Abstract This concept documents a complete physics-first authorisation architecture for the quantum-permanent era â applicable across AI cluster security, interbank settlement, space and interplanetary infrastructure, critical infrastructure protection, digital identity, supply chain integrity, and optional democratic participation tools. The architecture rests on a single physical principle: a cryptographic credential that no longer exists cannot be recovered by any computation, quantum or classical, regardless of future advances in hardware or algorithms. The concept extends the Temporal Rotation Security Protocol (TRSP v3, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20324081) and the TRSP Digital Coin (TDC v2, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20332811) with a unified Layered Temporal-Quantum Security (LTQS) framework. LTQS combines NIST FIPS 203/204-standardised Post-Quantum Cryptography (ML-KEM, ML-DSA) as Layer 0 â mathematical transit security â with TRSP temporal rotation as Layer 1 â physical credential elimination through hardware-enforced destructive readout within a configurable rotation window (10â500 ms). Layers 2 and 3 add geographically distributed hybrid dynamic quorum validation and LEO satellite orbital entropy anchoring with relativistic timestamp verification. An integrated adaptive AI management layer selects security profiles dynamically across High-Assurance, Standard, Degraded, and Emergency modes â guaranteeing graceful degradation to pure PQC fallback when physical infrastructure is unavailable. The hardware commitment module previously documented as CRATON is architecturally designated URDHR, after the Norse Norn of the irrecoverable past. The two complementary quorum layers are designated VERĂANDI (present-moment ground quorum) and SKULD (future-anchoring orbital quorum) â the three Norns mapped to the three temporal dimensions of cryptographic security. Prior art established under the CRATON designation in all previously published documents extends fully to the URDHR designation. Fifteen novel contributions are placed on the public record as defensive prior art: NC-TDC-21 (AI-to-AI Micropayment Architecture), NC-TDC-22 (Macroscopic Environmental Entropy as Optical Physical Unclonable Function), NC-TDC-23 and NC-TDC-23a (Macroscopic Polymorphic Cipher with Dynamic Dimensional Entropy â exploratory), NC-TDC-24 (TRSP Democratic Coercion Shield â exploratory, extending Juels-Catalano-Jakobsson coercion-resistant voting literature), NC-TDC-25 (Continuous Anonymous Democratic Pulse â exploratory), NC-TDC-26 (Physical Proof of Presence consensus mechanism operating at the Landauer thermodynamic minimum), NC-TDC-27 (Temporal Scarcity Value Architecture anchored in thermodynamic time-arrow irreversibility), NC-TDC-28 (AI Exchange Consortium Architecture), NC-TDC-29 (Biometric Supply Architecture), NC-TDC-30 (CRATON Chain Coin Identity Architecture without persistent private key), NC-TDC-31 (Three-Phase Value Architecture), and NC-TDC-32 (Cooperative Multi-Anchor Currency Architecture with Founder-Operator Equity-Plus-Operating-Margin Compensation Structure). NC-URDHR-1 and NC-TRSP-Hybrid-1 formalise the Three-Norn naming framework and the four-layer hybrid post-quantum/temporal architecture respectively. NC-TDC-32 is the central economic contribution of this version. It formalises a digital currency architecture in which multiple stakeholder classes â AI infrastructure operators, financial institutions, sovereign states, and individual participants â coexist as independent issuing classes within a single cooperative cryptographic framework. Each class mints its own coin contingent backed by its own economic activity rather than by shared monetary authority. Phase transitions admit new classes through supply expansion, not through re-pricing of existing coins. Coin denomination is calibrated from inception across micropayment to reserve-asset volume regimes via the monetary identity M¡V = P¡Q. The infrastructure operator class â the AI companies that build and continuously operate the adaptive security layer â is compensated through a two-component structure: bounded equity recognition at phase transitions (capped, independently audited) plus formula-bound operating margin on continuing services. This two-component compensation model is economically required to keep operating margins moderate and the architecture competitive against established settlement infrastructures. Monetary sovereignty remains exclusively with the issuing class for each contingent; the operator class operates the cryptographic issuance infrastructure but does not exercise monetary authority over any contingent. The architecture is the first formalised digital implementation of the cooperative multi-stakeholder economic model previously demonstrated at continental scale only by the Hanseatic League (twelfth to seventeenth century). All fifteen contributions are documented as conceptual frameworks. Production Concepts (NC-TDC-21, NC-TDC-22, NC-TDC-26 through NC-TDC-32, NC-URDHR-1, NC-TRSP-Hybrid-1) represent architecturally sound design patterns ready for implementation evaluation. Exploratory Concepts (NC-TDC-23, NC-TDC-23a, NC-TDC-24, NC-TDC-25) document underlying architectural ideas requiring further formal research. All specific implementation parameters â quantities, ranges, governance percentages, consortium composition â are illustrative starting points belonging to the institutions that choose to implement the architecture. A dedicated Part 9 â Engineering Considerations and Open Challenges â documents five anticipated technical reviewer questions with referenced solution pathways from current research literature: global consensus latency under M-of-N geographically distributed validation (Sliding Window Key Rotation with Dual-Key Buffers, TLS 1.3 RFC 8446); fuzzy extractor Helper Data leakage in optical entropy capture (Controlled PUF Finite State Machine architectures eliminating Helper Data transmission, addressing Becker 2015); orbital quorum availability under atmospheric and orbital dynamics constraints (Multi-Path Delivery with configurable Grace Periods and Layer 2 graceful degradation); post-quantum zero-knowledge proof latency for autonomous AI agent commerce (Off-Critical-Path ZKP architecture separating HMAC authorisation from asynchronous identity verification); and multi-anchor synchronisation between independent issuance classes (Key-ID and class-identification headers preserving structural separation between technical operation and monetary sovereignty). Part 9 introduces no additional Novel Contributions â it documents that the engineering challenges anticipated by reviewers have established research-backed pathways, demonstrating readiness for Proof-of-Concept implementation phases without modifying or weakening any architectural element documented in Parts 1 through 8. The concept is published as defensive prior art under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 , preventing future patent claims on the documented conceptual architectures while preserving open non-commercial use for evaluation, research, citation, and standards consideration by IETF, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27, NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography programme, or any institution choosing to adopt all or any independent component of the architecture.
