If Breakthrough Starshot is tackling the question of velocities at a substantial percentage of lightspeed, what do we do about the payload question? A chip-sized spacecraft is challenging in terms of instrumentation and communications, not to mention power. Enter Jeff Greason’s Q-Drive, with an entirely different take on high velocity missions within the Solar System and beyond it. Drawing its energies from the medium to deploy an inert propellant, the Q-Drive ups the payload enormously. But can it be engineered? Alex Tolley has been doing a deep dive on the concept and talking to Dr. Greason about the possibilities, out of which today’s essay has emerged. A Centauri Dreams regular, Alex has a history of innovative propulsion work, and with Brian McConnell is co-author of A Design for a Reusable Water-Based Spacecraft Known as the Spacecoach (Springer, 2016),
by Alex Tolley
Technical University of Munich for Project Icarus. Credit: Adrian Mann.
The interstellar probe coasted at 4% c after her fusion drive first stage was spent. It massed 50,000 kg, mostly propellant water ice stored as a conical shield ahead of the probe that did double duty as a particle shield. The probe extended a spine, several hundred kilometers in length behind the shield. Then the plasma magnet sails at each end started to cycle, using just the power from a small nuclear generator. The magsails captured and extracted power from the ISM streaming by. This powered the ionization and ejection of the propellant. Ejected at the streaming velocity of the ISM, the probe steadily increased in velocity, eventually reaching 20% c after exhausting 48,000 kg of propellant. The probe, targeted at Proxima Centauri, would reach its destination in less than 20 years. It wouldn’t be the first to reach that system, the Breakthrough microsails had done that decades earlier, but this probe was the first with the scientific payload to make a real survey of the system and collect data from its habitable world.
(sound of a needle skidding across a vinyl record). Wait, what? How can a ship accelerate to 20% c without expending massive amounts of power from an onboard power plant, or an intense external power beam from the solar system?
In a previous article, I explained the plasma magnet drive, a magsail technology that did not require a large physical sail structure, but rather a compact electromechanical engine whose magnetic sail size was dependent on the power and the surrounding medium’s plasma density.
Like other magsail and electric sail designs, the plasma magnet could only run before the solar wind, making only outward bound trips and a velocity limited by the wind speed. This inherently limited the missions that a magsail could perform compared to a photon sail. Where it excelled was the thrust was not dependent on the distance from the sun that severely limits solar sail thrust, and therefore this made the plasma magnet sail particularly suited to missions to the outer planets and beyond.
Jeff Greason has since considered how the plasma magnet could be decelerated to allow the spacecraft to orbit a target in the outer system. Following the classic formulations of Fritz Zwicky, Greason considered whether the spacecraft could use onboard mass but external energy to achieve this goal. This external energy was to be extracted from the external medium, not solar or beamed energy, allowing it to operate anywhere where there was a medium moving relative to the vehicle.
The approach to achieve this was to use the momentum and energy of a plasma stream flowing past the ship and using that energy to transfer momentum to an onboard propellant to drive the ship. That plasma stream would be the solar wind inside the solar system (or another star system), and an ionized interstellar medium once beyond the heliosphere.
Counterintuitively, such a propulsion system can work in principle. By ejecting the reaction mass, the ship’s kinetic energy energy is maintained by a smaller mass, and therefore increases its velocity. There is no change in the ship’s kinetic energy, just an adjustment of the ship’s mass and velocity to keep the energy constant.
Box 1 shows that net momentum (and force) can be attained when the energy of the drag medium and propellant thrust are equal. However this simple momentum exchange would not be feasible as a drive as the ejection mass would have to be greater than the intercepted medium resulting in very high mass ratios. In contrast, the Q-Drive, achieves a net thrust with a propellant mass flow far less than the medium passing by the craft, resulting in a low mass ratio yet high performance in terms of velocity increase.
Figure 1 shows the principle of the Q-Drive using a simple terrestrial vehicle analogy. Wind blowing through a turbine generates energy that is then used to eject onboard propellant. If the energy extracted from the wind is used to eject the propellant, in principle the onboard propellant mass flow can be lower than the mass of air passing through the turbine. The propellant’s exhaust velocity is matched to that of the wind, and under these conditions, the thrust can be greater than the drag, allowing the vehicle to move forward into the wind.
Box 2 below shows the basic equations for the Q-Drive.
Let me draw your attention to equations 1 & 2, the drag and thrust forces. The drag force is dependent on the velocity of the wind or the ship moving through the wind which affects the mass flow of the medium. However, it is the change in velocity of the medium as it passes through the energy harvesting mechanism rather than the wind velocity itself that completes this equation. Compare that to the thrust from the propellant where the mass flow is dependent on the square of the exhaust velocity. When the velocity of the ship and the exhaust are equal, the ratio of the mass flows is dependent on the ratio of the change in velocity (delta V) of the medium and the exhaust velocity. The lower the delta V of the medium as the energy is extracted from it, the lower the mass flow of the propellant. As long as the delta V of the medium is greater than zero, as the delta V approaches zero, the mass of the stream of medium is greater than the mass flow of the propellant. Conversely, as the delta V approaches the velocity of the medium, i.e. slowing it to a dead stop relative to the ship, the closer the medium and exhaust mass flows become.
Equations 3 and 7 are for the power delivered by the medium and the propellant thrust. As the power needed for generating the thrust cannot be higher than than delivered by the medium, at 100% conversion the power of each must be equal. As can be seen, the power generated by the energy harvesting is the drag force multiplied by the speed of the medium. However, the power to generate the thrust is ½ the force of the thrust multiplied by the exhaust velocity, which is the same as the velocity of the medium. Therefore the thrust is twice that of the drag force and therefore a net thrust equal to the drag force is achieved [equation 9]. [Because the sail area must be very large to capture the thin solar wind and the even more rarified ISM, the drag force on the ship itself can be discounted.]
Because the power delivered from the external medium increases as the ship increases in velocity, so does the delivered power, which in turn is used to increase the exhaust velocity to match. This is very different from our normal expectations of powering vehicles. Because of this, the Q-Drive can continue to accelerate a ship for as long as it can continue to exhaust propellant.
Figure 2 shows the final velocity versus the ship’s mass ratio performance of the Q-Drive compared to a rocket with a fixed exhaust velocity, and the rocket equation using a variable exhaust but with the thrust reduced by 50% to match the Q-drive net thrust equaling 50% of the propellant thrust. With a mass ratio below 10, a rocket with an exhaust equal to the absolute wind velocity would marginally outperform the Q-drive, although it would need its own power source to run, such as a solar array or nuclear reactor. Beyond that, the Q-drive rapidly outperforms the rocket. This is primarily because as the vehicle accelerates, the increased power harvested from the wind is used to commensurately increase the exhaust velocity. If a rocket could do this, for example like the VASIMR drive, the performance curve is the same. However, the Q-drive does not need a huge power supply to work, and therefore offers a potential for very high velocity without needing a matching power supply.
Equation A16 [1] and Box 3 equation 1 show that the Q-Drive has a velocity multiplier that is the square root of the mass ratio. This is highly favorable compared to the rocket equation. The equations 2 and 3 in Box 3 show that the required propellant and hence mass ratio is reduced the less the medium velocity is reduced to extract power. However, reducing the delta V of the medium also reduced the acceleration of the craft. This implies that the design of the ship will be dependent on mission requirements rather than some fixed optimization.
Box 4 provides some illustrative values for the size of the mag sails in the solar system for the Q-Drive and the expected performance for a 1 tonne craft. While the magnetic sail radii are large, they are achievable and allow for relatively high acceleration. As explained in [4], the plasma magnet sails increase in size as the medium density decreases, maintaining the forces on the sail. Once in interstellar space, the ISM is yet more rarefied and the sails have to commensurately expand.
