motivation that the mission addresses.

| Motivation | Consequential Technology Focus | Subjective (provisional) Importance Score |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Survival of humanity | • Sustainable habitats | 100 |
| Technology development | • Commercial utility (ROI) • Learn by doing • Maturing technology to readiness | 80 |
| Scientific curiosity | • Instrumentation • Pursuing propulsion and power research that are beyond marketable fruition | 60 |
| Bragging rights (being first) | • First to launch or arrive • First to exceed some milestone | 1 |
What, ultimately, is most important to mission planners? Presumably, it's having an interesting enough mission that will appeal to a number of stakeholders and be accomplishable within a reasonable time and expense. To make
Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx

pg 37 of 69 these explicit and measurable so that mission and propulsion options can be compared, the following variables are introduced:

Mission Composite Value, W (#): The value of a mission is defined here as a function of the interest in the destination, the number of motives answered by the mission, and the fidelity of the data that the mission will collect. In principle, this is envisioned as a weighted sum of the "Destination Interest," Di, "Mission Ambition," Wa, and "Sum of Motivations," Wm. The higher the value, the better.
Total Mission Expense, Etm, (J): This is a measure of the resources required to build, launch, and operate the mission. Instead of using financial cost, whose estimations require subjective predictions, the measure will be in terms of the energy, a fundamental, calculable physics parameter shared by all methods. The energy to "build" the mission will be in terms of the required infrastructure, while the energy to launch the mission will be in terms of propulsion energy. Since the expense of operating the mission after launch is assumed to be much smaller than the other factors, it will not be quantified. Specifically, then, "Total Mission Expense," Etm, (J) is the sum of "Total Infrastructure Energy," Eti, (J) and "Total Propulsion Energy," Etp, (J). The lower the value, the better.
Total Project Duration, Ttp, (yr): As mentioned previously, this is a measure of how much time remains between now and the point where all the data has been transmitted back to Earth. The lower the value, the better.
Mission Efficiency, We, (%): The final figure of merit is the efficiency of the mission, which is defined here as the ratio of the kinetic energy imparted to just the payload, Epy, and the Total Mission Expense, Etm. The higher the value, the better An alternative definition of Mission Efficiency could be in terms of the Data Volume, Iv, and perhaps Data Fidelity, If, delivered per Total Mission Expense, Etm. In that case, the prior definition of Epy/Etm could be called "Vehicle Efficiency." It is anticipated that the Stage II and III analyses will reveal which of these factors are more or less impactive of the technology requirements. Thereafter, choosing the relative importance of the options can be informed choice.
pg 38 of 69

Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx Tied to the mission choices, it is necessary to measure the associated propulsion performance and the expense to deliver that level of performance.
To make these calculations equitable across differing missions and differing propulsion methods, the basic strategies are: 1) start with comparing technologies that are at comparable readiness levels before advancing to compare across significantly different readiness levels 2) compare different propulsion and power concepts using common payload and mission scenarios, 3) devise a common means to measure the expense of building the mission hardware, 4) measure the performance of the disparate propulsion and power approaches using fundamentally common units, and finally 5) devising methods to compare technologies that are at
A starting point is to separate concepts that are at substantially different readiness levels. After reviewing the span of mission concepts and technology prospects, they can be divided into these distinct eras of interstellar flight:
1) Era of Precursors 2) Era of Infrastructure 3) Era of Breakthroughs The major difference between the first two eras is the degree of infrastructure needed to support the mission. The distinction of the third era is that it requires further advances in physics (whose infrastructure needs are temporarily unknown). Comparisons within these eras are more easily achieved than comparisons across these eras.
This era refers to missions that can be launched from Earth with foreseeable technology and without needing substantial new infrastructure. By "foreseeable technology" it is meant those technologies that are already at, or above TRL-6. Examples in this era include:
• Voyager • Heliopause Interstellar Probe concept of 1999 [22, 24, 25] • Innovative Interstellar Explorer concept of 2006 [23] • Interstellar Medium Mission concepts 2015... [29, 31] For assessment purposes, the performance projections of those technologies are accurate enough to proceed to mission trade studies. Thus, they are not subject to the assessment methods of this report. These concepts are however used as baselines and scaling examples in this study.
The era of infrastructure refers to propulsion and power concepts that are rooted in the established laws of physics and are a matter of further engineering. This is where the bulk of interstellar propulsion concepts reside. The reason this is called the era of infrastructure is because even the smallest payload example from this group (1 g) requires substantial new infrastructure, specifically a 100 GW laser array spanning 1 square km. Examples of concepts in this era include:
• Project Daedalus, 1978 [49] • Forward's Microwave Staged Lightsails, 1984 [48] • Project Icarus (started 2009) [79] • Breakthrough StarShot, 2016 [7, 40, 57-62]

The performance projections of these concepts are ambitious and still unproven, making the use of traditional trade studies unreliable. The other unknown for each concept is the remaining time required to mature its suite of
Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx

pg 39 of 69 technologies to mission readiness.