The post-Bretton Woods international monetary system faces a structural crisis of custodial trust. Every proposed reform to anchor reserve assets in physical gold has foundered on a single fatal vulnerability: any earthbound custody arrangement is ultimately accessible to military force. This paper proposes a novel solution-the permanent placement of reserve gold in an autonomous, robotically-operated lunar facility governed by international treaty, verified by distributed cryptographic ledger, and administered by a multi-party consortium in which no single nation holds unilateral access. The proposal draws on converging developments in commercial space launch economics, distributed ledger technology, and international treaty architecture to argue that extraterrestrial custody is not merely a theoretical curiosity but an achievable long-term framework for resolving the deepest structural weakness in every previous reserve system design. We examine the monetary economics of gold repricing under such a system, the legal architecture of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty as an enabling framework, the engineering feasibility of lunar logistics at current and projected launch costs, and the governance structures required to ensure genuine neutrality. We conclude that Lunar Reserve Architecture represents the first genuinely novel solution to the reserve asset custody problem since Bretton Woods-and the LUNAR RESERVE ARCHITECTURE Thomas Rice III | 2026 only proposed framework that solves the invasion problem, the audit problem, and the neutrality problem simultaneously.
Saha Reno, Mohammad Jishan Ahmad Shipu, Sumaiya Hussain Tanha, Mohammad Molla Habib
ABSTRACT Securing satellite data transactions is critical as satellite communication supports global connectivity, navigation, earth observation and aviation. Sensitive interâsatellite data requires robust protection, and aircraftâground station links must prevent hazards. Vulnerabilities could breach security protocols, compromising confidentiality and incurring legal consequences. This paper presents the first integration of proofâofâauthority (PoA) consensus, ERC1155 multiâtoken standard and threshold cryptography for satellite data transactions. Unlike prior blockchainâbased proposals that rely on singleâkey encryption or energyâintensive proofâofâwork (PoW), our system (i) uses ERC1155 to batch different data types in one contract (reducing gas costs by 40%), (ii) distributes private keys via Shamir's secret sharing (kâofân) to eliminate single points of failure and (iii) implements dynamic share rotation during orbital handovers (98% success). Simulations show 12.5 ms average latency, 50 messages/second throughput and 40% lower gas costs versus PoW systems (0.0006 ETH/message). Threshold cryptography increases cracking complexity to operations, while PoA, under our simulation assumptions, achieves 100% detection of manâinâtheâmiddle attacks and 0% success for reentrancy/Sybil attacks. Dynamic share recovery during orbital handovers attains 98% success, outperforming traditional methods in resilience and efficiency.
This paper tackles a low earth satellite governance paradox beyond the KĂĄrmĂĄn Line (100 kilometers above sea level): the same proprietary AI that keeps satellites safe also hides the reasoning states need to supervise private actors and assign responsibility. AI black-box compliance is now routineâoperators disclose maneuvers but not the internal signals, thresholds, or telemetry transformationsâleaving due regard, peaceful-use expectations, and fault analysis to operate on conjecture rather than evidence. The result is an accountability gap across core space-law instruments: Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty presumes continuing supervision; the Liability Convention relies on reconstructable causation; the LTS Guidelines anticipate demonstrable prevention measures. Terrestrial approaches offer partial assistance. The EUâs qualified transparency and the U.S. post-incident auditing travel unevenly off-Earth, and neither framework reliably reaches proprietary on-orbit autonomy. This paper shows with concrete operational scenarios (e.g., dynamic conjunction-thresholding, autonomous servicing approaches), provides an inevitable loss of public-law legitimacy and lack of protection for intellectual property. To address this, the paper proposes a dual-layer disclosure regime that protects legitimate trade secrets while restoring verifiable oversight. Layer 1âRegulatory Safe Rooms: accredited neutral venues conduct confidential code/model/telemetry review under treaty-backed non-disclosure, enabling certification, adversarial stress-testing, and forensic replay without commercial expropriation. Layer 2âExplainability Without Exposure: operators supply functional evidenceâvalidated performance envelopes, adversarial test outcomes, decision boundsâaugmented by privacy-preserving attestations (e.g., zero-knowledge proofs) in lieu of source disclosure. Implementation follows a âpressure-valveâ path: condition launch licensing, frequency assignments, and mission approvals on participation now; seek UNCOPUOS endorsement later through a model protocol that harmonizes Artemis practices with non-signatories and codifies a TRIPS-compatible IP-Transparency Equilibrium Clause. The payoff is pragmatic rather than utopian: traceability sufficient to make due regard and liability doctrines workable again; incentives preserved for R&D; and a template that can translate to other thin-sovereignty domains (deep-sea, Antarctic, high-altitude autonomy) where algorithmic opacity currently outruns public law.
Leila Dagher, Amar Rao, Vishal Dagar, Olatunji A. Shobande
This study aims to investigate the spillover effects from geopolitical risks (proxied by the geopolitical risk index GPRD) and cryptocurrencies-related uncertainty (proxied by the Cryptocurrency Uncertainty Index UCRY) to cryptocurrencies. We utilize the BarunĂk and KĹehlĂk (2018) framework to detect time-frequency connectedness. Our investigation for the period 2017 to 2022 discovers significant spillover effects from both indices (GPRD and UCRY) to cryptocurrencies. Utilizing the information transmission theory and network graphs, our findings reveal that some cryptocurrencies function as net receivers of spillovers from geopolitical risks and uncertainty in the short-term, while over longer time horizons they transform into net transmitters of spillovers to uncertainty. The study underscores the importance of comprehending how uncertainty due to various factors (geopolitical, policy changes, regulatory changes, etc.) could affect the cryptocurrenciesâ markets.
Open access
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
The Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) has emerged as a popular governance solution for decentralized applications (dApps), enabling them to manage their members across the world. This structure ensures that no single entity can arbitrarily control the dApp without approval from the majority of members. However, despite its advantages, DAOs face several challenges within their governance processes that can compromise their integrity and potentially lead to the loss of dApp assets. In this paper, we first provided an overview of the DAO governance process within the blockchain. Next, we identified issues within 3 key components of the governance process: the Governance Contract, Documentation, and Proposal. Regarding the Governance Contract, malicious developers could embed backdoors or malicious code to manipulate the governance process. In terms of Documentation, inadequate or unclear documentation from developers may prevent members from effectively participating, increasing the risk of undetected governance attacks or enabling a small group of members to dominate the process. Lastly, with Proposals, members could submit malicious proposals with embedded malicious code in an attempt to gain control of the DAO. To address these issues, we developed automated methods to detect such vulnerabilities. To investigate the prevalence of these issues within the current DAO ecosystem, we constructed a state-of-the-art dataset that includes 3,348 DAOs, 144 documentation, and 65,436 proposals across 9 different blockchains. Our analysis reveals that many DAO developers and members have not given sufficient attention to these issues. For the Governance Contract, 176 DAOs allow external entities to control their governance contracts, while one DAO permits developers to arbitrarily change the contract's logic. In terms of Documentation, only 71 DAOs provide adequate guidance for their members on governance processes. As for Proposals, over 90% of the examined proposals (32,500) fail to provide consistent descriptions and code for their members, highlighting a significant gap in transparency within the DAO governance process. For a better DAO governance ecosystem, DAO developers and members can utilize the methods to identify and address issues within the governance process.
Summary This paper is based on the study dedicated to the legal nature of the DLT (distributed ledger technologies), and in particular to Blockchain as its most popular example, the basic elements and models of the technology, the main spheres of its application in the framework of space activity in order to guarantee realization of rights and compliance with obligations of public and private space actors in the process of conducting the outer space activities, as well as legislative innovations to regulate the utilization of Blockchain in different countries, international standards, practices and promising legal mechanisms. The authors consider usage of different types of Blockchain ledgers (public ledger with authorized access and with/without special validator) to implement different tasks in the process of space activity regulation, such as guaranteeing fulfillment of terms and conditions of foreign economic agreements on the basis of smart contracts concluded between business entities and for maintaining the state register of space objects. The research proposes several scenarios that are acceptable both in terms of technical characteristics of Blochchain and legal requirements under which a number of central authorities can exercise their powers to regulate space activities using DLT. The most precise attention is focused on considering the compliance of the space authorization requirements, ensuring the registration of space objects and the implementation of foreign trade agreements within the space sector of the economy.
Gordon C. Rausser, Elliot Choi, Alexandre M. Bayen
As public and private institutions recognize the role of space exploration as a catalyst for economic growth, various areas of innovation are expected to emerge as drivers of the space economy. These include space transportation, in-space manufacturing, bioproduction, in-space agriculture, nuclear launch, and propulsion systems, as well as satellite services and their maintenance. However, the current nature of space as an open-access resource and global commons presents a systemic risk for exuberant competition for space goods and services, which may result in a "tragedy of the commons" dilemma. In the race among countries to capture the value of space exploration, NASA, American research universities, and private companies can avoid any coordination failures by collaborating in a public-private research and development partnership (PPRDP) structure. We present such a structure founded upon the principles of polycentric autonomous governance, which incorporate a decentralized autonomous organization framework and specialized research clusters. By advancing an alignment of incentives among the specified participatory members, PPRDPs can play a pivotal role in stimulating open-source research by creating positive knowledge spillover effects and agglomeration externalities as well as embracing the nonlinear decomposition paradigm that may blur the distinction between basic and applied research.
Blockchain technology has become a significant driver for an array of economic activity in contemporary society. This chapter investigates how blockchain technology and smart contracts enabled on the blockchain could be leveraged by the space industry and the legal issues that arise from such implementations.
From the day Dennis Tito became the first private citizen to travel to space for no other reason but the sake of the experience itself, space tourism stops being a chimaera and became a reality, albeit an elitist one. And if only seven passengers flew to the International Space Station (ISS) on board of Russian Soyuz rockets during the new millennium's first decade, other modalities of space tourismâsuch as sub-orbital travelâare increasingly getting commercialised due to its growing technological and financial accessibility (Chang, 2020). After years of hiatus, the sub-orbital commercial flights resumed in 2019, propelled by the combined contribution of the public (e.g., NASA) and private companies (such as Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin) in the main spacefaring countries. New entrants in the launching segment, even countries with no previous spacefaring history, such as New Zealand, have enhanced the potential for further development (Zhang & Wang, 2020). 2021 saw the record number of 14 civilians who experienced space travel (Space Foundation, 2022), almost doubling the number of all previous years combined. The vision of SpaceX (2020) to commercialise space flights to Mars by 2050 is regarded a distant but increasingly possible with the recent technological development and economic interest in space. Other endeavours, such as the building of orbiting space hotels (the Voyager Station due to open as early as 2027; CNN, 2021) are other, visionary on-going efforts to expand the remit of extreme tourism. And if until recently the market dimensions were limited, they are rapidly peaking up pace. A report from Northern Sky Research (2021) estimates at US $ 385 million revenues from orbital tourism, projected to grow as high as US$ 605 million by 2029. The suborbital segment looks even more dynamic, with an estimated compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24.5% in the decade 2021â2031. All this raises important questions about its sustainability and even the case for space tourism in the first place. Some consider it environmentally costly when not ethically unsavoury (Cohen, 2017; Guerster et al., 2019), and requiring overcoming formidable regulatory challenges (Padhy & Padhy, 2021). Especially for what concerns the costing side of space tourism, there is no breakthrough in sight, even though reusable rockets have done considerable progress in lowering the budget requirements for space missions (CSIS, 2020). Until the entire space adventure is dominated by the so-called âtyranny of the rocket equationâ (Petitt, as cited by Young, 2015, p.45), which translates in 90% of the weight of a rocket being just the fuel to lift it off the planet's surface, the economic burden will remain, and so will the associated environmental costs. Hence, the need to critically evaluate whether space tourism can indeed be made sustainable and ethical and, if so, what are the preconditions for making this happen. Interestingly, while any sustainability discourse for space is derived from the sustainable tourism frameworks, the applicability of sustainability indicators to space tourism remains unclear and never clearly defined before, a clear gap in the knowledge we have identified in this study. Although most authors are optimistic about the economic sustainability of space tourism, the predictions for social and environmental sustainability are not as promising. The moral dilemma of the equal distribution of space tourism generated wealth and its environmental impact are sensitive areas that require robust conceptualisation and empirical analysis. Moreover, the growing interest in space tourism research makes the absence of a theoretically grounded and robust analytical framework to enhance sustainability even more remarkable. This is the second, evident knowledge gap this article intends to address: devise a conceptual model that, building on the sustainable tourism framework and Dubin's (1970) theory building two-stage approach, is adapted to space tourism as an example of âfrontierâ tourism with unique peculiar characters. Section 2 offers a working definition of space tourism, discusses how it fits in the overall debates about ethical tourism and sustainability, and is instrumental for what comes next: a systematic review of the literature of sustainable tourism from Dennis Tito's travel in 2001 up to 2021, aiming at identifying relevant indicators for sustainable tourism and evaluate their applicability to space tourism. Section 3 briefly covers the methodological aspects of both systematic reviews and conceptual models and identifies the above-mentioned indicators. Building on the critical analysis of 101 indicators, Section 4 designs a brand-new conceptual model for sustainable space tourism. As it stands, there is a fourth field (technology) altogether missing in the traditional model by White et al. (2006) and derived studies. Adopting Industry 4.0 (I4.0 afterwards; Sun et al., 2012; Baldwin, 2019; Schwab, 2015; Kagermann et al., 2011; Lasi et al., 2014) framework in relation to the space sector (Cristians & Methven, 2017; Forcina & Falcone, 2021; Vaidya et al., 2018), the analysis demonstrates why technology represents the cornerstone of the conceptual model presented in this article. Section 5 concludes that sustainability can be fully achieved in space tourism only when technology takes the front seat, with Industry 4.0 and its nine pillars unleashing their revolutionary capabilities. Due to the nature and scope of this study, we have focused mainly on sub-orbital tourism, although its conclusions can be opportunely expanded to include outer space activities. The final section also explores the potential of the conceptual model herein developed for empirical research, paving the way for next steps, future research, and proof of concept. There is still ambiguity about what qualifies as space tourism (Johnson & Martin, 2016). The European Space Agency (ESA 2008, p. 19) defines it as an âactivity that will encompass the execution of sub-orbital flights by privately-funded and/or privately-operated vehicles and the associated technology development driven by the space tourism marketâ. Chang (2017) and Cohen and Spector (2019a) define commercial space travel as leisure and recreation, allowing tourists to experience zero-gravity and celestial observation. Spector (2020b) categorises space tourism into three broad subcategories, i.e. sub-orbital, orbital, and beyond-orbital (ie, outer space, such as in a lunar base or a Martian outpost) and so do Friel (2020), Cohen and Spector (2019a), Chang (2015) and Webber (2013). On the other hand, Ma et al. (2020); Soleimani et al. (2019), and earlier Weaver (2011) include spacecraft launching observation as such. Damjanov and Crouch (2018), Frischauf et al. (2018) Weeks and Faiyetole (2014) add digital components (EVR, enhanced virtual reality) to the definition. From a legal point of view, that the definition of an astronaut (there is still no legal counterpart to ESA's industry definition of a space tourist; Failat, 2012) consist of two main aspects: the training required for the task and distance from Earth's surface they reach. Requirements vary a great deal, and if 6 months are generally considered necessary to visit the ISS (UNOOSA, 2022b), Virgin Galactic asks for only 1 week of preparatory training for suborbital flights (Virgin Galactic, 2022). Still, the non-professional personnel in space are considered âvisiting crewmembersâ by the Inter-Governmental Agreement (âIGAâ) in an agreement reached between the space agency's participating to the ISS project (NASA, 2002). Although without binding legal value beyond the ISS, it constitutes nonetheless a âtrendsetting, if not an industry standardâ (Von der Dunk, 2013). This matters, because the definition of the phenomenon affects its perception as feasible, ethically sustainable, and economically viable. Tourism is a significant contributor to many national economies, directly contributing on average 4.4% of national GDP and 21.5% of service exports in OECD countries (OECD, 2020). Even as a niche subsector (Friel, 2020), space tourism is rapidly becoming attractive for its high-skill job creation and revenue spillovers (Zhang & Wang, 2020). The economic multiplier of such developments will be higher than other industries (Cole, 2015), whereas the knowledge and skill base will facilitate space infrastructure construction (Komerath et al., 2007; Zhang & Wang, 2020). Friel (2020) and Spector (2020a) predict that space tourism will benefit terrestrial tourism destinations in the launching countries, facilitating all types of space flights and (Webber, 2013) becoming a pivotal sector of the economy due to economy of scale. space as a the of as the by and the during the of astronaut Space tourism can and public have a new from the traditional space research 2012) private is even in the is infrastructure private economic growth with potential for for while such as space Space tourism will still from to and models on the potential of the space tourism market (Chang, Cohen & 2015; et al., 2007; & 2013) are of in of (Zhang & Wang, 2020). (Komerath et al., a for the space tourism et al. identified training of of the as the most critical is et al., and Crouch with such recent & et al., et al., who perception also a and The industry will require a to tourists in an of space et al., and that and as important areas of research in the next The so-called space (the of the from the not to to companies but only to is for commercial tourism as the analysis of between national and their and 2015; and of & The only the commercial or extreme tourism (the and adventure & A legal in its will a and the legal of commercial the for the space tourism & and (2013). outer space and traditional in future studies. 