 |
There are currently, 163 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
NASA-MSFC Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project is dying!
Posted on Saturday, August 03, 2002 @ 21:52:00 UTC by vlad
|
|
Open letter:
Days after the Jane's Defense Weekly article: Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project received severe budget cuts, including 21 % withdrawal of the current project funding (see: the previous posting and comment).
This project is/was a flicker of hope for all those involved in non-conventional energy and propulsion systems research and I find this new decision irresponsible (to put it mildly). I'm afraid that the so called watch dog, the mass media, would prove to be a lapdog again. Can you do something to put more public pressure on them to re-establish funding?
Thanks and best to all,
Vlad
ZPEnergy
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
| "NASA-MSFC Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project is dying!" | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: NASA-MSFC
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project is dying! (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Saturday, August 03, 2002 @ 22:06:00 UTC | vlad (vlad@zpenergy.com)
writes: (A prompt reply from Tom Bearden. Thank you Tom...you may be old but you're still quick and efficient in your
thinking and action and your influence may be stronger than you may expect!)
Dear Vlad,
I try to do everything I
can, but as an old retired guy I no longer have any influence in official channels. I did visit Transdimensional
Technologies here, and had some very nice discussions with Cameron and his colleagues. They very graciously also gave my
colleague and I some demonstrations of their working experiments, which were impressive. Ning Li is also back here in
Huntsville, though I've not yet had a chance to meet her. I've been delighted to see the energetic work being done by so
many researchers in this field, with quite a few new patents filed and granted, etc. I am considering filing a patent
application myself in one strongly related area.
And yes, it was heartbreaking to then see that even part of this
year's meager BPP budget for NASA is going to be returned, and next year's budget is entirely up in the air. In my view
this was one of the best programs that NASA had, and they should have substantially enlarged it, not cut it.
My new
book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, is now in the hands of the publisher for typesetting and going to
press. I expect it to be published in about 60 days or perhaps a little less. Hopefully we have a small but dramatically
new contribution to the BPP field in the book; one entire section is devoted to that subject.
Best Wishes,
Tom
Bearden |
|
|
Re: NASA-MSFC
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project is dying! (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 @ 11:57:00 UTC | Edward R. Pitchford (drerp@us.ibm.com) writes: I say we swap the HUD budget, (2003 31.5 Billion)
with NASA's,
(2002 15.2 Billion)and the United States of Ameirica, it's people would be much better off. While both are government
programs, NASA creates economic activity and employement via the private sector while engaged in research,
space
exploration and space transporation, where
HUD spends twice the amount but creates a dependecy class that traps people and
hinders their abilty and possiblities. HUD does not explore new ways to make people independent citizens of this country.
The HUD budget probabally does create economic activity worth 31.5 billon dollars, pirmarly government jobs and consumer
spending but looses
a third in value through inefficient and failed
ideas.
Where NASA's 15.2 Billion budget
conservativly generates three times the economic ativity, (45.6 Billion), along with great scientific knowlege, jobs, and a
better America.
It's not a scientific problem to generate breakthroughs in physics propulsion, it's and", "economic one.
America's space program today and in all its government and private constructs through its history, is and has been a free
market capitalist wealth and jobs creating success. Where America's Government housing program has been a failure and based
upon failed socialist ideas of arranging society. NASA is a social construct, like a road, a library, etc and a success. HUD
is a socialist mechanism the does not work. I say we have our spending priorities wrong. Swap the NASA and HUD budgets and
more jobs, more housing, more opportunity will be created in the private sector
and this counrty will reach for greatness
and not mediocrity.
', ' |
|
|
Re: NASA-MSFC
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project is dying! (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 @ 13:01:00 UTC | | Shannan (priity1@attbi.com)
writes: I agree.. this is a huge set back in energy development. I will start trying to get this out into the public eye. If
we allow this to die then alot of hope to get alternate sources of energy will go with it.. and this can't happen.. it could
save this world from fighting for oil so much! |
|
|
Re: NASA-MSFC
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project is dying! (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 @ 19:10:00 UTC | DTB (dtb@Fastq.com) writes:
Boeing Denies Antigravity Research
Story By Chris Genna
Business Reporter
EastsideJournal.com
8-6-2
The
Boeing Co.'s alleged research into antigravity
experiments appears to be a story that just keeps floating around without
any solid support.
When the Journal reported July 30 about European press accounts of Boeing's supposed involvement in
antigravity research conducted by controversial Russian scientist Yevgeny Podkletnov, we added that Boeing has denied funding
any such project.
But the story keeps coming back, sometimes with variations.
No, we didn't miss anything last week,
said David Phillips, Chicago-based spokesman for Boeing Phantom Works.
Phillips did say yesterday that some technical
workers at Phantom Works have been following Podkletnov's research - perhaps because they are personally fascinated by it,
and because they want to keep up to date with technical journals.
But once again, Phillips said Boeing is not funding any
such research nor is it attempting to duplicate the Russian scientist's 1992 experiment.
He attributed repetitions of the
story to the way the subject fires people's imaginations - gravity has been pretty widely viewed as", 'immutable, he
said.
To suggest it's not could be as revolutionary as Copernicus suggesting the Earth revolves around the sun - or as
bogus as saying Icarus' wings fell off when he flew too close to the sun.
A book on the topic, ``The Search for Zero
Point'' by Nick Cook (the journalist who ``broke'' the non-story in the British aerospace news source Jane's Defence
Weekly) is subtitled ``One man's journey to discover the biggest secret since the invention of the atom bomb.''
',
'That subtitle reveals a conspiracy theory aspect of the story - that the U.S. government has been covering up such research
for years.
For example, Cook quoted an Australian journalist as saying: ``Listen, there are no facts in this field; the
whole business, if you want to know, is riven with disinformation, much of it, in my opinion, deliberately
orchestrated.''
So - if Phantom Works were conducting this research, would Phillips tell us?
``I mentioned that''
to others at Boeing, Phillips said with a laugh yesterday. ``We can't even deny it and get away with it.''
', "Still,
the subject is so fascinating, Boeing would have to acknowledge if there were a research program, Phillips said. After all,
NASA has been completely open about its unsuccessful attempts to duplicate Podkletnov's work over the past several
years.
Some Boeing engineers see a different conspiracy, suggesting the story has had wide play in the pro-Airbus European
press because there's a hint of poking fun at the U.S. aerospace company - as if Boeing is working on flying saucers.
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/11074 |
|
|
|
|
