Newsletter Articles 2025b

July ~ The Inert Machine

Last October I wrote an article, “Consciousness and the Singularity”. In it I explained the theory of the quantum nature of consciousness. Whenever I ruminate on the topic, I’m always reminded of Rene Descarte’s famous axiom, “I think, therefore I am.”

According to current thinking each microtubule within a neuron generates an oscillating electric field. The density of microtubules varies depending on the region. In axons, it’s around 100 per square micrometer. The cell body has 68 microtubules per square micrometer and 53 for dendrites, the fuzzy-looking extensions that create myriad connections with surrounding neurons.

These numbers describe densities in just one cell. There are 86 billion neurons in a human brain, all packed into a 1.5-liter volume. That’s smaller than a two-liter bottle of your favorite cola on the soda aisle of your grocery store. Consciousness is an emergent property of the interactions of all those microtubules’ electric fields.

I recently read an Ars Technica article titled “How A Big Shift in Training LLMs Led to a Capability Explosion” by Timothy B. Lee. The most recent iterations of Large Language Models rely on a new type of training called reinforcement learning. In the feature, he described an instance where Chinese company DeepSeek’s R1 AI model exhibited behaviors such as reflection. Of its own accord, it revisited and reevaluated its previous steps exploring alternative approaches to problem-solving. These behaviors are eerily human.

Yet R1 gave no indication that it was aware of what it was doing—and won’t for the foreseeable future. No AI will. What makes me so confident? The microtubules that I mentioned above all oscillate with a fundamental frequency of 39 cycles per second. By definition, the logic gates of a computer chip open and close without synchronicity. The rhythmic nature of microtubule voltage potentials appears critical for consciousness. When they are inhibited by anesthesia, we become unconscious.

This may change with the advent of quantum computers, depending on how electrical currents are used to maintain qubits. But I suspect that like standard chips, the microcircuits of quantum processors will lack that kind of synchronicity.

The number of transistors on processors now measures in the hundreds of billions, even trillions for chips designed to run AI systems. But unlike our microtubules, they’re either on or off. The requisite conditions required for self-awareness simply aren’t there. No matter how complex the architecture of a computer, or an entire data center, it won’t achieve consciousness.

It’s clear that LLMs can think and reason. They’re just unaware they’re doing so. Descarte, had he lived to see this, would have had to modify his axiom to “I’m aware that I think, therefore I am.”

This all brings up an interesting question for me. If a computer on its own lacks self-awareness, could it borrow consciousness from a human brain? With the advent of the computer-brain interface tech (Elon Musk’s company Interlink sells brain implants) we see the beginnings of the cyborg revolution. As the electrodes and interlink technology improve over time, might that not enable a device to experience self-awareness?

That’s the premise behind my upcoming novel, Wetware, the first book of my new series, Of Two Minds. I’m tackling my final revisions in anticipation of a mid-September release. If you’d like to help make the launch a success, and maybe score an autographed limited-edition hardback, read the next article below.

Happy Reading!

ike what you just read? Share this issue with friends and encourage them to subscribe to receive free short stories, news about upcoming promotions and books by yours truly and other exciting Sci-Fi authors!

For further reading
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8416025/
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/07/how-a-big-shift-in-training-llms-led-to-a-capability-explosion/?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=ars&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_mailing=Ars_Orbital_070925&utm_medium=email&bxid=65b7bff8fa0b7a89580f3650&cndid=76333326&hasha=e8620ee793baaa68e769a8c40cbb61f1&hashb=3919d6f19501af75d0af661aa4cd9d6e1329b988&hashc=1bf82b64ba64698cf4b3a2ce3fd3e77e67d828f3872982df6524bf394df7dd57&esrc=bouncex-test&utm_content=Final&utm_term=ARS_OrbitalTransmission
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/148/3/689/7909879
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count

August ~ A Lunar Nuclear Reactor

Photo courtesy NASA

In late July, Sean Duffy, the interim NASA administrator, issued a directive to fast-track efforts to put a Small Nuclear Reactor (SMR) on the moon. Its contents were reported by news outlets on August 4th and 5th. In it, he laid out a roadmap to design, launch, deploy and operate a 100 kilowatt (kW) nuclear reactor at the lunar south pole. It dictates placement on the moon by early 2030, framing it as a must win contest in a new moon race.

He relied heavily on a document prepared for the Department of Energy by PhDs Bhavya Lal and Roger Myers of the Idaho National Laboratory. Released on July 25, Strategic Options for U.S. Space Nuclear Leadership describes the need to counter China’s and Russia’s ambition to place their own SMR in the mid-2030s.