2017; & and the economic sustainability of space tourism with the legal and for and tourists & of the space tourism and 2013) for the sector will also need in about relevant at the tourism sector in that research in sustainable p. Still, years the the industry is not to and systematic literature review have the of sustainable tourism et al., 2018), and their et al., 2015), indicators et al., 2017; & et al., 2020), challenges and to sustainability and et al., et al., 2021). (2018), and et al. (2018) and et al. (2018) have such to the tourism from to the and A is the need for a of sustainable indicators, which have in number and the a et al., for the industry and making it to and their & and et al., 2015, the of and as the for such and (2014) and et al. (2018) empirical that sustainability concerns and and There is the and of what constitutes a for sustainability, from from to for & And when it comes to space tourism, sustainability a The of the space sector 2019; are the of the space missions and their environmental are in the of a interest of the space and progress orbiting have due to 2018), when it comes to such as tourism, A the of private space both in of of and social the ethical dilemma for commercial space the (2018) discusses the moral of for space Other the for the of outer space and of tourists in space and the of an equal distribution of from space tourism 2020). Weeks and Faiyetole (2014) a to space to public and on sensitive social The impact of space tourism on and is of social space as tourism, (2020) and into the and other space the is a of and predict that space tourism and on Spector and and so do Cohen and Spector in outer space. the environmental sustainability of space tourism remains a Tourism such as Cohen (2018), et al. if space tourism can be sustainable at such as and (2018) and (2006) considered the impact of the in the space due to which have the potential to further environmental to the in space is of growing 2021; & to (2018), space tourism the Earth's and more as the of to space tourism will to the Earth's A recent by (2020) the impact of development on and of space tourism such as and (2020) and Spector that the in the which can on with space and the lunar being the to a new framework for sustainable space tourism, tourism the overall et al., 2019; components such as and Space tourism is such a and experience that to skill to et al., 2020), the of tourism & 2020). more than the for to into space tourism et al., 2012; et al., 2020), we to define in which way an experience that most as not can be and to a sustainable this we have the literature on space tourism to the tourism sustainability & et al., et al., 2018), three dimensions of sustainability, and three dimensions were for a they were derived from the theory of and as an framework to a sustainable tourism model et al., from which conceptual model for sustainable space tourism models are a in social more than et al., 2020). by the and model and et al., and have in tourism and et al., 2019; et al., 2019; although they have not to model sustainable space tourism so As as conceptual systematic reviews are The framework in this article is the et al., et al., et al., identifying all the et & 2015), for and and making about A number of have for this review on space tourism, that of and the of The in the by & social environmental & and to indicators for sustainability in and the of the framework is in the et al., also with et al. when they that sustainability is not and that the of indicators is to of and still or about and in et & and in view, it to indicators for sustainable tourism when no definition of the the of the indicators in the important of the p. et al. (2017) and et al. (2018), both identified a of sustainability indicators. and (2020) first of 101 sustainability indicators economic indicators, and indicators, to their and by empirical 1 in a 2 from the first to what as the most relevant in the review that tourism are the most economic indicators. and of of and areas and their impact on the are the more as for environmental of sustainability (the social and components have in this article White et al., conceptual such as and in the tourism development and tourism to and of such and are in studies. Some of (e.g., tourism to and of such of due to the required to for a et al., 2016). The literature that there are between and sustainability as they to have focused more on environmental and sustainability to and is critical et al., 2011; et al., for analytical framework for the space tourism while other indicators and for et al., The of such indicators for sustainable space tourism of a critical and of indicators by are of due to their high of the space which a great from tourism. are in combined in as both for in of framework and possible to a between the indicators in 2 and the developed for the conceptual framework of space tourism. The is in 3 in and in in the next Section to the conceptual model for sustainable space tourism, we have combined Dubin's theory building (1970) as by to and a model which from and And if traditional theory building between the and the empirical research as two although we are clearly on the first the proof of to future about this in Section we have developed the conceptual model at a its framework and it with the relevant also in which way have in The point is the and cited conceptual model of sustainable tourism first presented by White et al., and adapted in the presented in The first conceptual model developed on White et al. (2006) and it to the of space tourism as in 2 and there is the literature on sustainable tourism on and space tourism on the other is that there are three components and there is no agreement in the literature about which is the most the three components are for sustainable tourism as White et al. (2006) as it is not to model space tourism, and it is to a fourth is and, in its it to a sustainable for tourism, no the way sustainability 2 how to technology in the conceptual model of sustainable space tourism. Some have defined space tourism industry as a niche a of to the this will it is not possible to the of space tourism without its technological which is a of to space. we not have space tourism (the of the of there no way for to the of the of outer This is the reason why technology to be in the as the fourth to space tourism not only sustainable but even we can further than that, to sustainability, we need to the way sustainability can be by a of Space technology as of the to the on by (UNOOSA, in from to and 2022). Even of the most the environmental recently efforts to the 2015; et al., et al., 2021) to enhance the Space as it is defined in the public is by a between Industry 4.0 and if not the have in the space sector (the of et al., 2021) in a brand-new of the sector itself, which the of sustainability at its at this and the way technology the space tourism sustainability it is at the other, more traditional and their indicators. the fourth in the it is possible to and a of the indicators for sustainable tourism in 2 to the new model for space tourism and indicators. 3 of indicators as in with for space tourism indicators from as from the literature considered in Section 2 and 3 and the for their A to 3 will that not all the indicators identified have as in the This is due to the of the Some indicators, such as no in the environmental of tourism, while they are an of growing in space tourism such as as in the components of to between space and in all at all as in Section as so 2 and 3 indicators, in a in the indicators are which to the still of development of space tourism an for of not a of when the number is than and their applicability is more and at this than be in the future space travel more other the between 2 and 3 indicators is tourism indicators & of 2 and the recently to sustainability et al., 2021) are to this analytical and it is not by that economy as of the of et al., are both and A of & will also in the space tourism and of the way this the in on the et al., 2021; et al., This is not without are the need to and and a and sensitive in the case of The orbital of space tourism will it to environmental and et al., et al., is not just the for the space sector as a and of the components of sustainable space tourism. the potential to the three other components of sustainable tourism in a way that is not even if we to all this into the conceptual model be and the pivotal of technology and its potential for The next how the model to for the of technology as the cornerstone of the entire The it both at a conceptual et al., 2012; Baldwin, 2019; Schwab, 2015; Kagermann et al., 2011; Lasi et al., 2014) and the of its (Cristians & Methven, 2017; Vaidya et al., Forcina & Falcone, 2021; et al., are to the sector beyond This is evident when at the way the nine pillars (e.g., and and as a are the space and, space tourism The literature on Industry 4.0 conceptualisation