aarc the hundred year plan v1.7

8/3/2019 AARC the Hundred Year Plan v1.7

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aarc-the-hundred-year-plan-v17 1/27

© 2008 – 2011 AARC Inc. AARC, 500 Stinson Drive, Danville, VA 245401

The Next Hundred Years

An outline for a strategic plan

for commercially feasible

Deep Space Exploration and the

development of Space-based assets

in a public-private global consortium




TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Advanced Aerospace Research Center 4

Mission Statement 6

A “Hub” Business Development model 7

Organizing opportunities for commercialization 8

Ongoing Strategic Alliances 9

COMMENTS FROM CONTRIBUTORS 10

H. David Froning Jr. 10

Samudra Haque 19

Dr. George Miley 25

FINANCIALS 27

REVISION DATE:

June 1st, 2011

Redacted draft 1.7, prepared by the

Automotive and Aerospace Research Center,

a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization




The underlying assertions, cost projections and references set forth in this document have been

developed by the executive management team and management advisory board of AARC Inc. with the

exception of the Comments from Contributors, where the content rights are entirely owned by the

creators.

CONTACT All communications or inquiries related to the comprehensive strategic plan or of the

Contributors Comments must be directed to:

Richard D. Dell Jr.,

Director,

Aerospace and Automotive Resource Center

500 Stinson Drive

Danville, Virginia, 24273

(cell) 919.602.4784




About the Advanced Aerospace Research Center

In August of 2008, the Aerospace and Automotive Resource Center Inc. began organizing efforts to fulfill

its two-fold mandate- one, to inspire young people to investigate careers in the burgeoning commercial

Space Industry; and 2) to provide that same industry with advanced technology leadership and strategic

planning.

The Advanced Aerospace Research Center (AARC) is a d/b/a of the Aerospace and Automotive ResourceCenter, a 501(c)(3) registered in the State of North Carolina. For the last three years AARC has been

laying the groundwork for a public-private partnership to develop a hundred-year, deep space

exploration strategic plan as part of a larger initiative for advancing both the technology, financing and

cultural shift that will be required for us to transition to a true space-faring species.

This Strategic Plan and AARC Initiative will:

- Be driven by a public-private consortium that will meet on a regular monthly basis

- Inspire young people with a variety of volunteer programs

- Implement well-known workforce education imperatives

- Provide technology leadership via strong intellectual property analytics

- Be focused on applied research and development of advanced technology

commercialization- Driven by the combined needs of workforce, business and economic development

The kind of commonsense strategic perspective that will be required to address one the weakest areas

in an effective hundred year space exploration strategy are well illustrated in the following strategic

plan-

http://www.avrc.com/NADC_AVRC_Strategic_Plan_v19.pdf

The North Carolina Aerospace Workforce Development Strategic plan was developed for the National

Aerospace Development Center (NADC) by the Advanced Vehicle Research Center (AVRC) and co-

authored with the Director of AARC, specifically to address the aerospace workforce issues confronting

North Carolina. However, the principles behind the solutions posited in that strategic document aredirectly applicable to the most significant issues confronting us at the Domestic and even Global level.

It is worth noting that many of the recommendations provided in the NC Strategic Plan have been

implemented in North Carolina, albeit in a piece meal fashion by many of the State-level stakeholders

that saw the worth of the strategic plan’s recommendations. With the help of associates, partners and

affiliates, the AARC implemented one of the NADC-AVRC recommendations in the development of

“Team Stellar”, which became an official entry into the Google Lunar X-Prize. More information on this

team can be found at http://www.teamstellar.org.



http://www.teamstellar.org/








In the strategic plan AARC will outline a new model for carrying out commercialization, workforcedevelopment and leveraging research opportunities to develop robust economic and business

development of commercial opportunities in space exploration.

If America is to regain its lost leadership role in space technology and catch up with the other Nations

that are far outstripping us, the strategic groundwork for a sustainable business development model

with more than a nod to legislative lobbying, advanced manufacturing, commercialization, and sound

intellectual property cultivation will be required. A sampling of comments is provided by a few of the

AARC affiliates, David Froning, Samudra Haque, and Dr. George Miley. They represent, respectively,

Stattegic, Historical and Forward-looking perspectives from David Froning, Policy and Technical

Implementation ideas from Samudra Haque, and Advanced Technology development from Dr. George

Miley.

In the months to come, AARC will be unveiling an outline of the Hundred Year strategic plan document

in the form of modular components in a high level snapshot of how we see the United States reclaiming

its edge in Technology Leadership and Workforce Development in what we call the “The AARC Hundred

Year Plan”. This document will show how we can recapture our lead position in the new global Space

economy. We hope to see your participation in making this Hundred Year plan a reality.




Mission Statement

To develop and support the implementation of a strategic plan and the team required to perform theactivities required in implementation.

The components of the Hundred Year Initiative will include:

- The Strategic Plan

- A strategic office at one of the “Space-ports” under development

- An Industrial and Educational cluster to be developed in proximity to the “Space -port”.

- A “Space Training Academy” as an adjunct operation of AARC in collaboration with

organizations that have a track record of interest in exploration and peaceful development

of deep space.

Several of the AARC programs, including Team Stellar, have already provided training and a forum inwhich an innovative new generation of scientists, program managers, assemblers, and machinists have

been inspired to look forward to the next hundred years of space development, not the last fifty.




A “Hub” Business Development model

AARC will use a ‘co-opetive’ model for Business Development, Funding, Intellectual Property (I.P.)

transfer, and Technological Valuation in establishing a competitive market-driven research hub.

The business development affiliates of AARC will be engaged as the recipients of I.P. transfer and will

provide technological valuation in tandem with the senior analytic partner when and where it is most

critical.

The following diagram is provided to show a simplification of the value proposition that will drive the

core business development and workforce development models to be outlined in the strategic plan.

(DIAGRAM BEING REDRAWN)




Organizing opportunities for commercialization

The following diagram is provided to highlight the call to action that the value proposition made on the

previous page. Key decisions will need to be made using the most objective methodology possible forevaluating competing technologies and actual value of the required technological slots.

The question is put as follows - “Which Light bulb will you help us turn on?”

- Helicon-injected IEC Aneutronic Fusion propulsion

- IEC Electricity generator

- Next-generation micro/pico/nano satellites for debris reclamation, on-board servicing, and

defensive applications

- Zero-G advanced manufacturing

- Genomic self-healing DNA development

- Innovative nutrition production

- Semi-autonomous devices, satellites and vehicles

- Nanotechnology

- Magnetic interlocking

- Heat and Metallic Ion Shield

- Interactive space for design of inhabitation with advanced hydroponics

- Self-constructing autonomous robotic habitations

(DIAGRAM BEING REDRAWN)




Ongoing Strategic Alliances

The following is a summary list of current North Carolina strategic partners, many of which participated

in the AVRC-NADC NC Strategic Plan. It is not exhaustive. It will eventually include appropriate web links

and other data for the organizations delineated.

