The 100-Year Starship? A Cover-up?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 25, 2017

Mr. M.D. spotted this one, and I have to admit, I’m intrigued, not the least because it is not me suggesting space-cover-ups of an epic scale this time, but Faux News itself. And this one raises so many questions and high octane speculations I simply have to blog about it.

First, a little context: I’m of that generation old enough to remember the beginning of the “space race” and its context in the Cold War of the 1960s and 1970s. Russia launched its now famous Sputnik satellite in 1957, the year I was born. It was the beginning of a new era, for the little satellite was the first man-made object to be placed permanently in space. (The first man-made objects in lower outer space, believe it or not, were the projectiles from the giant German Paris Gun that shelled Paris from 70 miles away in 1918). I remember President Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” warning speech when he left office; I remember President Kennedy’ speech calling for a manned lunar landing and safe return of humans before the decade was out. Most importantly, however, I remember the hype we were served up in school, on at least a weekly, if not daily, basis: according to our Weekly Readers, we were on the verge of a whole new era of space exploration; lunar landings today, lunar colonies tomorrow, Mars exploration and colonies before the century was out.

Accompanying all this hype were the “artists’ renderings” of what all of this was supposed to look like.

And it would all be accomplished by chemical rockets… and I remember the embarrassment of many teachers as the more precocious among us pointed out the difficulties of doing all these splendid things with chemical rockets.

With that in mind, now the article:

Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?

Now, permit me to pass directly to my high octane speculation of the day, for what is interesting here is the whole implicit assumption hovering in the background here, that assumption being that were going to colonize planets, or for that matter(to turn to the other favorite meme) mine asteroids, with chemical rockets. The rub is, by that method, manned missions to Mars are probably a one way trip:

The 100-year ship would leave Earth with the intention of colonizing a planet, but it would likely be a one-way trip because of the time it takes to travel 35 million miles. That’s a daunting prospect, partly because of the ethical dilemma, and partly because it may be the only recourse.

“The human space program is now really aimed at settling other worlds,” Worden said during his talk. “Twenty years ago you whispered that in dark bars and got fired.” (Worden actually was fired, he confessed during the talk, under the Bush administration.)

Since that revelation, hundreds of news reports about the program have theorized that the substantial budget indicates the Hundred Year Starship is a dramatic shift for the stalled space program, not just a research project; others suggest it is a serious attempt to find a way to Mars. And NASA? The space agency seems to be dodging all questions.

The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. Yet fuel adds more weight — in fact, every pound you add to a ship requires 4 pounds of fuel. The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship’s bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip.

In other words, someone at NASA has stated the obvious, which has raised the whole point of Faux’ News’ article: is something being covered up?

Perhaps, but the question is, what is being covered up? The article suggests only one possibility, namely, that the cover-up extends to the “one-way” nature of any Mars manned missions. But that cover-up is always with the implicit hidden assumption: the only way of getting there from here is via chemical rockets. But what if that “what” is something much bigger? A technology that could get us “there and back” again, without the same constraints on time, fuel consumption, and so on? Indeed, Mr. M.D. accompanied his article with another “find”, this time of a sixty-plus page NASA-sponsored study of using zero-point fields to create a very different form of propulsion, one which the authors of the paper, Bernhard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda, put this way: “The purpose of this paper is to discuss a new physics concept that no longer falls in the category of ‘purely hypothetical,’ but rather has a theoretical foundation and is relevant to radically new propulsion schemes: the zero-point field (ZPF) as the basis of inertia and gravitation.”(p. 55)  Of course, to readers of this website, NASA’s study of various advanced propulsion schemes, is not a new thing.

Indeed, those studies have arisen precisely because of the recognition that chemical rockets are quite simply impractical as a means to the permanent human presence in deep space, be it for colonization or commercial activities (such as asteroid mining). It was, indeed, the impracticality of rocketry in general – whether in the fantasias of Oberth, Tsiolkovsky, or von Braun – as a basis for these activities that led German physicist Burkhart Heim to propose radically different physical theories in the first place. NASA’s advanced propulsion studies are simply an extension of the principle, but in that extension, there is a backhanded admission: “rockets won’t do the job, folks.”

