Thanks to G. Bekkum for sending the URL.
• E-mail your question via the Internet to
• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific firstname.lastname@example.org
and technical findings that are preliminary or
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release • Fax your question to the NASA Access
reports, working papers, and bibliographies Help Desk at 301–621–0134
that contain minimal annotation. Does not
contain extensive analysis. • Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at
Prepared for the
2004 Conference on Evolvable Hardware
cosponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the Department of Defense (DoD)
Seattle, Washington, June 24–26, 2004
National Aeronautics and
Glenn Research Center
Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov
Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion from Physics
Marc G. Millis National Aeronautics and Space Administration Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135
“Space drives,” “Warp drives,” and “Wormholes:” these concepts may sound like science fiction, but they are being written about in reputable journals. To assess the implications of these emerging prospects for future spaceflight, NASA supported the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project from 1996 through 2002. This project has three grand challenges: (1) Discover propulsion that eliminates the need for propellant; (2) Discover methods to achieve hyper-fast travel; and (3) Discover breakthrough methods to power spacecraft. Because these challenges are presumably far from fruition, and perhaps even impossible, a special emphasis is placed on selecting incremental and affordable research that addresses the critical issues behind these challenges. Of 16 incremental research tasks completed by the project and from other sponsors, about a third were found not to be viable, a quarter have clear opportunities for sequels, and the rest remain unresolved.
New theories and phenomena have emerged in recent scientific literature that have reawakened consideration that propulsion breakthroughs may become achievable—the kind of breakthroughs that could make human voyages to other star systems possible. This includes literature about warp drives, wormholes, quantum tunneling, vacuum fluctuation energy, and the coupling of gravity and electromagnetism. This emerging science, combined with the realization that rockets are fundamentally inadequate for interstellar exploration, led NASA to establish the “Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP)” Project in 1996 .
This paper summarizes the methods and findings of this project as well as findings from other parallel efforts. The methods are described to reflect the special management challenges and corresponding mitigation strategies for dealing with such visionary topics in a constructive manner. Projections of future research are also offered.
As the name implies, the BPP Project is specifically looking for propulsion breakthroughs from physics. It is not looking for further technological refinements of existing methods. Such refinements are explored in other NASA projects. Instead, this Project looks beyond the known methods, searching for further advances from emerging science from which genuinely new technology can develop—technology to surpass the limits of existing methods.
2.1. Technical Challenges
The first step toward solving a problem is to define the problem. The following three Grand Challenges represent the critical discoveries needed to revolutionize spaceflight and enable interstellar missions:
Challenge 1—MASS: Discover new propulsion methods that eliminate or dramatically reduce the need for propellant. This implies discovering fundamentally new ways to create motion, presumably by interacting with the properties of space, or possibly by manipulating gravitational or inertial forces.
Challenge 2—SPEED: Discover how to dramatically reduce transit times. This implies discovering a means to move a vehicle near the light-speed limit through space, or by manipulating spacetime to circumvent the light speed limit.
Challenge 3—ENERGY: Discover fundamentally new modes of onboard energy production to power these propulsion devices. This third goal is included since the first two breakthroughs might require breakthroughs in energy generation, and since the physics underlying the propulsion goals is closely linked to energy physics.
2.2. Special Challenges and Mitigations
The combination of high-payoff prospects plus the speculative nature of the edge of knowledge evokes special management challenges. To produce credible progress under these conditions, the BPP Project employs the following operating strategies:
Reliability: Success is defined as acquiring reliable knowledge, rather than as achieving a breakthrough. This emphasis steers publications toward credible progress and away from sensationalistic claims.
In other words, keep it bureaucratic, unimaginative and ineffective.
Immediacy: Research is focused on the immediate unknowns, make-or-break issues, or curious effects.
Iterated: Overall progress is achieved by repeating a cycle of short-term, incremental tasks.
Diversified: Multiple, divergent research topics are explored simultaneously.
Measured: Progress is tracked using a combination of the scientific method and the applicability of the research to the Project's goals.
Impartial: Reviewers judge credibility and relevance, but are not asked to predict the feasibility of research approaches.
Empirical: Preference is given to experiments and empirical observations over purely analytical studies.