NORTH CAROLINA

- NC Department of Commerce, Jim Fain

- NC Aerospace Alliance, Bill Greuling

- Federal Department of Commerce (three year EDA Long Distance Learning grant), RDellJR

- NC Tier One County educators and educative administrators in the eastern half of the state

- NC Agriculture & Technology University, Dr. Ajit Kelkar and Wayne Szefranski

- NCSU (North Carolina State University at the highest levels + MAE, ECE, ADAC)

- East Carolina University, Gerry Micklow

- NADC NC Aerospace Workforce Strategy development contract, RDellSR

- NC Military Business Center, Bill Greuling- NC Military Foundation, Will Austin

- Global Transpark Authority, Bruce Parson

- NCSU School of Engineering, MAE Martin-Vega

- NC Community College system, Willa Dickens

- Duke University, Paul Klenck

- Project Lead the Way, Nancy Shaw

- The Friday Institute, Glenn Kleimann

VIRGINIA

- UNDER REVIEW

All of these organizations can and have benefited from actions already taken to provide opportunities as

detailed in the previously explained value proposition. Many of these and other organizations in Virginia,

Maryland and Florida will be involved in the Strategic Plan requirements-gathering process early on, and

will provide invaluable market data as well as support the process by which we answer the question

found in ‘Organizing Opportunities for Commercialization’ - “Which Light bulbs should be turned on

first?”




COMMENTS FROM CONTRIBUTORS

H. David Froning Jr. Impacts of Terrestrial and Astronautical Sociology on the Evolution of

Spaceflight by Spacefaring Civilizations

Flight Unlimited

PO Box 1211

Malibu CA 90265, USA

Abstract. It is suggested that flaws in terrestrial sociology (the negative social dynamics of individual and

corporate human natures on Earth) is, to some degree, delaying achievement of the science and technology

needed to revolutionize spaceflight and meet this planet’s future energy and transportation. Here, scientific

timidity, self interest and resistance to change is delaying the replacement of current propellant-consuming

and carbon-emitting power and propulsion by nearly propellant-less, emission-free power and propulsion

for terrestrial energy and transportation and cost-effective space exploration to the further reaches of the

cosmos. Propellant-less and emission-less power and propulsion systems would generate energy and force

by the actions of fields - not the combustion of matter. So, when favorable developments in terrestrial

sociology and technology enable field power and propulsion, long, ambitious space expeditions can begin if

“astrosociology” - stable, harmonious social dynamics between many cooperating people in space – can also

be achieved.

Keywords: Astrosociology, Interstellar, Field Power, Field Propulsion, Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Field

PACS: 87.23.Ge;89.65._s; 89.65.Ef

INTRODUCTION

Past and present spaceflight activity by the world’s space-faring nations have not involved long enough

mission times or large enough numbers of individuals for extremely in-harmonious social interactions to

develop – especially with the high character, intelligence, stability and temperament required for

current astronaut and cosmonaut selection. And current NASA-defined human space missions for the

next 10-15 years do not require significantly longer mission durations or numbers of people than current

Space Shuttle and Space Station missions do. Thus, the social sciences and social graces already

developed by terrestrial sociology have been successfully applied to past human space activities and

they appear adequate for those envisioned in the near future. But future ambitious space missions -

such as human expeditions to Mars with chemical rocket technology - require long flight durations and

long stay times on Mars before expedition people are returned to Earth. Thus, astronautical sociology

“astrosociology” issues may begin to develop for such missions. Examples are the current biological and

medical unknowns associated with long term human exposure to Mars gravity (about 0.39 that of Earth)

by its first settlers. This astrosociology issue requires learning the effects of long-durations of reduced

gravity on Mars. For it is known that long term exposure to zero-g for one year by one Russian

cosmonaut was very deleterious. Thus, astronauts could conceivably face significant rehabilitation time,

effort and pain after long chemical rocket expeditions to Mars – unless: bone calcium removal is found




much less at 0.39 g than at 0 g; or if calcium removal solutions are found. In summary, the paper

explores advances in terrestrial technology and sociology that enable long and large space expeditions

by space faring civilizations – expeditions where astrosociology will become vital for mission success.

IMPACT OF SPACE FLIGHT AND TERRESTRIAL SOCIOLOGY ON EACH OTHER

Air flight began with propeller propulsion and steadily advanced for over 50 years. But air flight was not

revolutionized until propeller propulsion was superseded by air breathing jet propulsion that enabled

much swifter, safer and more economical air flight by jet airliners such as the Douglas DC-10 in Figure 1.

Thus jet propulsion and the advent of information technology (by more powerful digital computers) had

enormous impact on terrestrial sociology. For, it gave rise to the stupendous current travel

infrastructure of airlines, hotels, auto rental agencies, and food services that have provided careers and

economic opportunity for millions of people on Earth. The air flight revolution also provided the new

experience of flight for millions; and worldwide travel revenues of trillions of dollars per year.

FIGURE 1. DC-10 Jet Propelled Airliner that Helped Revolutionize Air Flight

Spaceflight began with the Soviet Sputnik and with rocket jet propulsion and, like air flight, spaceflight

steadily advanced over 50 years as commercial satellite systems impacted planetary life with television,mobile phones and internet information. This caused significant change in the social behavior and

dynamics of humans and societies - and billions of dollars per year in commercial space revenues have

benefited the economic lives of many on Earth. But, despite rockets reaching the highest possible

performance they can achieve with safe, chemical combustion of energetic non-toxic propellants, space

flight has not yet been revolutionized like air flight. For, space transportation cost to deliver satellites to

earth orbit (about $10,000 per kg) is about 100 times greater than air transportation costs. It is hoped

that eventual development of air breathing reusable launch vehicles can reduce Earth-to-orbit costs by a

factor of 5 to 10. But space transportation costs per kg of payload are expected to be 10 to 100 times

more than current Earth-to-orbit costs for journeys to the moon and Mars. Unofficial NASA cost

estimates of human Mars expeditions are in the hundreds of billions of dollars range. And such space

transportation costs are at least 100 times more than those that would enable commercial space

exploration and space settlement within the solar system.