How might the plasma medium’s energy be harvested?
The wind turbine shown in figure 1 is replaced by an arrangement of the plasma magnet sails. To harvest the energy of the medium, it is useful to conceptualize the plasma magnet sail as a parachute that slows the wind to run a generator. At the end of this power stroke, the parachute is collapsed and rewound to the starting point to start the next power cycle. This is illustrated in figure 3. A ship would have 2 plasma magnet sails that cycle their magnetic fields at each end of a long spine that is aligned with the wind direction to mimic this mechanism. The harvested energy is then used to eject propellant so that the propellant exhaust velocity is optimally the same as the medium wind speed. By balancing the captured power with that needed to eject propellant, the ship needs no dedicated onboard power beyond that for maintenance of other systems, for example, powering the magnetic sails.
Within the solar system, the Q-Drive could therefore push a ship towards the sun into the solar wind, as well as away from the sun with the solar wind at its back. Ejecting propellant ahead of the ship on an outward bound journey would allow the ship to decelerate. Ejecting the propellant ahead of the ship as it faced the solar wind would allow the ship to fall towards the sun. In both cases, the maximum velocity is about the 400 km/s of the peak density velocity of the solar wind.
Can the drive achieve velocities greater than the solar wind?
With pure drag sails, whether photon or magnetic, the maximum velocity is the same as the medium pushing on the sail. For a magnetic sail, this is the bulk velocity of the solar wind, about 400 km/s at the sun’s equator, and 700 km/s at the sun’s poles.
Unlike drag sails, the Q-Drive can achieve velocities greater than the medium, e.g. the solar wind. As long as the wind is flowing into the bow of the ship, the ship can accelerate indefinitely until the propellant is exhausted. The limitation is that this can only happen while the ship is facing into the wind (or the wind vector has a forward facing component). In the solar system, this requires that there is sufficient distance to allow the ship to accelerate until its velocity is higher than the solar wind before it flies past the sun. Once past perihelion, the ship is now running into the solar wind from behind, and can therefore keep accelerating.
What performance might be achievable?
To indicate the possible performance of the Q-drive in the solar system, 2 missions are explored, both requiring powered flight into the solar wind.
Two Solar System Missions
1. Mercury Rendezvous
To reach Mercury quickly requires the probe to reduce its orbital speed around the sun to drop down to Mercury’s orbit and then reduce velocity further to allow orbital insertion. The Q-Drive ship points its bow towards the sun, and ejects propellant off-axis. This quickly pushed the probe into a fast trajectory towards the sun. Further propellant ejection is required to prevent the probe from a fast return trajectory and to remain in Mercury’s sun orbital path. From there a mix of propellant ejection and simple drag alone can be used to place the probe in orbit around Mercury. Flight time is of the order of 55 days. Figure 4 illustrates the maneuver.
2. Sundiver with Triton Flyby
The recent Centauri Dreams post on a proposed flyby mission to Triton indicated a flight time of 12 years using gravity assists from Earth, Venus, and Jupiter.. The Q-Drive could reduce most of that flight time using a sundiver approach. Figure 5 shows the possible flight path. The Q-Drive powers towards the sun against the solar wind. It must have a high enough acceleration to ensure that at perihelion it is now traveling faster than the solar wind. This allows it to now continue on a hyperbolic trajectory continually accelerating until its propellant is exhausted.
This sundiver maneuver allows the Q-Drive craft to fly downwind faster than the wind.
For a ship outward bound beyond the heliosphere, the ISM medium is experienced as a wind coming from the bow, While extremely tenuous, there is enough medium to extract the energy for continued acceleration as long as the ship has ejectable mass.
Up to this point, I have been careful to state this works IN PRINCIPLE. In practice there are some very severe engineering challenges. The first is to be able to extract energy from the drag of the plasma winds with sufficient efficiency to generate the needed power for propellant ejection. The second is to be able to eject propellant with a velocity that matches the speed of the vehicle, IOW, the exhaust velocity must match the vehicle’s velocity, unlike the constant exhaust velocity of a rocket. If the engines to eject propellant can only eject mass at a constant velocity, the delta V of the drive would look more like a conventional rocket, with a natural logarithm function of the mass flow. The ship would still be able to extract energy from the medium, but the mass ratio would have to be very much higher. The chart in Figure 2 shows the difference between a fixed velocity exhaust and the Q-Drive with variable velocity.
The engineering issues to turn the Q-Drive into hardware are formidable. To extract the energy of the plasma medium whether solar wind or ISM, with high efficiency, is non-trivial. Greason’s idea is to have 2 plasma magnet drag sails at each end of the probe’s spine that cycle in power to extract the energy. The model is rather like a parachute that is open to create drag to push on the parachute to run a generator, then collapse the parachute to release the trapped medium and restart it at the bow (see figure 3). Whether this is sufficient to create the needed energy extraction efficiency will need to be worked out. If the efficiencies are like those of a vertical axis wind turbine that works like drag engines, the efficiencies will be far too low. The efficiency would need to be higher than that of horizontal axis wind turbines to reduce the mass penalties for the propellant. It can be readily seen that if the efficiencies combine to be lower than 50%, then the Q-Drive effectively drops back into the regime illustrated in Box 1, that is that the mass of propellant must become larger than the medium and ejected more slowly. This hugely raises the mass ratio of the craft and in turn reduces its performance.
The second issue is how to eject the propellant to match the velocity of the medium streaming over the probe. Current electric engines have exhaust velocities in the 10s of km/s. Theoretical electric engines might manage the solar wind velocity. Efficiencies of ion drives are in the 50% range at present. To reach a fraction of light speed for the interstellar mission is orders of difficulty harder. Greason suggests something like a magnetic field particle accelerator that operates the length of the ship’s spine. Existing particle accelerators have low efficiencies, so this may present another very significant engineering challenge. If the exhaust velocity cannot be matched to the speed of the ship through the medium, the performance looks much more like a rocket, with velocity increases that depend on the natural logarithm of the mass ratio, rather than the square root. For the interstellar mission, increasing the velocity from 4% to 20% light speed would require a mass ratio of not just 25, but rather closer to 150.
Figure 6 shows my attempt to illustrate a conceptual Q-Drive powered spacecraft for interstellar flight. The propellant is at the front to act as a particle shield in the ISM. There is a science platform and communication module behind this propellant shield. Behind stretches a many kilometers long spine that has a plasma magnet at either end to harvest the energy in the ISM and to accelerate the propellant. Waste heat is handled by the radiator along this spine.
In summary, the Q-Drive offers an interesting path to high velocity missions both intra-system and interstellar, with much larger payloads than the Breakthrough Starshot missions, but with anticipated engineering challenges comparable with other exotic drives such as antimatter engines. The elegance of the Q-Drive is the capability of drawing the propulsion energy from the medium, so that the propellant can be common inert material such as water or hydrogen.
The conversion of the medium’s momentum to net thrust is more efficient than a rocket with constant exhaust velocity using onboard power allowing far higher velocities with equivalent mass ratios. The two example missions show the substantial improvements in mission time for both and inner system rendezvous and an outer system flyby. The Q-Drive also offers the intriguing possibility of interstellar missions with reasonable scientific and communication payloads that are not heroic feats of miniaturization.
