Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Unfortunately,the future of weaponry may also coincide with it.But things are definitely getting intriguing out there...
Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’
Nick Cook
Janes Defense Weekly, 2002-07-29
Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted that it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science that underpins them - science that senior Boeing officials describe as "valid" - can be engineered into hardware.
As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing's Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed 'high-' and 'low-power' anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.
The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: 'GRASP' - Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.
A briefing document on GRASP obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly sets out what Boeing believes to be at stake. "If gravity modification is real," it says, "it will alter the entire aerospace business." The report was written by Jamie Childress, principal investigator for Boeing's propellentless propulsion work at the Phantom Works in Seattle.
GRASP's objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace world's more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnov's work and "examine possible uses for such a technology". Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and 'fuelless' electricity generation - so-called 'free energy'.
But it is also apparent that Podkletnov's work could be engineered into a radical form of weapon system. The GRASP paper focuses on Podkletnov's claims that his high-power experiments, using a device called an 'impulse gravity generator', are capable of producing a beam of 'gravity-like' energy that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object - enough, in principle, to vaporise it, especially if the object is moving at high speed.
Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10.16cm) wide beam's ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km (JDW 24 July). Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield.
The GRASP paper details the beam's reported characteristics: that it is immune to electromagnetic shielding, that it can penetrate any intermediate barriers (objects placed between the generator and the target), that it propagates at very high speed ("possibly light speed or greater") and that the total force is proportional to target mass - that its effect, in other words, is exactly the same as gravity's.
Podkletnov's claims first surfaced in 1992 when he published a paper detailing his low-power experiments into gravity-shielding using superconductors, materials that lose their electrical resistance at low temperatures. The original experiments were conducted at the University of Technology in Tampere, Finland, before moving to Russia. Podkletnov, who has a PhD in materials science from Tampere and the University of Chemical Technology in Moscow, declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight. Although he was vilified by traditionalists who claimed that gravity-shielding was impossible under the known laws of physics, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) went on to attempt a replication of his work in the mid-1990s.
Because NASA lacked Podkletnov's unique formula for the 30cm yttrium-barium copper oxide (YBCO) superconducting ceramic discs - a formula the Russian maintains is critical to the experiment's success - the attempt failed. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama will shortly conduct a second set of experiments, this time using apparatus built to Podkletnov's specifications.
In August 2001, Podkletnov published a paper revealing his experimental high-power work and it is this that forms the focus of the GRASP report. Boeing wants to build its own impulse gravity generator at Seattle but admits that it lacks vital knowledge in the area of the YBCO emitter - Podkletnov's special superconducting apparatus - which forms the heart of the generator.
As a result, Boeing recently approached Podkletnov directly, but promptly fell foul of Russian technology transfer controls. George Muellner, the outgoing head of the Boeing Phantom Works, confirmed that attempts by Boeing to work with Podkletnov had been blocked by Moscow, which is seeking to stem the exodus of Russian high-technology to the West. Muellner is convinced, however, that the science underpinning Podkletnov's work is real.
"The physical principles - and Podkletnov's device is not the only one - appear to be valid," he said. He confirmed that Boeing had conducted tests on a number of other anti-gravity devices, some of which were detailed in JDW 24 July.
"There is basic science there. They're not breaking the laws of physics. The issue is whether the science can be engineered into something workable," Muellner said.
The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov "and have some activity in this area". It is also possible, Boeing admits, that "classified activities in gravity modification may exist". The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the 'white world' of open development.
GRASP concludes that a "positive result from experiments would give Boeing a substantial advantage in the aerospace industry".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steps to the Stars (First things First)
Later in 1997, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program will host an invitation-only workshop. At the gathering, scientists will examine relevant emerging physics. They will also brainstorm a list of next-step research tasks, says NASA's Millis.
To be surveyed are a host of theories, physical evidence and anomalous effects that have recently emerged but have not yet been rigorously assessed.