Much of the high current cost of space transportation is caused by the enormous amounts of propellant

that must be combusted and expelled in rocket ships. Thus, just as revolution of air flight required

replacement of propeller propulsion by jet propulsion; so many believe the revolution of spaceflight will

require replacement of jet propulsion by field propulsion – by developing thrust by the actions of fields

(not consumption of matter). But actions of fields are much less understood than combustion of matter,

and today’s high cost of earth-to-orbit transportation is within what commercial satellite system

corporations will pay. Thus, aerospace companies are content to continue making profits by what they




know how to do (rocket propulsion for governments and telecommunications providers) and they are

little motivated to develop a new mode of propulsion they understand far less. And government space

R&D leaders are content to continue what seems safe and low risk (rockets for Earth orbit, Moon and

Mars) despite the huge cost involved. Hence, corporate and government aerospace R&D expenditures

on field propulsion science and technology are less than 1 percent of R&D spent on refining today’s well -

understood rocket science and technology.

GREEN POWER AND PROPULSION NEEDS FOR SPACEFLIGHT AND EARTH

Although there is no pressing need today for nearly propellant-less power and propulsion for human

spaceflight to the further reaches of space, there is urgent need for drastic reduction of the global-

warming CO2 emissions from Earth’s power and transportation systems. Here, global warming scientists

call for more than a 50 percent reduction in CO 2 emissions by 2050 – when worldwide demand for

energy and transportation is expected to be about twice what it is today. This would require about a 4-

fold reduction in emitted CO2 – compared to that emitted by terrestrial energy and transportation

systems today. And, because other human activities (including clean fuel manufacturing) emit CO2, it

would probably be desirable that 4-fold reduction be increased to about 8. Drastic social change should

surely accompany drastic CO2 reduction, with increase in “clean”: solar; wind; tide; and geothermal

power hopefully replacing much of the power currently generated by fossil fuel burning. Such “green”social change should surely assist in demand for both spaceflight and terrestrial power and propulsion

being green - embodying more actions of fields and less combustion of mass - until the almost

propellant less power and propulsion of Figure 2 is approached.

FIGURE 2. Development of Power and Propulsion by Actions of Fields – Not by Combustion of Mass

Many aerospace and propulsion leaders may intellectually accept the idea that spaceflight will never be

really revolutionized and space will never be truly settled until matter-consuming rocket propulsion and

power is superseded by that is almost propellant-less - like field propulsion and power. But will some of

these leaders have the fortitude to actually make the hard decisions to bring this about in the current

climate of human and corporate inertia and self interest – a negative mental climate that would prevent

bold R&D re-direction from the safe and familiar to the uncertain and unknown? In this respect, themany field power and propulsion possibilities and their technical unknowns discourage one from even

starting. But, the many field propulsion possibilities can be sorted into 3 general groups and 3 general

assumptions as to origins and relations between gravity and elactromagnetism.

One category of field propulsion possibility would involve the “Lorentz” force generated by

electromagnetic (EM) interactions involving vector cross products of magnetic (B) and electric (E) fields

that are created inside vehicles or that exist within the electromagnetic flux of the interplanetary or

interstellar space. This category of field propulsion is attractive in that it embodies well-understood EM




interactions and requires no special assumptions as to the underlying relationships between

electromagnetism, gravity and inertia. Thrust from Lorenz force is small for interactions that involve the

relatively weak E and B fields of outer space. But NASA studies such as Chase (1996) have explored its

use in Earth’s atmosphere by air breathing engines. Here, Lorentz force would strongly slow airflow: to

improve engine efficiency; generate enormous electrical power; and significantly amplify thrust per fuel

flow rate. This was done by wrapping ionization and magnetic sources (electron beams, electrodes and

superconducting magnets) around engine flow paths. These components greatly increased dry mass of single stage-to-orbit space planes. But their takeoff mass was less and propellant consumption was

reduced by almost 30 percent.

Another category of field propulsion possibility (Woodward, 2007) would use well-known EM

interactions. But, it assumes - in accordance with “Mach’s Hypothesis” - that fluctuation in a system’s

mass will be instantly responded to by the gravitational presence of all nearby and distant cosmic

bodies. Field propulsion is achieved by inducing mass fluctuations within capacitor dielectric materials

by subjecting them to electromagnetic (EM) energy pulsations of very high frequency and voltage. The

EM pulsations are modulated to create Lorentz forces in the desired direction during the mass reducing

phases of the fluctuations - to cause unidirectional force. Thrust of this system increases with: dielectric

thickness and mass; magnetic field strength; capacitor dielectric constant; and applied voltage; and

operating frequency. Positive experimental results have been obtained by Woodward and others over

several decades with customized off-the shelf components. But operational systems would need much

lower-loss dielectrics and about a 3-fold increase in their: operating frequency; and dielectric constant;

and fatigue lifetime.

The third category of field propulsion systems is based on the possibility of an innate connection

between gravity and inertia and electromagnetism that this might allow specially conditioned, higher-

order EM fields to couple with the higher-order fields that may underlie gravity and inertia. In this

respect, Barrett (2008) uses gauge and group and topology theory to derive higher-order, specially

conditioned SU(2) EM fields that contain added A vector fields and added field interactions that involve

couplings between A and B fields and A and E fields. He found one way of creating specially conditioned

SU(2) EM fields is by phase and polarization modulation of a portion of ordinary input EM energy in

wave guides and combining this modulated energy with the un-modulated input energy to emit laser or

microwave radiation whose electric and magnetic field directions and amplitudes can undergo manycycles of change during very short travel distances in space. Also, Barrett, 1998 describes specially

conditioned SU(2) EM fields generated by toroids with appropriate geometry, coil winding and

frequency. At resonant radio frequency, the 2 ordinary U(1) A vector potential patterns that surround

radiating toroids cancel themselves and a single SU(2) A vector field is created that greatly increases

toroid signal strength at any range. Tests of SU(2) EM fields generated by Toroids (Froning and

Hathaway, 2001) have yielded significant results, as have tests of SU(2) EM fields generated by

polarization-modulation. But like Woodward’s field propulsion work, much more work has to be done.

Unfortunately, most electrical, electronic and electromagnetic professionals assume there is nothing

new beyond Maxwell’s electromagnetism that was derived in the late 1890’s. And most of mainstream

science disbelieves in Mach’s Principle and possible couplings between gravity and electromagnetism.

So, science is much more focused on things such as search for the Higgs boson and reconciling General

Relativity with Quantum Theory - not search for new modes of EM field generation, and their possible

coupling with the fields that underlie gravity and inertia.

FIELD POWER FROM CLEAN NUCLEAR AND VACUUM ZERO-POINT ENERGY

Its assumed that by 2050, much terrestrial power from CO2 emitting fossil fuels will be replaced by an

enormous increase in power generation from solar, wind, tide, and geothermal sources. But, the much

lower energy gathering densities of these sources require vast areas of land, shore and sea and




disadvantages of more security and power distribution (over longer distance) expense. Thus, if twice

today’s terrestrial energy is required by 2050, new sources of energy in addition to solar-wind-tide-

geothermal may be required. In this respect, nuclear fission is an energy system generally perceived as

undesirable because of its radioactive waste. By contrast, nuclear fusion is less dangerous and generates

less radioactive waste. But, energetic neutrons emitted from fusion reactions are difficult to shield and

result in material erosion and residual radioactivity. However, “aneutronic” fusion reactions emit no

neutrons and cause no radioactivity. For example, the aneutronic reaction in Figure 3 causes the hightemperature fusion of boron 11 and hydrogen nuclei to create a total of 3 helium ions (electricity) and

5.68 MeV of energy per fusion. Critical research on challenging aneutronic fusion areas are described in

(Froning and Miley, 2004).

FIGURE 3. Neutron-Free and Radioactivity-Free Nuclear Fusion Reaction.

Although space seems inert and “empty” to the senses, quantum theory reveals it as possessing

enormous vigor and vitality over sub-microscopic scales of distance and throughout the entire enormous

vastness of cosmic space. Contributing to this vigor and vitality are zero-point fluctuations in the

vacuum’s electromagnetic state, which come from processes such as creation and annihilation of virtual

charged particle pairs in small regions of space. Figure 4 shows such fluctuations at a given instant as

numerous EM energy pulsations of various frequency and wavelength. .

FIGURE 4. Zero-Point EM Energy Fluctuations in a Sub-Microscopic Region of Space

Over 10-3

cm scales of distance, which are comparable to a tiny spec of space, expectation value of the

zero-point energy density of the vacuum is 10-8

J/cm3 – a value that is indiscernible to the senses. But

over 10-6

cm distances, expectation value of vacuum zero-point energy density is an enormous value of

10 kJ/cm3. And investigators such as Wheeler (1968) speculate that destructive wave interference, in

effect, diminishes the higher energies within individual fluctuations to small values that are smeared

over the much larger scales of distance that human senses can resolve. And, despite skepticism by many




scientists over the possibility of harvesting the very elusive zero-point quantum fluctuation energies of

space, Casimir (1984) and Forward (1984) show the possibility of developing force and extracting energy

from the zero-point vacuum. Thus, companies such as “Earthtech” have established precision

calorimeter facilities to test their own and other zero-point energy devices – with no positive results

announced yet.

FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL AND ITS IMPACT ON ASTROSOCIOLOGY

Interstellar travel to distant stars does not appear to be of pressing concern today. However, it is well

known that the crew of a relativistic spaceship, accelerating at modest 1.0 earth gravity to almost light

speed during the first half of an interstellar journey and then decelerating at 1.0 earth gravity during the

final half, could reach stars in galaxies beyond our Milky Way in less than 30 years of time and 30 years

of physical aging by the ship and crew. But such slower-than-light (STL) flight would forever separate the

crew from friends and homes on Earth. For millions of Earth years would elapse by the time they

reached their destination. Thus astrosociology would be of critical importance to mission success

because it would have to completely replace the terrestrial sociology that will be forever left. From an

astrosociology standpoint, such relativistic STL interstellar travel could be somewhat similar to very slow

STL solar system journeys that would keep humans away from Earth for so many years that they like

Earths early frontier settlers and pioneers would have to create and maintain their own society andgovernment.

Faster-than-light (FTL) travel that would results in very short journey durations in the solar system or

interstellar space would, of course, have significant impact on astrosociology. For, short journey

durations in both Earth and vehicle time would allow ships and humans to return to Earth soon after

departing from it. Thus, astrosociology issues would less critical in terms of the expeditions need for in-

situ resources, and long duration self-government.

Issues of causality consistent or paradox-free FTL travel are still being argued, despite encouraging

“warpdrive” field propulsion concepts that enable rapid, stress-free vehicle acceleration to FTL speed by

warping spacetime metric or perturbing the zero-point quantum vacuum with exotic fields.

Unfortunately, stupendous energies appear to be required for the warping of space-time. But work suchas Froning and Meholic (2008) show the possibility of rapid transitions between STL and FTL state with

much less energy expenditure in a higher dimensional realm that includes and encompasses 4D

spacetime itself. Progress has also been made in the modeling of field-propelled STL-FTL transitions by

CFD methods that compute the zero-point radiation pressure gradients that form about an accelerating

vehicle that is perturbing a fluid-like compressible negative-pressure quantum electromagnetic vacuum.

Figure 5 shows such a vehicle being propelled from STL to FTL speed by vacuum zero-point radiation

pressures.




FIGURE 5. Zero-Point Radiation Pressures Surrounding an Accelerating Vehicle at 0.99 of Light Speed.

There is enormous science interest in higher dimensional theories that attempt to describe the observed

6 degree-of-freedom activity of physical things in 4-D spacetime by the higher-order, 20 degree-of-

freedom activity of vibrating strands of energy (strings) in a higher dimensional 11-D realm. The 7

additional dimensions of the string realm are submicroscopic spatial ones - and these 7 extra dimensions

and their 16 extra degrees-of-freedom describe the extremely high-order activity that gives rise to thelower-order physical activity that is perceived within the material word. But the extra dimensions and

degrees of freedom also allow bizarre possibilities like faster-than-light travel and other inaccessible

universes in addition to our own. Unfortunately for space flight, most string theorists have utmost faith

in other unreachable universes and complete disbelief in possibility of FTL travel in our own. Moreover,

an early way of reducing early proliferations of string theories was eliminating those that were

“plagued” with the most tachyon FTL solutions. Thus, enormous amounts of sophisticated science are

expended in speculations on natures of other unreachable universes and very little is expended on how

humans might swiftly traverse their own.

“HYBRID” AND “PURE” FIELD POWER AND PROPULSION SYSTEMS

Transitions from jet to field power and propulsion may or may not be accomplished in one fell swoop.One example of a hybrid of jet and field propulsion is shown in Figure 6. It is a reusable single-stage-to-

orbit aerospace plane that was studied for the U. S. Air Force for future development in the time period

between 2025 and 2030. It combines chemical air-breathing engines and a fusion rocket engine for

propulsion and power (Froning and Czysz, 2006). The air breathing engines embody magnets, electron

beams and electrodes (as described previously) to create an airflow-slowing and current-creating Lorenz

force that increases propulsion efficiency and generates electric power. The fusion rocket engine

embodies a “dense plasma focus” device that enables clean aneutronic fusion of boron 11 and hydrogen

nuclei (This is described in more detail in Froning and Czysz). The air-breathing and fusion rocket engines

integrated well – with sharing of engine flow paths, superconducting magnets and electron beams. And

gigawatt power from Lorentz force generation in the air breathing engines at Mach 12 speed was found

ample for in-flight fusion system ignition at very high altitude.