References
1. Greason J. “A Reaction Drive Powered by External Dynamic Pressure” (2019) JBIS v72 pp146-152.
2. Greason J. ibid. equation A4 p151.
3. Greason J. “A Reaction Drive Powered by External Dynamic Pressure” (2019) TVIW video https://youtu.be/86z42y7DEAk
The right kind of atmosphere may keep a planet habitable even if it crowds the inner region of the habitable zone. But atmospheric evolution involves many things, including the kind of geological activity our own planet has experienced, leading to sudden, deep extinctions. Centauri Dreams regular Alex Tolley today takes a look at a new paper that examines the terrestrial extinction of marine species in the Permian event some 252 million years ago. As we examine exoplanet habitability, it will be good to keep the factors driving such extinctions in mind. Tolley is a lecturer in biology at the University of California and author, with Brian McConnell, of A Design for a Reusable Water-Based Spacecraft Known as the Spacecoach (Springer, 2016). A key question in his essay today: Is our definition of the habitable zone simply too broad?
by Alex Tolley
In the search for life on exoplanets, questions about whether the planet is within the HZ given a plausible atmosphere is based on timescales as a fraction of stellar lifetime on the main sequence. With water may come the emergence of life as we know it, and then the long, slow evolution to multicellular life and possible technological civilization. Planets may initially form too close to a pre-main sequence star to be in the HZ, then enter the HZ, only to leave it again as the star increases in luminosity with age. Earth has experienced about a 30% increase in solar luminosity over its lifetime. The CO2 level needed to maintain a constant surface temperature via the greenhouse effect has had to decline to offset the increased insolation. In 1 to 2 billion years, the further increase in solar luminosity will require the CO2 levels to decline below that needed for photosynthesis, or the Earth’s surface will heat up beyond that sustainable for life.
Yet when considering the environment on a world in the HZ, we should be cognizant that climatic instability may create shocks in the short term that have major impacts on life. Earth has experienced 5 major extinctions based on our reading of the fossil record. The most famous being the dinosaur-killing KT event that ended the Cretaceous and allowed mammals to evolve into the newly vacated ecological niches. However, the largest extinction is known as the Permian extinction, or “Great Dying” when over 95% of marine species became extinct about 252 mya. Unlike the KT event, which was a cosmic throw of the dice, the Permian extinction is believed to be due to massive volcanism of the Siberian Traps that released vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere that increased its concentration at least several fold. This caused a rapid temperature rise of 10s of degrees Fahrenheit and was accompanied by ocean acidification.
A new paper by Julian Penn et al suggests that this global temperature change caused the extinction of marine species primarily by metabolic stress and hypoxia.
The core idea is that multicellular, aerobic organisms require critical oxygen pressures to live, with their lowest levels of metabolism during resting, and higher levels for activities, such as swimming or feeding. Sessile organisms may have just a 1.5x increase in active metabolic rate over resting, while energetic organisms like fish may be 5x or more. As temperatures rise, so does the metabolic rate. This, in turn, requires adequate oxygen for respiration. But as the temperatures rise, the dissolved oxygen levels fall, placing additional stress on the animals to maintain their respiration rate. Penn integrated climate models to compute the temperature change and dissolved oxygen partial pressures, with the estimated metabolic rates for the activity of various modern animals to represent Permian species, to determine how ocean habitat temperatures impact the metabolisms of marine genera and probable extinction rates.
Figure 1 shows the relation between metabolic rate and temperature, and the temperature increased metabolic index of ocean habitat by latitude and depth. The polar latitudes and shallower depths show the highest changes in the metabolic index, indicating the most stressed habitats.
Figure 1. Physiological and ecological traits of the Metabolic Index (F) and its end-Permian distribution. (A) The critical O2 pressure (pO2 crit) needed to sustain resting metabolic rates in laboratory experiments (red circles, Cancer irroratus) vary with temperature with a slope proportional to Eo from a value of 1/Ao at a reference temperature (Tref), as estimated by linear regression when F = 1 (19). Energetic demands for ecological activity increase hypoxic thresholds by a factor Fcrit above the resting state, a value estimated from the Metabolic Index at a species’ observed habitat range limit. (B) Zonal mean distribution of F in the Permian simulation for ecophysiotypes with average 1/Ao and Eo (~4.5 kPa and 0.4 eV, respectively). (C and D) Variations in F for an ecophysiotype with weak (C) and strong (D) temperature sensitivities (Eo = 0 eV and 1.0 eV, respectively), both with 1/Ao ~ 4.5 kPa. Example values of Fcrit (black lines) outline different distributions of available aerobic habitat for a given combination of 1/Ao and Eo. Credit: Justin Penn and Curtis Deutsch, University of Washington.
Figure 2 shows the spatial changes in ocean temperature and oxygen concentrations. Oceanic temperatures rise, particularly towards the poles, and with it a reduction in dissolved oxygen. As expected the greatest rises in temperature are at the shallower depths, particularly with the highly productive continental shelves. Oxygen level declines are most widely seen at all depths at the poles, but far less so in the tropics.
Figure 2. Permian/Triassic ocean temperature and O2. (A) Map of near surface (0 to 70 m) ocean warming across the Permian/Triassic (P/Tr) transition simulated in the Community Earth System Model. The region in gray represents the supercontinent Pangaea. (B) Simulated near surface ocean temperatures (red circles) in the eastern Paleo-Tethys (5°S to 20°N) and reconstructed from conodont d18Oapatite measurements (black circles) (4). The time scale of the d18Oapatite data (circles) has been shifted by 700,000 years to align it with d18Oapatite calibrated by U-Pb zircon dates (open triangles) (1), which also define the extinction interval (gray band). Error bars are 1°C. (C) Simulated zonal mean ocean warming (°C) across the P/Tr transition. (D) Map of seafloor oxygen levels in the Triassic simulation. Hatching indicates anoxic regions (O2 < 5 mmol/m3). (E) Simulated seafloor anoxic fraction ƒanox (red circles). Simulated values are used to drive a published one-box ocean model of the ocean’s uranium cycle (8) and are compared to d238U isotope measurements of marine carbonates formed in the Paleo-Tethys (black circles). Error bars are 0.1‰. (F) Same as in (C) but for simulated changes in O2 concentrations (mmol/m3). Credit: Justin Penn and Curtis Deutsch, University of Washington.
The authors conclude:
The correspondence between the simulated and observed geographic patterns of selectivity strongly implicates aerobic habitat loss, driven by rapid warming, as a main proximate cause of the end-Permian extinction.
However, while the temperature is the proximate cause, the authors note that other factors are also involved.
“In our simulations, net primary productivity is reduced by ~40% globally, with strongest declines in the low latitudes, where essential nutrient supply to phytoplankton is most curtailed.”
Ocean acidification is also a potential factor, as we may be seeing today. Acidification will be higher at the poles, creating a habitat barrier for species that require more calcification.
Figure 3 is a schematic of the model, fitting the probable extinction rates to the fossil record. Their model predicts a latitudinal impact of warming that is also suggested by the fossil record. Their explanation for this spatial pattern is that tropical organisms are preadapted to warmer temperatures and lower O2 levels. As the oceans warm, these organisms migrate polewards to cooler waters. However, polar species have nowhere to migrate to, and therefore have a higher rate of extinction.
Figure 3. An illustration depicting the percentage of marine animals that went extinct at the end of the Permian era by latitude, from the model (black line) and from the fossil record (blue dots). The color of the water shows the temperature change, with red representing the most severe warming and yellow less warming. At the top is the supercontinent Pangaea, with massive volcanic eruptions emitting carbon dioxide. The images below the line represent some of the 96 percent of marine species that died during the event. Credit: Justin Penn and Curtis Deutsch, University of Washington.
As our current analog of the Permian climate change impacts the oceans, we are already seeing warm water species appearing in the cold North Atlantic, far north of their historic ranges. We can also expect species like the Arctic ice fish that has no red blood cells due to the high O2 concentrations in polar waters to become extinct as polar waters continue to warm.
What about the extinction of terrestrial life? 70% of terrestrial faunal species went extinct. The attractiveness of this theory is that it also applies to terrestrial life, although the oxygen depletion was not a factor. What is clear as well is that the CO2 increase heated the planet, overwhelming any cooling from dust blown up into the atmosphere, as experienced with the 2 year global cooling after Mt. Pinatubo erupted.