A 100 kW reactor could run roughly 80 homes here in the United States. This would be a game-changer for NASA’s lunar and Mars ambitions. It would mean that habitat module environments could go from survivable to livable. It would enable the mining of local resources like water ice and He-3, which would in turn become power sources for remote equipment, rockets, and fusion reactors. Equipment like radars and communications could be built to scale, unlike the scaled-down low energy devices used today.

Deploying a 100 kW lunar nuclear reactor will be —pardon the pun—a moon shot. But over the past decade, NASA has been developing lower power prototypes. In 2018, the space agency announced the successful testing of a 2 metric ton (4,400 lb) 10 kW reactor in their Kilopower program. The device consisted of a uranium 235 core, passive molten sodium heat pipes, a Stirling engine to convert heat to electricity, and a large umbrella-like radiator. It was designed to have a ten-year life span. NASA operated it at full power for 28 hours to prove the concept. The photo at the top of this article is a NASA conception of a Kilopower unit on the moon.

Next, the agency launched its Fission Surface Power program. Companies including Rocket Aerodyne, Boeing, Lockheed Martin (aerospace); BWX Technologies and X-Energy (nuclear); Creare (engineering); and Intuitive Machines and Maxar (space tech) worked to design a scaled up 40 kW small module reactor. The effort is ongoing. However, the effort has been stymied by the 6 metric ton (7,200 lb) device weight limit.

Duffy’s directive seeks a maximum weight of 15 metric tons (33,000 lb). According to his directive, NASA will bring a qualified project leader on board within 30 days, and solicit proposals from private companies within 60 days.

The timeline is ambitious. But should it become untenable, the two previous, smaller reactor designs are fallback options, deploying multiple units to achieve the 100 kW goal.

The lunar environment presents numerous challenges. The one-sixth Earth G lunar gravity impedes the convection of the molten sodium heat transfer fluid, potentially compromising unit efficiency. Temperatures on the moon are extreme. The unit will have to withstand outside temperatures that reach 250 degrees F during the day and plunge to minus 242 degrees at night. Because of the lunar vacuum, cooling the device will only be achieved via radiation, requiring an immense radiator the size of a basketball court. Complicating the radiator’s efficiency, lunar regolith tends to be electrostatically charged, causing it to stick to anything it contacts.

Safety shouldn’t pose much of an obstacle. NASA has been sending small nuclear radiological batteries into space since the 1950s. The remote autonomous offloading, assembly and testing will be a challenge. Siting may be difficult. Perhaps the unit will be located in a small crater. In case of a nuclear accident the entire crater can be filled in, eliminating environmental exposure on the surface. Permitting through the Department of Energy will likely have to be fast-tracked to meet NASA’s own stringent timeline.

Deploying an SMR on the moon will test space law. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty allows facilities to use and exploit lunar resources. But the issue remains subject to potential disputes. The US interpretation is that an exclusion zone in case of a nuclear accident need not prevent other parties from establishing their own bases and mining operations in the vicinity.

One rationale for the rapid deployment of a lunar reactor by the US is the fear that China and Russia will interpret the treaty differently. They may seek to place their reactor, or expand their exclusion zone, to preclude US access to resources at the lunar south pole should they place theirs first.

Lastly, delivering and assembling an SMR on the moon will require the rapid development of spacecraft and large landers, and autonomous equipment to offload and safely assemble and test the devices. The components (reactor core, sodium convection plumbing, Stirling engine, and radiator), will constitute a 15 metric ton payload.

The offloading and assembly machinery will also weigh several tons. Ancillary electrical equipment will add more payload tonnage. The capacity of SpaceX’s Starship lander will be about 27 tons. Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander will be about 22 tons. In all, multiple landings will be required to offload all the machinery, electrical equipment and reactor components.

One thing to keep in mind here. If it works on the moon, it will work on Mars. A Mars mission, even a six-month temporary presence, will absolutely require a minimum of 40 kW of power to be viable. Whatever system is deployed to the moon will provide valuable data regarding durability and reliability. Both will be critical where an emergency return to Earth will take at least six months, and a rescue mission at least nine.

The power generation system I envisioned in my EPSILON series was based on an array of 10 kW Kilopower-like reactors. It constrained the electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen for base atmosphere and rocket fuel. But it was overcome by adding units as power consumption grew. Having 100 kW will enable a permanent presence on Mars much sooner than space planners (and I) have envisioned up until now.

Happy Reading!

Like what you just read? Share this issue with friends and encourage them to subscribe to receive free short stories, news about upcoming promotions and books by yours truly and other exciting Sci-Fi authors!

For further reading
https://www.nasa.gov/space-technology-mission-directorate/tdm/fission-surface-power/
https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/07/strategic-options-space-nuclear-leadership.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/why-the-us-is-racing-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon/#:~:text=Placing%20a%20nuclear%20reactor%20on,from%20candlelight%20to%20grid%20electricity.%E2%80%9D

September ~ Martian Biosignature?

