JuanCastillo29/space-mission-intelligence-data huggingface dataset:
[Table: Table 1. Destinations of Interest, Including Potentially Habitable Exoplanets ...................................................14]

| Destinations of Interest, Including Potentially Habitable Exoplanets ...................................................14 |
| --- | --- |
| Table 2. | Historic Exploration Mission Baselines..................................................................................................22 |
| Table 3. | Interstellar Mission-Propulsion Architecture Concepts..........................................................................23 |
| Table 4. | Power and Propulsion Prospects ............................................................................................................26 |
| Table 5. | 2017 Workshop Lectures & Authors .....................................................................................................27 |
| Table 6. | List of Variables .....................................................................................................................................31 |
| Table 7. | Arrival Trajectory Options .....................................................................................................................33 |
| Table 8. | Time on Target Verses Flyby Speed.......................................................................................................34 |
| Table 9. | Span of Motivations, Consequences, and Provisional Rankings ...........................................................37 |
| Table 10. | In-Space Infrastructure Availability and Growth Estimating .................................................................43 |
| Table 11. | Power & Propulsion Analysis Types .....................................................................................................45 |
| Table 12. | Tracking the Advancement Trends of Common Technologies .............................................................54 |
| Table 13. | Technology Maturation Levels and Relative Durations Between Them ...............................................55 |
| Table 14. | Alternative Progress Measures, Linking Performance, Schedule, and Cost ..........................................58 |
[Figure: Figure 1. Topological Assessment Process in Principle...........................................................................................9 Figure 2. Correlating Interstellar Distances with Human Timescales and Flight Speeds .....................................13 Figure 3. Timescale of Interstellar Missions and Historic Technology Advances ................................................15 Figure 4. Interstellar Mission Energy Versus Available Energy............................................................................17 Figure 5. Basic Analysis Flow Diagram ................................................................................................................30 Figure 6. "First Image" Examples from History (Luna 3 and Mariner 4) .............................................................35 Figure 7. "S-Curve" Pattern of Technology Advancement ...................................................................................56 Figure 8. Technology Comparison Plots (a, b, c)...................................................................................................60 Figure 9. Mission Comparison Plots (a, b, c).........................................................................................................61]
Dozens of interstellar mission concepts have been published that are based on known physics—and dozens more will be published in the future. All of the concepts require the maturation of one or more technologies or the building of infrastructure—or both. The US is not ready to launch a genuine interstellar mission, but is ready to start making investments to get ready to launch a mission within a few decades. The investment of limited resources will be required to get from where we are today to a future of interstellar travel. Careful selection of where to invest the
resources is essential.

Choosing which concepts to fund requires the comparison of very different approaches. A challenge is to compare technologies as disparate as a fusion rocket and a ground-based laser pushing on a sail. In addition, not all of the proposed approaches to interstellar travel rely entirely on known physics. Champions of various technologies have a tendency to focus only on what is good about a given concept, sans implications for a complete system design. Therefore, an additional motivation for our metrics is to help identify “if it is real, would it also be useful?” Many of the concepts of interest could revolutionize travel within the solar system, in addition to getting us closer to interstellar travel. Thus, investing in mission concepts that can both be employed usefully in near-term missions and be on the roadmap to future interstellar missions is of high interest.
This report derives figures of merit based on the physics of propulsion technologies and other mission factors. The metrics will allow policymakers to make decisions about which technologies would be more valuable, and to identify the subset of technologies that would do double-duty by enabling both longer-term interstellar missions and ambitious nearer-term missions.
At its foundation, these metrics rely on three core parameters: 1) how much energy will be expended, 2) how long does it take to perform a mission, and 3) distance traveled. It’s like comparing modes of transportation: an airplane is faster than a car, but travel by car uses less energy and is therefore cheaper. Mission funding can compare the energy it will take versus a scientific objective (such as destination of interest) versus how long it will take to get the data.
Section 2  reviews the background and objectives of this study.
Section 3  provides a technical background about interstellar travel.
Section 4  identifies problems of interest that will be needed to make interstellar travel attainable, such as propulsion, power, and data transmission.
Section 5 is a wide-ranging list of technological approaches identified from the literature for how to solve the problems—to be evaluated in Stage II.
Section 6 organizes the metrics into a work breakdown structure, and provides a flowchart to guide a user in applying the assessment of a technology.
Section 7 summarizes key mission choices and variables that must be defined in order to assess a mission approach—such as where is the mission going, how long will it take to get there, how much data will be returned, and type of mission: fly-by or orbiting.
Section 8 lays out the comparison metrics for how dissimilar mission concepts can be quantitatively compared in an equitable manner. The process defines four different propulsion types according to their source of power and reaction mass (internal or external). Each type requires different analyses, where their unique performance measures are converted into the more general measure of energy.
pg 6 of 69

Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx Section 9  shows examples of data charts based on the methods of Section 8.

At this stage the comparisons are only with hypothetical propulsion technologies to test the methods and plotting options. These will be further refined in Stage II.
Section 10 discusses Stage II of this project.
Section 11 provides a list of references.
Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx

pg 7 of 69
Interstellar destinations are about three orders of magnitude farther away than can be reached using current technology. Many advanced propulsion concepts have been conceived, but their performance predictions are not yet certain enough to be ranked reliably using traditional trade studies. Further, the mission architectures in which these concepts were proposed used different assumptions that make equitable comparisons impossible.
There have been several overviews of the challenges and prospects of interstellar flight, most notably starting with the 1976 interstellar exploration program proposed to congress [1], the 1989 Starflight Handbook [2], the 1992 Prospects for Interstellar Travel [3], 2001 "Interstellar Flight Primer" [4], and the 2004 Centauri Dreams [5]. Among the large number of technical papers, several volumes of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society were devoted to interstellar flight [6-8]. There has not, however, been an impartial, overall evaluation of the
prospects and related next research steps.

There is a need for a new assessment method that can compare the uncertain, long-term prospects of emerging technology for interstellar flight. The assessment method must be able to equitably compare concepts that use entirely different propulsion methods (sails, rockets, and others). The comparisons should show which concepts might be the most advantageous and under what conditions, plus identify the most impactive supporting technologies. Further, given the long timescales of interstellar flight, the assessments should have provisions for considering advances that might reach fruition over decades of further advancement. And finally the assessments should suggest a prudent portfolio of next-step research.
[Table: Table 3 shows concepts for interstellar mission architectures, listed in approximate order of ∆V, and then by the concept date. The table is only partially populated with data, but does show key factors to compare. In the propulsion columns, there will be pointers to the listing in table 4, "Interstellar Power & Propulsion Prospects." In preparation for missions that might use different propulsion at different phases of the mission (e.g. laser sails to start, plasma magnet to brake), placeholders for such possibilities are now included.] A more complete version of this table (as spreadsheet) will include other factors, such as the figures of merit outlined in Section 7.5, and further variables from table 6.

[Table: Table 3.   Interstellar Mission-Propulsion Architecture Concepts
Columns that are not yet shown include: • Infrastructure elements required to build mission hardware (check list) • Infrastructure energy for mission development, Eti (J) • Infrastructure time to build mission hardware (same as Mission Development Duration, Tdev (yrs)
Mission - Propulsion Concept
Concept Year
Reference #
Interstellar Era
Arrival Trajectory
Distance
Claimed Cruise Speed
Trip Time
Data Transmission Duration
Data Volume
Data Rate
Payload Power
Payload Mass
Acceleration Propulsion Course Correction propulsion
Braking Propulsion
Orbit Insertion Spacecraft Empty Mass
Spacecraft Launch Mass
Mass of Base System
Total Energy for Propulsion
Maximum Propulsion Power
AU (ly) c yr yr W kg Propulsion kg kg kg J TW (link to tbl 4)
Orion (interplanetary ref) 1950 Ulam, et al 1 2
Vista (interplanetary ref) ICF 1987 Orth 1 2
The Interstellar Probe 1990 Holze 1 200
Innovative Interstellar Explorer 2003 McNutt1 Flyby 200
Interstellar Heliopause mission 2009 Wimmer-Schweingruber 1 Flyby 200
Solar Gravity Lens RTG-Ion probe 2012 Davis, B. 1 Flyby 625 121 1E+03
Solar Gravity Lens Focus (SGLF) 2017 [37] 1,2 Flyby 625
TAU (Thousand AU) Mission 1987 JPL 1 Flyby 1,000 30 1E+03
AIMStar to 10 TAU 1999 Lewis, et al 1,2 Flyby 10,000 50
StarLight to Centauri 2016 Lubin 2 Flyby 270,000 (4.3)
Forward's Classic Sail Missions (1) 1984 [48] 2 Flyby 270,000 (4.2) 0.1 40 1000 (1000 km lens) 7.2
Forward's Classic Sail Missions (2) 1984 [48] 2 Flyby 270,000 (4.2) 0.1 40 71000 7E+05 26
Breakthrough StarShot (Stream) 2016 [48] 1 Flyby 270,000 (4.2) 0.2 22 20 0.001 0.1
Enzmann Starship to Centauri 1964 Enzmann,  (see also 73 Duncan) 2 Slows 270,000 130
BIS Daedalus to Barnard's Star 1978 [49] 2 Flyby 380,000 (6) 0.1 50
Project Longshot to Orbit Centauri 1988 2 Orbit 270,000 (4.3)
Forward's Classic Sail Missions (3) 1984 [48] 2 Return 660,000 (11)
Starwisp 1985 Forward, J fo Spacecraft &rockets V.22 2 Flyby 770,000 21 0.02 0.01]
The objective of this study is to create a process for equitably comparing different mission architectures and possible propulsion and power technologies, in order to determine which research paths have the greatest leverage for improving NASA's ability to explore farther, faster, and with more flexibility. The specific goal of achieving 10% lightspeed was included by Congress, and it is likely that this goal will require the combination of a number of different technologies to succeed. The more exact questions that arise from further analysis are: which elements of that goal have more leverage toward success, and what knowledge gaps remain to solve each of those problems?
Toward that end, the process shall establish common performance measures for the disparate propulsion and power approaches, and accommodate the uncertainty in the performance predictions. The comparisons will include the scale of infrastructure needed to build and launch interstellar missions, include consideration of potentially disruptive advancements for spaceflight, and suggest how to plan a research program that systematically seeks the most desirable of such advancements.
In contrast to mission trade studies that seek the best technology to meet a set of well-defined requirements, this study will use topological analyses. Topological methods have been devised recently to compare general goals to broad technology areas to produce "topological maps" that identify research areas of potentially greater impact (instead of creating "road maps" to develop a specific technology) [18, 19]. These tools can determine the sensitivity of mission choices to performance requirements, as well as determining which technologies have greater impact on meeting those requirements (e.g. common elements of more than one subsystems). Figure 1 shows this analysis process in principle, and where the example maps are from Gilland [19].
In support of the general topological comparisons, more deterministic analyses are also developed. This includes the equations to convert the varied propulsion performance measures into common figures of merit.
Since the timescales for interstellar flight are comparable to historic examples of the emergence of breakthrough technologies, it is desired to include promising long-range research whose prospects are still speculative and whose mission impacts cannot yet be quantified. Presently, the practice is to wait until new prospects emerge on their own in a form ready to be evaluated per the familiar mission trade studies. However, this "wait and see" posture lets potentially revolutionary advances languish with little progress.
•  Mission Architecture Options Specs
•  Power & Propulsion Options Specs

[Figure: Fig. 1a. Inputs to Determining Topological Maps]

Gilland (2013) Aspects of Technology Program Planning: Top-Down to Bottom-Up
Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx

pg 9 of 69

[Figure: Fig. 1b. Example Map, Missions & Requirements Fig. 1c. Example Map, Technologies & Research]

[Figure: Fig. 1. Topological Assessment Process in Principle]

To search for such latent prospects, this study will include the topic of breakthrough propulsion physics. The term "breakthrough propulsion physics (BPP)” comes from the NASA project by that name which examined nonrocket spacedrives, gravity control, and faster-than-light travel [20]. In contrast to technological advancements rooted in known physics, BPP pursues entirely new technologies from further advances in physics. The grounding reference for this portion of the study is the book, Frontiers of Propulsion Science [13].
The first step of the scientific method is to define the problem. Similarly, this study will begin with an assessment of the challenges and prospects in a manner suitable to the unique situation of interstellar flight. Sponsored by a multiyear NASA grant NXX17AE81G, this "Breakthrough Propulsion Study" is divided into three stages, 1) defining the problem, 2) collecting information, and then 3) analytical testing.
The scope of this report covers the first stage of this study: defining the problem of tracking, assessing, and planning the most effective research paths to reach the stars.
The challenges of interstellar flight and the technological prospects for answering those challenges are examined to determine how to proceed later with a fully-rigorous and impartial assessment. Or, in other words, this stage aims to ask the right questions.
2.2.1.1. Challenges – Top Down Mission Awareness The prior goals from interstellar studies will be refined to encompass a more complete set of factors – in short to understand the whole problem before suggesting solutions. Recent investigations of interstellar prospects found: 1) mission motivations are often implicit and limited in scope, 2) vehicle concepts often neglect the interplay with the infrastructure needed to build, power, and launch the vehicle, and 3) the major impediments to interstellar flight are less about technological prowess than about limitations of energy, where it appears that roughly two centuries remain before sufficient energy is likely to be available to launch an interstellar mission, regardless of the choice of flight method [21]. Note, however, that the uncertainty bands of those estimates are substantial.
2.2.1.2. Prospects—Bottom Up Technological and Scientific Principles A wide span of interstellar flight prospects, from the basic solar sail all the way to the speculative FTL flight will be included to 1) provide a cursory understanding of their projected performance, and 2) devise methods to convert their disparate performance measures into common terms. Though the options use a widely varying range of parameters to describe their performance, energy is chosen as the central measure for this commonality. In essence, energy is the fundamental currency of all motion.
pg 10 of 69

Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx With the participation of Tau Zero Personnel, the "Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW)" was convened in October of 2017 to gain an up-to-date summary of the projections and status of interstellar flight options and issues, discussed in Section 5.4.

In this report, the combination of challenges and prospects are used to create a new WBS to collect the complex information in an organized manner. A set of variables corresponding to that WBS are defined to guide the information collection process of Stage II. This will be expanded to identify which operating parameters of the different propulsion and power methods will need to be collected to continue the analysis.
While the focus of this first stage is the development of the overall structure for the data to be subsequently collected in later phases, some values have been specified as starting estimates, for which more accurate and defensible numbers are sought. If readers have more accurate numbers for any of these values, please contact the authors with that information along with a reference citation for those more accurate values. Further, note that most values herein are specified to only about two significant digits—consistent with the current fidelity of interstellar flight estimates.
In Stage II, a web-based system will be created to allow subject matter experts from around the globe and from the span of relevant disciplines, to populate the WBS with their most recent data. Early drafts of technology development roadmaps will begin, with the intent to impose consistent methods of estimating the development durations.
The initial equations and analysis process will be refined, including running test cases with illustrative missions, payloads, and propulsion types. From there, the topological analysis methods will be adapted to this problem.
Stage III is where the analyses will be iteratively run and refined to ensure that it is meeting the needs of NASA and the interstellar flight community. The analyses should show which concepts might be the most advantageous, plus identify the most impactive supporting technologies. This includes identifying which knowledge gaps have the highest potential for improving the technology, and then how to solicit research to fill those gaps. This includes prospects for disruptive advancements and ancillary influences. And finally, the assessments will suggest a prudent portfolio of next-step research.
Once completed, technology roadmaps can be devised that are rooted in common standards to allow fair comparison of one roadmap to the other.
There are two activities related to interstellar flight whose assessments and recommendations are beyond the scope of study, "interstellar precursor missions," and "world ships." Interstellar precursor missions are those that can be launched from Earth using foreseeable spacecraft technology and without needing substantial new infrastructure [22-33]. By "foreseeable technology" it is meant those technologies that are mature enough for mission trade studies. This study instead focuses on longer-term and farther-reach technologies whose performance measures are less certain. These precursor missions will, however, be used in this study as performance baselines and scaling examples. Further progress on precursor trade studies are a valuable aid to these longer-range interstellar flight assessments.  An example of a precursor mission that would help resolve questions for future interstellar mission planning is the concept of a "Look-Back Mission." A lookback mission would test a suite of exoplanet instruments by looking back toward Earth at various distances to determine the effect of viewing distance and time on target for collecting meaningful information.
Another group of mission and technology concepts which are beyond the scope of this study are "world ships" – concepts for multi-generation, self-sustaining colonies of humans living aboard spacecraft headed toward potentially habitable exoplanets [34]. Even though such goals address the important motive of the sustained survival of humanity, they are out of scope since their major research goals involve sustainable habitats and cultures instead of propulsion.
Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx

pg 11 of 69
flight speed. Both the distance and timescales are logarithmic. The horizontal scale spans the radius of the Milky
Way galaxy (50,000 ly), while the time scale extends all the way to the certain end of Earth's habitability (~1 billion
years [35]). The assumed upper limit for the operational duration of a space probe (200 years) is shown. The
diagonal lines represent different speeds, starting on the left with Voyager's 0.00006 c. The faster Juno spacecraft
(0.00025 c) is also shown. The other diagonal lines are in terms of fractional lightspeed, shown in increasing factors
of 10 all the way up to lightspeed. For each factor of 10 increase in speed, the required energy goes up by at least a
factor of 100.

Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx

pg 13 of 69
(Di)
Type
ESI*
Description, Relevance

µEarth Ships Placeholder 100% Destination irrelevant "µEarth ship," "Colony Ship," "World Ship" "Oumuamua" object ≈ 3 AU in 2017 +5AU/yr** 80% ? Interstellar Asteroid: long aspect ratio object through solar system ≈5 AU/yr Kuiper Belt 0.0005 30 55 0.001 5% Origin of most short period comets. 100,000 icy objects > 100 km diam. Eris 0.001 38 98 0.002 10% Dwarf planet Sedna 0.001 76 1,000 0.016 10% Dwarf planet Heliopause 0.002 120 5% Transition from our solar system toward the galactic background Voyager Spacecraft 0.002 140 50% Historical artifact, long duration exposure evidence Interstellar "wind" 0.003 200 5% Fully outside our solar system Planet Nine (?) 0.004 280 1120 10% Hypothesized, farthest planet of our solar system Solar grav' lens start 0.009 550 80% Maccone 1998 Solar grav' lens nominal 0.010 650 80% Turyshev 2017, TVIW
System Medium Nearest Exoplanets
? Exo Image