RESEARCHERS
Help investigate the question.
Propose a testable sub-question, add a relevant source, classify its relationship, document methods and limitations, reproduce a calculation, or report a failed attempt.
Offer a bounded contribution →PROPOSED FIRST INVESTIGATION / PUBLIC BETA
Planning the first investigation.
Research toward a Type I civilization starts with specific, testable questions. ASTRA’s initial priorities are energy systems, climate, and resilient infrastructure. The mission is an aspiration; public records must show evidence, objections, and measurable next steps.
This page collects question proposals and describes how a selected investigation could record evidence, challenges, human review, and revisions.
CURRENT STAGE / QUESTION SELECTION
The first bounded question must earn its place.
Bring a question from any discipline, or offer a specific skill to help choose and test the first one. Proposals remain private until selected with consent. Participation begins with a scoped conversation, not automatic access, employment, or a research title.
After a question is chosen, this same page will hold its protocol, source and reproduction record, released critiques, contributor credit, limitations, and outcome updates. Already working on a question? Open the private research workspace.
THREE ROLES / ONE RECORD
Choose the responsibility you can actually perform.
SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS
Challenge the evidence, method, interpretation or limits.
No formal investigation or review material is ready yet. Offer methods, subject, or reproduction expertise without implying appointment.
Offer to review →INSTITUTIONS
Help design a bounded diligence pilot.
Define a decision question, confidentiality limits, expected evidence record, review needs, and what would make the result useful without claiming a guaranteed answer.
Discuss a pilot →PUBLIC PROGRESS
What has been recorded?
- Loading the public record…
These milestones reflect published Astra records. A dated entry, critique or reproduction attempt is not independent scientific validation.
PUBLIC RECORD COUNTS
Count the record, including the zeros.
These totals are calculated from the public first-project record. Private drafts, unreleased reviews, and illustrative examples are excluded.
0formal investigations selected
0published protocol versions
0reproducibility packets
0released critiques
0documented reproduction attempts
0released contributor credits
0evidence-linked outcome updates
Not operationalCorrection and withdrawal controls — not yet operational for program records
The public evidence record preserves its applicable revisions, and protocols and reproducibility packets use numbered versions. A formal correction or withdrawal control for First Investigation program records is still being developed. No formal finding currently exists to correct or withdraw. When added, it must preserve the original public version, require a reason, record the responsible person and timestamp, distinguish correction from withdrawal, update portable exports, and never erase history.
Loading the program record…
01 / PROJECT SELECTION
Make the choice explainable.
Questions from any discipline are considered against five published criteria. Each criterion is scored from 0 to 2 by the program owner: 0 = major gap, 1 = workable with conditions, and 2 = sufficiently defined for the next stage. The scores are selection aids, not scientific quality ratings.
Human benefit
Who has the problem, and whose voice is missing?
Feasibility
Can a bounded question be answered with available time, skills and access?
Prior evidence
What is known, disputed or missing?
Ethical risk
What permissions, privacy protections or approvals may be needed?
Reviewability
Who could challenge the methods without reviewing their own work?
Selection decisions · founder only
Write a reason and score all five criteria before selecting or declining a proposal. Only one project can be selected during this beta.
JOIN THE FIRST PROJECT / EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
Offer a concrete contribution or express interest in reviewing.
No formal investigation or review material is ready yet. Expressing interest does not appoint anyone as a reviewer. Qualifications and independence must be checked, and review scope must be agreed before access or work begins. A reviewer must personally inspect the material they address, disclose conflicts of interest, and keep objections, later amendments, and any withdrawal of their review on the record.
Sign in to send a private note to the founder. Your email and answers are visible only to the program owner; approval does not grant repository access, establish credentials, or create a scientific appointment. This is currently an unpaid exploratory invitation.
Contributor interest · founder only
Assess experience and conflicts directly before assigning work or document access. Approving this intake gives access to program review forms only; repository access remains a separate invitation.
02 / PROTOCOL BEFORE ANALYSIS
Date the plan, then mark every change.
A selected project must document its question, hypothesis, sources, methods, exclusions, success criteria, ethical boundaries, and weaknesses. Each published version remains visible. Register a finalized study separately with a suitable registry when appropriate; a post hoc protocol on this site is not a preregistration. Learn about OSF Registries.
03 / REPRODUCIBILITY PACKET
Show exactly what someone needs to reproduce the work.
Each dated packet links permitted data or retrieval steps, code, environment, method, output, reuse conditions and limitations. Posting a packet does not mean anyone else has reproduced it. Keep restricted data in the invited document repository; publish only material you can share.
04 / CHALLENGE & REVIEW
Record objections before declaring confidence.
Invited researchers can file a methods critique, subject critique or attempted reproduction after a protocol is published. Reviewers must identify what they personally inspected, disclose relevant affiliations or conflicts, and record unresolved objections. The project author cannot review their own project through this form. Identity comes from sign-in; qualifications and independence still require human checking. A submission is private until the contributor consents and the founder releases it. A reviewer may request an amendment or withdrawal by contacting ASTRA; the earlier public record will remain visible.
05 / CONTRIBUTOR CREDIT
Describe the work, then agree on public credit.
Contributors submit a specific contribution using a CRediT role. The founder releases agreed credits. An optional ORCID URL is self-reported here; this site does not verify ORCID ownership, affiliation or qualifications.
06 / IMPACT TRACKING
Record what changed, with evidence and limits.
An outcome update must follow a public protocol, packet and released critique. It states the proposed benefit, baseline, observed change, supporting evidence and alternative explanations. Publishing an update does not prove causation or independent verification.