⚜ PRINCIPIA ORTHOGONA · Orthogenesis · Architecture Master index →
Orthogenesis · Architecture · G6 LLC

NASA Architecture

A lunar habitat whose every structural dimension follows from two invariants — and whose every gap-closure claim is bound to a named theorem that a build must accept before the claim may stand.

13NASA gap codes
12gap theorems
2 of 8rows fully closed
3claims withdrawn
seedring 1ring 2
G6 LLC's response to the NASA Moon Base RFI is a geometry: a hexagonal module whose dimensions follow from two invariants, scaled into a colony. What makes it worth reading is not the geometry. It is that every gap-closure claim on this page is bound to a named theorem, that the theorems are judged by a build rather than asserted beside one, and that the claims which failed that test were withdrawn in public by their author before any reviewer saw them.

1 · Provenance

SolicitationNotice ID 80JSC026MoonBase_RFI
Requirements sourceNASA Moon Base User’s Guide, NP-2026-04-6806-HQ, April 2026 — functional gap codes FN-xxx-L
Responsesubmitted 14 April 2026 · corrected 21 May 2026 · errata 21 August 2026
Depositdoi:10.5281/zenodo.19162012 (concept DOI — the deposited text still carries the §4 section withdrawn on 2026-08-21)
RespondentG6 LLC · Pablo Nogueira Grossi · Newark NJ · EIN 33-2880433 · SAM.gov registered · ORCID 0009-0000-6496-2186
Figure 1 · why the cell is a hexagon
hexagon3.7224square4.0000triangle4.5590perimeter enclosing unit area — lower is less wall per habitable m²

Among regular tilings, the hexagon encloses a given area with the least perimeter: 3.7224 against 4.0000 for the square and 4.5590 for the triangle, per unit area. On a surface where every square metre of pressure wall is mass delivered from Earth, that ratio is the whole argument. It is also the one claim here that is both machine-checked (FN_H_101L_isoperimetric) and checkable by hand.

2 · The gap ledger

The criterion the response asked NASA to apply is stated in the ledger itself: a sorry is an open gap; closing a sorry closes a NASA functional gap. The table below is generated from that file's own status marks, not from the submission.

Gap
Response, and the theorem that carries it
Status
FN-H-101L
FN-H-102L
Habitation. Pressurised habitable environment, short and month-plus duration. G¹ hex module at 19.1 m side, scaling to the G⁶ structure. FN_H_101L_isoperimetric · FN_H_102L_phase02_cluster. The hexagon is the isoperimetric optimum among regular tilings; the pressure-vessel step is asserted, not derived.
structural
vessel
FN-L-101L
Logistics. Interface standardisation. FN_L_101L_hex_interfaces · FN_L_101L_unique_interface: six mating interfaces per cell, all distinct, so any two neighbouring cells mate on exactly one.
FN-T-201L
FN-T-202L
Transportation. Stage-gated delivery and payload growth. FN_T_201L_payload_monotone · FN_T_202L_payload_ratio (Phase 02 / Phase 01 = 15) · FN_T_201L_stage_gated: cells at stage n cannot appear before stage n−1 exists.
FN-P-101L
FN-P-402L
Power generation. No response. The May submission recorded these as partially addressed by an Arnold-tongue passive resonance argument. That response was withdrawn in full on 21 August 2026 and no partial credit is claimed. See §4 below — the withdrawal is the most load-bearing thing on this page.
reopened
FN-U-103L
ISRU. FN_U_103L_six_layers · FN_U_103L_expand_models_ISRU: the colony expand operation models seeding from local material. Site-specific ISRU data is required before this is more than structural.
partial
FN-A-104L
FN-A-105L
Autonomous systems. FN_A_104L_reachability: colony reachability is monotone under expansion. Full autonomy is not addressed. A second theorem here was deleted on 2026-08-21 for vacuity rather than left in place.
reach
autonomy
FN-C-101L
FN-C-201L
Communications and PNT. FN_C_101L_ring_count gives the ring structure; the coverage question itself is tracked in Coverage.lean, which is outside every build target and therefore unchecked.
open
FN-M-302L
Mobility. No response. Reopened 21 August 2026. Unlike FN-A-104L there is no non-vacuous theorem elsewhere that carries it.
reopened

A thirteenth declaration, nasa_gap_closure_summary, collects the closures so that the table's status is decided by whether that theorem compiles.

3 · What is checked, and by what

The twelve gap theorems are probed by name in .github/workflows/verify-proofs.yml and judged by tools/axiom_gate.py, which fails the job on sorryAx or on a missing declaration. The file sits inside the Orthogenesis default build target, so lake build compiles it; before 21 August 2026 it was in no target at all and had never been compiled by anything.

FileDeclsAdmittedGate
NASAGaps.lean120probed by name in CI, per theorem
G6Crystal.lean330kernel-audited
AcousticLattice.lean113 declaredOK — no sorryAx, permitted axioms only
MagneticLattice.lean201 (M2)PASS-AS-DECLARED
SeismicLattice.lean171 (Q2)PASS-AS-DECLARED
DM3Bridge.lean140no gate report on disk
ToyModel.lean140no gate report on disk
Coverage.lean60in the Orthogenesis target; compiles. No gate report yet

The rows to read are the last three. Compiles and kernel-audited are different things: a file inside the build target is known to elaborate, but without a #print axioms report nothing has checked what its theorems rest on. Three files are in that state. They are listed rather than omitted, because the omission is what would mislead.

Corrected 2026-09-14: this table previously recorded Coverage.lean as outside every build target, following docs/lean-4.32.0-ledger.md and the errata of 2026-09-11. It has since been added to Orthogenesis.lean and builds with the target (job 8684 of the 2026-09-13 lake build). The claim was stale in the pessimistic direction, which is the safer way to be wrong and still wrong.