So is the Faux News article really about a cover-up? Or is it about something much subtler, is it about an admission? I would argue that it is about the admission: about driving into the public eye what most already know: rocketry, whether the launch-and-return capabilities of Elon Musk, or the new hype about manned missions to the Moon and Mars, is not up to the job. Something else is needed, and all the indications publicly are that NASA is exploring those possibilities. The question is, do those possibilities actually represent a nascent capability? As readers of this website are aware, I’ve suspected for some time that the capability is there.

It’s why I’ve long suspected that, behind the current hype of asteroid mining, the actual creation of laws to deal with mining of celestial bodies, and the current drive to colonize the Moon, that there is a real technology – though currently hidden – driving the memes. What’s interesting now is that Faux News, by running such a story, may have caught the scent, for by suggesting cover-up, it is also suggesting conspiracy. Whether it will do its journalistic duty and pull on that thread and deal with all the implications it poses, remains to be seen.

But if it does not, sooner or later, someone else will. And that’s when the fun begins.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

China Joins Space Race To Test EM Drive

Source:GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 26, 2016

Over the holidays many important stories emerged, and I hope to be covering them this week prior to New Year’s, but one of those stories was China’s announcement that it has already been testing the so-called EM drive in space. This story was shared by many regular readers here, but here are two versions, and they both come with a lot of caveats:

Chinese boffins: We’re testing an ‘impossible’ EM Drive IN SPAAAACE

China claims it’s already started testing an EM Drive in space

Let’s look at the caveats for a moment, as expressed by Fiona MacDonald in the second article’s opening five paragraphs:

The whole world got excited last month when NASA published the first peer-reviewed paper on the ‘impossible’ electromagnetic, or EM, Drive, which appears to somehow defy physics by producing thrust without a propellant.

Their verdict was that it seems to work, although a lot of physicists still think the results are flawed. But now researchers in China have announced that they’ve already been testing the controversial drive in low-Earth orbit, and they’re looking into using the EM Drive to power their satellites as soon as possible.

Big disclaimer here – all we have to go on right now is a press conference announcement and an article from a government-sponsored Chinese newspaper (and the country doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to trustworthy research).

So until we see a peer-reviewed paper, we really can’t say for sure whether the researchers are even testing the drive in space, let alone what their results have shown.

But what the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST) team is saying also corresponds with information provided to IB Times from an anonymous source. According to their informant, China already has an EM Drive on board its version of the International Space Station, the space laboratory Tiangong-2.

Lack of published data or “peer review” notwithstanding, it stretches my credulity to believe that China would not investigate an EM drive, nor attempt to do so as quickly as possible in space. A little over a half a century ago, then Senate Democratic Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson stated it best when he said that whoever holds the strategic high ground, by which he meant space, wins. It was a geopolitical maxim he was well aware of and unfailingly pursued both as a Senator, then Vice President and finally President. The Russians understood this (and still do), and the Chinese, by their announcements of various goals for their space program, clearly do as well.

As such, any technology that promises to give an advantage to any space power will, perforce, be investigated by them. What is interesting is the claims – still repeated – that the EM drive somehow either violates the principles of physics, or operates on as yet unknown principles. We’ll get back to that claim in a moment. What intrigues is that both articles mention that the Chinese have apparently zeroed in on the geometry of the cavity itself, testing various shapes and dimensions to see if these improve or impede the efficiency of the device; as Iian Thomson notes in the first article:

China is trying out different shapes for the reaction chamber of the drive to see which generates the most thrust. It’s clear that the country is taking the EM Drive seriously and wants to get one operational as soon as possible.

