Skip to content

ASSUMPTIONS.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
131 lines (99 loc) · 5.4 KB

ASSUMPTIONS.md

File metadata and controls

131 lines (99 loc) · 5.4 KB
Raw

Assumptions and Technical Dependencies

This document outlines key assumptions, technical dependencies, and risk factors for the Heliosphere project. These are based on current (2024) technology readiness levels (TRL) and expected advancements by 2030–2050.

Core Assumptions

1. Material and Component Maturity

  • Perovskite/GaAs Tandem Solar Cells (40% AM0 Efficiency):

    • TRL: 4 (lab-validated, 2024 NREL records)
    • Risk: Space radiation degradation; requires encapsulation and testing at 0.5 AU
    • Mitigation: Use GaAs-only cells (35% efficiency, TRL 9) as fallback

  • GaN-on-SiC MMICs (85% RF Efficiency at 5.8 GHz):

    • TRL: 5 (DARPA-funded prototypes, 2023)
    • Risk: Radiation hardness unproven for deep-space orbits
    • Mitigation: Redundant MMIC arrays with automatic failover

  • Inflatable CFRP Booms + Dyneema Tethers:

    • TRL: 7 (used in Starlink Gen2, 2024)
    • Risk: Micrometeorite puncture
    • Mitigation: Self-healing polymers (emerging tech)

2. Orbital and Propulsion Feasibility

  • Nuclear-Electric Tug for 0.5 AU Deployment:

    • Assumes availability by 2035 (post-Artemis program)
    • Risk: Regulatory delays on nuclear propulsion
    • Mitigation: Solar-electric propulsion (slower, but TRL 9)

  • Stable 0.5 AU Orbit:

    • Assumes Venus-Earth L3-like point stability
    • Risk: Orbital perturbations from Jupiter
    • Mitigation: Station-keeping thrusters (ion engines, TRL 9)

3. Economic and Scaling Assumptions

  • Launch Costs ($100/kg to 0.5 AU):

    • Based on reusable super-heavy launchers (e.g., Starship derivatives)
    • Risk: If costs remain >$200/kg, project becomes uneconomical
    • Mitigation: In-situ resource utilization (lunar aluminum mining, TRL 3)

  • Global Investment (0.15% of GDP):

    • Assumes green bond markets scale to $150B/year
    • Risk: Geopolitical instability
    • Mitigation: Decentralized funding via GRN cooperatives

Technical Dependencies

Software and Firmware

  • RISC-V SoC with seL4 Microkernel:

    • TRL: 8 (used in space missions, 2024)
    • Dependency: Open-source toolchain maturity

  • Ed25519 Cryptography for Beacon Signing:

    • TRL: 9 (quantum-resistant, widely deployed)
    • Dependency: Hardware-accelerated Ed25519 in radiation-hardened chips

Simulation and Validation

  • Beam Propagation Models:
    • Assumes Gaussian beam approximation holds for diffraction-limited systems
    • Dependency: Validation against ESA/NASA SBSP simulations

Risk Mitigation Strategies

  1. Prototyping Roadmap:

    • 2026: Ground-based 1-kW rectenna demo
    • 2028: LEO 100-kW beam test
    • 2032: GEO MOR prototype

  2. Fallback Technologies:

    • If GaN fails: Solid-state amplifiers (lower efficiency, but TRL 9)
    • If perovskite fails: Multi-junction GaAs (30% efficiency, TRL 9)

  3. Regulatory Assumptions:

    • Operates under Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Moon Agreement (1979)
    • Assumes ICNIRP safety guidelines remain at 1 kW/m² limit

Open Research Questions

  • Long-term radiation effects on perovskite cells at 0.5 AU
  • Scalability of inflatable structures beyond 1 km diameter
  • Economic viability without subsidies

These assumptions will be updated as TRLs advance. All designs are modular to accommodate technology substitutions.

Measured, 3 September 2026 — the simulator had never been run

make sim invoked python3 sim/beam_trace.py with no arguments, and the script requires --ish_power and --distance. It exited 2 every time, and make all failed with it. Nobody had seen this simulator's output.

main(args=None) accepted an argument list and then ignored it — the body read if args is None: args = parser.parse_args(), so a caller passing a list had that list bound straight to args and the next line died with 'list' object has no attribute 'ish_power'. The signature promised programmatic use and could not deliver it, so no test, sweep or notebook could drive the model either.

Both are fixed, and make test now runs 10 assertions against the physics.

What the simulator says about this repository's own design point

Run at the figures docs/README.md states — 10 GW at the ISH, beamed to a geostationary MOR at 35,786 km:
Beam divergence 63.4 µrad, the diffraction limit for 5.8 GHz through a 1 km aperture
Spot diameter 2.27 km
Power density 2,470 W/m²
Verdict exceeds the 1,000 W/m² limit the code checks against, by 2.5×

That is the repository's own tool applied to the repository's own numbers, and it is a real constraint on the architecture rather than a bug to fix: either the aperture grows, the power per satellite falls, or the receiving station is not a place people can stand.

And the safety constant itself wants checking

SAFETY_LIMIT_WPM2 = 1000.0 carries the comment "ICNIRP limit at 5.8 GHz". ICNIRP's published 2020 reference level for general public exposure at that frequency is substantially lower. The constant was left exactly as found and flagged here rather than quietly changed, because choosing an exposure limit is an engineering and regulatory decision, not a typo fix. If the lower figure is the right one, the gap above widens by orders of magnitude.

A display bug found on the way

Spot diameter: {:.0f} km printed "0 km" for any spot under 500 m while the power density beside it was computed from the true value — a readout stating the beam has no width. It prints kilometres to three decimals and metres alongside now.