that, while its nine pillars et al., it is only when they are all that Industry 4.0 its potential for & this is for industry in this is even more in such as space industry space that not without which the sector the the most on space industry this The space 5 (OECD, 2019), in to for at a decade, in new space the sector from the traditional and and it a such as space and for a lunar to the of (e.g., new fuel and and have facilitating the of private into space SpaceX rockets to to while there is no to an to rocket that still the industry and all the space missions to the of 1 of for a weight into space (NASA, the by an orbiting in (the is just an example of what is to After the is of the most of space only to All the from to and even the lunar surface, are And if the of the economy is as for the sustainability of space tourism, the between space, and all working and is to even more The between Industry sustainability, and economy is still in its early et al., et al., et al., & the for a way et al., 2021). challenges do in the of models to et al., 2019; et al., as it is the case of the space the and the it have not have the as cornerstone of the 2015; and with the of Space 4.0 both by and by the 2016). have just at the & is to As by OECD (2019), 5 will the modalities space tourism takes and its to it And if the is any the only to have space tourism that environmentally sustainable, economically and is to on a technology that to space. for a more sustainable, as as the the of the Earth's all on the Industry 4.0 and can to Space the of the and on their sustainability as and p. be in as aiming for a sustainable than a sustainable this is even more in a sector in as space tourism. this will is a and more than is even though not all of or to the be and this is contribution to There are a to this study, which we fully of the on space tourism and not the and more about in outer space, be their the or Martian clear of the of in space in of the with the and what be for to & The between the to (the way intends to or the to the (the & 2007; & 2013) is way beyond the scope of this we have not considered the and aspects that to tourism of which space can be considered a (Cohen, There are many on the et al., & which we but not for a in the to for it The model only to it The important of the regulatory framework that can space tourism by legal no for the not Due to the of the which require a article by itself, the legal aspects have into the economic of an space, as for the they for the private and commercial dimensions of the most important space tourism There is important from the so is not in of scope but the conceptual in this we have not presented a case to the model itself, for two main because we that what missing in the first a conceptual model for sustainable space tourism on the of White et al. to the for the of space in such an article. This is to be in future studies. The about of a space tourism that can be both and sustainable, just is to with the itself, although of the they will both a if the even space tourism, its is and a only from the that such tourism can and be made This is with a conceptual model that the indicators of sustainable tourism with the of the space is both and that will and even the if this can the the conceptual model to a case to in which way the components identified in and which of we need for this to are the next will be to the of the model not only in an but to evaluate its value for the if that sustainable and space tourism is we into the way technology can a sustainable of the space tourism. technology the to the space adventure as a it can and also be the main to sustainable space tourism. The way we can it is to as a and, as a is a in & at a from of and two working in on the space and Industry The New of and and space for a sustainable economy from the space of is an research interest on and tourism studies. not to this article as no were generated or during the
Blockchain technology has spurred the emergence of powerful narratives to promote new ways of governing outer space. The list of proposed uses for blockchain applications in outer space is endlessâfrom property registries for asteroid mining, to supply chain management systems, or interplanetary cryptocurrencies for the space economyâalong with Elon Musk claiming that âSpaceX is going to put a literal Dogecoin on the literal moon.â Yet, thus far, none of these projects have gone beyond simple declarations or white papers, mostly due to the inherent limitations on the effective enforcement of blockchain-based rules outside of their own technical framework. In this essay, we argue that blockchain technology is relevant for outer space because it fosters novel narratives advancing possible futures characterized by new modes of governance. The strongest and most prominent of these narratives is the crypto-libertarian one, which draws heavily on the absence of a state, the sanctity of property, and the primacy of private ordering through decentralized markets. But there are other narratives proposed by relevant actors in the blockchain space that are dedicated to other modes of governance. By focusing on alternative narratives for blockchain technology, we illustrate how the possible applications of blockchain technology in outer space may extend beyond the current libertarian dreams, to support a more commons-based approach to outer space governance.
Open access
Space exploration and regulation
Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
This research is aimed at detecting legal and organizational requirements for the Blockchain application in State regulation of space activity. The most precise attention is focused on considering the compliance with the space authorization requirements, ensuring the registration of space objects and the implementation of foreign trade agreements within the space sector of the economy. The research is based on results of the previous in-depth study conducted by the authors, which was dedicated to the legal nature of the DLT (distributed ledger technologies), and in particular its most popular example Blockchain, the basic elements and models of the technology, the main spheres of its application in the framework of space activity in order to guarantee realization of rights and compliance with obligations of public and private space actors in the process of conducting the outer space activities, as well as legislative innovations to regulate the utilization of the Blockchain in different countries, as well as international standards and practices and promising legal mechanisms. Thus, the authors created logical preconditions to cover in this publication the prospects of state regulation of space activities in Ukraine using the Blockchain technology. The authors consider usage of different types of Blockchain ledgers (public ledger with authorized access and with/without special validator) to implement different tasks in the process of regulating space activities, such as guaranteeing fulfillment of conditions of foreign economic agreements on the basis of smart contracts concluded between business entities and for maintaining the state register of space objects. The research proposes several scenarios that are acceptable both in terms of technical characteristics of Blochchain and legal requirements under which a number of central authorities can exercise their powers to regulate space activities using distributed ledger technologies. In addition, the study demonstrates an effective mechanism for ensuring the allocation of responsibility for the registration of space objects between the owners of the launch vehicle and payload to prevent situations when the spacecraft remains unregistered in orbit as a result of non-compliance with contractual obligations or non-inclusion of certain clauses in such agreements. The model agreements between Ukrainian and foreign space actors are proposed to be implemented by governmental institutions and used as a preventing instrument, according to which a conflict of laws can be solved and the state responsible for registering space objects in the Blockchain Network can be defined.
