I was noodling around with an idea in my head after hearing Musk discuss the launch window limitations for a interstellar transit to Mars, and decided to see if I could make a viable solution of it. With my original idea in mind, I fired up Antigravity with Gemini Argon 4.5 High to create a simulation to answer the question:

How to get to Mars faster.

Full disclosure: mathematically, it's pretty sound - though I'm not sure I'll be so bold as to call it perfect. I did add PySim and PMMath modules to my IDE to validate the deflections and 'lilypad' concepts. Economic viability, logistics, manufacturing - none of that was considered at all, intentionally: no point trying to solve the hurdles if the race isn't even worth running. I think I've got to a stable V1 concept, but I'll leave that to the comments and responses.

If anyone is interested in seeing it - you can find it here: https://hobbyaquatics.com/interplanetary-frogger/

This should render with any device, but do note that it is best from a desktop because it  draws the orbit view at 2–3× resolution, which leans harder on the graphics card.

Any feedback or suggestions for improvement of the concept are graciously welcomed. Anyone who wants to harsh on the infeasibility of it - you're welcome, too.

Previously posted to r/astrophysics, but their mods get pretty cranky about anything not published from an academic institution.

Ants love sweet things, but as shown in this video, apparently 5 out of 7 died in an environment full of sugar. Does anyone know the mechanism behind why ants actually end up weakening when surrounded by so much sugar?

In contrast, all 7 out of 7 reportedly survived unharmed in an environment filled with Agri-Gel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EUSB-48Z5I

I used Claude to run extensive tests on my theories, methods, and concepts. The result was the Harrington Compression Method, or HCM for short.

In The Canterbury Corpus I took 9 of the best from Bzip2, xz, and ZPAQ. In fact ZPAQ was crushed in this test. The HCMv3.3 completed today as were updates to Bzip2 -9 and xz -9e. In every case I increased compression and decreased the time to decompress a file. In some cases the files take longer to compress, but since it is often compress once, send hundreds to millions of the compressed file, then decompress, this was seen as a non-issue.

HCM stands for Harrington Compression Method and the hi stands for Harrington Insights. No new methods were used, only new looks on how to use them and apply them together.

The above table shows how my software does for the various compressions comparing ZPAQ, xz, and bzip to HCM.

More importantly is the energy consumption. Note the differences for them can switch, I am great at all but four, three where my system lightly loses and one where I essentially tie with the competition.

That means, since the energy consumption is so low of a difference, the final factor would be storage on a disk, and since I win all but two, it is decidedly one sided there.

I uploaded it all to https://github.com/CombaryMaker/Harringtons_Insights

Overall this is a minor upgrade, but a real one, to the types of compression going on. I would not suggest it is backwards compatible.

I am quite open to questions, it is a MIT License for my stuff (check for their licenses though, I am only showing the research here), and I am quite willing to talk about this all.