Had the Earth been closer to our sun, or temperatures risen further due to greater volcanic activity, the extinctions might conceivably have been 100% for all multicellular genera. Earth life might have been pushed back to primarily archaea and bacteria. The atmosphere might have reverted back to its Archaean state. If photosynthesizers were still present, how long would it take for aerobic multicellular life to evolve again?
The major extinctions have implications for life on exoplanets. Worlds closer to the inner edge of the HZ may be supportive of life if the atmosphere stays stable. However, as we have seen with the example of the Permian extinction, geologic processes can upset that balance, potentially making a world uninhabitable for a period, forcing any life to be restricted to simpler forms. How frequently could such events cause mass, even total extinctions, on other worlds, despite long-term conditions being favorable for life? It is perhaps worth considering whether the inner edge HZ limits should be made more conservative to allow for such events.
The paper is Penn et al., “Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction” Science Vol. 362, Issue 6419 (7 December 2018). Abstract (Full Text behind paywall).
At the last Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop, I was part of a session on biosignatures in exoplanet atmospheres that highlighted how careful we have to be before declaring we have found life. Given that, as Alex Tolley points out below, our own planet has been in its current state of oxygenation for a scant 12 percent of its existence, shouldn’t our methods include life detection in as wide a variety of atmospheres as possible? A Centauri Dreams regular, Alex addresses the question by looking at new work on chemical disequilibrium and its relation to biosignature detection. The author (with Brian McConnell) of A Design for a Reusable Water-Based Spacecraft Known as the Spacecoach (Springer, 2016), Alex is a lecturer in biology at the University of California. Just how close are we to an unambiguous biosignature detection, and on what kind of world will we find it?
by Alex Tolley
Image: Archaean or early Proterozoic Earth showing stromatolites in the foreground. Credit: Peter Sawyer / Smithsonian Institution.
The Kepler space telescope has established that exoplanets are abundant in our galaxy and that many stars have planets in their habitable zones (defined as having temperatures that potentially allow surface water). This has reinvigorated the quest to answer the age-old question “Are We Alone?”. While SETI attempts to answer that question by detecting intelligent signals, the Drake equation suggests that the emergence of intelligence is a subset of the planets where life has emerged. When we envisage such living worlds, the image that is often evoked is of a verdant paradise, with abundant plant life clothing the land and emitting oxygen to support respiring animals, much like our pre-space age visions of Venus.
Naturally, much of the search for biosignatures has focused on oxygen (O2), whose production on Earth is now primarily produced by photosynthesis. Unfortunately, O2 can also be produced abiotically via photolysis of water, and therefore alone is not a conclusive biosignature. What is needed is a mixture of gases in disequilibrium that can only be maintained by biotic and not abiotic processes. Abiotic processes, unless continually sustained, will tend towards equilibrium. For example, on Earth, if life completely disappeared today, our nitrogen-oxygen dominated atmosphere would reach equilibrium with the oxygen bound as nitrate in the ocean.
Image: Schematic of methodology for calculating atmosphere-ocean disequilibrium. We quantify the disequilibrium of the atmosphere-ocean system by calculating the difference in Gibbs energy between the initial and final states. The species in this particular example show the important reactions to produce equilibrium for the Phanerozoic atmosphere-ocean system, namely, the reaction of N2, O2, and liquid water to form nitric acid, and methane oxidation to CO2 and H2O. Red species denote gases that change when reacted to equilibrium, whereas green species are created by equilibration. Details of aqueous carbonate system speciation are not shown. Credit: Krissansen-Totton et al. (citation below).
Another issue with looking for O2 is that it assumes a terrestrial biology. Other biologies may be different. However environments with large, sustained, chemical disequilibrium are more likely to be a product of biology.
A new paper digs into the issue. The work of Joshua Krissansen-Totton (University of Washington, Seattle), Stephanie Olson (UC-Riverside) and David C. Catling (UW-Seattle), the paper tackles a question the authors have addressed in an earlier paper:
“Chemical disequilibrium as a biosignature is appealing because unlike searching for biogenic gases specific to particular metabolisms, the chemical disequilibrium approach makes no assumptions about the underlying biochemistry. Instead, it is a generalized life-detection metric that rests only on the assumption that distinct metabolisms in a biosphere will produce waste gases that, with sufficient fluxes, will alter atmospheric composition and result in disequilibrium.”
This approach also opens up the possibility of detecting many more life-bearing worlds as the Earth’s highly oxygenated atmosphere has only been in this state for about 12% of the Earth’s existence.
With the absence of high partial pressures of O2 before the Pre-Cambrian, are there biogenic chemical disequilibrium conditions that can be discerned from the state of primordial atmospheres subject to purely abiotic equilibrium?
The new Krissansen-Totton et al? paper attempts to do that for the Archaean (4 – 2.5 gya) and Proterozoic (2.5 – 0.54) eons. Their approach is to calculate the Gibbs Free Energy (G), a metric of disequilibrium, for gases in an atmosphere-oceanic environment. The authors use a range of gas mixtures from the geologic record and determine the disequilibrium they represent using calculations of G for the observed versus the expected equilibrium concentrations of chemical species.
The authors note that almost all the G is in our ocean compartment from the nitrogen (N2)-O2 not reaching equilibrium as ionic nitrate. A small, but very important disequilibrium between methane (CH4) and O2 in the atmosphere is also considered a biosignature.
Using their approach, the authors look at the disequilibria in the atmosphere-ocean model in the earlier Archaean and Proterozoic eons. The geologic and model evidence suggests that the atmosphere was largely N2 and carbon dioxide (CO2), with a low concentration of O2 (2% or less partial pressure) in the Proterozoic.
In the Proterozoic, as today, the major disequilibrium is due to the lack of nitrate in the oceans and therefore the higher concentrations of O2 in the atmosphere. Similarly, an excess concentration of CH4 that should quickly oxidize to CO2 at equilibrium. In the Archaean, prior to the increase in O2 from photosynthesis, the N2, CO2, CH4 and liquid H2O equilibrium should consume the CH4 and increase the concentration of ammonium ions (NH4+ ) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) in the ocean. The persistence of CH4 in both eons is primarily driven by methanogen bacteria.
Image: Atmosphere-ocean disequilibrium in in the Archean. Blue bars denote assumed initial abundances from the literature, and green bars denote equilibrium abundances calculated using Gibbs free energy minimization. Subplots separate (A) atmospheric species and (B) ocean species. The most important contribution to Archean disequilibrium is the coexistence of atmospheric CH4, N2, CO2, and liquid water. These four species are lessened in abundance by reaction to equilibrium to form aqueous HCO3 and NH4. Oxidation of CO and H2 also contributes to the overall Gibbs energy change. Credit: Krissansen-Totton et al.
Therefore a biosignature for such an anoxic world in a stage similar to our Archaean era, would be to observe an ocean coupled with N2, CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. There is however an argument that might make this biosignature ambiguous.
CH4 and carbon monoxide (CO) might be present due to impacts of bolides (Kasting). Similarly, under certain conditions, it is possible that the mantle might be able to outgas CH4. In both cases, CO would be present and indicative of an abiogenic process. On Earth, CO is consumed as a substrate by bacteria, so its presence should be absent on a living world, even should such outgassing or impacts occur. The issue of CH4 outgassing, at least on earth, is countered by the known rates of outgassing compared to the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere and ocean. The argument is primarily about rates of CH4 production between abiotic and biotic processes. Supporting Kasting, the authors conclude that on Earth, abiotic rates of production of CH4 fall far short of the observed levels.