"There have been recent theories published in peer-reviewed literature suggesting new connections between inertia, gravity and electromagnetism. There's even a theory for a 'warp drive,' but physicists aren't even sure if such breakthroughs are possible," Millis says.
"If the workshop successfully demonstrates that promising and affordable approaches exist," he continues. "funding may be granted to begin conducting the step-by-step research that may eventually lead to the breakthroughs."
In other words, while you're reaching for the stars, don't forget to stoop for a little reality.
If you want to get anywhere fast in this old universe, there arc three technologies required for 21 st century space missions. "These technologies are propulsion, propulsion and propulsion," points out Robert Frisbee, manager of advanced propulsion technology at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.
Moreover, physics today is teeming with conjecture showing us that scientists clearly don't know everything. Frisbee says that the physics community is rife with people studying time machines, wormholes and warp drives by looking at Albert Einstein's equations and putting them through the ringer.
"These are things we used to think of as solely the province of science fiction," with work now being done by reputable physicists, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, the JPL scientist says.
A member of the breakthrough propulsion physics product definition team, Frisbee underscores the fact that studying such topics as faster-than-light travel, leaping across space and time via wormhole, anti-gravity and other research tracks, is a high risk activity.
"But in terms of trying to get us out of our existing paradigm, this type of work is very important. The payoff could totally revolutionize the way we look at nature, in the same way that relativity and quantum mechanics changed the way we looked at the universe almost a hundred years ago," Frisbee contends.
Coupled to his optimism, Frisbee tags a note of warning. "You have to be careful of situations where you get into 'pathological science.' That is when you ate trying to treasure some tiny, tiny effect, but where wishful thinking gives you the answer and not the actual experiment," he cautions.
What are the odds of discovering some radical, new form of physics'?
"Chances are very high we won't find anything," says Franklin Mead, Jr.. senior scientist in the propulsion sciences division of the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base, California. "But there's also that very small chance of stumbling on something that will have a very large payoff. It's important to look for that needle in the haystack...that diamond in the rough that hasn't been found. But it's very difficult to succeed," Mead says.
Also a member of NASA's breakthrough propulsion physics product definition team, Mead has funded a variety of advanced propulsion ideas over the years. From anti-proton propulsion, space warps, beamed energy and fusion rockets to space tethers and faster- than-light travel- all have received top billing on Mead's research list at one time or another.
"You have to keep looking...you need to turn over every rock," Mead says. Furthermore, as new materials become available, these ideas, and others, deserve second looks from time to time, he stresses.
"We're really not spending much money on advanced concepts. When you talk about dollars going into this area that could have such a great impact on space travel, on propulsion and on the future of our world in space...the investment is minuscule," Mead says.
Walk into Whitt Brantley's office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and you will spot a picture of his idol adorning one wall: Albert Einstein. Brantley, chief of the advanced concepts office at the center, has good reason to go eye to eye with Einstein. NASA-sponsored experiments will soon delve into, what one scientist tags, "gravity force shielding commonly called antigravity.
But Brantley fends off any claim that NASA is looking into anti-gravity. Instead, gravity manipulation, modification or shielding are more apropos terms, he says.
NASA is working with theorist Ning Li of the University of Alabama at Huntsville Equipment and test mater ials arc being prepped for a set of experiments that could, if successful, lead to new knowledge about gravity fields. If Li's ideas work, modifying and controlling gravity may be the outcome.
Researchers in 1992 at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland first claimed to observe a gravity force shielding effect. Leading the work, Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov discovered that objects suspended over a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic material weighed less than normal-as if the object was somehow being shielded from the full force of gravity. More importantly, the faster the superconductor spun, the less an object over the superconducting material appeared to weigh.
Placed above the disc were nonconducting and non-magnetic objects made of wood, quartz or glass. The superconducting disc itself a material that forfeits its electrical resistance at very low temperatures-was suspended by a magnetic field produced by three electric coils. All the hardware was held within the confines of a super- cold container of liquid helium.
