If humans are going to live off Earth, communications must be treated like life support and not like a convenience. We basically need an “Internet” for the solar system that all the humans and machines can use to communicate.

Preface

This is an ambitious post, and I want to be upfront about that. The question of how humans might communicate beyond Earth is something I have been quietly pondering since I was a kid, long before I had any formal understanding of networks, physics, or spaceflight. It lived somewhere between imagination and unease: if we ever truly leave Earth, how do we stay connected when distance, darkness, and geometry work against us?

That long-running curiosity eventually outgrew a casual thought experiment. As talk of permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars becomes more concrete, communication stops being a background assumption and starts looking like critical infrastructure. Thinking that through seriously leads in many directions at once: physics, safety, redundancy, autonomy, governance, and survival.

As a result, this is a longer post than usual. It is not a final answer, and it is certainly not a design proposal. It is an attempt to lay out a conceptual framework, to ask what must be true if we expect people to live and work beyond Earth for extended periods. If the ideas here provoke disagreement, refinement, or better solutions from people far more qualified than I am, then the length will have been worth it.

1. The Martian — When Communications Become Life Support

In The Martian by Andy Weir, communications failure is not a side plot, it is one of the primary survival challenges. The novel works so well precisely because it treats communication the way real mission planners do: as a fragile system shaped by physics, redundancy, and failure modes rather than narrative convenience.

When Mark Watney is stranded on Mars, he is not merely alone geographically; he is informationally isolated. There is no continuous Earth–Mars link, no real-time voice channel, and no magical override. Once the crew departs and mission assets are retasked, Watney is effectively cut off from the human network that makes exploration survivable. This mirrors a real constraint: Mars surface missions rely heavily on orbital relays, and without them, a human on the surface is functionally invisible.

Watney’s first breakthrough was in reviving the long-dead Pathfinder probe. This is a masterclass in realistic improvisation. Pathfinder becomes a low-bandwidth, store-and-forward relay, capable only of painfully slow text communication. The interface is clumsy, the data rate is minimal, and the delay is unavoidable. This is not cinematic exaggeration; it reflects the core truth of interplanetary communication: latency is not a bug, it is a physical constant. Every message is asynchronous. Every response arrives minutes later. Planning, decision-making, and emotional support all occur under that constraint.

As the story progresses, NASA restores more capable orbital relay support, improving bandwidth and reliability. But even then, communication remains fragile. Solar geometry, orbital mechanics, and hardware failures continue to threaten isolation. At no point does the system become “Earth-like.” There is always the sense that a single failure—or a bad alignment—could plunge Watney back into silence.

What The Martian illustrates, perhaps unintentionally, is the architectural lesson at the heart of any future solar-system civilization: a single relay is a liability. One satellite, one path, one assumption of availability is not enough when human lives depend on it. Watney survives because he is exceptionally capable—but also because Earth can eventually re-establish multiple paths through orbiters and ground infrastructure. Even so, the system operates at the edge of acceptable risk.

From a systems perspective, The Martian is an argument for what comes next. A permanent human presence on Mars cannot rely on improvised resurrection of legacy probes or ad hoc retasking of orbiters. It demands a purpose-built, redundant communications architecture: surface meshes, orbital constellations, and interplanetary relays designed from the start to assume outages, delays, and failures. In other words, what saves Watney in fiction must become baseline infrastructure in reality.

The lesson is stark but useful: exploration can tolerate silence; settlement cannot. If humans are to live beyond Earth, communications must be treated not as a mission add-on, but as life support, planned, layered, and fault-tolerant long before the first person is stranded.

Fault tolerant: designed to continue providing essential function even when one or more components fail.

1.1 Objective

I should begin with a clear admission of scope. I am not an interplanetary mission architect, and far greater minds at NASA and other institutions are undoubtedly already grappling with many of the questions raised here. They may already have answers, or they may quickly identify flaws in my thinking. That is entirely possible. At the same time, I am not approaching this as a lay observer. I have spent much of my life thinking about communication systems and networks, even if operating a ham radio or designing terrestrial infrastructure is not the same as building links across the solar system. In some respects, space communication avoids familiar complications like weather and terrestrial interference; in others, it introduces constraints far more severe and unforgiving. What follows is therefore not a proposed solution, but a conceptual framework—a best-effort attempt to think clearly about interplanetary communication as a safety system. If it succeeds at all, it will be by helping to frame better questions and encouraging a broader, more serious conversation before people are sent to live in places where silence itself can be fatal.

1.2 “Here Be Dragons” and the Illusion of Continuity

Early explorers of the 1400s and 1500s often sailed literally off the map. Medieval and early Renaissance charts sometimes marked unknown regions with the warning hic sunt dracones “here be dragons.” The phrase captured uncertainty, danger, and ignorance rather than literal belief in monsters. Beyond that boundary, there were no reliable charts, no guarantees, and no way to call home. Once a ship vanished over the horizon, the umbilical cord to civilization was cut.

Yet even at their most isolated, those explorers remained on Earth. They sailed into lands already inhabited by people adapted to those environments. If a ship was wrecked on an island, survival, while brutal, was still biologically possible. There was air to breathe, water to drink, plants and animals to forage, gravity that matched human physiology, and ecosystems that were at least indifferent to human life rather than actively lethal. Nature was dangerous, but it was not hostile in the technical sense.

Space is categorically different. On Mars, the Moon, or deep space, the environment is not merely unknown, it is actively incompatible with human biology. There is no breathable air, no liquid water at the surface, no ambient pressure, no protection from radiation, and no ecosystem to fall back on. A single failure in habitat integrity, power, or life-support systems is not an inconvenience; it is fatal. There is nothing to forage. There is no local population. There is no shoreline where one might regroup and adapt.

This difference changes the moral and engineering calculus completely. Early explorers accepted the risk of sailing beyond the edge of the map because, even if abandoned, they remained embedded in a living world. Space explorers are not. Their survival depends entirely on engineered systems, and among those systems, communication plays a role analogous to circulation or respiration in a living organism. It is how knowledge flows, how help is coordinated, how errors are corrected, and how isolation is mitigated.

In that sense, The Martian is not a story about heroic improvisation alone. It is a warning about pretending that space exploration is merely a continuation of maritime exploration by other means. It is not. There are no dragons beyond the map in space. There is only vacuum, radiation, and silence.