• Published: Results are published, regardless of outcome. Null results are also valuable progress.
Given the kind of fundamental investigations sought by this Project, it is difficult to reliably determine technical feasibility during a proposal review. Such an assessment would constitute a full research task itself. Typically, when con•fronted with the kind of unfamiliar ideas related to this endeavor, many reviewers will reflexively assume that the new idea will not work. To prevent premature dismissal, proposal reviewers are asked to judge if the work is leading to a result that other researchers will consider as a reliable conclusion on which to base future investigations. This includes seeking tasks that can demonstrate that certain research approaches are not feasible. This posture of judging credi•bility, rather than pre-judging correctness, is one of the ways that the BPP Project is open to visionary concepts while still sustaining credibility.
In addition to the 8 tasks supported through the BPP Project, at least 8 additional tasks were supported by others, and several related research efforts continue. Of the 16 specific tasks reported and summarized here, 6 were found not to be viable, 6 remain unresolved or have debatable findings, and 4 have clear opportunities for sequels.
It should be stressed, however, that even interim positive results do not imply that a breakthrough is inevitable. Often the opportunity for sequels is more a reflection of the embryonic state of the research. Reciprocally, a dead-end conclusion on a given task does not imply that the broader related topics are equally defunct. Both the null and positive results should only be interpreted within the context of the immediate research task, and not generalized beyond. This is consistent with the operating strategy to focus on the immediate stage of the research, and the strategy to put a higher priority on the reliability of the information rather than on producing broad-sweeping claims.
It should also be stressed that these task summaries do not reflect a comprehensive list of research options. It is expected that new concepts will continue to emerge in such an embryonic field.
3.1. BPP Sponsored Research
The NASA BPP Project sponsored 5 tasks through competitive selection, 2 in-house tasks, and 1 minor grant. From this work, 13 peer-reviewed journal articles resulted [1 to 13]. Summaries of each of the 8 tasks are offered below.
Define Space Drive Strategy.“Space drive” is a general term to encompass the ambition of the first BPP Challenge: propulsion without propellant. To identify the unresolved issues and research paths toward creating a space drive, this in-house task conceived and assessed 7 hypothetical space drives. The two largest issues facing this ambition are to first find a way for a vehicle to induce external, net forces on itself, and secondly, to satisfy conservation of momentum in the process. Several avenues for research remain, including: (1) investigate space from the perspective of new sources of reaction mass, (2) revisit Mach's Principle to consider coupling to surrounding mass via inertial frames, and (3) investigate the coupling between gravity, inertia, and controllable electromagnetic phenomena . These are very broad and open areas where a variety of research sequels could emerge.
Test Schlicher Thruster. In-house experi•ments were performed to test claims that a specially terminated coax, as reported by Rex Schlicher , could create more thrust than attributable to photon radiation pressure. Tests observed no such thrust .
I am not surprised.
Assess Deep Dirac Energy. Theories based on the work of Dirac assert that additional energy levels and energy transitions might be possible in atomic structures . A theoretical assessment, supported via a grant to Robert Deck (University Toledo, Grant NAG3–2421), found that several of the predicted energy transitions are not possible. Other unexplored possibilities remain. This topic is not fully resolved. Findings have been submitted for journal publication.
I am not aware of this work.
3.1.4. Cavendish Test of Superconductor Claims. As a lower-cost alternative to a full replication of the Podkletnov “gravity shielding" claim , Cavendish balance experiments were performed using superconducting materials and radio frequency (RF) radiation according to related theories. It was found that the RF radiation coupled too strongly to supporting instrumentation and prevented any discernable results . No sequels to this approach are expected.
Other groups sponsored full replications of the Podkletnov configuration, and their findings are presented in section 3.2.3.
3.1.5. Test Woodward Transient Inertia.
Experiments and theories published by James Woodward claim that transient changes to inertia can be induced by electromagnetic means [19, 20], and a patent exists on how this can be used for propulsion .
I may be wrong, but my limited understanding of Woodward's idea here is that even if it works it would not be a zero g-force, zero time-dilation warp drive (Paul Hill "acceleration field", George Trimble "G-Engine") in the sense of Alcubierre's toy model at
In other words, Woodward does not claim the craft can create and control its own timelike geodesic independent of external gravitating sources in its environment.