Several head-scratching scientists believe they are eyeing a side effect of Einstein's general theory of relativity rapidly spinning objects can pervert gravity.
Some scientists assert that they're producing a "gravitomagnetic field." But some publications have already declared the effect as "anti-gravity."
Whether or not the phenomenon is real, measurable and then controllable is yet to be determined. Whatever the case, many months of tedious painstaking work is ahead, Brantley cautions.
"We've got open minds," Brantley says. "It's sort of like playing the lottery. The only way to guarantee you won't win a lottery is not buy a ticket. We would sure feel foolish if we didn't study this, then have someone say later on: 'It was found 100 years ago, but the idiots didn't recognize it. "
If the effect is real, the implications could be staggering, both for near-term and far-future space travel ala Star Trek. "In the far-term, if you could manipulate gravity fields, you could put a strong field in front of you and a weak field behind you. That would mean you could literally fall forward with propellant-less propulsion," Brantley envisions.
NASA chief: Daniel Goldin, puts on a "who knows?" shrug-of-the- shoulders stance when asked about the space agency inquiring into the effect. As long as NASA scientists don't spend too much money, and the work and findings are peer-reviewed, he's supportive.
Goldin tells Final Frontier: "Continued work to discern the true physics behind the effect is clearly needed. The NASA and Ning Li look-see will be in full swing early this year."
"Whatever the results of the experiments, they will become part of the breakthrough propulsion physics program." says Millis of the Lewis Research Center. The first order of business is to identify what is really going on. Then Millis and his group will determine if they can harness the effect for a propulsion force.
While not discounting the phenomenon, Millis says: "This is not the only egg in the basket. We want to look at all the possibilities, weighing all the divergent and competing approaches."
If Millis has his way, stand by for the corrected 20/20 view of the future.
The vision: A space enterprise far more capable than today's for reaching more destinations faster and with greater autonomy nothing short of human travel to the stars.
Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’
Nick Cook
Janes Defense Weekly, 2002-07-29
Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted that it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science that underpins them - science that senior Boeing officials describe as "valid" - can be engineered into hardware.
As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing's Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed 'high-' and 'low-power' anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.
The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: 'GRASP' - Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.
A briefing document on GRASP obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly sets out what Boeing believes to be at stake. "If gravity modification is real," it says, "it will alter the entire aerospace business." The report was written by Jamie Childress, principal investigator for Boeing's propellentless propulsion work at the Phantom Works in Seattle.
GRASP's objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace world's more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnov's work and "examine possible uses for such a technology". Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and 'fuelless' electricity generation - so-called 'free energy'.
But it is also apparent that Podkletnov's work could be engineered into a radical form of weapon system. The GRASP paper focuses on Podkletnov's claims that his high-power experiments, using a device called an 'impulse gravity generator', are capable of producing a beam of 'gravity-like' energy that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object - enough, in principle, to vaporise it, especially if the object is moving at high speed.
Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10.16cm) wide beam's ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km (JDW 24 July). Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield.
The GRASP paper details the beam's reported characteristics: that it is immune to electromagnetic shielding, that it can penetrate any intermediate barriers (objects placed between the generator and the target), that it propagates at very high speed ("possibly light speed or greater") and that the total force is proportional to target mass - that its effect, in other words, is exactly the same as gravity's.
Podkletnov's claims first surfaced in 1992 when he published a paper detailing his low-power experiments into gravity-shielding using superconductors, materials that lose their electrical resistance at low temperatures. The original experiments were conducted at the University of Technology in Tampere, Finland, before moving to Russia. Podkletnov, who has a PhD in materials science from Tampere and the University of Chemical Technology in Moscow, declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight. Although he was vilified by traditionalists who claimed that gravity-shielding was impossible under the known laws of physics, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) went on to attempt a replication of his work in the mid-1990s.
Because NASA lacked Podkletnov's unique formula for the 30cm yttrium-barium copper oxide (YBCO) superconducting ceramic discs - a formula the Russian maintains is critical to the experiment's success - the attempt failed. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama will shortly conduct a second set of experiments, this time using apparatus built to Podkletnov's specifications.
In August 2001, Podkletnov published a paper revealing his experimental high-power work and it is this that forms the focus of the GRASP report. Boeing wants to build its own impulse gravity generator at Seattle but admits that it lacks vital knowledge in the area of the YBCO emitter - Podkletnov's special superconducting apparatus - which forms the heart of the generator.
As a result, Boeing recently approached Podkletnov directly, but promptly fell foul of Russian technology transfer controls. George Muellner, the outgoing head of the Boeing Phantom Works, confirmed that attempts by Boeing to work with Podkletnov had been blocked by Moscow, which is seeking to stem the exodus of Russian high-technology to the West. Muellner is convinced, however, that the science underpinning Podkletnov's work is real.
"The physical principles - and Podkletnov's device is not the only one - appear to be valid," he said. He confirmed that Boeing had conducted tests on a number of other anti-gravity devices, some of which were detailed in JDW 24 July.
"There is basic science there. They're not breaking the laws of physics. The issue is whether the science can be engineered into something workable," Muellner said.
The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov "and have some activity in this area". It is also possible, Boeing admits, that "classified activities in gravity modification may exist". The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the 'white world' of open development.
GRASP concludes that a "positive result from experiments would give Boeing a substantial advantage in the aerospace industry".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steps to the Stars (First things First)
Later in 1997, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program will host an invitation-only workshop. At the gathering, scientists will examine relevant emerging physics. They will also brainstorm a list of next-step research tasks, says NASA's Millis.
To be surveyed are a host of theories, physical evidence and anomalous effects that have recently emerged but have not yet been rigorously assessed.
"There have been recent theories published in peer-reviewed literature suggesting new connections between inertia, gravity and electromagnetism. There's even a theory for a 'warp drive,' but physicists aren't even sure if such breakthroughs are possible," Millis says.
"If the workshop successfully demonstrates that promising and affordable approaches exist," he continues. "funding may be granted to begin conducting the step-by-step research that may eventually lead to the breakthroughs."
In other words, while you're reaching for the stars, don't forget to stoop for a little reality.
If you want to get anywhere fast in this old universe, there arc three technologies required for 21 st century space missions. "These technologies are propulsion, propulsion and propulsion," points out Robert Frisbee, manager of advanced propulsion technology at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.
Moreover, physics today is teeming with conjecture showing us that scientists clearly don't know everything. Frisbee says that the physics community is rife with people studying time machines, wormholes and warp drives by looking at Albert Einstein's equations and putting them through the ringer.
"These are things we used to think of as solely the province of science fiction," with work now being done by reputable physicists, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, the JPL scientist says.
A member of the breakthrough propulsion physics product definition team, Frisbee underscores the fact that studying such topics as faster-than-light travel, leaping across space and time via wormhole, anti-gravity and other research tracks, is a high risk activity.
"But in terms of trying to get us out of our existing paradigm, this type of work is very important. The payoff could totally revolutionize the way we look at nature, in the same way that relativity and quantum mechanics changed the way we looked at the universe almost a hundred years ago," Frisbee contends.
Coupled to his optimism, Frisbee tags a note of warning. "You have to be careful of situations where you get into 'pathological science.' That is when you ate trying to treasure some tiny, tiny effect, but where wishful thinking gives you the answer and not the actual experiment," he cautions.
What are the odds of discovering some radical, new form of physics'?
"Chances are very high we won't find anything," says Franklin Mead, Jr.. senior scientist in the propulsion sciences division of the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base, California. "But there's also that very small chance of stumbling on something that will have a very large payoff. It's important to look for that needle in the haystack...that diamond in the rough that hasn't been found. But it's very difficult to succeed," Mead says.
Also a member of NASA's breakthrough propulsion physics product definition team, Mead has funded a variety of advanced propulsion ideas over the years. From anti-proton propulsion, space warps, beamed energy and fusion rockets to space tethers and faster- than-light travel- all have received top billing on Mead's research list at one time or another.
"You have to keep looking...you need to turn over every rock," Mead says. Furthermore, as new materials become available, these ideas, and others, deserve second looks from time to time, he stresses.
"We're really not spending much money on advanced concepts. When you talk about dollars going into this area that could have such a great impact on space travel, on propulsion and on the future of our world in space...the investment is minuscule," Mead says.
Walk into Whitt Brantley's office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and you will spot a picture of his idol adorning one wall: Albert Einstein. Brantley, chief of the advanced concepts office at the center, has good reason to go eye to eye with Einstein. NASA-sponsored experiments will soon delve into, what one scientist tags, "gravity force shielding commonly called antigravity.
But Brantley fends off any claim that NASA is looking into anti-gravity. Instead, gravity manipulation, modification or shielding are more apropos terms, he says.
NASA is working with theorist Ning Li of the University of Alabama at Huntsville Equipment and test mater ials arc being prepped for a set of experiments that could, if successful, lead to new knowledge about gravity fields. If Li's ideas work, modifying and controlling gravity may be the outcome.
Researchers in 1992 at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland first claimed to observe a gravity force shielding effect. Leading the work, Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov discovered that objects suspended over a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic material weighed less than normal-as if the object was somehow being shielded from the full force of gravity. More importantly, the faster the superconductor spun, the less an object over the superconducting material appeared to weigh.
Placed above the disc were nonconducting and non-magnetic objects made of wood, quartz or glass. The superconducting disc itself a material that forfeits its electrical resistance at very low temperatures-was suspended by a magnetic field produced by three electric coils. All the hardware was held within the confines of a super- cold container of liquid helium.
Several head-scratching scientists believe they are eyeing a side effect of Einstein's general theory of relativity rapidly spinning objects can pervert gravity.
Some scientists assert that they're producing a "gravitomagnetic field." But some publications have already declared the effect as "anti-gravity."
Whether or not the phenomenon is real, measurable and then controllable is yet to be determined. Whatever the case, many months of tedious painstaking work is ahead, Brantley cautions.
"We've got open minds," Brantley says. "It's sort of like playing the lottery. The only way to guarantee you won't win a lottery is not buy a ticket. We would sure feel foolish if we didn't study this, then have someone say later on: 'It was found 100 years ago, but the idiots didn't recognize it. "
If the effect is real, the implications could be staggering, both for near-term and far-future space travel ala Star Trek. "In the far-term, if you could manipulate gravity fields, you could put a strong field in front of you and a weak field behind you. That would mean you could literally fall forward with propellant-less propulsion," Brantley envisions.
NASA chief: Daniel Goldin, puts on a "who knows?" shrug-of-the- shoulders stance when asked about the space agency inquiring into the effect. As long as NASA scientists don't spend too much money, and the work and findings are peer-reviewed, he's supportive.
Goldin tells Final Frontier: "Continued work to discern the true physics behind the effect is clearly needed. The NASA and Ning Li look-see will be in full swing early this year."
"Whatever the results of the experiments, they will become part of the breakthrough propulsion physics program." says Millis of the Lewis Research Center. The first order of business is to identify what is really going on. Then Millis and his group will determine if they can harness the effect for a propulsion force.
While not discounting the phenomenon, Millis says: "This is not the only egg in the basket. We want to look at all the possibilities, weighing all the divergent and competing approaches."
If Millis has his way, stand by for the corrected 20/20 view of the future.
The vision: A space enterprise far more capable than today's for reaching more destinations faster and with greater autonomy nothing short of human travel to the stars.