And that is precisely why, unlike the explorers of old, we cannot afford to let those who venture outward be truly cut off. The absence of an “umbilical cord” in space is not romantic. It is lethal.

1.3 A Moment of Realism

You can see the stakes clearly in The Martian, but the intuition goes back much further. I often wonder how the Apollo astronauts felt as they passed behind the Moon and entered a radio dead zone. For those minutes, there was no voice from Earth, no confirmation that everything was normal, no way to ask for help if something went wrong. They were not merely far away; they were unreachable. Even when nothing went wrong, the silence itself carried weight.

There is a quiet psychological difference between being alone and being isolated. Knowing that someone is on the other end of the line, even when communication is delayed and unsynchronized, provides a form of security. It does not remove risk, but it changes how risk is borne. The absence of that connection turns every anomaly into a solitary problem with existential consequences.

On Earth, we take communication so completely for granted that even brief inconveniences feel intolerable. We grow frustrated when cell coverage drops or a message takes seconds longer than expected to send. Yet when it comes to off-planet communication, we are operating in what is effectively a technological stone age. Links are sparse, fragile, and highly dependent on geometry. Blackouts are expected. Delays are unavoidable. Redundancy is limited.

This is the moment where the mindset must change. Humanity is no longer only talking about missions that leave, complete objectives, and return. We are talking about settlements, sustained presence, and people living for months or years in environments that are fundamentally hostile to human life. In that context, communication is not a convenience layered on top of exploration. It is a safety system.

The central claim of this discussion is simple but non-negotiable. If humans are going to inhabit the solar system, we need communication systems that are fault tolerant, meaning they continue operating despite failures, and highly available, meaning they are designed to be functioning nearly all the time. Going dark in space is not a rare accident. It is a predictable consequence of orbital mechanics, distance, and line-of-sight constraints. Treating it as anything else is a category error, and one we cannot afford to make.

1.4 The Problem Space: Why Normal Internet Assumptions Fail

Modern internet infrastructure is built on an assumption so basic we rarely notice it: there is almost always a continuous path between sender and receiver. Packets may be delayed or rerouted, but the system assumes that a route exists and that responses can arrive quickly enough to support near real-time interaction. That assumption collapses the moment we leave Earth.

The first constraint is simple and unforgiving. Communication in space requires line of sight. You cannot transmit through a planet, and you cannot transmit through the Sun. During a conjunction, when the Sun moves between Earth and another planet such as Mars, its plasma disrupts radio signals to the point that communication becomes unreliable or impossible. These events are predictable and unavoidable. Silence, in other words, is built into the geometry of the solar system.

Even when line of sight exists, latency cannot be engineered away. It is set by the speed of light. Communication between Earth and the Moon operates on a seconds-scale round trip, which already prevents natural conversation. Communication between Earth and Mars takes minutes one way, and that delay varies depending on orbital alignment. A question sent from Mars cannot be answered in real time, and any architecture that assumes otherwise is fundamentally misaligned with physics.

These realities force a deeper shift in design philosophy. Deep-space communication cannot rely on continuous connectivity. It must be asynchronous by design, meaning messages are sent, buffered, and forwarded across the network as paths become available. This is closer to email than a phone call. Information moves forward through time and topology rather than back and forth in conversation.

Just as important, these systems must be fault tolerant, which means they are designed to continue operating despite failures. Fault tolerance is not achieved through clever software alone. It requires redundancy at multiple levels: multiple communication paths, multiple relay nodes, overlapping coverage, and no single point of failure whose loss would isolate people or settlements. In space, failures are not hypothetical. Hardware degrades, orbits shift, and geometry changes. A resilient system assumes this and plans accordingly.

This is where the concept of blackout becomes operationally central. A blackout is the loss of a viable communication path due to geometry, terrain, or atmospheric effects. On Earth, blackouts are treated as exceptional outages to be eliminated. In space, many blackouts are expected. The goal is not to pretend they will not happen, but to design networks that route around them and preserve continuity through redundancy.

It is important to be precise here. Routing around conjunction does not eliminate solar interference entirely. Solar plasma affects wide angular regions, degrading signal quality even on indirect paths, increasing error rates and reducing throughput. What intelligent routing can do is transform a total blackout into a degraded but survivable communication mode, preserving critical links when silence would otherwise be complete.

Even with alternate relays, there will be periods where capacity drops sharply (higher error rates, lower usable modulation/coding), so the engineering goal is often graceful degradation, not “no effect.”

The mistake is assuming that Earth’s internet can simply be scaled outward with more powerful antennas. Space demands a different paradigm altogether. Communication beyond Earth must be built on acceptance of delay, disruption, and degradation as normal conditions, and on architectures that remain reliable precisely because they expect those conditions rather than deny them.

2. The Layered Architecture: “Local → Planetary → Interplanetary”

Conceptually, I have been thinking about this problem for decades. Growing up, I followed the Apollo missions and sent away for NASA information packets about spacecraft, experiments, and exploration plans. Like many people of my generation, I imagined myself walking on the Moon or Mars while watching Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Wars. In those stories, communication is simply assumed. Voices carry across space. Help is always one channel away. Reality is far less generous.

We currently have very little communication infrastructure in the solar system, and what we do have is fragile, sparse, and mission specific. That gap has stayed with me for a long time. What follows is not offered as *the* solution, but as a structured way of thinking about the problem. These are considerations that I believe must be addressed if we are serious about sending people into environments where silence can be fatal. Perhaps these ideas are already obvious to engineers at NASA or SpaceX. Perhaps they are already planning for them. If so, good. If not, I hope this framing helps surface blind spots, exposes weaknesses, and invites better solutions before human lives depend on them.

To keep the discussion grounded and orderly, I find it useful to think in terms of layers. Each layer solves a different class of problems, and no single layer can substitute for the others.

Layer A: Surface and Local Networks

This is the layer closest to human beings. It includes habitats, rovers, EVA suits, drones, and local scientific instruments operating on the surface of a planet or moon. Likely technologies here include mesh radio networks, cellular-like systems adapted for low gravity and vacuum environments, and optical links where high bandwidth is needed over short distances.

This layer matters because you never want every rover, suit, or crew member dependent on a single long-haul communication link. Local coordination, safety checks, and emergency response must function even if the rest of the solar system goes quiet. In practical terms, this is the difference between an expedition that can self-rescue and one that cannot.