Independent verification experiments, using techniques less prone to spurious effects, were sponsored. Unfortunately, when subsequent publications by Woodward indicated that the effect was much smaller than originally reported , the independent test program had to be changed. The revised experiments were unable to resolve any discernable effect with the available resources . Woodward continues with experiments and publications , and has begun addressing the theoretical issues identified during this independent assessment. This transient inertia approach is considered unresolved.
I do not think any kind of "transient inertia" effects even if achievable by local control of the electro-weak Higgs mechanism and quark confinement would be useful for two reasons not understood by anyone currently associated with the NASA BPP effort:
1. Warp drive is a timelike geodesic effect in which the inertial mass of the ship and its contents drop out of the problem entirely in accord with the equivalence principle of Galileo and Einstein.
2. In principle the inertial rest mass of lepto-quarks and their hadron bound states could be controlled by tweaking the vacuum coherence at the requisite scales. However, doing is very dangerous and would most likely result in a WMD totally destroying the ship and its environment. See for example Martin Rees's "Just Six Numbers" and his "Our Final Hour" also see Paul Davies "Accidental Universe" and John Barrow and Frank Tipler's "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" on how the stability of matter, only ~ 4% of all the stuff in the Universe hangs on the cutting edge in a delicate balance of a Cosmic Sword of Damocles. Tamper with e/m? NO! Not even if you can.
Shipov-Akimov Russian Allegations?
3.1.6. Test EM Torsion Theory. Theories using a torsion analogy to the coupling between electro•magnetism and spacetime  indicate the possibility of asymmetric interactions that might be of use, at least in principle, for propulsion . Experiments were sponsored to test a related prediction of the theory, but the results were null. Further analysis indicates that the experiments missed a critical characteristic to correctly resolve the issue . This approach is considered unresolved.
What exact experiments? I agree the issue is unresolved. It is very much a live issue and we will not be rushed into a premature judgment.
The basic exotic vacuum (dark energy/matter) metric engineering local field equation is simply
Guv^;v + /\zpf^,vguv + /\zpfguv^;v ~ 0
Tuv(matter) can be ignored to an excellent approximation at scales where G* ~ Newton's G.
I include the possibility of non-metricity terms. Shipov's torsion term is included in the connection field used to define the covariant derivative ; and will contain terms not found in Einstein's 1916 model with zero torsion and zero non-metricity as well as zero /\zpf.
Explore Superluminal Tunneling. A prerequisite to faster-than-light travel is to prove faster-than-light information transfer. The phenomenon of quantum tunneling, where signals appear to pass through barriers at superluminal speed, is often cited as such empirical evidence. Experimental and theoretical work was sponsored to explore the special case where energy is added to the barrier (tunnel). Even in this case it was found that the information transfer rate is still only apparently superluminal, with no causality violations. Although the leading edge of the signal does make it through the barrier faster, the entire signal is still light-speed limited [3 to 5]. Although other quantum phenomena still suggest faster-than-light connections (e.g. quantum entanglement), the venue of quantum tunneling does not appear to be a viable approach for exploring faster-than-light propulsion.
This is interesting physics, but why it was included in NASA BPP is not subject to rational explanation.
Explore Vacuum Energy. Quantum vacuum energy, also called zero point energy (ZPE), is a relatively new and not fully understood phenomenon. In simple terms, the uncertainty principle from quantum mechanics indicates that it is not possible to achieve an absolute zero energy state. This includes the electromagnetic energy state of the space vacuum . It has been shown analytically, and later experimentally, that this vacuum energy can squeeze parallel plates together . This “Casimir effect” is only appreciable at very small dimensions (microns). Nonetheless, it is evidence that space contains something that might be useful. The possibility of extracting this energy has also been studied. In principle, and without violating thermodynamic laws, it is possible to convert minor amounts of quantum vacuum energy [30, 31].
