First Principles Problem Solver
Break any space challenge down to the fundamentals (physics, mass, energy, cost floors). Then rebuild a solution. Produces clean, agent-ready prompts for Hermes / Paperclip. Use the numeric anchors or feed real problems into your lunar / Mars planning stack.
About the First Principles Problem Solver
First-principles thinking means reducing a problem to the physical limits that actually bind it, then building back up. This solver takes a lunar or Mars problem and exposes its floors — the minimum life-support power, total power, useful mass, and cost that physics allows — so you can separate hard limits from soft assumptions.
It's a tool for cutting through inherited estimates to the numbers that can't be argued away.
How to use it
- Enter the problem and its key parameters.
- Run the solver to read the life-support and total power floors in kilowatts.
- See the useful-mass floor and the first-principles cost floor.
- Check the FP depth and energy factor that describe how deep the reduction goes.
How it works
The solver derives lower bounds from conservation laws and irreducible needs — power to keep a crew alive, energy to move mass, mass to do useful work — rather than from historical program costs. Those floors are the true targets; anything above them is overhead you might engineer away.
By reporting a depth and an energy factor, it also shows how far the reduction has been pushed and how sensitive the answer is to the dominant energy term, which is usually where the leverage lies.
Worked example
Reducing a surface-operations problem to its floors often reveals that the physical minimum cost is a small fraction of quoted program figures — the gap being overhead and conservatism, which is precisely where first-principles redesign creates value.
Frequently asked questions
What is a 'floor'?
The physics-imposed minimum for a quantity — the target you build toward, below which is impossible.
How is this different from a normal estimate?
It starts from conservation laws, not historical costs, so it exposes what is truly required.
Is the cost floor achievable?
It's a lower bound; real systems sit above it, but the gap shows the opportunity.
Who uses this?
Engineers and planners stress-testing assumptions from first principles.
Offline and translated?
Yes — 25 languages, browser-only.
Related tools