April 2013

NASA/TM–2013-217981

Advanced-to-Revolutionary Space Technology 

Options – The Responsibly Imaginable 

Dennis M. Bushnell

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. 

It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI 

program provides access to the NASA Aeronautics 

and Space Database and its public interface, the 

NASA Technical Report Server, thus providing one 

of the largest collections of aeronautical and space 

science STI in the world. Results are published in 

both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes the 

following report types:

 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

Programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but 

having less stringent limitations on manuscript 

length and extent of graphic presentations.

 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis.

 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

 CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, seminars, 

or other meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest.

 TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing information desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

 Access the NASA STI program home page 

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

 Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443-757-5803

 Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

443-757-5802

 Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199

April 2013

NASA/TM–2013-217981

Advanced-to-Revolutionary Space Technology

Options – The Responsibly Imaginable

Dennis M. Bushnell

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

7115 Standard Drive 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 

443-757-5802 

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not 

constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
1

Advanced-to-Revolutionary Space Technology Options 

The Responsibly Imaginable 

Dennis M. Bushnell 

Chief Scientist, NASA-Langley Research Center 

The Challenge 

National space exploration planning/visioning specifically cites human expeditions to, and 

human on-site exploration of, Mars [Humans-Mars]. In the nearer term human space 

exploration beyond LEO [Low Earth Orbit] is focused upon asteroids or the Moon, which 

provide convenient proving grounds for some of the capabilities required for HumansMars. The major fundamental metrics for Humans-Mars and indeed any human/ or nonhuman space exploration or operations are cost and safety/ reliability. Overall, and in 

general, mission cost and performance margins should be such that adequate safety 

margins are enabled. The major human crew safety issues as currently identified include 

reduced gravity, radiation, potentially extremely toxic Martian dust and the requisite 

reliability for year’s long missions. Current estimates indicate that, using available 

technology, what is affordable may not be safe and what is safe may not be affordable. 

The thesis of the present discussion is that simultaneous cost and safety/reliability for 

Human-Mars will require advanced-to-revolutionary technologies. 

The major cost centers for Humans-Mars are LEO access, the interplanetary round trip and 

habitats and surface ops. Much, too much for far too many years, of the Human LEO costs 

have emanated from flight and launch ops, these being the same order as “rocket”/vehicle 

costs. High leverage approaches to Humans-Mars cost reductions include reduced crew 

size, structural weight reductions, more efficient propulsion/ power, pre-deployment on 

inexpensive “slo-boats” [sails etc.] and/or Serious ISRU [ do not haul it there, make it 

there] and closed loop life support including the “solids.” 

The nature of the invention and development of advanced-to-revolutionary technologies is 

such that the usually successful path involves ideation and examination/study of many 

options and approaches in a triage fashion. Experience indicates it is extremely difficult to 

pick winners at the outset without doing at least a modicum of study/homework. Nominal 

and usual enabling timescales for such technologies are the order of 12-to-15 years for 

research and triage and another 12-15 years for development. This discussion will 

examine the frontiers of the responsibly imaginable in various technological areas that 

could significantly impact Human-Mars cost and safety. Estimates indicate that, after 
2

applying the currently envisaged efficacious technological and system approaches such as 

aero-capture and braking and envisaged evolutionary technology advancements across the 

board the up-mass to LEO for Human-Mars is on the order of some 500 -to - 1500 metric 

tons most of which is fuel and propulsion and power systems [reference 1]. Cost 

reduction for space access is a major metric, including approaches to significantly reduce 

the overall up-mass. Besides fuel, propulsion and power systems, the up-mass consists of 

the infrastructure and supplies required to keep the humans healthy [ AKA “pink and 

warm”] and the equipment for executing exploration mission tasks including a substantial 

quantity of spares to ensure continued system[s] operation for multi-year missions. Hence, 

the major technological areas of interest for potential cost reductions include propulsion 

[both LEO and in-space], in-space and on planet power, life support systems in-the-large, 

reliability/maintainability of system[s], materials, dry weight in general, and overall 

architecture, systems and systems-of-systems approaches. Subsequent sections of this 

discussion will address a sampling of the longer-term technological options in these areas. 

In general revolutionary goals [such as Mars-Humans] require revolutionary technology. 

Recent studies of space radiation protection indicate major additional up-mass 

requirements for long duration missions such as Mars which utilize chemical, relatively 

slow, propulsion methodologies, unless some form of active radiation protection is 

employed or the humans are “hardened,” their DNA repair is greatly accelerated. Active 

radiation protection conventionally requires serious energy sources, which would also 

increase cost and up mass, but perhaps not to the extent that passive radiation protection 

via material mass would. The issues of reliability with respect to large for long duration 

human space missions are in an “early days” yet stage, especially with respect to potential 

issues of space-engendered bio alteration into corrosion and health threat agents. 

Space exploration and exploitation which is both safe and affordable, as enabled by 

Revolutionary Technologies, would have major impacts including enhanced discovery 

opportunities for carbon and non-carbon based life off the home planet, discovering the 

reasons behind the many [far too many] shortfalls in current physics, especially at 

cosmological scales, human off-planet emigration, Mars Terraforming and Planetary 

defense against asteroids. If we are successful in determining the cause of the shortfalls in 

physics, that knowledge could conceivably lead to approaches for interstellar travel. 

While many-to-most consider Physics as fairly well established [e.g. Relativity Theory and 

Quantum Mechanics] there are, especially at Cosmological scales, major issues with 

respect to physics as we know it and the “real world.” Perhaps the most striking physics 

theory shortfall is a lack of understanding of/theoretical explanation for Dark Energy and 

Dark Matter. Together these constitute some 96 percent of the matter and energy in the 

universe as we can intuit such and we essentially know not what it is. Quantum 

Electrodynamics is perhaps the most verified theory extant yet the discrepancy with respect 

to zero point energy between the observed cosmological constant and QED is over 100 
3

orders of magnitude. When the universe formed it is thought that there were equal 

amounts of matter and anti-matter, yet we essentially know not what happened to the antimatter. Non-Locality as exemplified by quantum entanglement, while solid in terms of 

actuality/being the basis of several practical applications of quantum technology, is 

essentially not “understood.” Quantum and Relatively do not “merge,” there is no solid 

theory yet for quantum gravity. Recent analysis of experimental evidence indicates that 

Dark Energy has a very high probability of being “real,” is a MAJOR portion of what 

constitutes the Universe yet there is no cogent explication of such. 

The discrepancies in and in-between the extant physics theories and reality are 

embarrassingly numerous, run on for many pages, and have engendered a cottage industry 

of attempts to develop “Theories of Everything.” Thus far there are tens of such, with 

most adding extra dimensions and some invoking retro-causation at the Plank Scale. The 

most famous of these, TOE currently is String/M, Brane theory, with up to 11 dimensions. 

Others include “Many Worlds,” The” Bulk” [5 Dimensions], Holographic Universe, 

several “Aether” theories and non-linear quantum postulates. Thus far none of these 

theories of everything have experimental verification and perhaps none yet 

constitute/provide the/a more “correct” modeling of physics, especially at Cosmological 

scales. Each of these theories enables very different space technology/Engineering 

possibilities, including “Brane Surfing” and production of negative energy to enable space 

warps/worms for FTL interstellar space travel. 

A major reason to “explore” space is to determine WHAT is actually happening in Physics. 

Such explications MIGHT enable faster than light [FTL] energetics and propulsion for 

inter-stellar travel. Examples of attempts at frontier inter-stellar travel utilizing existing 

physics include Hal Puthoffs theory to re-engineer the quantum vacuum and 

engineering/exploitation of space warps and worms. Tachyons are allowed under 

Relatively theory. The current best in class propulsion approach we have for interstellar is 

anti-matter, some E9 times chemical vice E6-7 for Fission/Fusion. Antimatter is complete 

matter-energy conversion but is still FAR short of the propulsion capability required for 

interstellar travel. 