On Wednesday, September 10th I received a NASA press release. Titled “NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year,” the space agency presser went on to describe the physical evidence and explained its significance.

The press release coincided with the release of a peer-reviewed paper by Nature, by Joel Hurowitz, lead author of the paper and a member of the Perseverance science team. The paper documented the analysis of sampling performed by the Perseverance rover in 2024 at a rock named “Cheyava Falls.” NASA had dubbed the physical sample, “Sapphire Canyon.”

Cheyava Falls exhibited small purple spots, dubbed “poppy seeds” and larger yellow patches called “leopard spots.” On Earth, similar formations appear in sedimentary silts and clays where microbes have metabolized iron, sulfur and organic compounds. Cheyava Falls was found to be layered silt and clay stones. Iron, sulfur and organic compounds were found to be present in the rock’s “poppy seeds” and “leopard spots.”

Those same features can be created by inorganic processes: high temperatures and highly acidic conditions. Notably, no evidence was found by Hurwitz’s team to support that those conditions existed at the time the features were formed.

I have to emphasize the significance of the term “potential biosignature.” NASA has not discovered indisputable evidence, like fossilized microbes. But as Hurwitz stood with NASA interim administrator Sean Duffy, the head of NASA confirmed that “This finding by Perseverance…is the closest we have ever come to discovering life on Mars.”

What does this discovery mean for human missions to Mars if confirmed? Or to the point, what does this mean for the languishing Mars Sample Return mission?

It places that mission and follow-up squarely on the Mars human mission critical path and becomes a high priority. At Wednesday’s press conference, Duffy was asked about the outlook for Sample Return, “What we’re going to do is look at our budgets. We’re going to look at our timing. And, you know, how do we spend money better? And what technology do we have to get samples back more quickly? And so that’s a current analysis that’s happening right now. Again, what is the best way to do it?” While President Trump has previously requested a 24% budget reduction for NASA, congress has yet to actually write its budget for the coming year.

Assuming Sample Return is reactivated and funded, NASA human mission planning will have to address two possible outcomes. What if the biosignature is debunked? Assuming no subsequent definitive evidence of past life on Mars, NASA should continue human mission planning but with an enhanced emphasis on dust and perchlorate control measures. Martian dust is hazardous anyway. It just becomes prudent to ensure the isolation of all habitat interiors from Martian dust and all that it contains, whether inanimate or animate.

But what if the biosignature is confirmed? I believe this will delay human missions at least a decade. NASA should plan and conduct thorough assays for both active and dormant life in the vicinity of any planned landing site.

If the presence of microbes is confirmed, samples must be cultured to assess risk of disease using human organ models. If Martian life proves to be benign, the same dust control protocols developed for debunked life signs should suffice. However, blood collection and analysis should be added to mission medical monitoring.

If disease assessment reveals there is a risk, Mars should be declared a quarantined planet. It will be necessary to develop, test and administer a safe and effective vaccine to all mission specialists. Only at that time should the quarantine be lifted.

Part of the reactivation of human missions should also include supplementing mission dust and perchlorate control with added antiseptic measures.

Beyond impacts to NASA, what will a declaration of definitive life signs mean for humanity in general? That depends on the world view of whomever you speak to. For most scientists and rationalists, it will strengthen their conviction that life is a universal process, driven by chemical and environmental conditions common to many stellar systems. The search for life elsewhere in the solar system (Enceladus, Io, etc.) will be invigorated. It will also revitalize the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life and reignite the debate if that’s a good thing. (Think: The Three Body Problem, Independence Day)

What about for those who lean heavily into traditionalism and orthodoxy? I fear they’ll dismiss the news as a conspiracy and decry it as anti- (insert religious, political or social organization here). Sadly, I expect that the discovery of life beyond our world will spur them to seek bans from school curricula like the theory of evolution did a century ago. It will open a new front in the war on science and reason.

What will the confirmation of life on another world mean to me? This will reinforce that the world and the universe that contains it are full of wonder. It’s why I repost images from the James Webb telescope and Mars and Earth satellites. As I see it, if common processes lead to life on different planets, that makes us related in a sense. At least, it means we share certain things in common.

But my emotional high will likely be tempered. That life could arise on other worlds reinforces my conviction we’ll one day encounter an extraterrestrial species with an intelligence that rivals or exceeds our own. As I’ve noted in other editions, our first encounter may have downsides. If we confirm that we are not alone in the universe, we may also find that we’re not the undisputed masters of it. I expect an explosion of speculative fiction in the near future that expresses this unease about our place in the universe.