Note, that contrary to Hal Puthoff's recent denials, appeal to Casimir force effects for metric engineering are still being made by Mark Millis as late as May 2004. Everyone knows that Millis gets his marching orders on this topic from Puthoff. Notice for the historical record that there is no explicit mention of
1. PV ZPF from virtual electron-positron pairs
2. Vacuum Coherence Order Parameters
3. Dark energy discovered in cosmology with its anti-gravity.
4. Connection of "dark energy" to Bondi's and Terletskii's "negative matter propulsion," to Kip Thorne's "exotic matter," to Paul Hill's "acceleration field" and to George Trimble's "G-Engine" (ref. Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point.")
5. Use of Josephson effect to achieve the Podkletnov/Ning Li Effect
The BPP Project sponsored experimental and theoretical work to further explore the tangibility of this phenomenon. New analytical and experimental tools were developed to explore this phenomenon using MicroElectroMechanical (MEM) rectangular Casimir cavities [6 to 12]. It was even shown that, in principal, it is possible to create net propulsive forces by interacting with this energy, even thought the forces are impractically small at this stage . Regardless of these immediate impracticalities, however, the quantum vacuum does offer an experimental venue through which to further study the very structure of space itself. Continued research on this phenomenon and through these techniques is expected.
Compare this to
On Apr 15, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
... I'm not trying to scale up the Casimir force effect, never have, never even thought about it. Discussion of the Casimir effect in ZPE discussions are purely pedagogical, not application oriented, and this is clear to everyone else on your list who emails me privately. The devices that have not scaled up are Ken's charge cluster devices, not Casimir devices. My thoughts for ZPE extraction are based on totally different other approaches. I understand Petersen's work and the implications long before I ever even heard of Petersen. Where in my work have I ever talked about scaling up Casimir effect for engineering energy extraction devices, where?!
On Apr 21, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
As for the techniques for extracting ZPE, these are client-funded proprietary approaches, patents being applied for, and therefore not available for academic discussion at this point. You may not like it, but that's how client-supported corporate research is done.
Renegade physicist though you may be, you are essentially an academic, free to debate, publish, etc. I am a corporate physicist paid to research theoretical approaches, and from them develop technologies for my sponsors. There's a difference.
This particular friction between us is built in to the system.
I hope Hal succeeds experimentally even though his theory is wrong. He may get lucky in the lab.
On Apr 15, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/15/04 3:52:35 PM, email@example.com writes:
If Ken Shoulder's charge clusters are not glued together by the zero
point Casimir force then how are they glued together and how do you
hope to use them to extract vacuum energy?
(1) I don't know how they're glued together, nor (2) whether they can be used to extract vacuum energy, and (3) I'm not working on charge clusters.
Ken Shoulders and I have since collaborated on an explanation of the charge clusters as EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects).
3.2. Research Sponsored by Others
While the NASA BPP Project scouted for multiple, divergent research approaches using competitive solicitations, several other organizations focused on individual tasks. Several examples of such work are presented next.
3.2.1. Slepian-Drive. Funded through a Congressional earmark, the West Virginia Institute for Scientific Research (ISR) is conducting experimental and theoretical assessments of the propulsive implications of electromagnetic momentum in dielectric media. The equations that describe electromagnetic momentum in vacuum are well established (photon radiation pressure), but there is still scientific debate concerning momentum within dielectric media, specifically the “Abraham-Minkowski controversy.” More than one concept exists for how this might apply to propulsion and several terms are used to refer to this topic, such as “Slepian-Drive,” “Heaviside Force,” “Electromagnetic Stress-Tensor Propulsion,” and the “Feynman Disk Paradox.” To date, ISR has submitted a tutorial paper on the phenomenon to a journal, and has produced a conference paper on interim experimental findings . An independent assessment by the Air Force Academy concluded that no net propulsive forces are expected with this approach .
Yes, this was Jim Corum's work started at SARA. We at ISSO contributed 1 million dollars to this work that did not work. Even if it had worked it would not be a zero g-force warp drive. Had I known about the dark energy in 1999-2000 I would have vetoed the 1 million dollars to SARA. But I did not get the solution to the problem until 2002 - too late. Senator Robert Byrd is the power behind the W. Va effort. Woodward reports that Corum has gone elsewhere at this time.
Separate from the ISR work, independent research published by Dr. Hector Brito details a propulsive device along with experimental data . The signal levels are not sufficiently above the noise as to be conclusive proof of a propulsive effect.
While not specifically related to propulsion, a recent journal article assessed the Abraham-Minkowski controversy from a quantum physics perspective, suggesting it might be useful for micro-fluidics or other applications .
In all of these approaches, the anticipated forces are relatively small, and critical issues remain unresolved. In particular, the conversion of oscillatory forces to net forces (Slepian-Drive) remains questionable, and the issue of generating external forces from different internal momenta remains questionable. Even if not proven suitable for propulsion, these approaches provide empirical tools for further exploring the Abraham-Minkowski controversy of electromagnetic momentum. This topic is considered unresolved.
I would not financially support any new work in this direction since it is not really metric engineering.
Cosmological Consequences of Vacuum Energy. Theoretical work, sponsored by NASA Headquarters from 1996 to 1999 [Contract NASW–5050], examined the role played by quantum vacuum energy on astrophysical observations. Of the 5 journal articles that resulted [36 to 40], the last two pertain most to breakthrough propulsion. These made the controversial assertion that inertia might be an electromagnetic drag force that occurs during accelerated motion through vacuum energy. This led to speculation that it might become possible to alter inertial properties through some electromagnetic means . Work toward this perspective continues, but through private sponsorship, described in section 3.3.4.
Amazing that there is no mention of anti-gravity field of dark energy. 36-40 are all the very wrongly conceived HRP EM ZPF origin of inertia model that contradicts mainstream physics of the Higgs mechanism origin of lepto-quark rest mass from vacuum coherence not random EM ZPF acceleration friction. The hadronic masses from QCD Lite of confined lepto-quarks. See papers by Frank Wilczek.
Tests of Podkletnov Claim. In 1992, a controversial claim of a “gravity shielding” effect was published by E. Podkletnov based on work done at Finland’s Tampere Institute . Regrettably, the article was not fully forthcoming with all of the experimental methods and jumped to the conclusion that a gravity shield effect was responsible for the anomalous weight reductions observed over spinning superconductors. Although others dismissed this effect on the grounds that it violates conservation of energy , this dismissal itself did not take into account that the claimed effect consumes energy.
From 1995 to 2002, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) attempted a full experimental replication of the Podkletnov config•uration , but was not able to complete the test hardware with the available resources.
A privately funded replication of the Podkletnov configuration was completed by Hathaway, Cleveland and Bao, and the results published in 2003 . This work “found no evidence of a gravity-like force to the limits of the apparatus sensitivity,” where the sensitivity was “50 times better than that available to Podkletnov.” Therefore, this rotating, RF-pumped superconductor approach is considered non-viable.
Very important result I was not aware of. However, see my
on the phase noise issue. I wonder if the "apparatus sensitivity" remark above addresses that. Probably not.
Podkletnov Force-Beam Claims. Through undisclosed sponsorship, Podkletnov produced a new claim—that of creating a force-beam using high-voltage discharges near superconductors. His results, posted on an Internet physics archive , claim to impart between 4•10–4 to 23•10–-4 Joules of mechanical energy to a distant 18.5-gram pendulum. Like his prior “gravity shielding” claims, these experiments would be difficult and costly to duplicate, and remain unsubstantiated by reliable independent sources.
Interesting. I do not get any such beam effects in my model as yet.
Gravity Modification Study. The European Space Agency (ESA) sponsored a study on the prospects of gravity control for propulsion . The following research avenues were identified:
Search for violations of the Equivalence Principle through ongoing in-space experiments.
Resolve the anomalous trajectories of Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses , via a “Sputnik-5” probe.
Yes, this is very important. They are obviously exotic vacuum dark energy effects!
Experimentally explore gravitomagnetic fields
Yes, very important since I have shown that Alcuberre's Tr(K) is a gravimagnetic field 3D divergence
Tr(K) ~ Div.Gravimagnetic Field ~ /\zpf
and this can be large if G* >> G on small scales.
Note that G(mass density) is replaced by c^2/\zpf in exotic vacuum. Hence the effective G* from zero point energy can be large. What matters is the total term G(mass density).