A further purpose of this report is to retort a statement made at a recent USAF workshop 

on Advanced Spacelift Technology that “Space is a Mature and Declining field of 

Endeavour in the U.S.” and provide ideation/options/ways forward to bolster that retort. 

It should be noted that this report/these projections assume the continuation of the ongoing 

exponential and synergistic It, Bio, Nano, Quantum and Energetics Technology 

Revolutions and that these technologies and their enablements will be applied to space 

applications and requirements. Obvious examples of such include Exaflop plus and 

Quantum Computing, High to-room temperature super conductivity, massive optical free 
4

space band widths, brilliant multi-functional materials, machine intelligence approaching 

human via biomimmetics, orders of magnitude improvements in sensor capabilities via 

nano and quantum, free form fabrication/fab labs, high density energy storage and high 

energy density materials, autonomous robotics writ large for such as in space and on planet 

construction/assembly and autonomous exploration, as well as a multitude of others such 

as serious telemedicine, which will obviously be required for months-to-years long 

campaigns. The relatively straight forward applications of the ongoing civilian and 

military worldwide technology investments will greatly reduce mission cost and enhance 

safety going forward. 

A comment from an NRC report writ human space exploration is of interest in the context 

of this report. Then year insitu/physical human presence/requirements is equal to total 

mission requirements minus those requirements that THEN YEAR robots could execute. 

Thus far the Human exploration justification has considered current robotic capabilities, 

not those of then year robotics which are slated, even with a linear extrapolation much less 

the actual exponential increases, to be VERY CAPABLE. Reference 2 provides an 

extensive analysis of advanced space technology possibilities, albeit mainly of the 

somewhat nearer term genre. Reference 3 is an earlier, less detailed and less complete 

version of the present work. 

Outlook for Space Commercialization 

There are currently efforts to shift LEO access capabilities toward commercial sources for 

government missions, with initial emphasis upon ISS resupply and human transport 

to/from LEO. For over four decades NASA has pursued Space Commercialization, at 

times quite seriously, especially in the run-up to station in particular where there were 

some 17 funded external centers working this and a 95 million dollar budget. It is of 

interest going into a study of advanced-to-revolutionary Space Technology to attempt to 

intuit the extent to which commercial development of such might occur. Thus far, other 

than privatization of governmental activities, no seriously interesting major newer space 

commercial areas have evolved to add to the existing successful commercial “positional 

Earth Utilities” which constitute current “Commercial Space.” 

The efforts/investments in microgravity manufacturing have thus far not been that 

successful. Protein crystal and tissue growth initially appeared to be quite interesting but 

subsequent studies indicated that tissue grown in Micro Gravity Simulators was of a 

quality comparable to tissue grown in space. Of interest is that studies of “bio in space” 

indicate that “bugs go south,” benign life forms become virulent. The serious efforts that 

went into “Commercializing” the space station which involved hundreds of organizations 

looking into a very rich set of potential activities industry-by-industry were not that 

productive. Activities such as off-planet mining, space based solar power and others 
5

appear to have relatively weak business cases........WITHOUT SERIOUSLY IMPROVED 

AND FAR LESS EXPENSIVE SPACE ACCESS. We have, throughout the “Space Age” 

starting in the 1950’s, been in thrall to Chemical Propulsion. Breakthroughs in energetics 

and propulsion beyond Chemical appear to be required going forward. We have long been 

moving along the asymptotic portion of the Space Technology cost/benefit curve 

employing Chemical Energetics/propulsion with little overall change in affordable and safe 

capabilities. There are several far more energetic Chemical Fuels than those normally 

utilized, e.g. Fluorine and Beryllium compounds with Isp up to some 700 seconds, but they 

are, from attempts to engineer/apply them, simply too dangerous/unstable. 

 Other potential Commercial space options: 

 1. NANO is a newbe since the last serious Space Commercialization campaigns. Nano 

Fabrication in space has, to this point, not been seriously considered, involves very small 

but potentially horrendously valuable [in many instances] weights. Whether there is any 

there, any microg/vacuum combo value added for Nano writ large is to be determined as 

Nano develops further and morphs into Quantum Technology. 

 2. There are several unique space environmental assets/conditions that were not fully 

explored/exploited previously including Space environmental radiation and all that 

SPACE....The latter provides opportunities to develop gossamer things at very large scale. 

 3. A Continuing refrain from all the previous space manufacturing attempts/studies is the 

need for inexpensive/rapid turnaround in-space experimentation to determine potential 

viability, discovery and functionalization/optimization. With the increasing replacement of 

experiment by simulation/computation, there is a possibility going forward that we could, 

via serious computation/MODSIM, successfully conduct both triage and discovery for 

potential space manufacturing and other commercial space possibilities virtually, greatly 

lowering associated R&D costs and rapidly increasing TRL level with seriously reduced 

product development cycle times. 

The apparent current status of Space Commercialization beyond positional “Earth 

Utilities” - 

 1. Suborbital Human flights are a supersonic thing, have very little to do with LEO 

Access/In-Space Tourism. Less than two percent of the energy required for LEO access 

and does not involve the major safety issues writ large for LEO access and beyond. 

 2. Space Tourism of the orbital and beyond Genre is currently expensive and not 

“conventionally,” in the airline sense, safe [prevalence of accidents, microg/radiation 
6

impacts upon immune system], and is therefore “uphill” without Revolutionary 

Technology-enabled changes in cost and safety for Space access and space flight. 

 3. For Space Industrialization, Space proffers: 

 - ‘Resources” of various persuasions [on/from the moon, planets, NEO’s, Space Debris, 

Van Allen Belt entrainments [e.g. Anti-protons]]. Thus far, NONE of such has been 

deemed worth going after from a closed business case viewpoint. He3 from the lunar 

Regolith [deposited there by the Solar Wind] as fuel for aneutronic Fusion has competition 

from the alternative fuel set H-B11, which is highly available on the home planet. 

- Position,” The high ground basis for the ongoing space industry, AKA ‘Earth Utilities” 

- Telcom, Resource monitoring, NAV, “Intel,” Weather, etc. This current commercial 

“space industry” is able to function successfully with existing launch costs. The emerging 

technologies are putting ever better functionality in ever smaller packages, dollars/lb. is 

being replaced by VALUE/Lb. as the dominant metric. 

 - “Microg”, In the 1980’s and 1990’s etc. the Space Station project and the NASA 

Commercialization efforts funded university centers to develop an industrial market for 

microg, with several NASA centers involved [GRC, MSFC, JSC, JPL ]. Many 

experiments were conducted but no obvious “killer Aps” identified. 

 - Space environmental Radiation fields, Not yet studied as a potential Industrialization 

resource. 

- Increased Solar radiation, the raison d’être for space based solar power, which is deemed 

too expensive, largely due to launch costs. Terrestrial Renewable energy options are FAR 

less expensive and have some 2 orders of magnitude greater capacity than needed to 

replace fossil carbon. Several proffer 24/7/365 base load. 

- Hard Vacuum, thus far not in demand per se for space industrialization 

- Large Dimensions including large scale cold and warm and a “Dumping Ground”/Trash 

pit......Access costs are major issue. 

Essentially, Space Commercialization going forward is hostage to far lower space 

access/launch costs, The “Keys to the Kingdom.” Therefore Commercial Space provides 

additional compelling arguments for pursuing revolutionary/enabling Space Technologies. 
7

ALL of this is obviously in addition to Scientific and military space and the Humans in 

space Government operations. The military, although they tried 3 times early on before 

robotics became so capable, was never able to justify humans in space. The major current 

Governmental justification for such is “National Prestige” and metaphysical assertions of 

“Destiny.” The asteroid impact and planet environmental deterioration arguments for 

humans in space are countered by far less expensive detect/deflect asteroid approaches and 

“Planet Cleanup” technologies. As discussed herein EVERYONE can explore space going 

forward via immersive presence/virtual reality/robotics/nano sensors/optical 

communications at some 1 percent to .1 percent the societal cost of sending humans. 