What does this news mean to you? Are you skeptical of finding life, whether living or extinct, on Mars? What about Io or Enceladus? Outside our solar system?
Do you celebrate the possibility of meeting a very distant cousin? Or do you share my disquiet about meeting someone who simply doesn’t share our values of individual autonomy and self-determination? Perhaps they subscribe to a form of galactic colonialism or imperialism. Heck, we might simply be regarded as food.

Reply to me. I’d love to understand your thoughts on this issue. It’s a big one and may impact society in unexpected ways. If I receive enough responses, I hope to summarize your collective thoughts in the November issue.

Happy Reading!

For further reading
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-says-mars-rover-discovered-potential-biosignature-last-year/
Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in JezeroCrater, Mars. Sept 10, 2025.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09413-0
https://time.com/7316375/nasa-perseverance-rover-discovery-life-on-mars/

October ~ No Article This Month

November ~ The Greatest Risk to Space Flight?

A November 11th ABC article reminded me of something that’s top of mind for many space officials and scientists. It detailed how three Chinese taikonauts are stranded at the Tiangong space station after space debris damaged their return vehicle.

There’s a cloud of space debris orbiting the Earth. And it’s growing. Orbital debris is proliferating with the increasing frequency of rocket launches and through a growing number of collisions and explosions.

When orbital debris proliferates through a cascade of collisions it’s called the Kessler Syndrome (also known as the Kessler effect). This hypothetical scenario was first identified by NASA scientists Donald J. Kessler and Burton G. Cour-Palais in a 1978 paper titled “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt.”

Their article described a chain reaction after the density of objects in low Earth orbit reaches a critical level. A collision between two objects creates a cloud of numerous fragments. These fragments, traveling at extremely high speeds, increase the likelihood of further collisions with active satellites or more debris. This cycle repeats, exponentially increasing the amount of space debris until entire orbital regions become an impassable and permanent hazard, potentially making space exploration and the use of satellites unfeasible for many generations. Shortly after the paper’s publication, NORAD employee John Gabbard coined the phrase Kessler Syndrome in an interview.

A 2024 article in AMPLIFi.com noted that Low Earth Orbit was congested with over 14,000 satellites and an estimated 120 million debris fragments. Antisatellite tests by the US, Russia, China and India have contributed objects from explosive and kinetic tests. Unintended collisions have occurred between defunct and operational satellites. Lastly, there have been spontaneous explosions of spent upper stages and satellites, usually involving ruptured aging propellant tanks.

NASA animation of orbital debris growth over time.

The risk is only growing. SpaceX’s completed Starlink broadband constellation will number over 40,000 craft. OneWeb will own a 648-member fleet. Amazon, over 3,200 spacecraft. Astra will operate13,600 satellites.

A runaway event could result in the loss of weather, communications, GPS, climate monitoring, and spy satellites, plus orbital labs, telescopes and manned space stations. Gerald M. Kilby’s Moonbase Delta series brilliantly portrays the devastating destabilization of Earth society at the loss of orbital technology. And the inability to launch new missions through the debris cloud will not only halt space exploration, it will strand any humans already in space.

The marooning of China’s taikonauts more closely resembles the personal drama of the award-winning 2013sci-fi film, Gravity, though with less, I hope, deadly consequences.

In 2009 Kessler opined that the collision cascade had already begun, and that fragments from future collisions would accumulate faster than atmospheric drag can remove them.

Today there are two strategies to reduce the potential for a Kessler Syndrome. Future satellites are being designed with the capability to be deorbited or moved to a graveyard orbit to minimize debris. This is an ongoing effort to meet NASA’s guideline that 90% of spacecraft should be removed from orbit within 25 years of mission completion.

The other is to collect and remove existing orbital debris. Astroscale, founded in 2013, is perhaps the most well-known company dedicated to the control of space debris. Their active debris removal strategy for old or defunct satellites involves using a robotic arm to physically grab an object and de-orbit it.

ClearSpace, another space debris startup, was founded in 2018. Their solution utilizes robotic tentacles to capture a satellite and move it to a lower orbit. Once below an altitude of 250 miles, atmospheric drag will eventually slow the derelict object enough for reentry and burn-up.

But many skeptics, including Kessler himself, believe the cascade has already begun and that debris will proliferate faster than we can remove it. Given my desire to see humanity colonize the Moon and Mars, I hope the skeptics are wrong. Time will tell.

Happy Reading!

For further reading
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/chinas-stranded-astronauts-good-condition-after-space-debris-127408318
https://www.space.com/kessler-syndrome-space-debris
13,600-satellite broadband constellation
Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt. Donald J. Kessler, Burton G. Cour-Palais. 1978. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA083iA06p02637
https://amplyfi.com/blog/understanding-the-space-debris-dilemma-the-kessler-syndrome/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome