Steve Watson

A Plan of Operations for a Von Neumann – Bracewell Probe (Part 2: Emissary)

June 6, 2026 – 11:26 am

Consider the case that a VN-B Probe has determined from preflight observations that the target system falls under Cases 4, 5, or 6 and involves contact with known technological ETI

Mission Operations

Preflight (Continued)

• Continue observing the ETI in order to
  • Gather data relevant to maximising the possibility of successful communication
  • Determine threat potentials to humanity, the ETI, and the probe
• Send a signal to the ETI when it is determined that
  • Observation has gathered adequate data relevant to maximising the possibility of successful communication, and
  • The threat potentials are acceptable
• Via the signal
  • Reveal to the ETI the existence of a signalling intelligence
  • Inform the ETI that the signalling intelligence is aware of their existence
  • Establish a language of communication
  • Seek permission for the despatch of an emissary probe
    • Outline the communicative and collaborative intentions of the mission
    • Give notice of the resource exploitation requirements of the emissary
    • Require that physical isolation be maintained
    • Propose an arrival procedure
  • Indicate that the probe will be despatched if no response refusing same is received by a certain time.
    • Give relevant ETAs
  • Await a response
    • If invited (and the conditions are agreed to,) or if there is no response, prepare and send a probe to follow the nominated arrival procedures
    • If refused (or the conditions are not agreed to,) or if there are contradictory responses, do not send a probe
  • Continue sending and receiving messages
    • In the case of a refusal or contradictory responses, continue to request an invitation

Notes

1. The procedural delay in sending the probe to the target system is justified by the importance of ensuring successful establishment of relations with an advanced (spacefaring) ETI.
   1. Long distance observation of the target ETI may need to continue for several years before the conditions are met for a signal to be sent
   2. Even if the ETI is at 5cy distance, a reply may take longer than 10 years. Time is required for the ETI to interpret the signal, decide on their answer, and construct the signalling device required to transmit the answer.
2. Failure to respond is an anomalous condition. It may mean that
   1. The signal was not detected
      • Very unlikely for Case 5 or 6 ETI
   2. The ETI could not properly interpret the signal
      • Unlikely, given that the signal will be designed to be interpreted by any reasonably intelligent and interested receiver
   3. No decision could be reached by the ETI
      • Although given that no response will result in the probe being despatched, it is likely that some response – even if only a ‘Please hold’ – would be forthcoming
   4. No capacity to send a signal could be developed
      • Very unlikely, given the level of technology required for Case 5 or 6
   5. The society/civilisation of the ETI has been disrupted
      • This should have other observable effects
   6. Receiving contradictory responses indicates no consensus amongst the ETI.
      1. Disregarding the faction that refuses would constitute active interference in ETI affairs.
      2. Deferring the invitation and not sending a probe merely preserves the status quo and allows a consensus to develop
   7. Volunteering information concerning ETA and Arrival Procedures makes the probe more vulnerable to unwelcome actions taken by a hostile ETI
      1. The suggested arrival procedure is designed
         • to ensure the security of the probe from hostile actions by the ETI even under conditions of full information
         • to demonstrate that the probe is not an obvious direct threat
      2. It will be apparent to the ETI that this is the intention of the Arrival Procedures
      3. This behaviour will demonstrate that the probe is serious about preserving its independence and integrity
      4. The ETI will be aware as well that their behaviour is being monitored and evaluated and reported to the probe’s origin. This should moderate any tendency to aggression
         • For fear of what the response from the probe’s origin might be
         • In hope of establishing a productive ongoing relationship with obvious potential to benefit the ETI

Arrival

• Assume an initial station far outside the system
  • Far from any larger bodies identified in the pre-flight observations that are likely to attract ET activity
  • Off the plane of the system
• Conduct scans
  • To determine ETI compliance with security requests
  • To revise the case assignment of the system
  • To locate outer system resources
• If
  • ETI have violated the arrival procedures agreement in a way that seems intended to exploit probe vulnerabilities
  • There are other indications that ETI will exploit probe vulnerabilities

Then

• • Depart the system immediately

• Initiate contact
• If
  • ETI indicate they will exploit probe vulnerabilities
  • ETI indicate that the probe’s presence is unwelcome

Then

• • Depart the system immediately

• Proceed towards the most convenient site at which to establish a construction facility as far from the star as practicable.

Notes

1. The details of these procedures are sensitive to the specifics of the probe’s propulsion system.
   1. The ability to immediately depart from the system requires special preparations at the pre-flight stage – perhaps to include modifications to the transit form of the probe to include an escape system, or coordination with an associated independent vehicle bringing an escape system, etc.
   2. An alternative is to have a fly-through vehicle precede the probe’s full deceleration into the system to conduct the necessary reconnaissance.
2. The location of the initial station is intended to make the probe inaccessible to the ETI. Given the size of the relevant space, it is impossible for the probe to be intercepted by an ETI at the reasonably expected state of advancement – even given the observation of the probe throughout its deceleration phase
3. Where the ETI has responded and has made suggestions that would not violate the Part 1: Lurker– Mission Constraints adopt them as a matter of courtesy.

Establishment of Primary Infrastructure

• Follow Part 1: Lurker– Mission Operations/Establishment of Primary Infrastructure
• Offer to locate monitoring devices constructed and operated by the ETI at any point in the system.

Notes

4. These operations were approved through the Preflight communications.
   1. Construction and deployment of in-system probes is optional; possibly dependent upon gaining the consent of the ETI
5. The monitoring devices and their maximal independence of the probe are intended to assure the ETI that nothing being done by the probe or its agents poses a threat to the ETI.

Spawning

• Follow Part 1: Lurker– Mission Operations/Spawning

Notes

6. These operations were also approved through the Preflight communications.

Main Probe Operations

• Continue communications with ETI
• Continue reports to parent probe (and eventually to the Origin point)
  • Requests and updates are continually received from all probe ancestors and cousins
• At the point that adequate trust and a modus vivendi has been established the probe may remove from the outer system and position itself more conveniently for communication with the ETI

Notes

7. It is expected at that final point that the ETI will appreciate the fact that an unmolested probe poses no threat and gives them quick and convenient access to an interstellar culture.
   1. All the more so if the probes join to other probe networks derived from other origins.

Tags: