About
I am an independent researcher studying networks across delay, distance, and inconvenient physics. My current focus is communication and routing for cislunar and deep-space systems: how to keep information moving when links are intermittent, propagation is slow, and infrastructure is sparse.
The through-line is a single end — getting humanity to space, and keeping the signal alive once we are there. The networks needed to carry a crew behind the Moon do not yet exist, and the hard part is not only getting there; it is whether the message gets through.
I work without an institutional affiliation. That makes verifiability especially important: proofs, preregistrations, public negative results, archived artifacts, and permanent identifiers let the work be judged independently of its source.
Method
The standard has to be mechanical, and honestly a little unglamorous. Here is what it comes down to.
An assertion from me is just an assertion. A theorem checked by Lean 4 carries stronger evidence — the machine does not care whose name is on it, only whether the logic holds. The routing results are formalized so the proof either compiles or it does not ship, and the source is public, so you can run that check yourself.
Before I examine the results, I write down the hypothesis, the thresholds, and the conditions that would prove me wrong, and freeze it. So when a prediction misses, you read the miss in the same words it was registered in. The goalposts are set down and timestamped before the game starts.
An entire earlier program of mine is published as a set of honest negatives: things that looked like laws and turned out to be tautologies, a universality that was not really there. I left them up on purpose. Showing only the wins would tell you less about whether to trust the rest.
Before a result leaves here, it goes to review passes whose whole job is to try to break it. Only results that survive those reviews are published. The method for doing that is written up and public too — you are welcome to point it at this very page.
Papers ship with the code, the frozen inputs, and content hashes; data and software get permanent DOIs. Wherever a number turns up in a sentence, a named, rerunnable artifact stands behind it. No number should have to ask for your faith.
The record
Here is what that standard produces in practice — each piece public and checkable today.
verified-sabr formalizes Schedule-Aware Bundle Routing in Lean 4 and tests a reference implementation against it across thousands of queries. The differential testing turned up concrete discrepancies, which I filed as public issues against NASA's open-source HDTN. Whether anyone upstream picks them up is out of my hands, but the reports are on the record.
See the projectsThe delivery-assurance and classification papers, the software, and the ground-segment datasets are archived on Zenodo under a stable identity, each with its own DOI. None of it evaporates if this site does.
See the researchThe way this research operates — claim classes, honest ledgers, refute-before-ship — is written up as its own public methodology. The process is open to inspection, not only its results.
Load-ProofContact
Corrections and hard questions are especially useful — they help independent work stay honest.
This is independent research and is not affiliated with or endorsed by NASA or any other institution. Project names and issue reports identify the systems studied; they do not imply collaboration or endorsement. Some material documents work in progress and is identified as such. Corrections are welcome.