Humans WILL go, but current indications are, unless seriously disruptive enabling cost 

and safety technologies are developed, the robots will go first, do the exploring and the 

terra-forming and by the time the ground and atmosphere are ready the technologies for 

safe AND affordable humans will be there. This latency for affordable/safe humans 

beyond LEO can be much reduced with courageous ideation and evaluation/development 

of revolutionary technologies. 

 ETO Access 

Current Space Access capability and approaches devolved directly from the German 

Missile program of World War II and subsequent inter-continental ballistic missile 

developments in several countries. For many decades there have been serious efforts to 

greatly improve upon this evolved ICBM chemical fuel technology and capability, thus far 

largely unsuccessfully. The current cost of access to space is in the range of thousands-ofdollars per pound-of-payload. Some of the larger, non-man-rated systems and systems 

from nations with lower labor costs are in the lower portion of that range while man-rated 

systems and some of the smaller payload systems are in the upper range. 

Civilian Access to Space Metrics: 

- Inexpensive/ cost 

- Safety/ Reliability 

- Simplified Ground Operations 

- Environmental Compatibility 

- Safe abort/ assured payload return 

Additional Military Access to Space Metrics [AKA ‘Flexibility]: 

- Reduced GLOW/ size [Handling/“Hiding”] 

- All azimuth/inclination launch 

- Rapid Turnaround 

- Enhanced Launch Windows 

- Self-Ferry 
8

- Hypersonic Cruise 

- Large Cross Range 

- Increased Launch Site Options 

- Orbital Plane Change 

- Launch on Demand 

- Orbit, de-orbit, re-orbit 

There are a plethora of existing space access design options including various classes and 

types of [conventional] rockets, air-breathing [as opposed to rocket] propulsion, staging, 

reusability, take-off and landing options, different [conventional] fuels, and material and 

controls options. Over the past several decades a goodly number of design teams in 

various countries have tried innumerable combinations within this rich parameter space in 

search of a winning combination which could significantly reduce the costs of space 

access. Thus far these efforts have not been particularly successful, leading to comments 

such as that from Mark Albert [Scientific American] – “If God wanted people to go to 

space, She would have given them more money.” As an example, the military has long 

been interested in air-breathing space access propulsion systems which could provide their 

needed flexibility. Unfortunately such systems would, due to a higher dry weight and the 

lack of ground facilities for development at Mach Numbers above 3 or so [necessitating 

development via essentially unaffordable flight experiments] probably increase launch 

costs overall, especially for man-rated systems. Something different, something not 

contained in the usual parameter set is evidently required to seriously reduce the costs of 

space access. 

Payload size/mass reduction: Several of the major on-going technology revolutions, 

particularly information technology and nanotechnology are changing the entire business 

case and option set for [non-human] space access and utilization. These technologies are 

enabling tremendous functionality and greatly improved performance to be placed in eversmaller and lighter payloads and packages. Thus far orders of magnitude reductions in size 

and weight are either available or projected for many space mission elements or, in some 

cases, whole satellites and payloads with even further improvements in performance 

potentially on the horizon. Such improvements could and should change to a major extent 

the space access situation via resulting cost reductions. Aperture and array gain are 

available either via the burgeoning lightweight inflatable and deployable membrane and 

smart surfaces technology or co-operative flight management and formation flight. Such 

change in the payload essentially converts the space access cost problem from 

dollars/pound to value/pound. Current launch costs per pound are more acceptable if there 

are not many pounds to loft. The alternative is to use the micro-rockets under development 

at, for example, MIT. These are enabled by MEMS turbine feed pumps and could 

inexpensively launch micro and nano payloads. 
9

The obvious exception to this space business revolution is of course humans. Thus far the 

humans are not shrinking and therefore human-related space access [humans themselves 

and as much of their support, infrastructure and equipage as scales with their physical size 

and weight] is, in the large, not affected by this technology-engendered major change in 

the space business model and requirements for space access. 

Approaches to reducing costs of [conventional] space access: An examination of the cost 

elements for space access indicates that a major contributor is the cost of human time and 

labor. The cost-per-pound does not refer to placing these monies in the combustion 

chamber [chemical fuel is actually quite inexpensive] the funds are used to pay people. 

Several studies of the Space Shuttle cost problems point to the standing army issue. The 

ongoing technology revolutions should enable extremely efficient robotic fabrication and 

operation of space access systems, thereby greatly reducing direct human and labor costs. 

Such approaches as IVHM are being worked as is free form fabrication. An ab-initio endto-end approach to life cycle cost reduction [design, fabrication, erect, checkout, operate, 

store, manage etc.] with an eye to reducing human man-hours via increasingly effective 

IT/NANO-engendered automatics/robotics should be efficacious. Such approaches, for 

consumer goods, have resulted in and continue to result in major cost reductions, AKA 

“Productivity Improvements.” Another perhaps essential ingredient in reducing the costs, 

and along the way increasing reliability in major ways, is to provide performance margins, 

possibly via use of more robust, less costly, less sophisticated approaches and operation 

below the limits. Overall, cost and performance are not necessarily synonymous. 

Farther Term Potential Space Access “Solutions” - There are an amazing number of 

options and possibilities on the table and the horizon for farther term space access 

[references 4 and 5]], requiring some 10 years or more of research to sort through and 

evaluate. These possibilities span the spectrum from propulsion cycle to fuels and launch 

assist. Launch assist options include Tidmans Slingatron, Russian Blast Wave 

Accelerator, MW [microwave] or Laser energy radiated from the ground or from orbiting 

beamers to on-board rectennas/PV with the energy used to power an exit MHD 

[magnetohydrodynamic] accelerator [some estimates indicate 2000+ seconds of ISP 

[specific impulse] at high thrust using this off-board energy, reference 6], space elevators, 

momentum and E-M tethers [ the latter could utilize beamed energy], and ground-based 

high pressure, polymer stabilized and laser-guided water jets. Advanced propulsion cycle 

options include PDW [pulse detonation wave] rockets [possibly with detonation within a 

liquid fuel and using wave dynamics for valving and ignition], hyper-mixing base region 

ejectors and MHD adjuncts and variants. Emerging fuel/energy alternatives include LENR, 

N4, quantum nucleonics [aka isomers] and positrons. Several options are in the research 

stage for long term storage of positrons, which have some 9 orders of magnitude greater 

energy density than conventional chemical. Other fuel candidates include metallic H2, 

solid H2 with embedded atomic species, and even some emerging very clean, aneutronic 
10

ECF fusion approaches such as P/B-11 and D-He3. Obviously rockets are very far from 

being mature. As an example, of interest is a NASA evaluation of the Slingatron with a 

favorable finding during the early 20000 Decadel exploration planning study. The major 

issue found was protection of the payloads upon launch at orbital speeds into essentially 

sea level air density with the attendant huge aerodynamic heating pulse. This was “solved” 

via application of NASA technology from the project RAM flight tests in the later 1960’s 

where liquid water was injected forward from a .010 inch nose orifice. From the Flight 

and Tunnel data the liquid water jet and resultant water droplets went FAR upstream, 

effectively pointing the bow shock and drastically reducing the heating rate, all with a very 

small weight/expenditure of water. 