“This technology is currently in the latter stages of the proof-of-principle phase, with the goal of making the technology available in satellite engineering as quickly as possible,” said Li Feng, chief architect of the China National Space Technology Institute’s communications satellite division, at the press conference.

The EM drive, according to its inventor, British engineer Roger Sawyer, maintains the physics is completely known; all he did was to apply it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY

(For the record, it should be noted that like many, Mr. Sawyer gives an incorrect version of Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc^2, whereas in reality, Einstein expressed the mass component as a Mass Difference, M, and not simply mass, m, and therefore the correct version is E=Mc^2).

In any case, the real question becomes rather why the device is continually said be be operating either in contradiction to known physics or operating by unknown principles. Correlative with this question, is the question of why NASA seems to be dragging their feet if, indeed, China is pressing ahead? One answer is that perhaps NASA has already been quietly and secretly  testing the device in space. In this respect it is worth recalling that Dr. Paul LaViolette, in his seminal work Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, mentioned 1950s tests of NASA and the US Air Force testing microwave propulsion systems, and according to one anecdotal story that he relates, these experiments were successful. The other possibility is that NASA..

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
______________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

EM Drive To Get Test In Space…But There’s Something That…

 EM DRIVE TO GET TEST IN SPACE… BUT THERE’S SOMETHING THAT ...

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
September 13, 2016

There’s more space news this week, and it may prove eventually to be quite significant. The so-called EM drive, which just recently had a paper approved for publication, is now apparently also going to receive actual testing in outer space, according to this article shared by Mr. C.S. and there’s much in this story that bothers me:

The ‘impossible’ EM Drive is about to be tested in space

Here’s the relevant history:

Invented by British scientist Roger Shawyer back in 1999, the EM Drive – short for electromagnetic propulsion drive – purportedly works like this.

It uses electromagnetic waves as ‘fuel’, creating thrust by bouncing microwave photons back and forth inside a cone-shaped closed metal cavity. This causes the ‘pointy end’ of the EM Drive to accelerate in the opposite direction that the drive is going.

“To put it simply, electricity converts into microwaves within the cavity that push against the inside of the device, causing the thruster to accelerate in the opposite direction,” Mary-Ann Russon explains over at The International Business Times.

Since its invention, the EM drive has shown no signs of quitting, in test after test. Last year, trials by NASA scientists at the Eagleworks lab revealed “anomalous thrust signals”, and an independent researcher in Germany conceded that the propulsion system, somehow, does indeed produce thrust.

Fast-forward to now, and there are rumours that the NASA Eagleworks paper we reported on in June has finally passed the peer-review process, and is expected to be published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Journal of Propulsion and Power.

Now the engine will be tested in space:

Guido Fetta is CEO of Cannae Inc, and the inventor of the Cannae Drive – a rocket engine that’s based on Roger Shawyer’s original EM Drive design. Last month, he announced that he would launch this thruster on a 6U CubeSat – a type of miniaturised satellite.

David Hambling reports for Popular Mechanics that roughly one-quarter of this shoebox-sized satellite will be taken up by the Cannae Drive, and they’ll stay in orbit for at least six months: “The longer it stays in orbit, the more the satellite will show that it must be producing thrust without propellant.”

That the engine would be tested at all in space is an indicator that there is now enough evidence in favor of the device to warrant such a final “proof-of-concept” experiment.

So, what, precisely, is bothering me about all of this?

Well, to put it bluntly, if the research of Dr. Paul LaViolette is to be believed, and I believe it very definitely should be at least seriously considered, then the EM drive is took about sixty years to break into the public eye. In his book – which I heartily recommend to readers of this site (in fact, I put it in my webstore) – Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, Dr. LaViolette recounts secret technology and experiments undertaken in the 1950s with the microwave soliton effect, experiments which, according to his sources, were successful. Effectively, powerful microwaves were used as a propulsion technology.

Stop and ponder that one for a moment too. Powerful microwaves, concentrated against the ground…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.