FIGURE 6. Single-stage-to-Orbit Aerospace Plane Propelled by Jet Power and Propulsion and the Actions of Fields.

Favorable EM field actions during air breathing and less fuel consumed during fusion rocket flight causedvehicle fuel consumption to be only 1/5 that of ordinary air breathing earth-to-orbit vehicles and less

than 1/10 that of all-rocket ships. This results in a vehicle takeoff mass that is only 1/5 to 2/5 that of the

air breathing and rocket ships.

Figure 7 is an example of an entirely field-propelled vehicle. It is a fully reusable lunar vehicle configured

by March (2007). It embodies the previously described Woodward (2007) mass fluctuation field

propulsion system to take 6 people to the moon (as do the mostly expendable Ares 1 + Ares 5 vehicles of

NASA’s “Constellation” system) with an Earth takeoff mass of only 26.5 t. If this vehicle were re -




configured to take the same people and cargo as does Constellation, its takeoff mass would increase to

about 200 t only about 1/25 the current takeoff mass of Ares 1 and Ares 5; and its propellant (H 2+O2 fuel

cells for power) would be only about 1/250 of that consumed by Ares 1 and 5.

FIGURE 7. Reusable Earth-to-Moon Vehicle that Embodies Woodward Mass Fluctuation Field Propulsion Systems.

Field propulsion systems would, of course, be applicable for land transportation. Preliminary calculationsindicate weights of mass fluctuation propulsion and power systems (with lithium ion batteries instead

of fuel cells) would be less than 100 kg for a 1.3 ton auto. Such propulsion and power weight would be

lighter than propulsion and power weight for all-electric cars like Elon Musk’s 1.3 ton Tesla Roadster

(http://www.teslamotors.com/) - whose lithium ion battery alone weighs 450 kg.

ETHICS FOR ASTRO-SCIOLOGY AND THE SETTLEMENT OF SPACE

Critics of space settlement always point to the early settlement of North and South America and

Australia, when indigenous people were rather ruthlessly displaced by pioneering settlers from Spain,

England, and the newly founded United States. And these critics declare that the very same

displacements could be caused by space faring civilizations from Earth landing on other inhabited

worlds. Thus, C.S. Lewis, the famous English writer and academic - whose works included several popularscience fiction books - wrote an essay “The Danger of Rocketry” in which he declared the only barriers to

export of human greed; dishonesty and sin to other worlds are the enormous gulfs of space that

separate those worlds from us. Surprisingly, these same sentiments were repeated more recently by

Actor Patrick Stewart - the second famous commander of the “Starship Enterprise”- during a BBC

interview about 5 years ago. The same greed, dishonesty and sin that displaced native people long ago

still seem to be alive on Earth. But one might hope that there is more sensitivity today to such issues and

the dire consequences of greed and sin. And, if our World’s people can develop the needed character to

survive and solve its present tribulations – including its crises in energy and transportation, it will bode

well for astrosociology. For such character development should endow future spacefarers with the

needed integrity for stable, harmonious, social dynamics between many cooperating people in space

and for the non-intrusive exploration and settlement of other worlds.

CONCLUSIONS

Many years of space transportation cost analyses has convinced the Author that: (1) no real space

exploration and space settlement will occur until propellant, consuming jet propulsion is superseded by

nearly propellant less field propulsion; and (2) the same advances in power and propulsion needed to

take us to distant worlds will also be needed to meet the future energy and transportation needs of

Earth. Some field power and propulsion technical and social challenges are shown to illustrate typical




technical and social changes needed to achieve field power and propulsion. Then, terrestrial- sociology

changes that enable ambitious, field-powered and field-propelled exploration and settlement of distant

worlds will require astro-sociology – long, stable, harmonious social dynamics between vast numbers of

space faring people.

REFERENCES

Barrett, T. W., “Toroid Antenna as Conditioner of Electromagnetic Fields into (Low Energy) Gauge Fields,”

Proceedings of the Progress in Electromagnetic Research Symposium (PIERS-98), Nantes, France, (1998).

Barrett, T. W., “Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism,” World Scientific, ( 2008).

Chase, R. L., “An Advanced Highly Reusable Space Transportation System,” NASA Cooperative Agreement No.NCC8

Final Report, ANSER, Arlington, VA., (1997).

Casimir, H. B. G., “On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates,” Proc. Ned. Akad. Wet . 51, 973,

(1948).

Forward, R. L., “Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of Charged Foliated Conductors,” Phys.

Rev. 30, 4, (1984).

Froning, H. D. and Miley, G.,“Aneutronic Fusion Research and Development for Future Power and Propulsion

Needs,” 15th

Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference,, Sydney, Australia, October, (2006).

Froning, H. D. and Czysz, P. A., “ Advanced Technology and Breakthrough Propulsion Physics for 2025 and 2050

Vehicles,” in the proceedings of Space Technologies and Applications Forum (STAIF-06), edited by M.S. ElGenk, AIP Conference Proceedings 813, Melville, New York, (2006)

Froning, H. D. and Meholic, G.V.,”Unlabored Transitions Between Subluminal and Superluminal Speeds in a Higher

Dimensional Tri-Space,” in the proceedings of Space Technologies and Applications Forum (STAIF-08), edited

by M. S. El Genk, AIP Conference Proceedings 969, Melville, New York, (2008)

Froning, H. D., and Hathaway, G. W.,”Specially Conditioned EM Radiation Research with Transmitting Toroid

Antennas,”

37 th

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion and Exhibit, Salt Lake City, UT., (2001).

March, P., “Mach-Lorentz Thruster Applications,” in the proceedings of Space Technologies and Applications Forum

(STAIF-07), edited by M.S. El Genk, AIP Conference Proceedings 880, Melville, New York, (2007).

Wheeler, T. A., “Superspace and the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics,” in Topics in Nonlinear Physics,

proceedings of the Physics section , International School of Nonlinear Mathematics and Physics, Spinger

Verlag, (1968), pp. 615-644.

Woodward, J. F., “Mach’s Principle and Experimental Results,” in the proceedings of Space Technologies and

Applications Forum (STAIF-07), edited by M.S. El Genk, AIP Conference Proceedings 880, Melville, New York,(2007).