Image: Probability distribution for maximum abiotic methane production from serpentinization on Earth-like planets. This distribution was generated by sampling generous ranges for crustal production rates, FeO wt %, maximum fractional conversion of FeO to H2, and maximum fractional conversion of H2 to CH4, and then calculating the resultant methane flux 1 million times (see the main text). The modern biological flux (58) and plausible biological Archean flux (59) far exceed the maximum possible abiotic flux. These results support the hypothesis that the co-detection of abundant CH4 and CO2 on a habitable exoplanet is a plausible biosignature. Credit: Krissansen-Totton et al.
The authors conclude that their biosignature should also exclude the presence of CO to confirm the observed gases as a biosignature:
“The CH4-N2-CO2-H2O disequilibrium is thus a potentially detectable biosignature for Earth-like exoplanets with anoxic atmospheres and microbial biospheres. The simultaneous detection of abundant CH4 and CO2 (and the absence of CO) on an ostensibly habitable exoplanet would be strongly suggestive of biology.”
Given these gases in the presence of an ocean, can we use them to detect life on exoplanets?
Astronomers have been able to detect CO2, H2O, CH4 and CO in the atmosphere of HD 189733b, which is not Earthlike, but rather a hot Jupiter with a temperature of 1700F, far too hot for life. So far these gases have not been detectable on rocky worlds. Some new ground-based telescopes and the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope should have the capability of detecting these gases using transmission spectroscopy as these exoplanets transit their star.
It is important to note that the presence of an ocean is necessary to create high values of G. The Earth’s atmosphere alone has quite a low G, even compared to Mars. It is the presence of an ocean that results in G orders of magnitude larger than that from the atmosphere alone. Such an ocean is likely to be first detected by glints or the change in color of the planet as it rotates exposing different fractions of land and ocean.
An interesting observation of this approach is that a waterworld or ocean exoplanet might not show these biosignatures as the lack of weathering blocks the geologic carbon cycle and may preclude life’s emergence or long term survival. This theory might now be testable using spectroscopy and calculations for G.
This approach to biosignatures is applicable to our own solar system. As mentioned, Mars’ current G is greater than Earth’s atmosphere G. This is due to the photochemical disequilibrium of CO and O2. The detection of CH4 in Mars’ atmosphere, although at very low levels, would add to their calculation of Mars’ atmospheric G. In future, if the size of Mars’ early ocean can be inferred and gases in rocks extracted, the evidence for paleo life might be inferred. Fossil evidence of life would then confirm the approach.
Similarly, the composition of the plumes from Europa and Enceladus should also allow calculation of G for these icy moons and help to infer whether their subsurface oceans are abiotic or support life.
Within a decade, we may have convincing evidence of extraterrestrial life. If any of those worlds are not too distant, the possibility of studying that life directly in the future will be exciting.
The paper is Krissansen-Totton? et al., “Disequilibrium biosignatures over Earth history and implications for detecting exoplanet life,?” (2018)? Science Advances 4 ? (abstract? / ?full tex?t).
Can we use the outflow of particles from the Sun to drive spacecraft, helping us build the Solar System infrastructure we’ll one day use as the base for deeper journeys into the cosmos? Jeff Greason, chairman of the board of the Tau Zero Foundation, presented his take on the idea at the recent Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop. The concept captured the attention of Centauri Dreams regular Alex Tolley, who here analyzes the notion, explains its differences from the conventional magnetic sail, and explores the implications of its development. Alex is co-author (with Brian McConnell) of A Design for a Reusable Water-Based Spacecraft Known as the Spacecoach (Springer, 2016), focusing on a new technology for Solar System expansion. A lecturer in biology at the University of California, he now takes us into a different propulsion strategy, one that could be an enabler for human missions near and far.
by Alex Tolley
Suppose I told you that a device you could make yourself would be a more energy efficient space drive than an ion engine with a far better thrust to weight ratio? Fantasy? No!
Such a drive exists. Called the plasma magnet, it is a development of the magnetic sail but with orders of magnitude less mass and a performance that offers, with constant supplied power, constant acceleration regardless of its distance from the sun.
At the recent Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW), Jeff Greason presented this technology in his talk [1]. What caught my attention was the simplicity of this technology for propulsion, with a performance that exceeded more complex low thrust systems like ion engines and solar sails.
What is a plasma magnet?
The plasma magnet is a type of magsail that creates a kilometers wide, artificial magnetosphere that deflects the charged solar wind to provide thrust.
Unlike a classic magsail [9] (figure 1) that generates the magnetic field with a large diameter electrical circuit, the plasma magnet replaces the circular superconducting coil by inducing the current flow with the charged particles of the solar wind. It is an upgraded development of Robert Winglee’s Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion (M2P2) [7, 8], a drive that required injection of charged particles to generate the magnetosphere. The plasma magnet requires no such injection of particles and is therefore potentially propellantless.
Figure 1. A triple loop magsail is accelerated near Jupiter. Three separate boost beams transfer momentum to the rig, carefully avoiding the spacecraft itself, which is attached to the drive sail by a tether. Artwork: Steve Bowers, Orion’s Arm.
Developed by John Slough and others [5, 6], the plasma magnet drive has been validated by experimental results in a vacuum chamber and was a NIAC phase 1 project in the mid-2000s [6]. The drive works by initially creating a rotating magnetic field that in turns traps and entrains the charged solar wind to create a large diameter ring current, inducing a large scale magnetosphere. The drive coils of the reference design are small, about 10 centimeters in diameter. With 10 kW of electric power, the magnetosphere expands to about 30 kilometers in diameter at 1 AU, with enough magnetic force to deflect the solar wind pressure of about 1 nPa (1 nN/m2) which produces a thrust in the direction of the wind of about 1 newton (1N). Thrust is transmitted to the device by the magnetic fields, just as with the coupling of rotation in an electric motor (figure 2).
For a fixed system, the size of the induced magnetosphere depends on the local solar wind pressure. The magnetosphere expands in size as the solar wind density decreases further from the sun. This is similar to the effect of Janhunen’s electric sail [2] where the deflection area around the charged conducting wires increases as the solar wind density decreases. The plasma magnet’s thrust is the force of the solar wind pushing against the magnetosphere as it is deflected around it. It functions like a square-rigged sail running before the wind.
Figure 2. Plasma magnetic sail based on rotating magnetic field generated plasma currents. Two polyphase magnetic coils (stator) are used to drive steady ring currents in the local plasma (rotor) creating an expanding magnetized bubble. The expansion is halted by solar wind pressure in balance with the magnetic pressure from the driven currents (R >= 10 km). The antennas (radius ~ 0.1 m) are shown expanded for clarity. [6]
The engine is little more than 2 pairs of charged rotating coils and is therefore extremely simple and inexpensive. The mass of the reference engine is about 10 kg. Table 1 shows that the plasma magnet has an order higher thrust to weight ratio than an ion engine and 2 orders better than a solar sail. However, as the plasma magnet requires a power source, like the ion engine, the comparison to the solar sail should be made when the power supply is added, reducing is performance to a 10-fold improvement. [ A solar PV array of contemporary technology requires about 10 kg/kW, so the appropriate thrust/mass ratio of the plasma magnet is about 1 order of magnitude better than a solar sail at 1 AU]
The plasma magnet drive offers a “ridiculously high” thrust to weight ratio
The plasma magnet, as a space drive, has much better thrust to weight ratio than even the new X-3 Hall Effect ion engine currently in development. This ratio remains high when the power supply from solar array is added. Of more importance is that the plasma magnet is theoretically propellantless, providing thrust as long as the solar wind is flowing past the craft and power is supplied.
