Author(s) :

Harshavardan Rajesh Gayathri.

Volume/Issue :

Abstract :

Rogue planets are planetary-mass objects that are not gravitationally bound to a star. Their low brightness makes them difficult to detect, but their atmospheres can be observed without the severe star–planet contrast produced by a luminous host star. They can also provide benchmarks for the cooling and evolutionary models used to infer the properties of directly imaged exoplanets, particularly when their ages are independently constrained. No reproducible framework was identified in the literature reviewed that compares rogue planets as possible spacecraft destinations. This study therefore identifies the highest-ranked target for a first-generation robotic flyby and tests whether published propulsion cases could return encounter data within a human-relevant timeframe of 50 to 100 years. Six exact-phrase searches of the NASA Astrophysics Data System returned 428 records, from which 23 systems within 100 light-years met the screening conditions. A multi-criteria decision analysis scored each system from 1 to 5 on four criteria covering physical characterization, formation and early-evolution diagnostic value, navigation readiness, and distance burden. Scientific value and mission feasibility received equal weight. SIMP J0136+0933 ranked highest with a relative decision score of 4.25 and ranked first or tied for first in four of five reported scenarios. The leading target changed only when scientific value received 70% of the total weight. Returning encounter data from its distance of 19.92 light-years within 100 years requires a cruise velocity of 0.2488c. Rocket-equation mass-ratio checks ruled out practical use of chemical, nuclear-thermal, and ion propulsion for this requirement. Only a conceptual directed-energy lightsail with a projected velocity of 0.26c nominally satisfied the 100-year calculation, returning data after an estimated 96.5 years. Its payload, power, communication, and post-encounter operating requirements remain unresolved; nominal timing compliance therefore does not establish mission feasibility.