In fairness, through the efforts of a few future thinkers at NASA, they
SEEM to be trying to find a way to beat rockets as the source of
propulsion, though you will find the focus is in SPACE DRIVES, not
lifting off from the earth. Check out these ideas from a 1997
conference;
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-107289.htm
To travel to our neighboring stars as practically as envisioned by
science fiction, breakthroughs in science are required. One of these
breakthroughs is to discover a self-contained means of propulsion that
requires no propellant.
To chart a path toward such a discovery, seven hypothetical space drives
are presented to illustrate the specific unsolved challenges and
associated research objectives toward this ambition. One research
objective is to discover a means to asymmetrically interact with the
electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum.
Another is to develop a physics that describes inertia, gravity, or the
properties of spacetime as a function of electromagnetics that leads to
using electromagnetic technology for inducing propulsive forces.
Another is to determine if negative mass exists or if its properties can
be synthesized.
An alternative approach that covers the possibility that negative mass
might not exist is to develop a formalism of Mach’s Principle or
reformulate ether concepts to lay a foundation for addressing reaction
forces and conservation of momentum with space drives.
---------------
Please take note of the FOCUS of this paper, which is SPACE DRIVES.
We need to be focusing on
HOW TO CONTROL GRAVITY FIRST
.....it would change our lives in many ways as well as easily and cheaply
get us out into orbit in the first place. Again, we jump way ahead of
ourselves which is why I think, we progress so slowy.
As long as rockets are our only way to get out into orbit, how could we
possibly be considering interstellar flights?
BTW, its been said and argued many times before about the erroneous
effects used in sci-fi movies, such as sounds in space, etc...to use
rockets for propulsion in space, entails the need for carrying not only
the fuel but COMBUSTIBLE gases including oxygen which of course adds
unnecessarily to the initial payload, which NASA overcomes by breakaway
boosters and fuel tanks.
My concerns with NASA and the general public are basically fourfold;
1) the vast amounts of money that are being spent with little
practical progress regarding setting up a presence in earth orbit or on
the closest planetary body (the moon), rather than going off the deep
end with shooting for Mars and worrying about deep space.
2) the apparent total lack of concern for true gravity control
methods, not the erroneous Podletnekov effect which even then only got
$600,000, a tiny, TINY portion of the $13 billion per year blown by NASA
and which should have rightly gone to American John Schnurer since he
achieved a 5% weight reduction in 11 tests as opposed to the 2% of
Podletnekov (though the effect has no future for gravity control, in my
opinion...see below)
3) mission, hardware and system failures which don't seem to bother
the investors, that is you and me as American taxpayers, no public
outcry, no CUTBACKS or demand for outside oversight and REDIRECTION as
to goals, just let them fail and chalk it up to 'experience'. How many
experiences does it take to tell us we need to learn a LOT MORE about
gravity, become expert in the space near Earth and on the moon? ONLY
THEN, should we be remotely considering expanded projects, BASED ON OUR
PROVEN SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCES.
4) a more coherent approach to gathering and testing reports of
anomalies and claims of gravity control which would be shared with other
countries as a coordinated GLOBAL thrust into space so that all
countries may benefit, rather than just Americans. The moon belongs to
everyone on the earth and of course money and skill will be the first to
colonize it, after that, it will be a land rush for other planets, that
is for the future, for now, we need to work on gravity control to allow
practical launches into orbit.
---------------
John Schnurers 5% weight reduction with a single SC disk;
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/agup0997.htm
For the Dr. Schnurer device with 1" dia. SC, at 5% (or .05) g-shield
coefficient, the lifting force is about 9 ounces.
Remember, the pressure underneath the SC remains unchanged at 14.7 psi
at sea level. (Podkeletnov actually measured the pressure differential
above his device (see second paper) as 8 mm of Hg mercury.
Schnurer's SC disc, itself, only weighs around .5 ounce, yet yields a
lift thats 18 times larger than its own weight!
---------------
You will note an effect ABOVE but NOT BELOW....to my view, the one thing
that is below is the magnetic field lines of the earth, which are
upwelling around the SC disk which deflects the magnetic field, thus we
have a region of modified magnetic force above the SC disk.
To back that up, look at the 'flying frogs' which also shows many other
seemingly non-magnetic materials being levitated in a high density
magnetic field;
http://www-hfml.sci.kun.nl/hfml/levitate.html
---------------
Podletnekovs initial 2% weight loss, doubled to 4% with two SC disks;
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/scwheel.htm
To create the shield, (Podletnekov) chills the disk to around -334F and
zaps
it with an electromagnetic field that causes it to spin. At around 3,000
revolutions per minute, anything placed above the rotating disk
supposedly loses some 2% of its weight.
Podkletnov claims this weight loss occurs in all materials--metal, wood,
and plastic.
Even more astounding: If two disks are stacked one atop the other, the
weight loss reportedly doubles to 4%.
------------------
At the very least they should sponsor the person who gets the best
results, in this case, clearly John Schnurer...if he gets 5% with just
one SC disk, then doubling it would provide 10%. Another indication of
bad decision making at NASA.
-- Jerry Wayne Decker - jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com from an Art to a Science Voice : (214)324-8741 - FAX : (214)324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------