Layer B: Local Orbital Relay Constellations

Above the surface sits the planetary relay layer. For bodies like the Moon or Mars, this means multiple orbiters working together as a constellation. The goal is continuous coverage that eliminates line-of-sight gaps caused by terrain, rotation, polar regions, or far-side operations. One satellite is never enough. Redundancy here means overlapping coverage, complementary orbits, and graceful degradation rather than total loss when a node fails.

A natural secondary benefit of this layer is navigation. Just as GPS transformed movement on Earth, a planetary relay constellation can provide positioning and timing services that make surface operations safer and more precise. Communication and navigation become two sides of the same infrastructure.

A concrete example of this “communications + navigation as shared infrastructure” approach is NASA’s LunaNet concept, which frames lunar communications and navigation as interoperable services rather than mission-by-mission custom links. The details differ from Mars, but the architectural idea is the same: build a standards-based layer that multiple vehicles, habitats, and agencies can use, so redundancy and interoperability are designed in from the start instead of retrofitted later.

Layer C: The Solar-System Backbone

The outermost layer is the interplanetary network itself. This is a store-and-forward system that links planetary systems back to Earth and, eventually, to each other. It is explicitly designed for disruption and delay. Messages move when paths are available, pause when they are not, and resume without human intervention when geometry allows.

This layer is not about speed. It is about continuity. Its job is to ensure that no settlement, no mission, and no human being is ever truly isolated simply because planets moved or the Sun got in the way.

Taken together, these layers form a coherent architecture rather than a collection of ad hoc fixes. Local networks protect people where they live and work. Orbital relays provide planetary resilience. The interplanetary backbone ties everything together across distance and time. None of them are optional, and none of them can carry the full burden alone.

2.1 What We Have Today: DSN as Earth’s Deep-Space Gateway

At present, nearly all NASA deep-space communication flows through a single primary system: NASA’s Deep Space Network. The Deep Space Network, or DSN, is an extraordinary piece of infrastructure. It provides global coverage through multiple Earth-based ground stations spaced around the planet so that as Earth rotates, at least one station can maintain contact with distant spacecraft. It is the backbone that makes interplanetary exploration possible at all.

But it is important to be precise about what the DSN is and what it is not. The DSN is entirely Earth-anchored. Every signal ultimately begins or ends on Earth. That means it remains subject to the same fundamental constraints as any other Earth-based system. It cannot see through planets. It cannot see through the Sun. When geometry breaks the line of sight, communication stops.

I once saw this misunderstanding play out in a much more terrestrial context. Early in my military career, I had a commanding officer nearly lose his position for pointing out a basic physical limitation. He needed reliable FM communications across a mountain range. His solution was straightforward: place a retransmission site on the ridge line. The general he briefed rejected the idea outright, arguing that it would reveal the presence of troops in the area. My commanding officer replied, bluntly, that you cannot communicate through a mountain. That answer did not go over well. He was dismissed from the discussion, not because he was wrong, but because physics was inconvenient.

Physics, however, does not negotiate. The same hard boundary applies to interplanetary communication. You cannot transmit through the Sun’s plasma. You cannot transmit through a planetary body. During solar conjunctions, when the Sun sits between Earth and another planet, even the DSN must fall silent. Missions are placed into safe modes. Commands are deferred. Data is stored and waits for geometry to improve.

None of this diminishes the DSN’s importance. It remains an indispensable gateway between Earth and the rest of the solar system. But it is only a gateway. What we do not yet have is the solar-system equivalent of routers distributed throughout the network. There are no relay nodes positioned to route around the Sun. There is no backbone beyond Earth itself.

That distinction matters. As long as all communication depends on a single planet as its anchor, silence will remain an unavoidable feature of exploration. The DSN opens the door to deep space, but if we intend to live there, we will need infrastructure on the other side of the threshold.

3. The Core Enabler: Multi-Path, Mesh Networking Across the Solar System

This is where the conversation has to move beyond legacy assumptions. What is needed is not an internet that merely tolerates delay, but a network that is architected to route around obstacles, just as the terrestrial internet does today, while being honest about physics.

The critical requirement is multiple simultaneous paths through the network. Communication should not depend on a single relay, a single orbital geometry, or a single planet being visible from Earth. Data should be able to move laterally through the solar system, hopping between nodes that are in mutual line of sight, rather than waiting passively for Earth to reappear.

Mars missions already hint at this idea, but only in a limited form. Surface assets communicate with orbiters. Orbiters relay data to Earth when geometry allows. That works for robotic exploration, but it is fundamentally a single-threaded approach. When Earth is blocked, everything waits. That is precisely the failure mode that must be eliminated for human settlement.

A solar-system communication network should instead resemble a mesh topology. Mars surface systems communicate with multiple orbiters. Those orbiters communicate with multiple interplanetary relay nodes. Those relay nodes, positioned strategically around the Sun, communicate with each other as well as with Earth-based gateways. At any given moment, there may be several viable routes for data to move inward toward Earth or outward toward other destinations.

In this model, “store and forward” no longer means waiting until Earth comes back into view. It means buffering data briefly while it is actively routed through alternative paths. If one route is blocked by the Sun, another route carries the traffic. If a node fails, the network reconfigures. Reliability emerges from path diversity, not from patience.

This is how the terrestrial internet achieves resilience. Packets are not sent with the assumption that a single path will always be available. They are routed dynamically around failures, congestion, and outages. The same principle applies in space, with the added constraint that latency is unavoidable and bandwidth is precious. The solution is not to fight those constraints, but to design around them.

What we have today is, at best, a best-effort communication model for deep space. It works when geometry is favorable and pauses when it is not. That is acceptable for probes. It is not acceptable for people. A human-rated communication system must assume that links will fail, that geometry will change, and that silence is dangerous. The only way to meet that requirement is with a redundant, multi-path mesh that treats the solar system not as a collection of isolated endpoints, but as a connected, reroutable network.

This is not speculative science fiction. It is a straightforward application of networking principles that have already proven themselves on Earth, extended outward with the humility to respect distance, light-speed limits, and orbital mechanics.

3.1 Human Factors Beyond Psychology: Decision Authority in a Delayed World

Most discussions of human factors in space focus on isolation, stress, and morale. Those matter, but communication architecture introduces a quieter and more consequential shift: it reshapes how decisions are made.

In an environment where communication is asynchronous by necessity, operational tempo changes. Commands do not arrive in real time, clarification is delayed, and feedback loops stretch from seconds to minutes or hours. Crews cannot pause action while waiting for guidance, nor can ground control reliably intervene during fast-developing situations. The result is an unavoidable increase in local autonomy.

That autonomy carries risk. Decisions made with incomplete information may optimize for local survival while creating downstream system-level problems. Authority also drifts during blackout periods. Command formally remains on Earth, but functionally shifts to the crew or local systems whenever communication degrades. This is not a failure of discipline; it is a structural property of delayed networks.

Communication architecture therefore becomes inseparable from mission command doctrine. Systems must be designed with explicit expectations about who decides what, under which conditions, and with what fallback authority when Earth is unavailable. Fault-tolerant networks reduce isolation, but they do not eliminate delay. Designing for human decision-making under those constraints is as important as designing antennas, relays, and protocols.

4. Beating the Sun: Lagrange Points and Routing Around Conjunction

To move beyond periodic silence, we need to stop thinking of space purely in terms of endpoints and start thinking in terms of infrastructure real estate. This is where Lagrange points matter. They are often introduced as orbital curiosities, but their real significance is practical.

A Lagrange point is a location in space where the gravitational pull of two large bodies and the orbital motion of a smaller object balance in such a way that station keeping requires relatively little energy. These regions are not perfectly static, but they are stable enough to serve as long-term anchor points. For communications and observation, that stability is invaluable.

As a child, I instinctively imagined a simple solution. Place three communication satellites around Earth’s orbit, one ninety degrees ahead, one on the opposite side of the Sun, and one ninety degrees behind. The intuition was sound: ensure that no matter where Earth or another planet is, there is always a relay somewhere with a clear line of sight. What I did not understand at the time is that those particular positions are dynamically difficult to maintain. They require constant correction and are not naturally stable.

What physics gives us instead are better options that accomplish nearly the same goal with far less effort.

Earth’s L4 and L5

Earth’s Sun–Earth L4 and L5 points sit sixty degrees ahead of and behind Earth in its orbit. These are naturally stable regions that move with Earth around the Sun. Satellites placed near these points tend to stay there with minimal station keeping.

Stability here does not mean maintenance-free. Long-term operation at L4 and L5 still requires active station keeping, radiation-hardened systems, micrometeoroid protection, fault detection, and periodic correction for perturbations from solar pressure and planetary influences.

From a communications perspective, they are ideal anchor locations. At least one of these points will always have a clear line of sight to Earth, and they are never hidden behind the Sun. As network nodes, they provide lateral pathways that allow data to move around solar conjunction rather than waiting it out.

Mars’ L4 and L5

The same logic applies to Mars. Mars has its own Sun–Mars L4 and L5 points, again sixty degrees ahead of and behind the planet in its orbit. These locations can serve as stable relay and observation nodes tied to Mars rather than Earth.

They are not perfect. Jupiter’s gravity perturbs Mars’ orbit, which makes these regions somewhat less pristine than Earth’s. Even so, they remain valuable anchor points for routing communication between Mars, Earth, and the rest of the solar system without relying on a single, Sun-crossing path.

Jupiter’s L4 and L5

Jupiter’s L4 and L5 points tell a cautionary story. While they are dynamically stable and populated by Trojan asteroids, the actual collision risk is low due to the vast volumes involved and the relatively coherent orbits of those objects. The greater challenges are operational rather than purely spatial.

Jupiter’s intense radiation environment, long-term station-keeping complexity, and extreme distance from Earth all impose significant engineering burdens. Electronics hardening, propulsion requirements, and recovery from anomalies become far more difficult at this scale. For communications relays, Jupiter’s L4 and L5 are technically usable, but they are operationally complex and strategically inefficient compared to cleaner, more manageable regions elsewhere in the solar system.

Saturn’s L4 and L5

Saturn presents a more promising case. Saturn’s Sun–Saturn L4 and L5 regions are comparatively clean, with little in the way of persistent asteroid populations. They are also farther out in the solar system, which dramatically expands communication geometry. From these vantage points, deep-space probes at Voyager-class distances become easier to reach, and the number of viable routing paths increases.

Distance introduces latency, but it also provides reach. As network nodes, Saturn’s L4 and L5 function less like local relays and more like deep-space hubs.

4.1 Why This Matters

Lagrange points allow us to route around the Sun instead of accepting periodic communication failure as inevitable. They turn conjunction from a hard stop into a routing problem. With enough nodes placed intelligently, silence becomes a design choice rather than a forced condition.

More nodes also mean more redundancy. Every additional relay increases the number of possible paths data can take, which increases resilience. The same infrastructure that keeps settlers connected also enables continuous observation of the solar system.

The further out we place these nodes, the larger our observational baseline becomes. That has scientific value, but it also has existential importance. It does not take a large asteroid to cause an extinction-level event on Earth. Early detection is the only real defense, and early detection depends on vantage points. In that context, the principle is simple: the more eyes we have, spread throughout the solar system, the better our chances of seeing trouble while there is still time to act.

5. Building a Solar Backbone: Opportunities, Tradeoffs, and Hard Constraints

At a conceptual level, the communications infrastructure needed for long-term solar-system exploration begins to resemble a mesh network made physical. Not a single spine or trunk line, but a growing web of relay nodes that expand outward as human presence and robotic exploration expand. The goal is not perfection from the start, but an architecture that can grow, adapt, and absorb failure without isolating people.

It is important to emphasize humility here. What follows is not a finalized blueprint, nor should it be. It is a way of thinking about structure, sequence, and constraints so that communication does not remain an afterthought while exploration accelerates.

5.1 A Tiered, Expanding Network

The most practical starting point is close to home. An inner tier, anchored around Earth’s orbital neighborhood, is the obvious first step. These nodes are closest to Earth, easiest to service, and most forgiving of early design mistakes. Even a modest deployment here would provide immediate benefits by reducing conjunction-related outages and increasing overall resilience. This inner tier also serves as a proving ground for autonomy, station keeping, routing protocols, and long-duration operations.