And lastly, these concepts assume that the required infrastructure already exists— but there are no roadmaps yet to develop that infrastructure. The process for estimating the dependency of the mission architectures on infrastructure is explained in Section 8.3.
The era of breakthroughs refers to concepts aimed at the highest impact, revolutionary performance gains that go beyond extrapolation of existing technology. This requires further advances in physics. A starting reference for the span of these concepts and the next-step research required to further assess them, is the book, Frontiers of Propulsion Science [13]. Examples of concepts in this era include:
• Negative mass propulsion, 1957 [80, 81] • Propellantless thrust via inertial fluctuations (1994), now called "Mach Effect Thruster" [82-86] • Spacedrives, in general [87] • Dynamical Casimir Effect, 2004 [88] • Traversable wormholes, 1988 [11, 13 ch.15] • Warp drive, 1994 [12, 13 ch.15 ] • Faster than light communication [13 ch.16, 89-91] In addition to propulsion and power breakthroughs, breakthroughs in communication can also play a powerful role in enhancing the mission—especially considering the impact on total mission duration. If FTL communication was possible, then the mission duration would be shortened up to a year for each light-year distance. The possibilities of FTL communication are discussed in the literature, including some quantum and other communication systems [89-91].
For assessment purposes, some of the breakthrough concepts have matured to the point where their propulsive energy can be calculated. For others, hypothetical analogs will need to be specified. In the case of generic spacedrives, for example, the propulsive energy can be modeled with basic kinetic energy and an efficiency factor for energy conversion. Section 8.4.4 describes the initial attempts for making estimates of this group.
Regarding their infrastructure dependence, this cannot be accurately determined until after they have been sufficiently advanced to TRL 3.
To compare different propulsion and power methods equitably, the same payload and mission scenarios are employed. To begin this process, five test-case mission and payload scenarios are envisioned. These scenarios do not need to accurately match an actual mission, but are close representations to allow comparisons of the different technologies.
One of the seldom specified details of proposed interstellar mission architectures is how much data will be returned and at what rate. Without specifying the amount of data to return, it is not possible, even in principle, to compare different mission architectures with different data rates. That is why the payload specifications are fixed with these mission scenarios. For the first four scenarios, the baseline payload is 100 kg, which is roughly based on a 200 W communication system intended to transmit 8 Megabits of data (1 MB) and assuming contemporary technology. Though this is a small amount of data, it is a minimum threshold comparable to the first historic flybys of the Moon and Mars (Luna 3 and Mariner 4, respectively) shown in figure 6 in Section 7.2.2.2. For the orbiting scenario, the payload and data quantity are increased. The payload for an orbiter is 1,000 kg, with a data about of 16 Gigabits (2 GB), analogous to the first Mars orbiter, Mariner 9.
1) Solar Gravitational Lens, > 660 AU (0.1 x 1015 m, 0.01 ly) 2) Deep Interstellar Medium, > 27,000 AU (4.1 x 1015 m, 0.43 ly) 3) Centauri Flyby, > 270,000 AU (41 x 1015 m, 4.3 ly) 4) Centauri Slower Flyby, > 270,000 AU (41 x 1015 m, 4.3 ly) 5) Centauri Orbiter, = 270,000 AU (41 x 1015 m, 4.3 ly)
pg 40 of 69

Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx Plots of the data for the first three of these missions are provided in Section 9, using different hypothetical technology examples spanning the propulsion types described in Section 8.4.

In the final analysis system, individual mission choices can be specified. These initial examples are to verify that the assessment methods function as intended.
This mission in analogous the "FOCAL" missions of Claudio Maccone [36], and the more recent "Solar Gravitational Lens" mission of Slava Turyshev [37]. It involves sending an imaging payload out past 550 AU where focal length of the gravitational lensing of our Sun begins to appear (and continues outward). Using the magnifying effect it has been estimated that an exoplanet on the opposite of the Sun could be imaged to 10 km scale resolution.
There is also the possibility that the lensing effect can serve as a communications relay experiment for longrange microwave communication or optical communications relay for a high-data rate interstellar missions, and hence change the power requirements for a specified data rate. The reason this scenario is used is because it represents an actual purposeful location that is close to the threshold of what could be reached with precursor era technology. In other words, it is probably the first step to future, full-fledged interstellar missions.
vous with the orbiting Hab lander using engine cool-down thrust and the vehicle’s RCS. The crew then transfers over to the lander using the MPCV. After crew transfer, the MPCV returns and docks to the TransHab autonomously. The crew then initiates EDL near the cargo lander and begins the surface exploration phase of the mission. After ~592 days on the surface, the crew lifts off using the MAV and returns to Copernicus using its secondary DM (shown in Fig.

[Figure: Figure 6.—Copernicus’ secondary DM provides access to the MPCV and MAV during the mission.]

6). Following the transfer of the crew and samples, the MAV is jettisoned. The crew then begins a weeklong checkout and verification of all MTV systems, jettisons the DM and contingency consumables and performs the TEI burn to begin the journey back to Earth. After a 150-day return trip, the crew enters the MPCV, separates from the MTV and re-enters Earth’s atmosphere while Copernicus flies by Earth at a “sufficiently high altitude” and is disposed of into heliocentric space. Although Copernicus was operated in an “expendable mission mode” in DRA 5.0 to reduce total IMLEO and number of HLV launches, it can readily be modified to operate in a “reuse mode” by providing the vehicle with additional propellant capacity as discussed elsewhere (Ref. 10). The Copernicus crewed MTV has an overall length of ~93.7 m (Fig. 7) and an IMLEO of ~331.7 t for the 150-day transit 2033 mission. Included are (1) the NTPS (~138.8 t); (2) the saddle truss and LH2 drop tank (~125.6 t); and (3) the crew payload section (~67.3). The NTPS uses a three-engine cluster of 25 klbf NTR engines and also carries additional external radiation shield mass (~6 t) for crew protection. The NTPS uses an Al/Li LH2 tank size which has a diameter (D) and length (L) of 10 m D by 19.7 m L. The LH2 tank has a propellant capacity of ~87.2 t but is slightly off-loaded for this particular mission and carries ~86.8 t. The NTPS also carries avionics, RCS, auxiliary battery and PVA power, docking and Brayton-cycle ZBO refrigeration systems located in the forward cylindrical adaptor section. To remove ~78 W of heat penetrating the 60 layer MLI system in LEO (where the highest tank heat flux occurs), the 2-stage cryocooler system requires ~8.9 kWe for its operation. Twin circular PVAs on the NTPS provide the electrical power for the ZBO system in LEO until the four primary PVAs on the crewed PL section are deployed prior to TMI. Copernicus’ second major component is its saddle truss and LH2 drop tank assembly. The saddle truss is a rigid, spine-like composite structure that wraps around the upper half of the LH2 drop tank and connects the NTR stage to the forward payload section. It is ~27.7 m long and has a mass of ~9 t. The saddle truss is open underneath allowing the drained LH2 drop tank to be jettisoned after the TMI burn is completed. The ~22.7 m long LH2 drop tank has a mass of ~21 t and a propellant capacity of ~102.4 t but is also off-loaded and only carries ~91.9 t of LH2 propellant.

[Figure: Figure 7.—Key features and component lengths of the Copernicus Mars transfer vehicle.]
In the vast void between the gravitational lens location all the way to the Centauri stars, there exist only sparse densities of comets and asteroids; the Hills cloud (2,000 AU), Oort cloud (10,000 AU), and the G-cloud (41,000 AU) [38]. Or in other words, it is the next easiest destination short of the big jump to Centauri. These features are difficult to discern using Earth-based astronomy, yet probes could make direct in-situ measurements. Consider a cloud sampler (particle and fields data, dust counters, radiation detectors) and discover how those values differ in different regions. Again a 100 kg payload mass and 200 W for communication is baselined.
For the first flyby missions of an exoplanet, the analogy used to determine a minimum threshold of data is the first flybys of the Moon and Mars, specifically Luna 3 and Mariner 4, respectively. (see figure 6 in Section 7.2.2). The total quantity of data for each of these was roughly 8 megabits (1 MB). While this lowest threshold might seem too low, consider that Luna 3 showed enough to determine that the far side of the Moon was different than the front, and Mariner 4 showed that Mars was not like Earth.
To broaden the trade space, the more challenging and rewarding trajectory of entering orbit is included. In principle, the ∆v of this mission is roughly twice that of flyby missions. The premise is that the spacecraft would have a telescope that could find all the “planet-sized” bodies in the system while approaching the system, and then have the ability to maneuver into an orbit around a target of interest (ideally perhaps with a flyby or two along the way of other bodies). Thereafter the spacecraft can observe long enough to see seasons, weather, imaging of the planet, solar wind and stellar activity, and send back this kind of data. For this scenario, the baseline payload and data quantity are increased. The payload is now 1,000 kg, with a data about of 16 Gigabits (2 GB), analogous to the first Mars orbiter, Mariner 9.
Ideally, propulsion for such maneuvers should be free of any dependence on propellant or beamed energy. They could either use onboard power or energy harvested as the spacecraft approaches the star system. If there is an ample stellar wind from the target star, then sail concepts like magnetic, plasma magnet, and electric could be considered.
This is also the kind of maneuver where the spacedrives of breakthrough propulsion physics apply. Or to rephrase; the ability to decelerate upon reaching the mission target, or more generally to maneuver without dependence on propellant or energy beamed from Earth, is a goal for which breakthroughs are sought. If the Mach
Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx

pg 41 of 69

Effect Thruster, now under test, is found to be both feasible and scalable, then one of its higher-performing successors might make these double-delta-v missions achievable.