Name
Type
Thrust/weight (N/kg)
Engine mass only
Thrust/weight (N/kg) with power supply
SSME
Chemical
717
N/A
RD-180
Chemical
769
N/A
plasma magnetosphere
Electro-magnetic
0.1
.01
NSTAR-1
Ion (Gridded)
0.004
0.002
X-3
Ion (Hall Effect)
0.02
0.004
Solar Sail
Photon Sail
0.001 (at 1 AU)
N/A
Table 1. Comparison of thrust to mass ratios of various types of propulsion systems. The power supply is assumed to be solar array with a 10 kg/kW performance.
The downside with the plasma magnet is that it can only produce thrust in the direction of the solar wind, away from the sun, and therefore can only climb up the gravity well. Unlike other propulsion systems, there is little capability to sail against the sun. While solar sails can tack by directing thrust against the orbital direction, allowing a return trajectory, this is not possible with the basic plasma magnet, requiring other propulsion systems for return trips.
Plasma magnet applications
1. Propulsion Assist
The most obvious use of the plasma magnet that can only be used to spiral out from the sun is as a propellantless assist. The drive is lightweight and inexpensive, and because it is propellantless, it can make a useful drive for small space probes. Because the drive creates a kilometers sized magnetosphere, scaling up the thrust involves increased power or using multiple drives that would need to be kept 10s of kilometers apart. Figure 3 shows a hypothetical gridded array. Alternatively, the plasma magnets might be separated by thrusters and individually attached to the payload by tethers.
Figure 3. Plasma magnets attached to the nodes in a 2D grid could be used to scale up the thrust. The spacecraft would be attached by shroud lines as in a solar sail with a trailing payload. Scaling up the power supply to create a larger magnetosphere is also possible.
For a mixed mode mission, the plasma magnet engine is turned on for the outward bound flight, with or without the main propulsion system turned on. The use of power to generate thrust without propellant improves the performance of propellant propulsion systems where the accumulated velocity exceeds the performance cost of the power supply mass or reduced propellant. For an ion engine as the main drive, the plasma magnet would use the same power as 4 NSTAR ion engines but provide 3x the thrust.
2. Moving Asteroids for Planetary Defense
The propellantless nature of the plasma magnet drive makes it very suitable for pushing asteroids for planetary defense. Once turned on, the drive provides steady thrust to the asteroid, propelling it away from the sun and raising its orbit. Because the drive does not need to be facing any particular direction, it can be attached to a tumbling asteroid without any impact on the thrust direction.
3. Charged particle radiation shield for crewed flights
The magnetosphere generated by the engine makes a good radiation shield for the charged particles of the solar wind. It should prove to be a good solution for the solar wind, solar flares and even coronal mass ejections (CME). This device could, therefore, be used for human flight to reduce radiation effects. For human crewed flights, the 1N of thrust is insufficient for the size of the spacecraft and would have a marginal propulsion compared to the main engines. Given the plasma magnet’s small size and mass, and relatively low power requirements, the device provides a cost-effective means to protect the crew without resorting to large masses of physical shielding. The plasma magnet would appear to be only effective for the charged solar wind, leaving the neutral GCRs to enter the craft. However, when an auxiliary device is used in the mode of aerobraking, the charge exchange mechanism should reduce the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) penetration (see item 8 below).
4. Asteroid mining
The plasma magnet thruster might be a very useful part of a hybrid solution for automated mining craft. The hybrid propulsion would ally the plasma magnet thruster with a propellant system, such as a chemical or ion engine. The outward bound trip would use the plasma magnet thruster to reach the target asteroid. The propellant tanks would be empty saving mass and therefore improving performance. The propellant tanks would be filled with the appropriate resource, e.g. water for an electrothermal engine, or for a L2/O2 chemical engine. This engine would be turned on for the return trip towards the inner system. The reverse would be used for outward bound trips to the inner system
5. Interstellar precursor using nuclear power
A key feature of the plasma magnet is that the diameter of the magnetosphere increases as the density of the solar wind decreases as it expands away from the sun. The resulting expansion exactly matches the decrease in density, ensuring constant thrust. Therefore the plasma magnet has a constant acceleration irrespective of its position in the solar system.
As the solar wind operates out to the heliopause, about 80 AU from the sun, the acceleration from a nuclear powered craft is constant and the craft continues to accelerate without the tyranny of the rocket equation. Assuming a craft with an all up mass of 1 MT (700 kg nuclear power unit, 10 kg engine, and the remaining in payload), the terminal velocity at the heliopause is 150 km/s. The flight time is 4.75 years, which is a considerably faster flight time than the New Horizons and Voyager probes.
Slough assumed a solar array power supply, functional out to the orbit of Jupiter at 5 AU. This limited the velocity of the drive, although the electrical power output of a solar array at 1 AU is about 10-fold better than a nuclear power source, but rapidly decreases with distance from the sun. Assuming a 10 kW PV array, generating decreasing power out to Jupiter, the final velocity of the 1 MT craft is somewhere between 5 and 10 km/s, but with a much larger payload.
In his TVIW talk [1], Greason suggested that the 10kW power supply could propel a 2500 kg craft with an acceleration of 0.5g, reaching 400-700 km/s in just half a day. Greason [i] suggested that with this acceleration, the FOCAL mission for gravitational lens telescopes requiring many craft should be achievable. *
6. Mars Cycler
Greason suggested that the plasma magnet might well be useful for a Mars cycler, as the small delta v impulse needed for each trip could be easily met.[1]
7. Deceleration at target star for interstellar flight
For interstellar flights, deploying the plasma magnet as the craft approaches the target star should be enough to decelerate the craft to allow loitering in the system, rather than a fast flyby. Again, the high performance and modest mass and power requirements might make this a good way to decelerate a fast interstellar craft, like a laser propelled photon sail.[1]
8. Magnetoshell Aerocapture (MAC)
While the studies on the plasma magnet seemed to have stalled by the late 2000s, a very similar technology development was gaining attention. A simple dipole magnet magnetosphere can be used as a very effective aerocapture shield. The shield is just the plasma magnet with coils that do not rotate, creating a magnetosphere of a diameter in meters, one that requires the injection of gram quantities of plasma to be trapped in the magnetic field. As the magnetosphere impacts the atmosphere, the neutral atmosphere molecules are trapped by charge exchange. The stopping power is on the order of kilonewtons, allowing the craft to achieve orbit and even land without a heavy, physical shield. The saving in mass and hence propellant is enormous. Such aerobraking allows larger payloads, or alternatively faster transit times. Because the magnetoshell is immaterial, heat transmission to the shield is not an issue. The mass saving is considerable and offers a very cost-effective approach for any craft to reduce mass, propellant requirements or increase payloads. This approach is suitable for Earth return, Mars, outer planets, and Venus capture. Conceivably aerocapture might be possible with Pluto.
Figure 4. A dipole magnet creating a small diameter magnetic field is injected with plasma. As the magnetosphere impacts the atmosphere, charge exchange result in kilonewton braking forces. The diagram at left shows the craft with the training magnetosphere impacting the atmosphere. The painting on the right shows what such a craft might look like during an aerobraking maneuver. Source: Kirtley et al [3].
Making the plasma magnet thrust directional
A single magnetosphere cannot deflect the solar wind in any significant directional way, which limits this drive’s navigational capability. However, if the magnetosphere could be shaped so that its surface could result in an asymmetric deflection, it should be possible to use the drive for tacking back to the inner system.
Figure 5 shows an array of plasma magnets orientated at an angle to the solar wind. The deflection of the solar wind is no longer symmetric, with the main flow across the forward face of the array. Under those conditions, there should be a net force against the grid. This suggests that like a solar sail, orientating the grid so that the force retards the orbital velocity, the craft should be able to spiral down towards the Sun, offering the possibility of a drive that could navigate the solar system.
Figure 5. A grid of plasma magnets deflects the flow of the solar wind, creating a force with a component that pushes against the grid. If the grid is in orbit with a velocity from right to left, the force will reduce the grid’s velocity and result in a spiral towards the Sun.
Pushing the Boundaries
The size of the magnetic sail can be increased with higher power inputs, or increasing the antenna size. Optimization will depend on the size of the craft and the mass of the antenna. Truly powerful drives can be considered. Greason [12] has calculated that a 2 MT craft, using a superconducting antenna with a radius of 30 meters, fed with a peak current of 90 kA, would have a useful sail with a radius of 1130 km and an acceleration of 2 m/s2, or about 0.2g. As the sail has a maximum velocity of that of the solar wind, a probe accelerating at 0.2g would reach maximum velocity in a few days, and pass by Mars within a week. To reach a velocity of 20 km/s, faster than New Horizons, the Plasma magnet would only need to be turned on for a few hours. Clearly, the scope for using this drive to accelerate probes and even crewed ships is quite exciting.
Coupling a more modest velocity of just 10’s of km/s with the function of a MAC, a craft could reach Mars in less than 2 months and aerobrake to reach orbit and even descend to the surface. All this without propellant and a very modest solar array for a power supply.
An Asteroid, a tether and a Round Trip Flight
As we’ve seen, the plasma magnet can only propel a craft downwind from the Sun. So far I have postulated that aerobraking and conventional drives would be needed for return flights. One outlandish possibility for use in asteroid mining might be the use of a tether to redirect the craft. On the outward bound flight, the craft driven by the plasma magnet makes a rapid approach to the target asteroid which is being mined. The mined resources are attached to a tether that is anchored to the asteroid. As the craft approaches, it captures the end of the tether to acquire the new payload, and is swung around the asteroid. On the opposite side of the asteroid, the tether is released and the craft is now traveling back towards the Sun. No propellant needed, although the tether might cause some consternation as it wraps itself around the asteroid.
Conclusion
The plasma magnet as a propulsion device, and the same hardware applied for aerocapture, would drastically reduce the costs and propellant requirements for a variety of missions. Coupled with another drive such as an ion engine, a craft could reach a target body with an atmosphere and be injected into orbit with almost no propellant mass. The return journey would require an engine delivering just enough delta V to escape that body and return to Earth, where aerocapture again would allow injection into Earth orbit with no extra propellant. If direction deflection can be achieved, then the plasma magnet might be used to navigate the Solar System more like a solar sail, but with a far higher performance, and far easier deployment.
Using a steady, nuclear power or beamed power source, such a craft could accelerate to the heliopause, allowing interstellar precursor missions, such as Kuiper belt exploration and the FOCAL mission within a short time frame.
The technology of the plasma magnet combined with a MAC could be used to decelerate a slowish interstellar ship and allow it to achieve orbit and even land on a promising exoplanet.
The size of the magnetic sail can be extended with few constraints, allowing for considerably increased thrust that can be applied to robotic probes and crewed spacecraft. For crewed craft, the magnetosphere also provides protection from the particle radiation from the sun, and possibly galactic cosmic rays.
Given the potential of this drive and relatively trivial cost, it seems that testing such a device in space should perhaps be attempted. Can a NewSpace billionaire be enticed?
* These numbers are far higher than those provided by Winglee and Slough in their papers and so I have used their much more conservative values for all my calculations.
Kelly, Charles and Shimazu, Akihisa “Revolutionizing Orbit Insertion with Active Magnetoshell Aerocapture,” University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Kirtley, David, Slough, John, and Pancotti, Anthony “Magnetoshells Plasma Aerocapture for Manned Missions and Planetary Deep Space Orbiters”, NIAC Spring Symposium, Chicago, Il., March 12, 2013
Slough, John. “The plasma magnet for Sailing the Solar Wind.” AIP Conference Proceedings, 2005, doi:10.1063/1.1867244.
Slough, John “The plasma magnet” (2006). NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Phase 1 Final Report.
Winglee, Robert. “Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion (M2P2): High Speed Propulsion Sailing the Solar Wind.” AIP Conference Proceedings, 2000, doi:10.1063/1.1290892.
Winglee, R. M., et al. “Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion: Tapping the Energy of the Solar Wind for Spacecraft Propulsion.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 105, no. A9, Jan. 2000, pp. 21067-21077., doi:10.1029/1999ja000334.
Zubrin, Robert, and Dana Andrews. “Magnetic Sails and Interplanetary Travel.” 25th Joint Propulsion Conference, Dec. 1989, doi:10.2514/6.1989-2441.
Early probes are one thing, but can we build a continuing presence among the stars, human or robotic? An evolutionary treatment of starflight sees it growing from a steadily expanding presence right here in our Solar System, the kind of infrastructure Alex Tolley examines in the essay below. How we get to a system-wide infrastructure is the challenge, one analyzed by a paper that sees artificial intelligence and 3D printing as key drivers leading to a rapidly expanding space economy. The subject is a natural for Tolley, who is co-author (with Brian McConnell) of A Design for a Reusable Water-Based Spacecraft Known as the Spacecoach (Springer, 2016). An ingenious solution to cheap transportation among the planets, the Spacecoach could readily be part of the equation as we bring assets available off-planet into our economy and deploy them for even deeper explorations. Alex is a lecturer in biology at the University of California, and has been a Centauri Dreams regular for as long as I can remember, one whose insights are often a touchstone for my own thinking.
by Alex Tolley
Crewed starflight is going to be expensive, really expensive. All the various proposed methods from slow world ships to faster fusion vessels require huge resources to build and fuel. Even at Apollo levels of funding in the 1960’s, an economy growing at a fast clip of 3% per year is estimated to need about half a millennium of sustained growth to afford the first flights to the stars. It is unlikely that planet Earth can sustain such a sizable economy that is millions of times larger than today’s. The energy use alone would be impossible to manage. The implication is that such a large economy will likely be solar system wide, exploiting the material and energy resources of the system with extensive industrialization.
Economies grow by both productivity improvements and population increases. We are fairly confident that Earth is likely nearing its carrying capacity and certainly cannot increase its population even 10-fold. This implies that such a solar system wide economy will need huge human populations living in space. The vision has been illustrated by countless SciFi stories and perhaps popularized by Gerry O’Neill who suggested that space colonies were the natural home of a space faring species. John Lewis showed that the solar system has immense resources to exploit that could sustain human populations in the trillions.
Image credit: John Frassanito & Associates
But now we run into a problem. Even with the most optimistic estimates of reduced launch costs, and assuming people want to go and live off planet probably permanently, the difficulties and resources needed to develop this economy will make the US colonization by Europeans seem like a walk in the park by comparison. No doubt it can be done, but our industrial civilization is little more than a quarter of a millennium old. Can we sustain the sort of growth we have had on Earth for another 500 years, especially when it means leaving behind our home world to achieve it? Does this mean that our hopes of vastly larger economies, richer lives for our descendents and an interstellar future for humans is just a pipe dream, or at best a slow grind that might get us there if we are lucky?
Well, there may be another path to that future. Philip Metzger and colleagues have suggested that such a large economy can be developed. More extraordinary, that such an economy can be built quickly and without huge Earth spending, starting and quickly ending with very modest space launched resources. Their suggestion is that the technologies of AI and 3D printing will drive a robotic economy that will bootstrap itself quickly to industrialize the solar system. Quickly means that in a few decades, the total mass of space industrial assets will be in the millions of tonnes and expanding at rates far in excess of our Earth-based economies.
The authors ask, can we solve the launch cost problem by using mostly self-replicating machines instead? This should remind you of the von Neumann replicating probe concept. Their idea is to launch seed factories of almost self-replicating robots to the Moon. The initial payload is a mere 8 tonnes. The robots will not need to be fully autonomous at this stage as they can be teleoperated from Earth due to the short 2.5 second communication delay. They are not fully self-replicating at this stage as need for microelectronics is best met with shipments from Earth. Almost complete self-replication has already been demonstrated with fabs, and 3D printing promises to extend the power of this approach.