Beyond that, the architecture naturally generalizes outward. Over time, additional tiers could be added around other planetary orbital paths as exploration expands. The specific planets matter less than the principle. Each new tier increases routing options, shortens effective communication paths for distant missions, and reduces reliance on any single line of sight. The network grows organically with exploration rather than being overbuilt in advance.

Further out still lies long-term expansion. These outer tiers are not early priorities, but they represent a future where deep-space probes, outer-planet missions, and even interstellar precursors are no longer operating at the ragged edge of Earth-only communication. Expansion outward trades latency for reach, and that trade must be made deliberately rather than accidentally.

5.2 Engineering Reality Checks

As soon as the network pushes beyond the inner solar system, physics reasserts itself in uncomfortable ways. Power is the first constraint. Solar energy falls off with the square of distance, which means that beyond Mars, solar arrays must grow very large to deliver meaningful power. For low-duty-cycle relays or intermittent operations, solar power can remain viable with sufficiently large arrays or hybrid designs.

However, for continuous, high-availability backbone nodes, nuclear power becomes dominant and, in many cases, unavoidable. Radioisotope or fission-based systems provide predictable output, independence from illumination geometry, and long-term reliability that large solar installations struggle to match at distance. Any serious outer-system node designed for uninterrupted service must plan accordingly.

The environment also becomes more complex. Regions associated with giant planets can be radiation intense or dynamically challenging. Some orbital regions contain small bodies or debris populations that complicate long-term station keeping. Others are subject to strong gravitational perturbations that demand active management and additional propellant. These are not reasons to avoid expansion, but they are reasons to avoid romanticism. Every additional node carries real operational cost.

There are also locations that appear attractive on paper but prove less suitable in practice. Some regions are cleaner, quieter, and more stable over decades than others. Those differences matter when infrastructure is expected to operate autonomously for long periods. Choosing where to place nodes is therefore not just a question of geometry, but of long-term survivability, maintainability, and power realism.

5.3 Moons as Supporting Players, Not the Backbone

Natural satellites introduce another tempting option. A moon offers a stable physical platform, predictable motion, and in some cases access to local resources. In the far future, even exotic power sources such as tidal or geothermal energy may become feasible. These features make moons attractive as local hubs.

But moons are poorly suited to serve as the backbone of a solar communications network. Any moon will periodically pass behind its parent planet, recreating the very blackout conditions the network is meant to avoid. Many moons, especially around giant planets, sit in harsh radiation environments that complicate long-term electronics and robotics. Most importantly, a surface-bound node is geometrically inflexible. It cannot reposition itself to optimize routing as conditions change.

The right role for moons is therefore complementary. They make excellent endpoints and regional support nodes. They do not make good substitutes for free-flying relay infrastructure designed explicitly to maintain continuity.

5.4 A Brief Note on the Medium: How Signals Actually Travel

It is worth pausing to ask a deceptively simple question: what do we actually use to communicate across space? Not protocols or routing schemes, but the physical carriers themselves. There is no hidden channel waiting to be unlocked. All communication is constrained to the electromagnetic spectrum, and every region of that spectrum comes with tradeoffs imposed by physics rather than preference.

Radio waves and microwaves remain the reliable workhorses of deep-space communication. They are comparatively forgiving in pointing accuracy, penetrate dust and thin atmospheres reasonably well, and degrade gradually rather than failing abruptly. They are also energy efficient for long-duration, low-to-moderate data rates, which is why they dominate current deep-space links. Their limitation is bandwidth. Physics places hard limits on how much information can be transmitted without very large antennas and significant power.

Optical, or laser, communications sit at the opposite end of the spectrum. They offer dramatically higher bandwidth for the same transmitted power, which makes them extremely attractive for high-volume data transfer. This is why agencies such as NASA and ESA are investing heavily in demonstrations like Deep Space Optical Communications. That power, however, comes from extreme narrowness. Optical links demand precise pointing and are far more sensitive to interference from dust, atmospheric turbulence, and alignment errors. On Mars, for example, dust storms are not rare anomalies; they are a defining environmental condition.

These constraints suggest an important architectural distinction. Optical links are often best suited for space-to-space communication, such as satellite-to-satellite relays, where there is no atmosphere, no weather, and geometry can be tightly controlled. In contrast, planet-to-orbit and ground-to-space links must contend with atmospheric variability that optical systems handle poorly. Even on Earth, laser ground stations are constrained by clouds, turbulence, and precipitation, which can interrupt or degrade service despite favorable orbital geometry.

For this reason, optical deep-space systems naturally push toward geographic diversity on the ground, with multiple terminals distributed across different climates and longitudes, and toward hybrid architectures that pair optical links with traditional RF as a fallback. NASA’s Deep Space Optical Communications work makes this explicit. Optical links dramatically expand bandwidth, but they do not eliminate the need for redundancy. Instead, they shift where resilience must be engineered, from raw signal strength to layered paths, site diversity, and graceful degradation when conditions are less than ideal.

The architectural conclusion is straightforward. There is no single “best” medium. Robust interplanetary communication will rely on hybrid designs that combine radio-frequency links for continuity and reliability with optical links for high-bandwidth transfer when conditions permit. Optical channels expand capability. RF channels preserve availability.

In this sense, the choice of medium reinforces the essay’s core argument. Physics does not reward elegance. It rewards redundancy and humility. The most resilient systems are not those that bet everything on the most advanced option, but those that layer strengths, accept fragility where it exists, and design for degradation rather than perfection.

5.5 Pulling the Threads Together

Taken together, these considerations point toward a clear pattern. The communications backbone of a spacefaring civilization should be orbital, distributed, and expandable. It should begin near Earth, grow outward in tiers as exploration demands, and favor locations optimized for routing and redundancy rather than convenience or novelty. Power constraints, radiation, and orbital dynamics must shape the design from the beginning, not be discovered later.

There is no single perfect configuration. There is only a direction of travel. Build close first. Learn. Expand cautiously. Add nodes where they increase resilience, not where they merely look elegant. If we get that right, communication will cease to be the silent failure mode of exploration and instead become one of its quiet strengths.

6. Modularity and Build Strategy: ISS-Style, but Designed for Robots

If the earlier sections describe what kind of network is needed, this section addresses how it can realistically be built, governed, and sustained. This is where ambition must meet affordability, and where good architecture matters more than grand gestures.

The guiding principle is modularity. Not as a buzzword, but as a discipline.