4 · The errata, which is the point

An internal audit on 20–21 August 2026 found that three claims in §5 of the May submission were not supported by the artifacts they cited, and that the verification metric the submission proposed to NASA did not measure what it was said to measure. None of the errors were found by a reviewer.

Power generation: four independent failures, any one sufficient

Units. The supporting theorem compared a dimensionless count of limit cycles against a number of hertz. The comparison is a true statement about two real numbers and an empty one about the world — and the Lean kernel does not carry units, so it certified something not physically well-formed.

Wrong mode. The frequency was taken from the lossless idealisation, which places the fundamental at 10.59 Hz rather than the observed 7.83 Hz.

Back-fitted constant. The multiplier that reached the target figure was the factor required to reach it, not a rotation number derived from anything.

No cavity. Schumann resonance is a property of the Earth–ionosphere cavity. The Moon has none. In the environment the response was written for, the coupling is not mistuned — it is absent.

“Twenty facts proved without sorry” was true and misleading

There was indeed no sorry in the file. There were also three items its own header called open obligations. Both were true at once, because the obligations were written as theorems concluding True. Such a statement compiles, contains no sorry, and passes #print axioms on the standard three — it is indistinguishable from a real theorem to every automated check, including this repository’s. The criterion the submission asked NASA to apply could not see it.

The corrections reduce the claimed scope. No correction expands it. What survives is stated as plainly: the hexagonal isoperimetric optimum, the dimensional derivation from the dm³ invariants, phase payload monotonicity and the hex-grid colony results are non-vacuous and unchanged. The withdrawal costs the physical justification of the aspect ratio, not the geometric one.

5 · Declared vacuity

The response to finding a vacuous theorem was not to delete the category but to make it declarable. Orthogenesis/Architecture/KNOWN_PLACEHOLDERS.txt is append-only and lists every statement whose conclusion is True, so that CI can tell a known vacuity from a new one. The rule is one line: declared-open is acceptable; undeclared-open fails the build. Six entries are active.

A retired entry is commented out with the date and reason, never deleted — because a bare list loses its own history the moment an entry goes, and would say six while carrying no trace that it once said seven.

6 · Verify this yourself, in about five minutes

Nothing on this page needs to be taken on trust, and the fastest way to judge it is to run the same checks the repository runs. No account, no credentials.

From a clone of github.com/TOTOGT/geometry
# the twelve gap theorems, and what each rests on
grep -n "^theorem" Orthogenesis/Architecture/NASAGaps.lean

# every declaration in the repo, what it rests on, and what has no gate
python3 tools/toolchain_ledger.py --write && head -12 docs/lean-4.32.0-ledger.md

# the declared-vacuity register: declared-open is fine, undeclared-open fails CI
cat Orthogenesis/Architecture/KNOWN_PLACEHOLDERS.txt

# the kernel check itself, on one file (needs Lean + a built Mathlib)
bash tools/leancheck.sh --audit Orthogenesis/Architecture/SeismicLattice.lean

The audit reports this page cites are committed under tools/verify-audit/<date>/, one per file, with the axiom list for every declaration. They are the evidence, not a summary of it.

7 · Where to go from here

If you are checking the mathematics
Ch 16 · The Crystalline LatticeThe geometry the rest depends on
Ch 18 · Seismic LatticeLoad share, crack tortuosity, detuning — the structural face
Ch 17 · Magnetic LatticeShubnikov census; one open obligation, named
Ch 19 · Acoustic LatticeWhere two claims were found not to be propositions at all
Orthogenesis · GeometryThe layer underneath: hex grid, cell, colony, growth, hexagonal form, discrete Gauss–Bonnet. Fifteen declarations, no sorry, and no mention of a material anywhere
Lean v4.32.0 ledgerEvery tracked declaration, what it rests on, what has no gate
If you are checking whether it builds anything
G6 Earth HouseThe same geometry as compressed-earth-block housing — the terrestrial case, costed
Biosynthetic BuildingThe course that teaches the build
The Stone FoldSeismic geometry in ancient architecture — the precedents
G6 CrystalThe unifying conjecture, cited as a conjecture
If you are checking the method
WP-119 · Which Theorem TravelsWhich of these results may be cited on the Moon, in Newark, at Chichén Itzá — and which may not
WP-73 · The Stamp and the TripleWhy a verification claim needs artifact, toolchain and library together
WP-115 · The Fold in Formal VerificationThe class of failure a kernel is built not to see
The verification checklistTwelve steps, four stages, with a status column saying what is not yet implemented
The audit logEvery defect found in this corpus, dated and classed. Including the ones on this page
The response documents
Errata, 21 August 2026The three withdrawn claims in full, with the identifier corrections
Zenodo communityDeposits with DOIs — concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19162012
github.com/TOTOGT/geometryThe corpus, its tools, and the CI that judges it
Master indexEvery page, with its scope stated in the footer
The one thing worth knowing about this corpus

Corrections are published in place rather than withdrawn silently, and the register of defects is public and dated. The errata above was produced by an internal audit, not by a reviewer; the stale row corrected on this page today was found the same way. That is the standard being offered — not that nothing here is wrong, but that what is wrong is findable, by you, without asking.

What this page does not claim

No flight hardware exists. No physical test has been performed. Nothing here is a NASA endorsement, a contract, or a statement by NASA; the gap codes are cited from a public guide and the responses are G6 LLC’s own. Six of the eight gap rows are partial or open and are marked so; two are closed. The geometric results are machine-checked; the engineering claims that would turn a geometry into a habitat are not, and are not asserted.