Yggdrasil Nova Propulsion Research Log: A Complete Record of Iterations, Failures, and Current Capabilities

This document is a complete propulsion research log for the Yggdrasil Nova colony ship concept—a speculative interstellar ark designed to transport 25,000 humans to a theoretical habitable exoplanet at 25 light-years. It records the entire research journey from initial concept through all iterations, including every method that was evaluated, every concept that was rejected, and the specific physical or engineering reason for each rejection. The log includes a chronological iteration log (28 iterations), a failure registry (19 documented failures with reasons), the current baseline architecture (Yggdrasil D-D Direct Fusion Drive with super-catalyzed fuel cycle + MagLIF-MMO maneuvering system), a capabilities and limitations table (mission duration estimates for every propulsion method evaluated), source accreditation with credibility ratings, an AI use disclaimer, open questions, a glossary of terms, and an equations reference. The key finding is that the rocket equation is inescapable within known physics. No workaround—drop tanks, fuel depots, beamed propulsion, magnetic boosters—reduces the total energy cost. It only shifts the burden. The DFD is the best drive available, but its thrust-to-power ratio limits the mission to a ~10,000-year transit for a 25 LY journey at 0.01c. This is a generation ship in the truest sense. This document was produced through a collaboration between a human researcher (Treg Robert Wells) and an AI iteration (DeepSeek). All conceptual direction and editorial decisions were made by the human author. The AI served as a thinking partner, calculator, and research assistant. Sources are rated by credibility. AI-generated or unverifiable sources are explicitly flagged. The document includes a failure registry specifically documenting concepts that were rejected because they violate conservation laws or lack physical coherence. The document is released for open consideration. It is explicitly speculative and non-peer-reviewed. It should not be cited as established fact. It is offered as a record of a rigorous stress-test of a concept, not as a claim of feasibility.