Berserker Technology

This is a discussion of a concept central to a future book in the Portal series.

Overall, the size, capability and design of an interstellar probe are driven by its mission parameters, which in turn are dictated by the intent of its builders. Overall there is a spectrum between non-threatening pure science and Berserker, and in size between a wisp of a few grams and a good sized asteroid.

• Mission Profiles.

• Profiles may be overt or covert. These boil down to:
  • Flyby. The probe passes through the target system, collects data, reports back, heads off to the next system.
  • Loiter. Probe decelerates and spends time in the target system, with correspondingly greater opportunity for collection.
  • Stay. Probe remains in the target system, monitoring and reporting, as long as it remains functional.
• Mission Objectives
  • Reconnaissance/ Exploration. Academics refer to this as a Bracewell probe. Pure sensor platform. Collects data and reports back to its creators.
  • Communication/ Contact. Probe makes contact with inhabitants (if any) and exchanges information, may serve as a channel for two-way communication.
  • Vanguard/ Terraforming. Probe actively makes preparations for follow-on presence. This may include seeding a suitable planet with life or establishing construction capacity for habitats.
  • Sanitization. Probe takes action against a threat and/or a problem. This may include resident life forms (if any).
• Mission Design. In practice, an interstellar probe will represent a considerable investment, and we may reasonably assume that there will be an incentive to get the most from that investment. There will probably be a cascade of mission profiles depending on target system characteristics.

Some points here:

• Overt vs. Covert. Contrary to the assumption of academics, covert does not mean totally undetectable. It is also a choice. A probe that, e.g., looks and acts like a random space rock emitting nothing, could make a flyby through the outer system doing purely passive data gathering with little risk of discovery. If that same probe lights up a fusion drive and broadcasts a First Contact package, covert is toast.
• Criteria. There will be two:

• Interest. This will reflect the cultural and racial mindset of the probe’s creators. Life will probably be on that list. Overall, a system may be of Low, Medium or High interest.
• Threat. This may encompass a number of factors, to include advanced life forms, natural phenomena (eg. supernovae), other probes and perhaps other factors. Again, a system will be Low, Medium or High Threat.
• Threats may be Reactive or Non-reactive. (See below.)

Mission Decision Cascade

We will assume the capability to be covert/passive, but go active if the decision is made to do so. Threat assessment and decision making will be done on board.

• Initial Approach. Default profile is covert/passive fly-by. First sweep of target system is done with passive sensors. Initial classification is conducted, defaulting to Low Threat/ Low Interest. Mission profile selection, as follows:

• Low Non-Reactive Threat/ Low = Passive Fly-By. (Least effort.)
• Low Reactive Threat. / Low = Passive Fly-By. (Least effort.)
• Low Non-reactive Threat/ Medium = Active Loiter. Manoeuvre as needed, unrestricted use of sensors due to lack of threat.
• Low Reactive Threat/ Medium = Active Loiter. Manoeuvre as needed, unrestricted use of sensors due to minimal threat.
• Low Non-Reactive Threat/ High = Active Loiter. As above, consider extended Loiter or Stay mode depending on nature of interesting phenomena.
• Low Reactive Threat/ High = Active Loiter. As above, consider extended Loiter or Stay mode depending on nature of interesting phenomena.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
• Medium Non-Reactive Threat/ Low = Passive Fly-by. Low interest does not justify risk to the probe.
• Medium Reactive Threat/ Low = Passive Fly-by. Low interest does not justify risk to the probe.
• Medium Non-Reactive Threat/ Medium = Active Loiter. Degree of interest justifies higher risk to probe.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
• Medium Reactive Threat/ Medium = Passive Loiter. Degree of interest justifies higher risk to probe.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
  • Consider Active mode.
• Medium Non-Reactive Threat/ High = Active Loiter. As above.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
• Medium Reactive Threat/ High = Passive Loiter. As above.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
  • Consider Active mode.
• High Non-Reactive Threat/ Low = Passive Fly-by. Little if any need to risk probe.
• High Reactive Threat/ Low = Passive Fly-by. Little if any need to risk probe.
• High Non-Reactive Threat/ Medium = Active Loiter. Degree of interest justifies higher risk to probe.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
• High Reactive Threat/ Medium = Passive Loiter. Degree of interest justifies higher risk to probe.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
  • Consider Active mode.
• High Non-Reactive Threat/ High = Passive Loiter. Degree of interest justifies higher risk to probe.
  • Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
  • Consider Active mode.
  • Consider Stay profile.
• High Reactive Threat/ High = Passive Loiter. Degree of interest justifies higher risk to probe.

• Consider removing threat, if possible & warranted.
• Consider Active mode.
• Consider Stay profile.

Threat Classification

We may classify threats as active or passive, which affects choice of mission mode, as follows:

• Reactive. This is a type of threat to the probe that will increase if it is aware of that presence. Examples would be a hostile sentient race, another probe behaving aggressively, automated defences.
• Non-Reactive. This is a type of hazard that does not change in reaction to the presence of the probe. Largely natural hazards, such as star flares and debris, or fixed probe or defences.

Probe Capabilities

Any interstellar probe will have to conduct its mission autonomously, including some degree of AI or the equivalent thereof, FTL technology will not be available (or it would be used). There will be various levels of capability. There will also be levels of robustness.

• Sophistication

• Dumb, with redundancy and backup systems.
  • The equivalent of a Voyager probe. Could be built with current tech.
  • Fly-by only. (Possible Stay option.)
  • Passive sensors only.
  • Fixed level of capability, limited damage tolerance.
• Smart, with some self-repair capability.
  • Near future tech.
  • Will have Loiter/ Stay capability. (Must collect materials.)
  • May have (or be able to build) active sensors.
  • Will be able to repair non-catastrophic damage, extend own capability to limited extent.
• Brilliant, with self replication capability.
  • Further future tech. Significant R&D needed.
  • Higher investment, higher payoff.
  • All-option capable.
  • All-sensor capable.
  • High level of damage tolerance. High capability increase capacity.
• Sapient, with reproduction capability

• Far future tech.
• All-option capable.
• All-sensor capable.
• Very high damage tolerance. Unlimited capability increase, can learn and evolve.