Samudra Haque Excerpts from the ESCC Business Plan

Rose Hill, Virginia, USA

CROWDED ORBITS

The practical steps of launching machines into orbit around the Earth from the late 1950’s to the present

has resulted in a large number of man-made articles being inadvertently left in Space at various

trajectories with the expectation that they will gradually, and eventually, de-orbit and burn up in the

upper reaches of the Earth’s atmosphere. There are active programs run by the US Air Force that

attempts to track and keep an updated catalog of objects that can be detected in space and to a large

degree that tracking program has a good history of detecting objects that are in the vital LEO and GEO

orbits. However, to date, there has been little attempt in trying to solve the basic dilemma on what to

do with the numerous fragments of rocket fairings, empty boosters, failed spacecraft, remnants of space

walks and as recently as January 2009, a whole tool bag that was accidentally launched into its own LEO

by an astronaut completing a difficult spacewalk to repair a Solar Panel mechanism on the International

Space Station.

The floating objects in Space have increased in number over the six decades of Spaceflight and are now

considered to be in general a very hazardous issue for new missions that need to orbit the Earth in LEO

and also limit the opportunity of launches that will have to traverse the already-crowded (active

spacecraft, defunct spacecraft, waste material) in LEO orbit to reach the MEO/HEO and GEO altitudes.

Ideas to tackle the thorny issue have been floated in the past, that are too numerous to list here in full

detail, yet some of them are interesting to mention – if only to point to the futility:

Using Magnetics to sweep through clusters of space waste, materials, old spacecraft – Nice

idea, but a majority of materials used in Spacecraft construction may be non-magnetic orhave extremely low magnetic properties.

Water based cannon to shoot down space waste – Carrying sufficient water up to orbit

could be very expensive, as it is not compressible and has significant mass.

Lasers – Generating enough laser energy to vaporize objects in Space may require more

expensive energy generation equipment to be launched or operated from the ground and

may be hazardous to surrounding active satellites. Also the waste generated by the burnt

matter would create impossible to track hazy cloud of opaque material which would not be

dispersed – creating additional issues.

Nets – While there have always been ideas to use a net to snare orbiting space junk, the

complicated physics of moving mass and the amount of delta-vee energy required to force

objects from their current orbit into a de-orbital trajectory would be incredibly large and

possibly complicated enough to make it impossible.

“Space Tongs” – a patented system where an inflatable mechanism would grab and tow

objects to a “...dragging dead satellites to a galactic necropolis”. While initially this idea

seems to have merit, the mechanical limitations of an inflatable arm/gear/clamp would

limit its utility, and the idea that all of the collected space junk would be towed to a

graveyard would just shift the problem to a specific area of space where additional steps




would have to be done at a later stage to eliminate the junk at a certain point in the

collection process. [1]

According to the 14th

edition (2008) of the “History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentations1”, a summary of

the distribution of types of objects in Space is given in Table 1, and a note is requested to the reader to

obtain more details about the trajectories/origin/types of incidents that are made available in the 500+

page compendium of objects in Space compiled by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office.Cataloged debris at low altitudes are assessed to be larger than 10 cm, and for higher altitudes may be

undetectable if smaller than 1m in size. According to the authors of the Satellite Fragmentations report,

there are potential gaps in the record collection process due to inadequacies in the Space Surveillance

Network or because some space debris may have already entered the atmosphere before they could be

detected, identified and cataloged. From 2004 to 2008, almost 4000 additional objects have been

detected in Space from previous survey, and most of the additional items were due to the destruction of

a single spacecraft, the Chinese Fengyun 1C satellite.

Type On-Orbit Decayed or

beyond

Earth Orbit

Payloads 3051 2816Rocket bodies 1589 3194

Debris suspended 0 1250

Mission related debris 1494 5394

Breakup debris 5783 7039

Anomalous debris 229 159

Grand Total 31998

Table 1 Type of objects in Space2

Obviously the 2008 report quoted above, does not include the recent major on-orbit catastrophic and

very embarrassing incident [2] involving a Russian and American satellite – but it has led to significant

stakeholders admitting that there needs to be more coordination between the Operators and Users who

have launched vehicles into Space to orbit around our planet or sent them on outbound trajectories that

leave Earth orbit to return to the local vicinity with varying trajectories, from time to time - includingkey officials from the USA [3], China [4], Russia [5].

ROSKOSMOS officials were reported to be initially confused as to which of their satellites actually hit

the Iridium (USA) satellite [4] and the US Strategic Command tracked the possibility of collision with and

sent notification/warnings, but left it up to the Operator to actually take remedial action to actually

safeguard their own assets, which was never followed through [6]. However the Russian satellite

designation and characteristics was known well in advance by the USA as Cosmos-2251 [5] and most

probably was listed in the UNOOSA Registry of Space Objects, which is not always current3.

So in the midst of confusion, a prospect exists of offering a service to “keep the space lanes clean”.

A telling comment and request from U.S. Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff on the issue of national security ramifications of the satellite collision is relevant to this

discussion [3], that hints the safeguards and policy framework of the UNOOSA last updated in the 1970’s

has become outdated and may need replacement or modification:

1 NASA Publication, NASA-TM/2008-214779

(http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/SatelliteFragHistory/TM-2008-214779.pdf)2 From US, CIS, France, PRC, India, Japan, ESRO/ESA, Other sources3 The database still shows Nigcomsat-1 a defunct GEO satellite (failed catastrophically in November

2008) in orbit at 42.5E orbital position, when it is actually parked in a graveyard orbit!




“I’d like to be able to find a way, not only with Russia, but with other nations to

make sure that our exchange of data is more complete,” he said. “We would be

remiss to not take advantage of this and turn it into good.”

This opinion has been echoed separately by Chinese space officials as well and is accompanied by a

muted request for help [7]. However, simply locating and placing all man-made spacecraft is not going

to be enough in the future, when extended presence of automated machines, autonomous machinesand human/automated machines are plying the regions of Space in large numbers. The Author suggests

a global focus on developing a Space operations policy and strategy is expected to be conceived to allow

Space commerce applications to flourish as commercial parties bring energy rich raw materials and

develop scientific breakthroughs in microgravity and vacuum environments for the benefit of mankind.

These Space operation policy and strategy guidelines will have to include at the minimum:

Orbit and Trajectory allocation and enforcement

Communication resource allocation and enforcement

Parking Orbit and refueling facilities allocation and operation

Space garbage / Space defunct materials reclamation and disposal services

Salvage, Recovery, Rescue rules

Planetary defense measures

Protection and Enforcement auxiliary forces

Autonomous vehicle operation guidelines

In the article “A Cosmic Question”, [1], a current comprehensive summary is provided of efforts in the

global Space industry, including the ESA’s effort to organize conferences to discuss and take first steps to

address the key issue of “mitigation” of the space junk/waste in-orbit.

Assuming that technology can be located and systems built that actually can reach orbit and begin the

process of gathering up orbital materials the following key issues will have to be addressed in short

order:

When the material is collected, what will be the disposal method?

How long will it take to conceivably clear the material from orbit such that the “overcrowding”

of orbits is no longer a threat?

How long will each retrieval and disposal mission last, and will there be a need to have

simultaneous operations of more than one mission?

What will the cost of each mission, and the overall program be?

What will the utility of the spacecraft used to achieve this mission be after the retrieval

program has ended?

Service, Resupply and Cargo Transportation

Spacecraft that are in service today, or are going to be manufactured in the next decade and are on thedrawing boards have rarely been equipped with on-orbit servicing facilities (However, notable

exceptions such as the Hubble Space Telescope) for either payload or propulsion systems. In the past,

the reliability of the payload systems onboard the spacecraft were considered the weak point, and

service life of a particular system was good as long as the payload operated without catastrophic failure.

Operators of satellites learned to negotiate primary and backup launch capability, secondary spacecraft

and alternative payload aboard other spacecraft as a contingency measure against spacecraft failure. As

no practical servicing platform for on-orbit repairs have been available for a while since the early

missions of Space Shuttle, the industry seems to have moved away from deciding to repair systems in




orbit in favor of creating constellations of on-orbit, spare and on-ground backup spacecraft that can be

put into service at short notice. This method results in expensive mission costs due to the requirement

to launch extra mass and the requirement to create duplicate key infrastructure for spacecraft that

cannot be simultaneously used and have an effective short shelf-life. For example, if a spacecraft A1 is

flown into orbit, and fails in the 7th

year of its 15 year life-time, the replacement spacecraft A2,

constructed at the same time of A1 may have to use outdated technology for the duration of the original

life-time, or may be equipped with updated technology and flown for the full duration mission of itsown, to be backed up by another spacecraft, implying more expense.

If a spacecraft could be designed with on-orbit servicing missions in mind, the spacecraft bus and

propulsion system could be serviced with appropriate remote servicing vehicles and optionally the

payload changed as well. While the current Space industry might not have a need nor a vision for such a

facility, the provision of such an upcoming feature in the industry may be enough to influence the

designs of next generation of spacecraft in the same manner as the first global satellite broadcast did for

the telecommunications industry that was not really interested to replace their fiber optic circuits across

the ocean in the late 1960s. Assuming the following:

A ground facility for transportation of modules and propulsion materials to an intermediate

orbital resupply facility

An orbital resupply and servicing facility (ORSF) (e.g., either associated with the InternationalSpace Station, or a separate orbital facility)

A orbital spacecraft that could travel between the facility and targets of interest, possibly in two

configurations: Servicing Vehicle (SERV) and Recovery Vehicle (RECV)

The SERV and RECV will be sharing space with other spacecraft that will dock with the ORSF and

take onboard fuel and supplies being transshipped from Earth to other destinations and vice-

versa.

Target spacecraft that can either be serviced on-orbit or that can be retrieved using the RESV

and brought back to the ORSF.

Cargo/Material destined back from outer space missions to Earth are transshipped through the

ORSF.

The key advantages are:

Smaller launch costs and smaller replacement costs of a series of satellites.

Quick turnaround in repair time for satellites

Upgrading of facilities for in-service satellites

The technology required for the type of Space Missions discussed so far is already within our grasp:

extended duration, low-specific impulse propulsion; articulated automated robot mechanisms; ground

control systems; communication systems; sensors; manipulators and the key knowledge is readily

available in the industry.

If implemented, the addition of a facility simultaneous docking of several (more than two) spacecraft

and a facility for transportation of cargo from one spacecraft to another to the ORSF has the potentialfor delivering a giant leap in the capability of Humans in space, as it will then allow the following key

benefits to be achieved:

Transfer of cargo from various supply missions to single one-way payload from ORSF to any

destination; reducing mission costs

Exchange of cargo modules and payloads between different missions, assuming some

standardization of future mission cargo/payload interface is achieved




Delivery of Spacecraft from LEO to GEO, LEO to MEO/HEO and retrieval of same

If additional spacecraft carriers from LEO to Moon are produced by a 3rd

party:

o Regular freight service from LEO to Moon using one-way payload

o If required, retrieval of Moon payloads from Moon launch can be captured in Lunar

Orbit and returned to ORSF

If additional recycling module is added to the ORSF and additional spacecraft carriers from LEOto Moon are produced by a 3

rdparty:

o Valuable materials can be extracted from defunct space hardware and sent for use in

Lunar habitats, thereby reducing total mission costs. For example, a series of empty

booster shells can be strapped to a one-way thruster for delivery as partially-made

habitats for Lunar outpost setup.

If additional spacecraft carriers from LEO to Mars are produced by a 3rd

party:

o Regular freight service from LEO to Earth-Mars orbiters at designated rendezvous

points and retrieval/exchange of Earth bound cargo/payloads; or exchange between

Lunar and Mars outposts via the ORSF.

NEED

Within the 2015-2025 timeframe, to cater to the ever increasing demand to cleanup LEO and GEO

orbital trajectories and to increase the ROI on satellite technology, regardless of national origin,

regardless of private or public nature, the industry is expected to demand:

Services of a specialized operation that can reliably de-orbit expired spacecraft and associated

materials, and where possible,

Contractors to repair and refurbish the spacecraft for extended use in restricted/limited orbital

slots.

Vehicles suitable for use in the Mars exploratory missions and the human outpost on the Moon

with a flexible mix of cargo/payload/recovery/servicing functions.

SOLUTIONS

A solution suitable for the uses of the Space Industry will therefore require the design, development,

construction, deployment of:

A mission control facility and communications network suitable for the on-orbit operation of

recovery, servicing and resupply missions between Earth, Lunar and Mars orbits in stages.

Orbital Resupply and Servicing Facility (ORSF) - A facility that can be either deployed on a

standalone basis, or in conjunction with an existing platform in Space (such as ISS or its

successor) with multiple docking facilities for current and future spacecraft, a retrieval area, a

recycling/reclamation module, a servicing area and cargo/payload inter-modal transfer module

ORSF Recovery Vehicle (RECV) – A spacecraft capable of capturing other spacecraft by means of

pursuit in like orbits and returning said spacecraft to the ORSF, or deploying to new location.

ORSF Servicing Vehicle (SERV) – A spacecraft capable of carrying fuel and payload modules to a

target location and performing in-orbit missions to resupply and reconfigure the spacecraft as

needed.




ORSF Cargo Carrier Vehicle for LEO missions (OLEO) – A launcher/spacecraft capable of carrying

fuel and supplies between Earth and ORSF based orbital installations; similar in function to the

ATV spacecraft Jules Verne. This system will accommodate multiple users and strive to lower

Earth to LEO costs.