The extent to which these and other emerging and conceptual technologies could improve 

space access cost and reliability is to be determined. As an example, pulse detonation 

wave rockets could greatly reduce the pressure in the turbine feed pumps, significantly 

improving a major cost and reliability problem on conventional pressure fed rockets, the 

SSME [space shuttle main engine] in particular. Increased ISP per se is not always 

directly translatable to a cost reduction. The works of Frisbee [ref. 4] and Davis [ref. 7] 

contain far greater and more detailed explications of the amazingly diverse and numerous 

approaches/alternatives for LEO and in-space propulsion. Those mentioned herein are a 

small subset of the options, those that the author considers the most efficacious. Reference 

8 even suggests it is not out-of-bounds to consider teleportation, which is a fast moving / 

emerging technology focus. 

In-Space Propulsion and On-Planet Power 

Many advanced Human-Mars systems studies include consideration of various flavors of 

fission nuclear propulsion and power. Such approaches could increase in-space ISP by a 

factor of 2 to far greater compared to chemical fuels and include a wide range of 

possibilities from nuclear-thermal through nuclear-electric to exotic gas-cooled and 

magnetic nozzle very high performance cycles. The downsides include the associated 

radiation shielding and propulsive system weights, nuclear ash and waste and possibilities 

for launch accidents with attendant radiological hazards. Fission nuclear in-space 

propulsion has been studied relatively seriously and engineering solution spaces proffered 

for these issues. Residual safety concerns, weight and cost appear to be the current issues 

with fission nuclear in-space propulsion. 

Alternative in-space propulsion options – High thrust is a requisite for Human-Mars inspace propulsion. Fast transits are highly efficacious for several metrics including reduced 

costs, radiation and micro g exposure, minimization of psychological, health, reliability 

and durability problems and concerns, boiloff, consumables and maintaining an interesting 
11

tempo for public engagement. Therefore many extremely efficient, but low thrust, slow 

transit approaches such as various types of sails [photonic and magnetic] and ion/electric 

propulsion are of interest for pre-positioning and re-supply freighters but not for human 

transport. Among the high thrust revolutionary genre in-space propulsion possibilities is a 

systems-level approach which would obviate most of the huge percentage of the HumanMars up-mass which is fuel. The basic approach is to separate propulsive mass and energy 

vice combining them in a fuel. Also, this approach utilizes a reusable space infrastructure. 

A rocket is sent to LEO and arrives with an empty tank. The rocket is de-orbited slightly 

and an inlet is opened to ingest far outer region atmospheric air. Once the tank is filled 

with this propulsive mass [estimates indicate 3 orbits should suffice] the rocket moves to 

the vicinity of the orbiting beamer and MW/ laser energy is beamed to the rectennas/ PV 

on the rocket. This off-board energy powers an MHD accelerator which provides, using 

the alkaline-doped pressurized atmospheric air as propulsive mass, high thrust at ISP levels 

of up to 2000 seconds. A rapid acceleration is required due to beam diffraction issues, 

with some future possibility for major reductions in beam diffraction via soliton wave and 

meta-materials research. Several technologies, including much more efficient/ultra lightweight rectennas, make this concept interesting. Such an approach could be utilized for 

orbit raising [LEO to MEO, HEO, GEO – low to medium, high and geosynchronous earth 

orbit] as well as Moon, Mars, and other expeditions. If a beamer is pre-positioned around 

or possibly on Mars then a similar approach could be used on the return trip, possibly using 

regolith as propulsive mass. The approach utilizes reusable in-space infrastructure, is very 

different from current approaches and could possibly obviate much of the huge percentage 

of the upmass which is fuel. 

Other alternative high thrust in-space propulsion approaches include the afore-mentioned 

positrons, which, unlike anti-protons, are relatively inexpensive to manufacture, and 

produce only low[er] energy gamma radiation which is easier to shield than neutrons. The 

major issue with positrons is long term storage, which is under active research. There are 

also several even more exotic energetic possibilities including isomers, LENR’s [low 

energy nuclear reactions] and even ZPE [zero point energy]. Isomers are potentially 5 

orders of magnitude greater than chemical in terms of energy density but viable triggering 

methods are not yet available and the radiation levels are worrisome. The LENR situation 

is in a major state of flux with recent apparently successful theoretical efforts and 

indications of much higher yields. There are currently several interesting approaches 

extant and under study to harvest ZPE [reference 9]. Success in such endeavors would 

literally change everything regarding power and energy in-the-large. Then there are tethers 

and the aneutronic fusion approaches, especially p-B11 and D-He3 Fusion, which again 

would have far lower shielding weights than fission nuclear or conventional D-T Fusion 

systems. The concept of utilizing anti-protons as ICF [inertial confined fusion] 

triggers/igniters is also interesting. There are NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts 
12

studies of harvesting anti-protons from the magnetic fields around the Earth where they are 

captured from the solar wind. Yet another class of alternative in-space energy/ propulsion 

approaches involves beaming momentum, either as neutral particle beams or as bulk 

momentum. The projected range of the former is 1 AU and has major cost and power 

reductions compared to laser energy beaming, also “solves” the beam Diffraction problem. 

The bulk momentum “beaming” approach involves various flavors of mass drivers and 

various “catcher” approaches. The concept of utilizing Ponder motive Forces induced by 

laser/plasma interactions to produce ultra high Isp at high thrust is also worth further 

serious research. 

Alternative in-space and on-planet power – Many of the propulsive energy sources just 

discussed [positrons, P-B11, LENR, ZPE], if proven technologically viable, would also be 

candidates for in space and on planet power. Additional interesting emerging power 

technologies include direct thermal-to-electric nano conversion approaches [Thermoelectrics, Pyro-electrics, Thermal photo voltaics and Sterling/ other thermal cycles in the 

20 percent to 30 percent plus efficiency range, possibilities for very high temperature 

superconducting, nano-enhanced high efficiency photo-voltaics and fuel cells and the 

potential impacts of carbon nano tubes upon SMES [superconducting magnetic energy 

storage]. Preliminary estimates indicate that utilization of carbon nano tubes [CNT’s] for 

structure and magnets would increase the magnetic field strength and reduce the loses to 

the point where SMES could provide an energy storage density possibly a factor of 10 or 

so above chemical. 

Yet another power possibility devolves from system considerations. Aero-capture and 

aero-braking are a fundamental tenant of Human-Mars missions due to the obviation of the 

huge fuel requirement for propulsive braking.  An exciting possibility currently under 

study is to employ regenerative aero-capture and aero-braking wherein the plasma 

produced over the vehicle fore-body by the aero-braking process is ducted through an 

MHD generator to regenerate the transit energy imparted to the vehicle [reference 10]. 

The MHD generator could, of course, be designed synergistically with an MHD accelerator 

utilized for ETO and in-space propulsion via off-board beamed energy as discussed 

previously. Such recuperated energy could be stored on the vehicle [e.g. using CNT 

flywheels or SMES] for later use on-planet or beamed down for on-planet storage and 

utilization. A particularly interesting real time application of this energy is to capture, heat 

and retro-exhaust Martian atmospheric CO2 to solve the difficult high entry mass EDL 

[entry, descent and landing] problem in the thin Martian atmosphere without the use of 

[expensive/heavy] propulsive conventionally fueled retro-rockets. Advanced energy 

sources such as positrons or LENR could also be utilized to perform a similar function. A 

lower Tech approach to regenerative aerobraking is to ingest CO2 at high speed/energy 

early in the entry and store such to utilize its’ mass, heat content and pressure recovery for 

retro injection at low[er] speeds, later in the entry. Clever systems engineering may 
13

obviate the need for any additional energy addition. As an odd and perhaps errant thought, 

it MIGHT be possible to “harvest” kinetic energy from asteroids/ meteorites. A “space” 

version of the NIA/LaRC “Sky-Walker” project wherein loitering aero platforms keep aloft 

by sensing and moving from updraft to updraft in the atmosphere. On the more mundane 

level Space Solar Power satellites around Moon/Mars appear to be efficacious. 