Each node in the network should be built around a standardized core with well-defined mechanical, power, thermal, and data interfaces. This allows components to be added, replaced, or upgraded without redesigning the entire system. The International Space Station offers a useful analogy, but with an important distinction: these stations should be designed from the beginning for robotic assembly, servicing, and upgrade, not human EVA as the default. That choice alone changes cost, risk, and scalability.

The build philosophy should be “core first, payloads later.” The initial deployment focuses on the minimum viable infrastructure: a core bus with power generation, propulsion for station keeping, and robust communications routing. Once that backbone is operational, additional capabilities can be layered on incrementally.

Science payloads come next. Then specialized modules. Detection systems. Redundant routing hardware. Over time, optional upgrades can be added, such as improved telescopes and sensors for near-Earth object detection. Each upgrade is additive rather than disruptive, which makes budgeting, governance, and international cooperation far more tractable.

This modularity also enables economies of scale. Standardized components can be manufactured in batches. Lessons learned from one node directly inform the next. Failures become data rather than catastrophes. Most importantly, increased coverage and redundancy improve early detection of potentially hazardous objects. It does not take a large asteroid to cause an extinction-level event. Earlier detection buys time, and time is the only currency that matters in planetary defense.

A phased build sequence helps keep expectations realistic without locking future planners into rigid commitments. The first phase naturally centers on Earth’s L4 and L5 regions. These nodes establish the initial communications backbone while also hosting basic near-Earth object monitoring. The return on investment is immediate: improved communication resilience and enhanced planetary defense.

The second phase extends the network outward to support conjunction-resilient connectivity with Mars. This is where the system transitions from experimental infrastructure to human-rated necessity.

Subsequent phases focus on upgrades rather than reinvention. Better sensors. Larger apertures. Stronger redundancy. Each improvement builds on a stable foundation rather than replacing it.

Eventually, outer nodes come into play. These would likely be nuclear-powered deep-space relays and observatories, designed for autonomy and longevity. They are not first steps, but they are logical endpoints of a strategy that values continuity, foresight, and responsibility.

What makes this approach workable is not technological optimism, but governance realism. Modular systems can be funded incrementally. They can be shared internationally. They can be audited, upgraded, and repurposed as priorities change. Most importantly, they allow humanity to expand outward without betting everything on a single, brittle architecture.

If we are serious about becoming a spacefaring civilization, then communication infrastructure must be treated the way we treat roads, ports, and power grids on Earth. Not as heroic one-offs, but as shared systems built patiently, intelligently, and with the expectation that others will depend on them long after the original builders are gone.

6.1 Governance and Ownership

No discussion of a solar-system communication backbone is complete without acknowledging that technical resilience alone is insufficient. Infrastructure of this scale inevitably raises questions of ownership, operation, and authority.

• Who runs the network, and under what mandate? Who has the ability to prioritize traffic during emergencies, when bandwidth is constrained and lives may depend on access?
• How are civil, scientific, commercial, and military uses separated, coordinated, or arbitrated without turning shared infrastructure into a point of contention?
• And critically, what mechanisms exist to respond when a node fails due to negligence, mismanagement, or deliberate interference?

These questions do not require answers here, but they must be recognized. A system designed to survive physical failure but unable to withstand governance failure is brittle in a different, and potentially more dangerous, way. Planning for redundancy, autonomy, and repair must therefore be matched by planning for stewardship, accountability, and trust across institutions that will outlast any single mission or generation.

6.2 The Maintenance Problem: Robots, Onboard AI, and “MacGyver Mode”

Consider a failure that does not announce itself dramatically. A relay station at a Lagrange point suffers a partial collision with a small object. An antenna is misaligned. A power distribution unit is damaged. Thermal balance begins to drift. Telemetry degrades. Then, as geometry shifts, communication with Earth becomes delayed or unavailable. At that moment, Earth cannot be the brain.

Human intervention is not possible on any useful timescale, and Earth-based control of robots becomes unreliable precisely when it is needed most. Latency, conjunction, and bandwidth constraints turn ground control into a potential single point of failure. If intelligence lives only on Earth, the station is effectively headless at the worst possible moment.

For this reason, AI must be onboard. Autonomous robots are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Robots require coordination, prioritization, and judgment. Each station therefore needs resident AI systems capable of supervising routine maintenance, diagnosing anomalies, and responding decisively to catastrophic failures when outside input is unavailable.

Routine maintenance should be handled continuously and quietly. Small corrections, wear mitigation, component inspections, and minor repairs happen without fanfare. The system stays healthy by default rather than waiting for crisis. When something unexpected occurs, the same robots must shift roles and operate under higher-level guidance from onboard AI that understands system priorities and constraints.

Redundancy applies here as rigorously as it does to communications. Both robots and AI systems must follow an N+1 redundancy model, meaning that the system can lose one unit and still function. This applies at multiple levels: multiple robotic manipulators, multiple independent AI instances, and multiple sensor pathways feeding them. Determining the optimal degree of redundancy is an engineering problem that balances mass, power, reliability, and risk, but the principle itself is non-negotiable.

The key insight is that intelligence cannot be centralized on Earth. Any design that assumes Earth-based AI or continuous human supervision introduces a hidden fragility. When communications degrade, the station does not merely lose oversight. It loses decision-making capacity. That is unacceptable for infrastructure on which human lives depend.

This is where the concept of “MacGyver Mode” becomes essential. Onboard AI systems must be trained and constrained to handle novel failure scenarios using standardized, interchangeable components. They do not need to be creative in a human sense, but they must be capable of reasoning through unfamiliar combinations of damage, available tools, and system priorities. Their objective is not optimization. It is survival and recovery.

Graceful degradation remains central. When full restoration is not immediately possible, the system must preserve core communication functions while shedding secondary capabilities. AI guides robots to reconfigure the station dynamically, rerouting power, repurposing modules, and stabilizing operations until higher capacity can be restored.

We are approaching the technological threshold where this is realistic. Robotics and AI no longer need constant supervision to function competently in constrained environments. What remains is the discipline to design these systems conservatively, redundantly, and with humility about what will go wrong.

If the solar-system communication backbone is to be worthy of trust, it must be able to take damage, lose contact with Earth, and still think clearly enough to save itself. That intelligence must already be there when the silence begins.