ORSF Cargo Carrier Vehicle for Lunar missions (OLUN) – A spacecraft capable of carrying fuel

and payload between LEO and Lunar orbits; the modules will be detached to drop on the Lunarsurface and if a return payload is sent using a thruster from Lunar surface, it will be captured

using orbital rendezvous. A future version of this Cargo carrier can be configured for actual

Lunar landing/departure operations.

ORSF Cargo Carrier Vehicle for Mars missions (OMARS) – Similar in nature to Lunar mission

profile, but with extended duration propulsion suitable for Mars/Earth loop service.

A significant portion of the fundamental technologies required to design the ORCV and OLEO

missions can be used as a complete solution required for meeting the goals of the Google Lunar

X-Prize, therefore the Google Lunar X-Prize Team Stellar functionality is included in the list of

solutions that can be solved by ESCC.

.




Dr. George Miley Excerpt from the program plan for HIIPER Space Propulsion

Concept for Advanced Mission Capability

Dr. George H. Miley,

Dept. of NPRE

University of Illinois

Urbana, IL 61801

ABSTRACT:

The HIIPER (Helicon Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket) is a revolutionary plasma

propulsion system that offers advanced capabilities with electrical input, but can ultimately lead

to a future fusion powered system for NASA's deep space missions. Using electrical input, the

base HIIPER provides near term solutions to the challenge of low cost, high efficiency space

propulsion and power.

A helicon stage is used to inject plasma into an Inertial electrostatic Confinement (IEC) stage

which accelerates ions, forming a plasma jet for thrusting. This light weight structure offers a

very high density flow combined with ultra high energy jet ions, providing remarkable specific

power and specific impulses for next generation NASA missions. Further, by separating primary

ionization and acceleration into two stages, the design maximizes the capabilities of the

propellant.

The IEC has previously been identified as a leading candidate confinement system for aneutronic

fusion, so HIIPER with its injected IEC design also offers the unique potential for upgrading intoan aneutronic fusion-based power/propulsion system for future spacecraft. This phase I

research proposal would provide an experimental proof-of-principle demonstration of this basic

HIIPER concept. This is possible on the low budget and tight timescale of the Phase I because the

two basic components, the helicon and the IEC, are already available from prior work. The

present study will focus on the unique elements that enable HIIPER - the plasma coupling of an

ionization stage integrated with an IEC jet formation and acceleration.

Expected Significance

The need for improved electric propulsion for NASA missions has been steadily growing as

mission objectives grow and become more focused. Electric thrusters are often the only choicefor missions requiring high delta-v because of their high specific impulse. The significance of the

proposed new HIIPER concept is that the characteristics it possesses cannot be matched in

current or projected electric propulsion. Unique to HIIPER is extreme longevity, scalability, and

fuel versatility, along with potential for a vectored thrust system. HIIPER, like the currently

studied VASIMR, offers variable specific impulse through the separation of the ionization and

acceleration of the plasma, but unlike VASIMR offers the elimination of any magnetic nozzle or

guidance stage. Future versions of HIIPER can be upgraded into an aneutronic fusion system




offering multi-role functionality as a combined spacecraft power reactor and a propulsion

system.

HIIPER as a propulsion system has the potential to perform beyond current state-of-the-art

technologies by combining a high thrust and high ionization efficiency of propellant. Because the

propellant can be carried without changing any of the components, the HIIPER can support gases

suitable to particular missions and move away from scarce gases such as xenon without any

hardware modifications. This unique design proposes to have a high thrust-to-weight ratio while

maintaining a very low erosion of plasma facing components through the coupling of a helicon

and IEC.

In the long term, the HIIPER’s IEC acceleration stage can be adapted for use as a combination

aneutronic power source through directed energy conversion. This is because the basic

components involve an ion drive IEC, and the IEC is a known candidate confinement scheme in

its own right for use as an aneutronic power plant [Bromley 1995]. The advantage for creating a

space bound fusion device is that the plasma does not need to be completely confined. In fact,

the HIIPER’s configuration is ideally suited for IEC fusion. Additionally, the HIIPERs innovative

design is quite simple and avoids the additional hardware and complexities associated withmagnetically confined propulsion systems. The gas versatility opens up the ability to operate

helium 3-helium 3 or hydrogen-boron 11 reactions which generate no neutrons and whose

reaction products will be streamed out in a focused jet to propel the spacecraft. This reduces

further weight as human shielding is no longer required for the spacecraft.

These benefits translate into important applications. Traditional Hall Thrusters have a specific

power of roughly 3 kg/kW when scaled to the power levels required for next generation military

and scientific satellites. Future missions for large military and NASA space craft have a mission

specific power of 1.5 kg/kw or less while achieving thrust efficiencies equal to or greater than

the current state of the art; >60% at specific impulses of 1400-3500 sec. and constant power

input. [Manzella 2002, LaPointe 2001, Schaub 2006] Such thruster technology should be capableof supporting a 15-year mission in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) or Medium Earth Orbit

(MEO) and 5 years in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) after ground storage of 5 years.

Assuming the successful implementation of HIIPER, these requirements are readily met and

more likely surpassed. The combination of the high plasma density with Helicon injection and

ultra-high IEC voltage afforded by the IEC jet enable the power levels needed while

simultaneously providing exhaust velocities such that specific impulses with a variety of ions

other than Xenon above 4000 seconds are possible. A conceptual design study needs to be done

for the fusion powered HIIPER to fully evaluate that performance. However, prior “traditional”

IEC fusion propulsion studies have demonstrated the base IEC concept, with its ultra-high

power-to-weight ratio offers forefront performance compared to other fusion concepts for

space power [Miley 1995, Burton 2003]. Additionally, the non-equilibrium characteristic of the

IEC plasma enables use of aneutronic fuels, minimizing radioactivity and shielding requirements.

HIIPER should retain these basic IEC characteristics for fusion based propulsion and, with its

improved plasma flow, actually exceed them.



FINANCIALS

The pro forma financials here are a placeholder for Phase One (start-up) of the Hundred Year Initiative.

Numbers are being developed that will supply a finer resolution of this approach, and comply withDepartment of Defense audit criteria.

FIRST DRAFT USE AND APPLICATIONS OF FUNDS

The budget plan below will be designed to utilize ingress of $1,000,000 plus contract/grant revenues

during the first two years of activity. It is currently under review by the Management Advisory Board.

USE AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS - FOR THE INITIATIVE

SEED CAPITAL FUND $1,000,000

Year

1in 1000's

Operations $105

Salaries 110

Formation Expenses 50

Structure Development 130

Community

Development 95

Consulting 100

T&E 28

Miscellaneous 30

Budget expense $648

Estimated Revenues 0

Estimated collections 750

Total net cash flow 102

aarc the hundred year plan v1.7

Documents