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook 

LENR could, by itself, COMPLETELY Revolutionize Space access and utilization. 

Although there is a quite long history of “anomalous” observations including 

transmutations the “recent” consideration of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions begins with 

the Pons/ Fleishman late 80’s observations and assertions regarding what they termed 

“Cold Fusion”. Subsequent difficulties with experimental replication and an utter lack of 

convincing theoretical explication forced research in this arena “underground” with 

minimal financial support. The current situation is that we now have over two decades of 

hundreds of experiments indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and 

low energy input. By any rational measure this evidence indicates something real is 

occurring. So, is LENR “Real”? Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse 

experimental evidence – yes - With effects occurring using diverse materials, methods of 

energy addition etc. This is FAR from a “Narrow Band”/episodic set of physical 

phenomena. 

The next consideration is “WHAT IS REAL? WHAT IS Happening? For NASA Langley 

the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen weak interaction 

LENR Theory. This theory is currently under study and experimental verification [ or not] 

at NASA LaRC. The theory appears to explain nearly all the various and often variegated 

experimental observations and shifted the LENR Theoretical focus from some way of 

“fooling” Particle Nuclear Physics/The Strong Force to Condensed Matter Nuclear 

Physics, Collective Effects, The Weak Force and “Heavy Electrons”. The Strong Force 

Particle Physicists have of course evidently been correct all along, “Cold Fusion” is not 

possible. HOWEVER, via collective effects/condensed matter quantum nuclear physics 

LENR is allowable without any “Miracles”. The theory states that once load surfaces with 

hydrogen/protons and add some energy IF the surface morphology enables high localized 

voltage gradients then “heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form, 

neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades that results in 

beta decay and heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the gamma 

from the beta decay into heat. 

The theory indicates several key issues/circumstances are required to enable-to-optimize 
14

LENR and explains the various experimental observations, including the often long 

initiation times required in some experiments. If the theory is experimentally validated in 

detail it provides the understanding to shift LENR research from discovery into 

engineering development. The theory indicates energy densities some million times 

chemical, the current experiments are in the 10’s to hundreds range. However, several labs 

have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions 

are “right” prodigious amounts of energy can be released/produced. There are some 6 or 

so groups claiming device outputs in the 100 watt range and 3 others claiming kilowatts. 

Efforts are ongoing within NASA and other organizations to validate, or not, these claims. 

It should be noted that these devices are essentially “Edisonian,” the result of attempts at 

experimental “discovery” vice ab-initio design from the weak interaction theories per se. 

The LENR situation and outlook is therefore the following: Something real is happening, 

the weak interaction theories suggest what the physics might be, there are efforts ongoing 

to explore the validity of the theories, there are continuing Edisonian efforts to produce 

“devices,” mainly for heat or in some cases Transmutations. There are efforts to “certify” 

such devices. We are still FAR from the theoretical limits of the weak interaction physics 

and are in fact inventing in real time the requisite Engineering, along with verifying the 

physics. When we concentrated upon Nuclear Engineering beginning in the 1940’s we 

went, “jumped” to the strong force/particle physics and leapt over the weak force, 

condensed matter nuclear physics. We are going “back” now to study and hopefully 

develop this arena. 

The “Precautionary Principle” demands that we core down and determine realism for this 

arena, given the truly massive-to-mind boggling benefits – Solutions to climate, energy 

and the limitations that restrict the NASA Mission areas, all of them. The KEY to Space 

Exploration is Energetics. Some examples of what LENR might/ could enable in a 

resultant “Energy Rich” Exploration context include: 

- Refrigeration for Zero Boiloff cryo storage 

- Active Radiation protection 

- High Thrust Vasimir/MHD Propulsion 

- Energy Beaming 

- Separation of propulsive mass and energy/ energetics to establish the requisite 

conductivity for most “harvested” propulsive mass including regolith 

- Planetary Terraforming 

- Ubiquitous in space and on-planet sensors and robotics 

- LEO propulsion 

- On planet power and energy 

- EDL retro via heating of ingested mass 

 
15

Also, The Key to SST’s and neighbor-friendly personal fly/drive air vehicles is Energetics, 

as simplex examples of the potential implications of this area of research. There are 

estimates using just the performance of some of the devices under study that one percent of 

the nickel mined on the planet each year could produce the world’s energy requirements at 

the order of 25 percent the cost of coal. No promises but something[s] seriously “strange” 

are going on, which we may be closer to understanding and if we can optimize/engineer 

such the world changes. Worldwide, worth far more resources than are currently being 

devoted to this research arena. Need to core down and determine “Truth”. If useful, need 

to engineer/apply. 

 Dry Weight Reduction Approaches 

Probably THE greatest possibility for direct revolutionary dry weight reductions overall 

[space access, in-space propulsion and power, payloads] is the structural application of 

carbon nano tubes [reference 11]. By this is meant somehow combining the nano tubes 

into a contiguous nano tube structural material, not simply producing nano tube 

composites, which have FAR lower performance. Estimates of the potential impact of 

structural nano tubes define the borders of the imaginable –up to a factor of 8 [some allege 

even more] dry weight reductions. The physics indicate the potential is there and marching 

armies around the globe are working the requisite technology to make it happen. Such 

material capabilities would obviously have tremendous impacts everywhere, upon 

everything – military and civilian, space and non-space, energy conservation and warming, 

etc. the impetus behind the major research efforts worldwide in this arena. Nitride nano 

tubes are of interest for higher temperature applications. Other prospective space 

applications for CNTs include flywheels for energy storage, magnetic sails, tethers, ultracapacitors, advanced sensors, petaflop plus computing at some two or more orders of 

magnitude reduced energy losses and extremely multifunctional materials, combinations of 

structure and load carrying, imbedded sensors, computing, actuators and energy storage via 

either capacitance or hydrogen storage possibly optimized through Casimir force 

engineering. Other material possibilities, interesting but with less than CNT performance, 

include “Ageless” Quantum/Nano designer materials, syntactic metal foams, amorphous 

metals, micro-structured materials and the emerging smart-to-brilliant materials especially 

important for robotics and IVHM. The “Ageless” approach utilizes atomic/ molecular 

level design and fabrication to reduce-to-eliminate the various and numerous material 

defects [dislocations, grain in homogeneities, inclusions, etc.] that are induced by 

conventional fabrication techniques and are responsible for the observed large strength/ 

performance decrements with respect to “pure Material” expectations. 

Several other major weight savers are already being addressed or considered including 

ISRU [in-situ resource utilization] of several flavors, inflatables [including habitats], total 

recycling for life support including the solids and continuous application of the ongoing 
16

technology revolutions to reduce size and weight of equipment including Labs on a chip. 

As an ISRU example, Martian CO2 could be utilized for shielding, fuel cells, O2 

production, carbon for CNT’s, pressurized rockets, CH4 fuel production, polyethylene 

production and in-atmosphere solar pumped CO2 lasers. Ubiquitous energy harvesting 

nano sensors and robotics including “smart Dust” to instrument the planet[s]/bodies for 

virtual and physical exploration would tremendously inform, expedite and reduce the cost 

and increase the “productivity” of exploration campaigns. 