6.3 An Independent Counterargument: Autonomy Without Communication?

A reasonable counterargument is that truly self-sufficient settlements should not depend on continuous communication with Earth at all. If habitats are designed for long-term autonomy, with local manufacturing, autonomous maintenance, and onboard AI capable of diagnosing and resolving failures, then communication begins to look like a convenience rather than a form of life support.

There is truth in this position. Any settlement that requires constant guidance from Earth is poorly designed. Latency alone guarantees that crews must make critical decisions without real-time oversight, and overreliance on remote control introduces its own fragility. Autonomy is not optional; it is foundational.

The flaw in the argument is not that autonomy is unnecessary, but that autonomy alone does not eliminate systemic risk. Independent systems still fail. They encounter novel conditions, cascading faults, and long-tail events that exceed local experience, training data, or stored procedures. No isolated system, however well designed, can anticipate every failure mode it will face over decades of operation in a hostile environment.

Communication does not replace autonomy; it complements it. It allows knowledge, diagnosis, software updates, and collective learning to propagate across distance and time. It enables one settlement’s hard-won lesson to become another settlement’s avoided catastrophe. Without that exchange, each outpost becomes an island, repeating the same mistakes in parallel.

In biological terms, autonomy is local metabolism. Communication is the nervous system. One without the other may function for a time, but it is brittle. A settlement that can operate alone for months yet cannot exchange information with the wider human network is not resilient. It is merely isolated. Over time, isolation compounds risk rather than reducing it.

7. Do We Have the Tech? What’s Real vs. Aspirational

A sober assessment matters here. Not because skepticism is fashionable, but because overconfidence is dangerous. The honest answer is that we do not yet have a fully realized solar-system communications organism. What we do have are many of its organs, developed in isolation, proving that the idea is not fantasy but also not turnkey. There are important things we can already do.

Robotic manipulation is no longer speculative. We routinely operate robotic arms in orbit, perform delicate capture and servicing tasks, and execute complex sequences with high reliability. Teleoperation works well when latency is manageable, and even with delay, robots can perform supervised tasks effectively. We also have growing experience with autonomy in constrained domains, where systems can monitor themselves, detect faults, and take corrective action without human input.

Modular station operations are also a solved problem in principle. The International Space Station demonstrates that large, complex systems can be assembled from standardized components, maintained over decades, and upgraded as technology evolves. It is proof that long-lived infrastructure in space is possible when interfaces are stable and governance is disciplined.

Where things become difficult is where assumptions break down. Trustworthy autonomy for novel repairs remains hard. It is one thing for a system to respond to a known failure mode. It is another for it to diagnose damage it has never seen before and take corrective action without cascading into worse failure. This is not an intelligence problem so much as a verification problem. We must be able to prove that an autonomous system will prioritize survival and stability over clever but risky improvisation.

High-reliability, radiation-hardened computation at scale is another constraint. We can build radiation-tolerant systems, but they lag far behind terrestrial computing in performance and flexibility. Scaling onboard intelligence while maintaining reliability over decades remains an open engineering challenge, especially when power and mass budgets are tight.

Then there is the slow, unglamorous problem of standardization. A robotic-maintainable infrastructure only works if interfaces remain stable across decades, vendors, and political cycles. Mechanical latches, power connectors, data buses, and physical access points must be designed not just for today’s robots, but for robots that do not yet exist. That requires governance discipline that space programs have historically struggled to sustain.

Underlying all of this is verification. It is not enough for a system to work in simulations or demonstrations. We must be confident that it will not improvise itself into disaster under stress. Proving that level of reliability is as much about process, testing, and constraint as it is about algorithms.

So the correct conclusion is neither optimism nor pessimism. We have many of the pieces. We know what the hard parts are. What we lack is integration at scale and the institutional patience to treat this as infrastructure rather than as a sequence of heroic missions. The gap is real, but it is bridgeable, if we are honest about where we stand and disciplined about how we proceed.

7.1 This Is Not Speculative: Flight-Tested Foundations

The architectural principles described here are not confined to white papers or laboratory experiments. Core elements have already been flown, tested, and operated in real space environments. In 2008, NASA conducted the Disruption Tolerant Networking Flight Validation Experiment (DTN FVE) on the EPOXI spacecraft (formerly Deep Impact), demonstrating store-and-forward networking over interplanetary distances using the Deep Space Network.

In near-Earth operations, DTN principles have also been applied in International Space Station networking contexts, where intermittent connectivity and handovers are normal rather than exceptional. These demonstrations matter because they show that abandoning assumptions of continuous end-to-end paths is not theoretical; it is already operational practice in space.

Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN) is a communication architecture that ensures reliable data delivery in environments where connections are intermittent, delays are long, and continuous paths cannot be assumed—by storing data and forwarding it opportunistically over time rather than requiring real-time connectivity. DTN is typically an overlay that sits above underlying links/networks, using store-carry-forward to bridge “no end-to-end path” situations.

At the same time, NASA is advancing the other side of the equation: link capacity. The Deep Space Optical Communications demonstration shows that high-bandwidth optical links beyond Earth orbit are moving from concept to flight hardware. While optical communications are not themselves a networking architecture, they validate the physical layer needed for future relay backbones that must carry far more data than legacy RF systems alone can support. Taken together, these efforts show that the foundations of a resilient, multi-path, interplanetary communication network already exist in flight-tested form. What remains is integration, scaling, and deliberate architectural commitment.

7.2 The Two Non-Negotiables: Why This Isn’t Just Science Fiction

At this point, it is fair to ask whether all of this is ambition outrunning necessity. The answer depends on whether we are willing to be honest about what is non-negotiable once humans leave Earth in any lasting way. This is not a technological argument alone. It is a moral and strategic one.

Non-Negotiable #1: Human Safety

The moment we talk seriously about permanent settlements beyond Earth, communication stops being a convenience and becomes a form of life support. Isolation is not merely uncomfortable in space. It is lethal.

On Earth, a loss of communication is an inconvenience or, at worst, a temporary emergency. Off Earth, it can mean the inability to coordinate rescue, diagnose system failures, or even confirm that help exists at all. A habitat cut off from the rest of humanity is not simply offline. It is at risk of cascading failure, both technical and psychological.

If we accept the responsibility of sending people to live in hostile environments, then we also accept the responsibility to provide them with resilient, continuous connection to the wider human world. Designing communication systems that predictably go dark is incompatible with that obligation. Safety demands continuity, redundancy, and systems that fail slowly rather than catastrophically.