The authors assume that initial replication will neither be fully complete, nor high fidelity. They foresee the need for Earth to ship the microelectronics to the Moon as the task of building fabs is too difficult. In addition, the materials for new robots will be much cruder than the technology earth can currently deliver, so that the next few generations of robots and machinery will be of poorer technology than the initial generation. However the quality of replication will improve with each generation and by generation 4, a mere 8 years after starting, the robot technology will be at the initial level of quality, and the industrial base on the Moon should be large enough to support microelectronics fabs. From then on, replication closure is complete and Earth need ship no further resources to the Moon.
Gen
Human/Robotic Interaction
Artificial Intelligence
Scale of Industry
Materials Manufactured
Source of Electronics
1.0
Teleoperated and/or locally operated by a human outpost
Insect-like
Imported, small-scale, limited diversity
Gases, water, crude alloys, ceramics, solar cells
Import fully integrated machines
2.0
Teleoperated
Lizard-like
Crude fabrication, inefficient, but greater throughput than 1.0
(Same)
Import electronics boxes
2.5
Teleoperated
Lizard-like
Diversifying processes, especially volatiles and metals
Plastics, rubbers, some chemicals
Fabricate crude components plus import electronics boxes
3.0
Teleoperated with experiments in autonomy
Lizard-like
Larger, more complex processing plants
Diversify chemicals, simple fabrics, eventually polymers
Locally build PC cards, chassis and simple components, but import the chips
4.0
Closely supervised autonomy
Mouse-like
Large plants for chemicals, fabrics, metals
Sandwiched and other advanced material processes
Building larger assets such as lithography machines
5.0
Loosely supervised autonomy
Mouse-like
Labs and factories for electronics and robotics. Shipyards to support main belt.
Large scale production
Make chips locally. Make bots in situ for export to asteroid belt.
6.0
Nearly full autonomy
Monkey-like
Large-scale, self-supporting industry, exporting industry to asteroid main belt
Makes all necessary materials, increasing sophistication
Makes everything locally, increasing sophistication
X.0
Autonomous robotics pervasive throughout Solar System enabling human presence
Human-like
Robust exports/imports through zones of solar system
Material factories specialized by zone of the Solar System
Electronics factories in various locations
Table 1. The development path for robotic space industrialization. The type of robots and the products created are shown. Each generation takes about 2 years to complete. Within a decade, chip fabrication is initiated. By generation 6, full autonomy is achieved.
Asset
Qty. per set
Mass minus Electronics (kg)
Mass of Electronics (kg)
Power (kW)
Feedstock Input (kg'hr)
Product Output (kg/hr)
Power Distrib & Backup
1
2000
-----
----
----
----
Excavators (swarming)
5
70
19
0.30
20
----
Chem Plant 1 - Gases
1
733
30
5.58
4
1.8
Chem Plant 2 - Solids
1
733
30
5.58
10
1.0
Metals Refinery
1
1019
19
10.00
20
3.15
Solar Cell Manufacturer
1
169
19
0.50
0.3
----
3D Printer 1 - Small Parts
4
169
19
5.00
0.5
0.5
3D Printer 2 - Large Parts
4
300
19
5.00
0.5
0.5
Robonaut assemblers
3
135
15
0.40
----
----
Total per Set
~7.7 MT
launched to Moon
64.36 kW
20 kg
regolith/hr
4 kg
parts/hr
Table 2. The products and resources needed to bootstrap the industrialization of the Moon with robots. Note the low mass needed to start, a capability already achievable with existing technology. For context, the Apollo Lunar Module had a gross mass of over 15 tonnes on landing.
The authors test their basic model with a number of assumptions. However the conclusions seem robust. Assets double every year, more than an order of magnitude faster than Earth economic growth.
Figure 13 of the Metzger paper shows that within 6 generations, about 12 years, the industrial base off planet could potentially be pushing towards 100K MT.
Figure 14 of the paper shows that with various scenarios for robots, the needed launch masses from Earth every 2 years is far less than 100 tonnes and possibly below 10 tonnes. This is quite low and well within the launch capabilities of either government or private industry.
Once robots become sophisticated enough, with sufficient AI and full self-replication, they can leave the Moon and start industrializing the asteroid belt. This could happen a decade after initiation of the project.
With the huge resources that we know to exist, robot industrialization would rapidly, within decades not centuries, create more manufactures by many orders of magnitude than Earth has. Putting this growth in context, after just 50 years of such growth, the assets in space would require 1% of the mass of the asteroid belt, with complete use within the following decade. Most importantly, those manufactures, outside of Earth’s gravity well, require no further costly launches to transmute into useful products in space. O’Neill colonies popped out like automobiles? Trivial. The authors suggest that one piece could be the manufacture of solar power satellites able to supply Earth with cheap, non-polluting power, in quantities suitable for environmental remediation and achieving a high standard of living for Earth’s population.
With such growth, seed factories travel to the stars and continue their operation there, just as von Neumann would predict with his self-replicating probes. Following behind will be humans in starships, with habitats already prepared by their robot emissaries. All this within a century, possibly within the lifetime of a Centauri Dreams reader today.
Is it viable? The authors believe the technology is available today. The use of telerobotics staves off autonomous robots for a decade. In the 4 years since the article was written, AI research has shown remarkable capabilities that might well increase the viability of this aspect of the project. It will certainly need to be ready once the robots leave the Moon to start extracting resources in the asteroid belt and beyond.
The vision of machines doing the work is probably comfortable. It is the fast exponential growth that is perhaps new. From a small factory launched from Earth, we end up with robots exploiting resources that dwarf the current human economy within a lifetime of the reader.
The logic of the model implies something the authors do not explore. Large human populations in space to use the industrial output of the robots in situ will need to be launched from Earth initially. This will remain expensive unless we are envisaging the birthing of humans in space, much as conceived for some approaches to colonizing the stars. Alternatively an emigrant population will need to be highly reproductive to fill the cities the robots have built. How long will that take? Probably far longer, centuries, rather than the decades of robotic expansion.
Another issue is that the authors envisage the robots migrating to the stars and continuing their industrialization there. Will humans have the technology to follow, and if so, will they continue to fall behind the rate at which robots expand? Will the local star systems be full of machines, industriously creating manufactures with only themselves to use them? And what of the development of AI towards AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence? Will that mean that our robots become the inevitable dominant form of agency in the galaxy?
The paper is Metzger, Muscatello, Mueller & Mantovani, “Affordable, Rapid Bootstrapping of the Space Industry and Solar System Civilization,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering Volume 26 Issue 1 (January 2013). Abstract / Preprint.
In Centauri Dreams, Paul Gilster looks at peer-reviewed research on deep space exploration, with an eye toward interstellar possibilities. For many years this site coordinated its efforts with the Tau Zero Foundation. It now serves as an independent forum for deep space news and ideas. In the logo above, the leftmost star is Alpha Centauri, a triple system closer than any other star, and a primary target for early interstellar probes. To its right is Beta Centauri (not a part of the Alpha Centauri system), with Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon Crucis, stars in the Southern Cross, visible at the far right (image courtesy of Marco Lorenzi).
If you'd like to submit a comment for possible publication on Centauri Dreams, I will be glad to consider it. The primary criterion is that comments contribute meaningfully to the debate. Among other criteria for selection: Comments must be on topic, directly related to the post in question, must use appropriate language, and must not be abusive to others. Civility counts. In addition, a valid email address is required for a comment to be considered. Centauri Dreams is emphatically not a soapbox for political or religious views submitted by individuals or organizations. A long form of the policy can be viewed on the Administrative page. The short form is this: If your comment is not on topic and respectful to others, I'm probably not going to run it.