Part of the SETI Institute's 42-telescope Allen Telescope Array (ATA) in California. (SETI Institute) Part of the SETI Institute's 42-telescope Allen Telescope Array (ATA) in California. (SETI Institute) The first Search for ExtraâTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project of the modern era was done by Frank Drake in the spring of 1960, using the Green Bank 26 m telescope. He was looking for narrowâband radio emission from two nearby stars, t Ceti and Îľ Eri, over a frequency range of 400 kHz near the H i line. Since then there have been six major and many minor searches, made both on specific targets and also over the entire sky. The searches have extended to the optical and infrared, and to search for artefacts in the solar system and beyond. There have also been more than a thousand papers in the scientific press. The searches have all come up negative. What does this mean? Can future searches extend in a significant way the present area of the âETI phase spaceâ that has been searched for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligences (ETIs)? This article will briefly describe some of the component parts of SETI and put forward the case that SETI does indeed have an exciting future. SETI has two main aims. There is the expanding exploration of that phase space, always with the possibility of âcontactâ and the leap forward in our understanding of life in the universe and in many other fields of science and culture that would result. But SETI also addresses the future of humankind, looking for other civilizations that have trodden this path before us. If we find them, then we will know there is a possible way forward. If a particular SETI search comes up with a negative result, then we know that our future may not include the path that that search would have revealed. SETI activity has other components. It involves studies of: how evolution leads from the origin of life to intelligence; the rise and nature of technological civilizations; the problems of communications with fundamentally different entities; the possibilities of interstellar travel. It provides a logical extension to the growing field of astrobiology. Like all highâtech work, it has spinâoffs, such as the Berkeley BOINC system of grid computing, originally designed to deal with the flood of SETI data from the Arecibo telescope with the SETI@home project, and which is now used in many fields, including medicine, molecular biology and climatology. And SETI provides a powerful forum for engaging with the public on the nature of scientific studies, using a subject in which the public is already interested. We know very little for sure. We know from our own example that technological civilizations can arise and persist for thousands of years, and send both âleakageâ and deliberate radio and optical signals of their existence out to the galaxy. We know that our civilization arose in the last 10% of the age of the Earth before the increase in the Sun's output will render the surface of the Earth uninhabitable. We know that no ETI has left evidence of its existence in any of the searches that have been made, on the Earth, in the solar system, or further afield. Our existence means that other civilizations could exist, but gives no indication of their probability. Our recent knowledge of extraterrestrial planets suggests that Earths hospitable to life are common. However, since we do not know how life started, we do not know if life is common, rare, or if the Earth is the single case. Within the next decades the study of the atmospheres of Earthâlike planets may resolve this point. However, we next do not know the probability that once life has started whether it then evolves to a technological civilization. We cannot say that evolution is bound to produce intelligence, and we are unable to predict the nature of other technological civilizations, or how long such civilizations exist. Civilizations thousands, millions, or billions of years older than ours could be of a very different nature to our own. However, the late arrival of intelligence on Earth is most compatible with an average time for the arrival of intelligence being much longer than the lifetime of stars, and thus with us being alone. But this is only a probabilistic pointer, not a proof. The view shows the first LOFAR station to be built in the UK at STFC's Chilbolton Observatory, with the Low Band Array in the foreground. Unlike conventional radio telescopes, there are no moving parts, but steering of the telescope is done in software. When completed, LOFAR will consist of more than 5000 separate antennas spread in âstationsâ all over Europe. The project is based in the Netherlands where the core of the array is located. (STFC/SEPnet) The view shows the first LOFAR station to be built in the UK at STFC's Chilbolton Observatory, with the Low Band Array in the foreground. Unlike conventional radio telescopes, there are no moving parts, but steering of the telescope is done in software. When completed, LOFAR will consist of more than 5000 separate antennas spread in âstationsâ all over Europe. The project is based in the Netherlands where the core of the array is located. (STFC/SEPnet) The lack of evidence of ETI is known as the Fermi Paradox. Once a civilization gets to our stage, it would only be a short time before it could build Von Neuman probes â autonomous selfâreplicating space probes â whereby every planet in our galaxy could be visited within a few tens of millions of years. The simplest explanation for the fact that we do not see such probes here, and that none of our searches have found signs of ETI, is that we are alone. However, there is no lack of credible alternative explanations of how the existence and even widespread existence of ETI would be compatible with the negative search results. These searches have as yet only explored a very small fraction of ETI phase space. So although there is some indication that we are alone, all we can presently say is that it is possible that ETI is out there, but we cannot with any degree of certainty predict how often ETI arises, or what their natures or lifetimes would be. The most common way of looking for ETI is to look for narrowâband radio emission. Our civilization emits such radiation from the 1 Hz wide carrier beam of analogue TV stations through to the kilohertz wide emissions of such things as airport radars. ETI may also emit such leakage radiation, although present searches are only sensitive to much more powerful radiation than we presently emit. Narrowâband radio waves are also the cheapest and most efficient method of interstellar communication that we know of, and so may be ETIs' way of communication, and even of signalling their existence to us (âbeaconsâ). The narrowâband signature can also be distinguished from natural sources, even rare natural narrowâband ones such as masers. The Harvard and Argentinian searches with 26 m telescopes covered the entire sky, and the Arecibo âpiggyâbackâ survey covered some 25% of the sky. But these have integration times of only a minute or so. The SETI Institute among others has done many longer integrations on individual targets such as nearby stars. Searches have become more powerful as receivers, electronics and data handling and analysis software improve, as for example in the billion 1 Hz spectral resolution channels of the 42âtelescope Allen Telescope Array (ATA). The most recent surveys are now a trillion times more capable than Drake's 1960 observations. Following the recent development of highâpowered lasers, which in theory could be matched with telescopes to outshine the Sun in nanosecond pulses, searches have started to look for such ETI signals in the optical. Pointed observations at Berkeley and Lick and an allâsky survey at Harvard are now looking for such nanosecond pulses. Again these are distinguishable from natural sources. If an ETI were using one of our most powerful lasers and a 10 m telescope, these searches would pick them up from hundreds of lightâyears away. More exotic radiation sources, such as the neutrinos from supernova SN1987A, are also investigated for signs of an artificial nature. The most famous such search was in 1967 when the Cambridge pulsar discovery team checked that the pulses had no sign of orbital motion. Different searches have different aims, usually based on some sort of premise of the nature of ETIs. The most obvious choice is of nearby longâlived stars, where ETIs on planets have had time to evolve. Such searches range from Drake's observation of two such stars in 1960, to the million stars planned for ATA. Since stars can differ in ages by billions of years, and ETIs take an unknown time to emerge, a search of a million stars gives a chance of picking up an ETI radiating for a thousand years, which may be a reasonable estimate of the time until an ETI changes into a fundamentally different mode. Then there are the allâsky surveys and surveys of areas of the sky, such as the galactic centre, where no presumption is made of where ETI is â on or off planets, near or far. These necessarily have shorter integrations per pointing, so are sensitive to rarer but brighter sources. The extreme of this is surveys of other galaxies, looking for extremely bright sources, but sources so rare that there is not one in our own Milky Way. There are also specialized searches. A recent proposal is for a search on the ecliptic plane, where an ETI would have been