An obvious architecture approach is to preposition everything possible via inexpensive 

slow-boats and freighters to ensure functionality pre-need, checkout and demonstrate 

reliability and reduce direct human-related up-mass/transit mass. Potential pre-positioned 

functionalities/assets include Comm, Nav and Solar Sats, Habitats, “Transportation” 

devices, Power and Energy, ISRU in the large, Robotic Adjuncts, Radiation Protection, 

Medical facilities/capabilities, Spare everything for fail safe-safe, ETC. The alternative or 

adjunct to such is serious ISRU. The emerging Revolutionary Technologies would also 

enable revolutionary ISRU, including on planet/body molecular manufacturing,/“strong 

Nano” and LENR enabled Transmutations to produce materials/elements not otherwise/ 

readily available, with LENR providing the requisite energetics and utilizing Machine 

Intelligence to manage/direct the processes/fabrication/operations. Conceptually such 

technologies could produce from Regolith and have up and running/checked out whatever 

on-site infrastructures/systems is required for either exploration/science missions OR for 

INDUSTRIAL EXPLOITATION. Wholly robotic planetary etc. expeditions and 

operations would going forward appear to be feasible at some factor of 500 or so cost 

reduction compared to such activities involving on-site humans. Such revolutionary ISRU 

would massively reduce the requisite LEO upmass and is expected to change much the 

current design reference mission studies which postulate “Hauling it all there,” with some 

possible fuels and building materials produced via ISRU processes. 

Then there is the strategic approach to expedition/mission weight reduction – utilization of 

reusable space infrastructures/utilities writ large including [examples]: 

- Fuel depots 

- Beamers 

- Tethers 

- Virtual Tele-presence 

- Space Solar Power 

IF we are serious about space faring then space utilities/infrastructures are the ultimate 

“way forward. At this point we are still “exploring” vice “settling” and still evolving the 

requisite technologies. There are few serious extant studies of tradeoffs between various 

manifestations of reusable space utilities/ infrastructures vice the current “one time use” 

approaches at the overall exploration architecture level. Forward work at this point 
17

although there are projects regarding fuel depots and studies of “repair bots” in space and 

space solar power. 

Since for long missions radiation protection is emerging as THE major evolving mission 

weight worry it would appear that serious ideation should be applied to active radiation 

protection approaches, with emphasis upon weight and energy reduction. A recent concept 

under study at NASA LaRC termed Jujitsu is of particular interest in this regard. The idea 

is to utilize the energy of the incoming radiation via E-M fields to energize much of the 

protective incident energy decrease and deflection. Also, the entire spacecraft architecture 

should be considered as potential components contributing to the/a synergistic overall 

radiation protection system of systems. Magnetic vice Electrostatic active radiation 

approaches appear to be more efficacious. 

Yet another approach with regard to “weight savings” is to reduce the crew size to a 

minimum of perhaps two, one a scientist and one an engineer. Holographic crew members 

could obviously be added and updated daily with the latest information and news to 

provide socialization as well as expert aid and comfort. Then there are, in some 15 or so 

years out, the real expectation of robotic crew members with Machine Intelligence 

approaching human via biomimmetics. Suspended Animation is a further crew alteration 

possibility that could save considerable cost and weight whilst aiding overall crew mental 

state. There is recent success in the use of Hydrogen Sulfide and other approaches to 

induce reversible hypothermic states, e.g. suspended animation. Such approaches reduce 

temperature, O2 consumption, heart rate, metabolism etc. and are being developed 

currently by DARPA and others for medical/surgery/wound applications. For the long 

transits to Mars or the outer planets spacecraft size/ weight, consumables including oxygen 

etc. would normally be sized to the needs of the usual human diurnal cycle which includes 

longish periods of activity, requiring additional consumables and internal volume/weight 

compared to a crew placed in suspended animation. Also, the “confinement” effect on the 

crew mental state for longish transits is currently an unevaluated concern/worry which 

would be assuaged by utilization of suspended animation. A long standing concern with 

this is “waking them up “well”, with them being in a “serviceable “condition upon arrival. 

Ongoing research is addressing that issue. Obviously the Genomic and Synthetic Bio 

revolutions could be employed to produce “Designer Humans” more in consonance with 

suspended animation. 

Gossamer membrane materials/structures have, are and should be pursued for a multitude 

of space faring applications including sails, light buckets, antennas, solar arrays, planet/ 

life finders, concentrators, mirrors, lenses, radiators, sunshades, habs, etc. The ongoing 

Mems and Nano Tech Revolutions can provide membrane materials with embedded 

sensors, actuators, computing, energy storage and other functionalities including 
18

“intelligence.” The potential weight savings are massive. Serious development of 

Membrane space habs is ongoing, notably by Bigalow 

. 

 The Bolonkin and Bekey Concepts........... 

The Space Technology concepts due to Alexander Bolonkin and Ivan Bekey constitute the 

Frontiers of the Responsibly Imaginable – they are bold, audacious, creative, imaginative, 

and literally define the term “Big Idea” for space going forward. Their concepts are easily 

accessed from their books [refs. 12, 13 and 14]. 

Many of the the Bolonkin concepts utilize Electrostatics. His concepts include but are far 

from limited to: 

- An advanced Magnetic Space Launcher 

- Direct Blood Oxygenation and nutrition in lieu of a space suit 

- Propulsion via establishment of an electrical power/plasma channel in free space and 

magnetic/plasma forces vice mass ejection for thrust 

- Levitation via large S-C rings creating suitable magnetic fields 

- An electrostatic climber for space elevator 

- An ultra low cost/size/ weight thermonuclear reactor design 

- Optimal Space Tower Designs 

- Upper atmosphere or solar wind electrostatic ramjet 

- Electrostatic Magsail 

- Beamed space propulsion via ultra-cold plasma injection and electrostatics 

Bekey utilizes and discusses some 14 high leverage principles, including replacing 

structures with information, utilizing co-operating distributed systems and large gossamer 

membranes and inflatables for many functionalities including apertures. His major 

concepts include variations on the central theme of exploiting the varied and revolutionary 

properties of Nano Tubes, including various flavors of tethers. Bekey Comments with 

respect to the Nations Space Projects from his chapter entitled the Long Term Outlook for 

Commercial Space in the NDU book “Toward a Theory of Space Power” are 

“interesting”......... 
19

“The Nation's space programs are in a horrible mess and appear to be locked in a 

downward spiral. Almost all defense and civil government space programs suffer from 

similar symptoms: 

 no toleration of or planning for failures 

 avoidance of risk 

 lack of funding for new technologies 

 inability of industry to afford research or to develop technologies alone 

 suppression of disruptive technologies 

 disappearance of the concept of experimental systems in space. 

As a result of these symptoms, the following conditions are now the norm: 

 absence of innovation 

 long timelines for even modestly new developments 

 billion-dollar price tags for major systems 

 major overruns and schedule slips 

 need for long on-orbit life to amortize the investment 

 obsolescence of systems upon launch or soon thereafter.” 

Mission Reliability Considerations 

The Design Reference Missions and other studies of extended Human Missions beyond 

LEO are at this stage very "top level.” Historically as these studies become more detailed 

the margins go south and the costs escalate, it is important to start with large positive 

margins. 

One of the "more detailed" issues that needs to be addressed earlier rather than later and is 

currently not being addressed [except for a few piece parts] for long duration human 

spaceflight is reliability and surety. These issues/concerns, depending upon applicable 

research, discovery and engineering invention, could greatly increase the costs and 

decrease safety of such missions. 

 Issues/considerations of interest include the SIMULTANEOUS effects of: 

 - On Planet Dust, especially the Martian dust which is thought to contain hexavalent 

chromium, the most potent carcinogen known. 

 - Reduced-to-micro gravity 

 - Micro-meteoroids 

 - RADIATION, Effects upon humans, electronics, materials, functionalities 
20

 - Long duration "Aging", fatigue Etc....... 

 - Errors [ Human and Machine, including both omission and commission] 

Effects of radiation and Micro g upon Genomics/Bio, especially formation of extremely 

worrisome/nasty pathogens and corrosives. Bugs in space become very virulent, benign 

viruses when put in space tend to become killers. The Human Gut contains many 

thousands of bugs which will populate the cabin areas and serve as potential sources of 

mutated bio organisms. 

 - Effects of Free O2, other active/reactive/oxidative/excited species 

 - system non-linearities/cascading failures 

 - ETC., Etc......... 

The engineering, inventions and associated costs including redundancies/fail safe backups 

to keep the crew "pink and warm" in the face of these issues are currently wholly unknown 

but will have to be known before realistic mission costs/project plans can be developed. 

An Orthogonal Systems and Architecture Solution Space 

The safety aspects of Humans-Mars are worrisome. There are assertions that the Martian 

dust contains hexavalent chromium, an extremely potent carcinogen, and highly oxidative 

components, necessitating a dust-free environment for the humans - for habitats, suits, 

transporters, interlocks. The near absence of a magnetic field on Mars and the rarefied 

nature of the Martian atmosphere provides only minimal protection from galactic space 

radiation [30-50 Gev of Iron nuclei and such, reference 15 and 16] and solar particle events 

which are both highly carcinogenic and severely impact the immune system. Radiation 

protection during transit and for the Habs is possibly doable, requiring great weight. 

However, serious radiation protection for, while in, space suits requires a breakthrough. 

Also, reduced gravity affects both bone growth and [adversely] the immune system. The 

only humans exposed to both full space radiation and reduced gravity simultaneously was 

the Apollo astronauts, and that exposure was for days not years. We can study parts of the 

problem via station at less-than-full radiation but with reduced gravity. Also, we are 

placing tissue samples in the Beam Line at Brookhaven where we can study radiation but 

without the concomitant effects of reduced gravity and not in vivo. There are no combined 

microg and radiation facilities extant [although a robotic in-space beyond LEO capsule to 

study such at the tissue/organ level is certainly executable], and therefore we know very 

little concerning their potentially highly negative synergistic combinational effects upon 
21

crew immune system and overall health. There are several mitigation approaches either 

being worked or potentially interesting including oscillating low level electromagnetic 

fields to remediate bone growth, pharmaceuticals and genomic treatments for immune 

system augmentation/tissue repair as well as the out-year potential of designer humans. 

There is, however, a rapidly emerging orthogonal alternative solution space for HumansMars [reference 17]. This solution space is enabled by the ongoing IT, nano, energetics 

and quantum technology revolutions and proffers the opportunity for everyone to go and 

explore while reducing the cost of exploration some factor of 100 to a 1000 to possibly 

much more. This orthogonal approach is increasingly enabled by many synergistic 

technology advances including high band width free space optical communications, the 

increasing functionality and cost decreases of ever smaller/lighter sensor and robotics 

systems, the emerging autonomous robotics capabilities, improving machine intelligence 

and the developing five senses superb virtual reality and immersive presence. The overall 

approach is to send the micro/nano sensors and the increasingly autonomous robots to 

explore Mars, i.e. instrument the planet. Utilize the optical free space communications to 

stream back the multi-sensory/multi-physics data to the web to enable the five senses 

virtual reality to provide a potentially far better than being there [and many orders of 

magnitude safer/less expensive] Mars exploration experience for everyone anywhere at any 

time. The technologies to execute this orthogonal humans-mars mission construct are 

developing, largely by commercial entities, faster than the technologies, briefly touched 

upon herein, which could enable physical on-site human Mars both safe and affordable. 

Early versions of this orthogonal approach are currently the approach of choice for 

exploration of the outer planets due to the extreme distances involved. The huge and 

rapidly growing international interest and participation in online gaming and virtual worlds 

[even on the current flat screens, before virtual reality] attests to the probable success of 

virtual exploration. Going forward, the machines and robots could do the initial 

exploration and even terra-forming for Mars and the humans physically go there when the 

ground and air are right. By that time the energetics technology should be there for them 

to do this economically and safely. 

A somewhat farther term but “within bounds” approach is to employ the evolving synthetic 

biology technology revolution to invent/develop life forms [perhaps even those based upon 

silicon or sulfur vice carbon] that could be nucleated on Mars/other locations and literally 

LIVE off the land and be “controlled”/co-opted to explore, colonize and terraform. As an 

example they could conceivably be designed/developed to produce and secrete sensors as 

they move about. This utilizes both “Bio-Production” and Bio-Functionalism,” AKA 

“Living Robots”. These entities could conceptually include “flyers” and “hoppers” to 

ensure adequate coverage of the planet/ body. Obviously, given the current “Planet 

Protection” mantras such an approach would entail significant soft side negotiation. It 

would appear to be efficacious to begin that “dialogue” now, as the Bio revolution enables 
22

such a capability/approach in real time. Obviously, the same Synthetic Biology 

Technologies along with the ongoing studies of “Extremaphiles” could be applied to 

Humans to possibly provide such as Rad-Hardening, reduced O2 requirements/enhanced 

O2 efficiency, reduced food/liquid requirements–to-direct photosynthesis, 

Etc.....Altogether, “Designer Humans” designed as” Exploriticus Sapiens”. Not that much 

of a “leap”/change from the current trend toward “Designer Babies”. 

The Frontiers of Space Technology 

The following synopsis constitutes the leading edge of prospective Revolutionary 

Technologies which would/could massively change the cost and safety of Space 

Technology/Exploration/Exploitation and Industrialization and are therefore of “interest” 

for serious research efforts, having high risk and even [far] higher payoff. 

These derive from the Several “Dominant Themes prevalent in the ongoing simultaneous 

IT, Bio, Nano, Energetics, Quantum Technology Revolutions. These themes include 

Miniaturization, Robotics, Machine Intelligence, Genomic/Synthetic Biology, 

Sensorization, Networks, Optical Bandwidths, Nano/Quantum materials, Energy Density, 

Quantum Everything......... 

 Fabrication/ Manufacturing – Molecular Manufacturing/ “Strong Nano”, 

 Materials – Fused/ structural Nano Tubes, “ageless”/ defect free materials 

 Energetics – LENR, Positron Storage/ utilization, Low Diffraction Energy Beaming, 

Aneutronic ECF P-B11 Fusion 

 Communications – Hal Puthoff vector/ scaler Quantum Comms utilizing Josephenson 

Junctions [ ref. 18] 

 Propulsion – High Thrust MHD [ FRC, VASIMIR] possibly using harvested propulsive 

mass, CNT Magnetic sails, Slingatron, Tethers including E-M tethers/ revolutionary 

energetics, Pondermotive Forces induced by laser/ plasma interactions, MET [ Microwave 

Electro-Thermal] 

 Radiation Protection – Active using Revolutionary Energetics 

 Humans – Via Genomic/ synthetic Biology, greatly accelerated DNA repair 

 ISRU – LENR Transmutations, Molecular Manufacturing, LENR Energetics 

 Mars Terraforming – Huge deployable gossamer solar reflectors/ concentrators to melt 

the poles, enable shallow ocean, add “plants for Planets” to produce O2 
23

 IT/ Computing/Nav – Quantum Computing, Atomic computing, Quantum optics/ 

electronics/sensing/, Atom optics Nav 

 LEO Access – Beamers, LENR, PDW Rocket, Slingatron 

 Biologics – Synthetic Biology life forms to explore, colonize, terraform [both bio 

production and bio functionalism] 

 Note – Given a massive energetics source nearly ANY mass, harvested from anywhere 

[in atmosphere, from surface, flying about, etc.] can be utilized as propulsive mass via 

separation of propulsive mass and energy , traditionally COMBINED in rocket fuels of the 

Chemical Persuasion. Using small amounts of alkaline material additives or brute force 

energetics to induce conductivity in/of an arbitrary/harvested propulsive mass enables high 

Isp high thrust MHD propulsion without hauling fuel around the solar system. Therefore, 

IF LENR [essentially Nuc Energy Density without the radiation hazard[s]/protection 

weights/expense] is engineered going forward Space Propulsion and Space writ large 

[and MUCH else] is changed mightily............. 

