Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’

Jane's Data Service ^ | 29 July 2002 | Nick Cook

[Fitzcarraldo]

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them 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 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 GRASP briefing document obtained by JDW sets out what Boeing believes to be at stake. "If gravity modification is real," it says, "it will alter the entire aerospace business."

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’.

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) attempted to replicate his work in the mid-1990s. Because NASA lacked Podkletnov’s unique formula for the work, the attempt failed. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama will shortly conduct a second set of experiments using apparatus built to Podkletnov’s specifications.

Boeing recently approached Podkletnov directly, but promptly fell foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

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.

[maestro]

Sure,.........got any bridges for sale?

[dixie sass]

Does this have anything to with the movement of objects from one space to another or is this like the Philadelphia project or on the lines of cold fusion?

I know that seems like a silly question to most of you, but I really don't understand but am trying to.

[JameRetief]

You might be interested in the following thread, starting at post 52. Russian scientist has Anti-Gravity technology? (My Title)

[Physicist]

Your degree isn't in finance, is it?

Why, is that where they teach fatalistic bitterness?

It ain't conspiracy bud, just human nature, and 'nothing personal, it's just business.'

I doubt you'll find many people on this website who share your apparent disdain of capitalism and contempt for America.

[OBAFGKM]

Dead Dog: Propellentless propulsion is a holy grail in it's own right, it doesn't need the hype.

Physicist: Claiming to break Newton's third law constitutes hype, IMHO.

Newton's laws are approximations in general relativity. In that context, strange things can transpire: Warp Drive. There's a link to Alcubierre's "warp drive" paper on that web page.

Alcubierre demonstrates that, not only does general relativity permit propellentless propulsion, it permits inertialess propulsion to faster-than-light speeds. Stuff of science fiction.

Of course, if you equate propulsion to reaction drives, Physicist is more or less correct. ;o)

[Free Vulcan]

Oh you are so very cute. Well, you're a child molester, well, because I say so!

Maybe you ought to stay within your field of expertise, and not speculate in areas that aren't. I really doubt you know much about how the business world works, working in sheltered academia as you do.

[Dead Dog]

I doubt it, I don't think a self-respecting scientist (who values his career) would touch it with someone elses sliderule.

However, pure review does not prove something is right, or wrong for that matter. Scienctific opinion is wrought with human flaws, mainly ego. The Fuser that Physicist refered to is an excellent example.

[Dead Dog]

pure review=peer review

[madvlad]

Wasn't speaking of the 'Eureka-ists' in a disparaging
manner. Was more the 'incrementalists'.

I also never said that cold fusion itself was
a ridiculous or wasted effort.

Truth be known, much of science today is incremental
in its progress. Perhaps that characteristic
is what allows the 'Eureka' event, albeit covering a
less wide chasm, to occur more quickly as per your
note re the acceleration of advancement in any and
all areas in this last century.

Incrementalism has brought early detection methods
for cancer over the last 2 decades; moreover, it has
brought more effective treatments in many cases.
Still looking for that one big (or more) Eureka
event. Unfortunately, incrementalism has produced
a lot of junk science as well. The 'Eureka' event
gets widespread publicity and, as a result, intense
scrutiny. Other scientists rush to embrace this
beakthrough and in so doing, verify or refute the
validity of the fnding. In contrast, incremental
advances do not draw such attention and thus go
unvalidated in many cases, simply adding to the
growing body of the literature, whether meaningful
or not.

I suspect that a topic such as anti-grav or
hypersonic atmospheric travel would fuel intense
interest from the military sector. Maybe even
cold fusion.

Mad Vlad

[madvlad]

You are an engineer I take it?

I am taking engineering courses at UM-CP to
supplement my science background.

The differences btw/ the science type and the engineer
are a lot bigger than you may think. The scientist
in a purist sense makes a discovery regarding physical
or biological nature and the engineer, also in a
purist sense, finds an application for it! I
realize that the line is very blurred btw/ the two
and cut and dry distinctions are often times
meaningless. Furthermore, I believe that science
and engineering curricula target problem solving
skills at diff levels. Science targets from a
microscopic level weheras engineering tends to look
at the big picture or at least a higher level.

When Watson & Crick did DNA in the 50s and Nurenberg
discovered the codon code in the 60s, they really had
no idea where it would all lead. Anymore than Hayfleck
knows where his biological clock is going to lead in terms
of aging research. They can speculate but they can't
really know. Hayfleck says that the human lifespan
is finite. He has even offered numbers to the tune of
less than 100yrs in terms of population avg. But, we
don't know that just yet as manipulation of the
telomeres hint at myriad possibilities.

And then there is nanotechnology!

Mad Vlad

[RightWhale]

pure review does not prove something is right, or wrong for that matter

No, it merely means that someone used to looking at published papers and who knows the math has been asked to look at it and decided it makes enough sense and doesn't seem to make outrageous claims, --that it is something that someone else might be able to read and understand. If the paper is bogus, the onus will fall on the writer, and to some degree on the publisher.

[Dead Dog]

As far as peer review, these guys are the best I've found for being intellectually honost, and straight forward. It's an interesting read.

http://www.calphysics.org/

The problem is, they stray theorectically from what we were all taught to except as truth. Science is rarely that absolute, yet we will fight tooth and nail to defend what we've already accepted. It's both a strength and a weakness, depending on who's right.


Here is their conclusion on ZPE:

"The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel."

from: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

[Moonman62]

The brain drain has been flowing outwards from the United States for a number of years; now it appears the pace will accelerate a bit.

What we need is for the non-physical scientists to leave -- you know, the Noam Chomsky types.

[carpio]

Wow, a fallacy, a grammatical error and a spelling error all in the same sentence!

I bad wrote tall flowersed at blobade.

[LS]

Hahah. No, you compliment me by calling me an engineer. I am a HISTORIAN, and I specialize in business/technology history. That's why I'm not at all put off by "wild" predictions, because every time in history someone has something completely nutty, it tends to become a reality in about 50 years!

I'm also a Christian, and realize it is "appointed once for man to die" so that no amount of research will make us immortal in this life. But, hey, Adam and the early guys lived to be about 800, and the number of man's days is anywhere from 80-120 years, depending on how you read scripture. So I'm not settling for anything less than 120.

[madvlad]

I like history!

But I like science and technology more! bwahahahahaha

Business/technology history huh?
I am fairly well versed in modern financial
markets history. Don't wish to repeat some
of those mistakes!

I think you may be surprised. The human body
speaks to vastly extended longevity. The
regenerative ability of the liver, the extensive
neurological cell population (neurons don't
reproduce per se), etc. And as you pointed out,
the airplane and spacetravel among other things.

Besides, if 'immortality' meant a lifespan of
800 yrs, would you take it or turn it down?
Imagine Micheal Jordan slammin' bballs at age
387! Playing well into his 300s!

Mad Vlad

[NukeMan]

Cold fusiona and/or anti-grav technologies will only come to the fore when the monied interests can control it for profit.

Well....it seems to me the potential for exponential amounts of dollars is there if anyone, anywhere legitimately produces anti-gravity, cold fusion or the like. It would be Microsoft squared. Why would any 'monied interest' want to suppress inventions like these? It's a license to print money.