Non-Negotiable #2: Planetary Defense

The second non-negotiable is planetary defense. The probability of a civilization-ending impact in any given year is low. The consequences, however, are absolute. This is the definition of existential risk.

Early warning is the only lever we have. We cannot negotiate with orbital mechanics, and we cannot improvise deflection strategies at the last minute. Detection buys time, and time is what allows for measured, non-desperate responses. The difference between decades of warning and months of warning is the difference between options and panic.

A distributed solar-system communication and observation network dramatically improves early detection. More vantage points, spread over larger baselines, reduce blind spots and increase confidence in orbital predictions. This is not alarmism. It is risk management at a planetary scale.

Science as the Third Reason

Beyond safety and defense lies a third motivation: science. It is not non-negotiable in the same sense, but it is still decisive.

The opportunity cost of doing nothing is guaranteed stagnation. Without sustained infrastructure, exploration remains episodic. Knowledge advances in bursts and then stalls. With infrastructure, discovery becomes continuous. Questions that are currently impractical become routine. The solar system turns from a series of distant targets into an environment we can observe, understand, and inhabit responsibly.

This is why the proposal is not science fiction. It is not about bold leaps for their own sake. It is about recognizing that once certain thresholds are crossed, some forms of preparation are no longer optional. Human safety demands it. Planetary defense demands it. Science, quietly but persistently, invites it.

The real question is not whether we can afford to think this way. It is whether we can afford not to.

8. Conclusion: A Civilization’s Nervous System

This is the point where humility matters. I am not the expert. I am certain that any real implementation will look different from what I have sketched here, and it should. There are people far smarter, better trained, and deeper in the technical weeds than I am. My hope is not that these ideas are adopted as-is, but that they help provoke the right conversations sooner rather than later.

If we wait for perfect clarity, we will wait too long. A multi-planet civilization cannot function without something like a nervous system. Signals must travel. Reflexes must exist. Damage must be detected and compensated for. Redundancy must be built in, not bolted on. Repair must be possible without panic. On Earth, we take this for granted. In space, we are only beginning to confront what it requires.

The question worth sitting with is not “What can we get away with?” but something more demanding: What would we build if we truly believed people were going to live out there? Not visit. Not plant a flag. Live. Raise families. Depend on systems that work quietly in the background while life goes on.

Planning now does not mean locking ourselves into a single design. It means acknowledging that communications infrastructure is not an accessory to exploration, but one of its preconditions. It is one of the few investments that simultaneously increases human safety, expands capability, and accelerates knowledge. Very few things offer that kind of return.

If these reflections do nothing more than encourage earlier planning, broader imagination, and a little less faith in last-minute improvisation, then they will have served their purpose. The darkness between worlds is not something we should rush into unprepared. If we are serious about going outward, then building the nervous system that makes it survivable should begin now.

References

This essay synthesizes publicly available research and established engineering principles. Any errors of interpretation are my own and offered in the spirit of constructive exploration rather than prescription.

• NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (n.d.). Deep Space Network. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/deep-space-network
• NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (2020). Mars Relay Network Overview. https://mars.nasa.gov/mars-exploration/missions/mars-relay-network/
• Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, R., Scott, K., & Weiss, H. (2007). Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture (RFC 4838). Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4838
• Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Fall, K., Cerf, V., Durst, R., Scott, K., & Weiss, H. (2003). Delay-Tolerant Networking: An Approach to Interplanetary Internet. IEEE Communications Magazine, 41(6), 128–136.
• NASA. (2018). Lagrange Points. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/754/what-is-a-lagrange-point
• Farquhar, R. W. (1970). The Control and Use of Libration-Point Satellites. NASA Technical Report R-346.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Planetary Defense: Near-Earth Object Observations and Hazard Mitigation Strategies. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25271
• NASA Planetary Defense Coordination Office. (n.d.). Near-Earth Object Program. https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense
• European Space Agency. (2021). Autonomous Systems and Robotics for Space Exploration. https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/Automation_and_Robotics
• NASA Office of Inspector General. (2023). NASA’s Management of the International Space Station. https://oig.nasa.gov/reports
• Sweetser, T. H., & Broschart, S. B. (2014). Trajectory Design for Lagrange Point Missions. Acta Astronautica, 94(1), 84–97.
• Wie, B. (2014). Space Vehicle Dynamics and Control (2nd ed.). AIAA Education Series.
• NASA. (2017, May 16). Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking overview. https://www.nasa.gov/reference/delay-disruption-tolerant-networking-overview/
• NASA. (2025, September 23). Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking. https://www.nasa.gov/communicating-with-missions/delay-disruption-tolerant-networking/
• NASA. (2021, October 7). LunaNet: Empowering Artemis with communications and navigation interoperability. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/lunanet-empowering-artemis-with-communications-and-navigation-interoperability/
• NASA. (2023). NASA’s lunar communications and navigation architecture (PDF). https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/lunar-communications-and-navigation-architecture.pdf
• RFC Editor. (n.d.). RFC 9171: Bundle Protocol version 7. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9171.html
• European Space Agency. (2023, December 18). Shining a light on NASA’s deep space demo (DSOC). https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/Shining_a_light_on_NASA_s_deep_space_demo
• Biswas, A. (2024). Deep space optical communications technology… (SPIE Proceedings abstract). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024SPIE12877E..06B/abstract
• MIT Lincoln Laboratory. (2024, June 17). Deep-space camera sends farthest optical communications link yet (DSOC). https://www.ll.mit.edu/news/deep-space-camera-sends-farthest-optical-communications-link-yet
• NASA. (2024, December 20). NASA selects four commercial companies to support Near Space Network. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-selects-four-commercial-companies-to-support-near-space-network/
• NASA. (2025, December 17). NASA’s push toward commercial space communications gains momentum. https://www.nasa.gov/technology/space-comms/nasas-push-toward-commercial-space-communications-gains-momentum/
• NASA Technology Portfolio (TechPort). Disruption Tolerant Networking. https://techport.nasa.gov/view/4522

Excerpt

A multi-planet civilization cannot survive on fragile connections. From Mars to the outer solar system, communication must become a resilient nervous system—designed for delay, disruption, and failure—if humans are to endure beyond Earth.