aware for a long time, using the radial velocity and transit planet detection methods, that there is an Earth in orbit around the Sun. Perhaps this would prompt them to signal to us. Searches have also been done looking for artefacts of an ETI civilization. The most famous of these are Dyson spheres, where an ETI surrounds a star with solar panels, probably on many discrete mounts, to tap a significant fraction of the star's energy. The outsides of these panels will be cool, shining in the infrared. Each new infrared catalogue that comes out is scanned for objects of strange nonânatural looking colours. There have been searches for strange colours in the asteroid belt objects which might indicate an artificial nature, and for objects in the unstable EarthâMoon L4 and L5 Lagrangian points. There are notoriously many âsightingsâ of UFOs, which all have either been explained or have not contained enough information to determine their natures. The most interesting ongoing scientific investigation is the Norwegian Hessdalen Valley Project where there have been repeated sightings. The main limit on these searches is funding. There are almost no public funds. Very little sustained work is done outside the US, and within the US the main work is done through private funding and the efforts of determined individuals at Berkeley and Harvard. The SETI Institute, which grew out of the NASA work of the 1970s and 80s, is privately funded and the Berkeley and Harvard projects are done from within radio astronomy and electronics groups with university funding and private support. Outside radio and optical searches there is almost no concerted academic work on the other areas of ETI phase space such as solar system searches or catalogue analysis. Theoretical work depends on the intermittent interest of individuals. There is a lack of resources to fund fresh blood. Over the past 50 years there have been hundreds of papers describing the capabilities of searches and suggesting new methods. There have been as many speculating about the existence, origins, lifetimes and natures of ETIs, about composing and decoding messages, the prospects for interstellar travel and many allied matters. There has been much crossâfertilization with other fields including biology, philosophy, spaceship propulsion, linguistics and planetary science. Is intelligence a convergent property, etc? Some pointers to this extensive body of literature are given in the âFurther readingâ. An important field for SETI is the evolution of intelligence. Once life is started, does it then always evolve to intelligence? Intelligence seems such a useful attribute that evolution would home in on it, but for two billion years bacteria reigned alone. Since then there have been millions of species on Earth, out of which only one, us, has evolved advanced technology. Were we inevitable? Is evolution convergent? And then there is the âMan from Marsâ problem, as it is known in linguistic studies. Can there be ways of communication that are so fundamentally different from our own that the message may be incomprehensible? Concepts such as âsignsâ and âsignifiersâ may not be present. How would a communication system based on smells be coded into a radio message? A standing controversy is whether it is dangerous to send out signals. In fact any advanced ETI would probably know about us already from our various radio emissions of the past six decades, or from visible signs such as the existence of our cities over the past four thousand years. And because we do not know about the nature of any ETI, a signal might either provoke or forestall an attack by any illâintentioned ETI. So there is no reason not to transmit. But in any case there is probably presently little point, as signalling for thousands of years would be needed to give the class of ETIs not much more advanced than us a reasonable chance to pick us up. (Only such ETIs would not necessarily know all about us already.) In studying the future of humankind, we already know that certain classes of ETI, those that our searches would have picked up, are not common. How much does that tell us about the longâterm evolution of civilizations like our own? Will we become a civilization that SETI searches could detect? Will we survive the bottlenecks of the near future: global warming, nuclear war, biological terrorism, grey goo, a catastrophic meteorite strike, the rise of the machines? In the more distant future, will we establish selfâsustaining colonies off the Earth that will lessen our vulnerability? In the very distant future, will we become a race that can persist for a million or a billion years? SETI provides an avenue, the only observational avenue presently available to us, for exploring these puzzling questions. An example of how SETI thinks about our own future is the âGreat Filterâ. Taking from the Fermi Paradox that advanced ETIs are not common, Hanson (1998) pointed out that in the progress from star formation to such ETIs there must be a limiting pinch point. If this is behind us, then we are one of the extremely rare cases to have got this far, and our future prospects are not limited. But if it is in front of us, then we will very probably be extinguished. Paradoxically, discovery of ETIs like us, but not too advanced, would be bad news, as then it must be easy to get as far as us, and the Great Filter must be in front, and quite close. If we detect an ETI, what would happen next? First of all, there is the getting out of the news, and present SETI searchers subscribe to the International Academy of Astronautics SETI Permanent Study Group's âPostâdetection Protocolâ, which basically says âbe sure, have it confirmed, and then spread the news widelyâ. No signal should be sent back until international agreement has been reached. In practice, the experience of search groups is that, when investigating ambiguous signals, the news can leak out in an uncontrollable way. What happens next would depend on the origin and nature of the signal. A solar system detection would have its own possibilities and problems. The result of a radio or optical detection of a distant source would depend on its nature. A continuous narrowâband signal which simply says âI am artificialâ would revolutionize the scientific field and trigger funds for a great search for more details. Does it show signs of orbital motion? Is it associated with a star? It would also trigger public and philosophical interest. It is generally thought that the public would be intensely interested, but would not overreact. However, if there were to be some sort of code seen in the signal, then as well as the scientifically fascinating cryptological and linguistic tasks of finding out what the message is, the public interest would be overwhelming. Coming from an advanced civilization, does the message tell us how to behave, explain about religions, contain a cure for cancer? Is there some sort of danger in the message? If we respond, how do we have a conversation that may involve time lags of centuries? Astronomers would be interacting with the community in ways that are difficult to envision. Given the negative results so far, is it worth going on? We do not know what ETIs are like, so we cannot say how large the phase space of possible ETIs is and thus we neither know if we are looking in the best way nor what our chances of success are. Many SETI searchers remain optimistic. The quotation from Cocconi and Morrison's 1959 foundational paper that âThe probability of success is difficult to estimate; but if we never search, the chance of success is zeroâ has many supporters. However, without knowing the nature of ETIs we cannot estimate by how much we improve our chances by any particular SETI search. Within the next decade we should be able to rule out (or discover) leakage radiation similar to our own from nearby habitable Earths â but the chance of hitting the perhaps thousandâyear window for such radiation for a planet millions or billions older or younger than us must be very small. The author's personal opinion is that although we cannot know what our chances are it would be a failure of nerve not to go on looking, as long as each new search does cover significant new phase space at a reasonably modest cost. Planned radio searches will get more powerful, from the privately funded ATA array partly dedicated to SETI searches, to the use of new telescopes such as the European LOw Frequency ARray (LOFAR), for which the author is PI on a SETI Pilot Programme, and the South African 64âdish MeerKAT array, which has recently announced that it wishes to âexplore further the potential for SETIâ. And there is the giant Square Kilometre Array on which funding are to advanced receivers, electronics and software we are for giant forward. A major present is in the electronics and and so an in with and telescope that to and allâsky with in the other of searches, such as the optical new solar system searches of new and into the next decade is with possibilities to extend the ETI phase space we are by the almost lack of public funding. When to the public about SETI and tell them that almost none of their astronomy to SETI are that such an interesting field is being If the panels of the astronomy funding were to to fund SETI at a of one of one of their SETI would be and much more powerful and searches could be would be an thought for us all â that we were the search and in this into the unknown the race is looking