Commentary 

Success in only a few or in some cases one [e.g. LENR or Structural Nano Tubes] of the 

myriad revolutionary technologies briefly cited herein could have major impacts upon 

Human-Mars and Space in general with respect to cost and safety. For Human-Mars we 

have the time, before we have to commit to development, to conduct the research 

necessary to evaluate and sort out these technologies and probably many others not 

included to determine which advanced technologies are viable. As mentioned in the first 

section, going-in the nature of the situation is such that cannot, ab-initio, pick winners. A 

triage process is necessary wherein low level investments are initially made in a wide 

spectrum of approaches, with a winnowing process as more is learned. Many of the 

technologies of interest are being developed by and for commercial or military 

applications. Historically, serious problems occurred in many major national space and 

aeronautics projects due to selection of evolutionary technology suites which lacked the 

capability to enable attainment of the mission metrics - necessitated in some cases by the 

perception that the schedule would not allow the requisite homework to include 

revolutionary technologies. In those programs tardy attempts were sometimes made to 

work the right stuff under the guise of risk reduction via parallel development and research 

tracks. This approach was unsuccessful – too little and far too late. Need to enter the 

development phase of a project with a surfeit of margins, weight always increases, costs 

always go up. Exploration budget realities provide the time to do Human-Mars right in 
24

this respect. The essential key to safe and affordable space travel/exploration/exploitation 

is beyond Chemical Energetics and propulsion. In the nearer term, the dominant 

opportunities in these areas are fission Nuc thermal or electric and for supply/re-supply 

slo-boats, “sails” of various flavors. In the mid-term, Advanced beaming [ various], 

LENR, Slingatron, positrons and MHD. The farther term possibilities will derive from 

whatever and whenever we sort out and understand what is really going on in physics at 

cosmological scales. 

Overall – As mentioned in the Bekey comments cited herein, the pursuit of Revolutionary 

Space Technologies has over the years been akin to a battle, with the forces of 

conservatism/evolution consistently winning over those advocating risky/huge payoff 

REAL “Game-Changing” approaches. The Space Community has simply been unwilling 

to make the investment of time and treasure to ideate and triage/develop Revolutionary 

Technologies, resulting in Space being largely and still a high capital investment 

evolutionary at best Industrial Age Endeavour in the IT age heading rapidly to the Virtual 

Age. 

“The battle is within. It is a cultural one: between glorifying the past or 

marching toward the future, between protecting successes or cannibalizing them, 

between averting risk or embracing it. The battle is for the soul of the of the Industry 

[and the Future of Humankind in Space]” 

 There does appear to be a possible change in direction on this, TBD. In the discussion of 

the Space Technology Grand Challenges NASA recently stated: 

 “The future demands active curiosity, open minds and a determination to resolve 

challenges as they present themselves” 

 Also: 

 “The challenges of flying in space are such that a truly radical improvement in nearly any 

system used to design, build, launch or operate a spacecraft has the potential to be 

transformative. To meet the broad challenge of maintaining a robust and vibrant space 

program, investments will be considered in any space technology that has the potential to 

be transformative.” 
25

References 

1. Rapp, Donald, “Initial Mass In Low Earth Orbit Required to Transfer Space Vehicles 

to Mars Orbit or Mars Surface,” Appendix 9 in “Human Exploration of Mars – Reality 

or Fantasy,” www.mars-lunar.net. 

2. Hay, Jason et al, Tauri Group, “Technology Frontiers: Breakthrough Capabilities for 

Space Exploration,” December 2010, NASA NP-2011-01-324-LARC 

3. Bushnell, Dennis M., “Imaginable Technologies for Human Missions to Mars,” 

Aerospace America, June 2007, pp. 24-30. 

4. Frisbee, Robert H., “Advanced Space Propulsion for the 21st Century,” J of Propulsion 

and Power, V. 19, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003, pp. 1129-1154 

5. Ketsdever, Andrew D. et al, “An Overview of Advanced Concepts for Space Access,” 

USAF AFRL, Report - RZ-ED-TP-2008-238, 2008 

6. Lineberry, John T., Chapman, James N., Litchford, Ron J., and Jones, Jonathan, “MHD 

Augmentation of Rocket Engines Using Beamed Energy,” AIP Conference 

Proceedings, V. 664, No. 1, pp.280-291, 2003, First International Symposium on 

Beamed Energy Propulsion 

7. Millis, Marc G. and Davis, Eric W. Eds., Frontiers of Propulsion Science,” V. 227, 

AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautic, 2009 

8. Davis, Eric W. “Teleportation Physics Study,” USAF, AFRL-PR-ED-TR-2003-0034, 

2004 

9. Davis, E.W., Teofilo, V. L. ., Haisch, B., Puthoff, H. E., Nickisch, L. J., Rueda, A. and 

Cole, D. C. “Review of Experimental Concepts for Studying The Quantum Vacuum 

Field,” STAIF 2006, AIP Conference Proceedings, V. 813, pp. 1390-1401, 2006 

10. Moses, Robert W., “Regenerative Aerobraking,” STAIF 2005, AIP Conference 

Proceedings, V. 746, pp. 1361-1370, 2005 

11. Harris, C. E., Shuart, M. J., and Gray, H. R., “Emerging Materials for Revolutionary 

Aerospace Vehicle Structures and Propulsion Systems, “SAMPE Journal, Vol. 38, No. 

6, November/December 2002, pp. 33-43 

12. Bolonkin, Alexander, “New Concepts, Ideas and Innovations in Aerospace, 

Technology and Human Sciences,” Nova Science Publishers NY, 2008 
26

13. Bolonkin, Alexander and Cathcart, Richard “Macro-Projects, Environmental and 

Technology,” Nova Science Publishers, NY 2009 

14. Beckey, Ivan, “Advanced Space System Concepts and Technologies,” The Aerospace 

Press, 2003 

15. Simonsen, Lisa C, Wilson, John W., Kim, Myung H., and Cucinotta, F. A., “Radiation 

Exposure For Human Mars Exploration,” Health Physics, V. 79, No. 5, Nov. 2000, pp. 

515-525 

16. Adams, J. H. Jr., et al “Revolutionary Concepts of Radiation Shielding for Human 

Exploration of Space,” NASA/TM-2005-213688 

17. Lindberg, Ronnie, “Importance of Human Presence in Space Exploration – Man or 

Machines?” IAC paper 03-IAA.1.1.01 International Academy of Astronautics meeting 

Breman Germany, 2003 

18. Puthoff, Harold E., Communication Method and Apparatus wioth Signals Comprising 

Scaler and Vector Potentials Without Electromagnetic Fields,” U.S. Patent 5,845,220, 

1998 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Advanced-to-Revolutionary Space Technology Options - The Responsibly 

Imaginable

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Bushnell, Dennis M.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-20240

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 91

Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

Paper summarizes a spectrum of low TRL, high risk technologies and systems approaches which could massively change the 

cost and safety of space exploration/exploitation/industrialization. These technologies and approaches could be studied in a 

triage fashion, the method of evaluation wherein several prospective solutions are investigated in parallel to address the innate 

risk of each, with resources concentrated on the more successful as more is learned. Technology areas addressed include 

Fabrication, Materials, Energetics, Communications, Propulsion, Radiation Protection, ISRU and LEO access. Overall and 

conceptually it should be possible with serious research to enable human space exploration beyond LEO both safe and 

affordable with a design process having sizable positive margins. Revolutionary goals require, generally, revolutionary 

technologies. By far, Revolutionary Energetics is the most important, has the most leverage, of any advanced technology for 

space exploration applications.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Expeditions; Frontiers; Ideation; LEO; Mars; Revolutionary; Safe; Technologies

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

31

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(443) 757-5802

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

432938.09.01.07.01

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TM-2013-217981

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 04 - 2013