Note that /\zpf = Lp*^-1 so what matters is (c/Lp*)^2 = T*^-2 The smaller the time scale T* the bigger the zero g-force "acceleration field" vacuum propeller effect.
Note the dimensionless parameter
c^2/\zpf /G(mass density of ship)/~ (T(Newton)/T*)^2 = W
is a measure of the warp drive efficiency.
in quantum materials . Opportunities for continued research clearly exist on any of these options.
3.2.6. Anomalous Heat Effect. Although not covered within the confines of breakthrough propulsion research, the controversial topic of “cold fusion” is often encountered when addressing the edge of energy conversion physics. It is in the spirit of completeness that the findings of a decade of research by the Naval Research Labs (NRL) are mentioned here. In their 119-page report , various experiments with conflicting results are described. The Forward to this compilation states: “It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding.” This report serves as a broad overview of the variety of techniques and issues encountered. This remains a controversial topic.
Cold fusion would not be relevant to warp drive, though it is important in its own domain.
3.2.7. Biefeld-Brown and Variants. In 1928 a device was patented for creating thrust using high-voltage capacitors . Since then, a wide variety of variants of this “Biefeld-Brown” effect, such as “Lifters” and “Asymmetrical Capacitors” have claimed that such devices operate on an “electrostatic antigravity” or “electrogravitic” effect. One of the most recent variants was patented by NASA–MSFC . To date, all rigorous experimental tests indicate that the observed thrust is attributable to ion wind [52 to 54].
Vacuum tests currently underway, sponsored through an additional Congressional earmark to the West Virginia Institute for Scientific Research, also indicate that this effect is not indicative of new propulsion physics. These tests are now assessing the more conventional performance of such devices .
These “Biefeld-Brown," “Lifter” and “Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters” are not viable candidates for breakthrough physics propulsion.
3.3. Ongoing Activities
In addition to the discrete research tasks previously described, there are a few continuing areas of research.
3.3.1. Metric Engineering. As a consequence of Einstein’s General Relativity, the notion of warping space to circumvent the light-speed limit is a growing topic in scientific literature
[56 to 65]. In basic terms, if one cannot break the light-speed limit through space, then alter space. Two prominent approaches are the warp drive and the wormhole. The warp drive concept involves moving a bubble of spacetime, which carries a vehicle inside . A wormhole, on the other hand, is a shortcut through spacetime created by extreme spacetime warping [57, 59]. Enormous technical hurdles face these concepts. In particular, they require enormous quantities of “negative energy” (equivalent mass of planets or suns), and evoke time-travel paradoxes (“closed-time-like curves”).
In 1994, NASA sponsored a small workshop to assess these prospects . The results fed into the BPP Project and led to an article defining the visual signature of a wormhole as a guide for astronomical searchers for black-hole related phenomena .
Recently, the term “metric engineering”  has emerged at aerospace conferences to represent such space-warping propulsion concepts. The origin of this term is unknown.
Given the magnitude of energy requirements to create perceptible effects, it is unlikely that experimental work will be forthcoming in the near future. Even though these theoretical concepts are extremely unlikely to be engineered, they are at least useful as teaching tools to more thoroughly explore the intricacies of Einstein’s General Relativity. It is likely that theoretical work will continue to emerge on this topic.
3.3.2. High Frequency Gravitational Waves.
Fundamentally, gravitational waves are perturbations in spacetime caused by violent accelerations of large masses, such as collisions of black holes. Ongoing research focuses on low frequency gravitational waves (<1000-Hz) using large interferometers, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector whose arms are 4-km (2.5-mi) in length .
This shows a fundamental confusion in the thought of the NASA BPP Pundits. The effect is a near field effect not a far field effect. Gravity waves are bad for metric engineering. They are like a leak in a faucet. Since G* >> G they might be a big leak. I have not investigated that as yet.
In contrast, alternative approaches have been suggested to detect High Frequency Gravitational Waves (HFGW). A variety of experimental approaches (introduced at a 2003 workshop) were summarized in a recent conference paper . These detection concepts typically involved desktop size devices, with implications for communication, imaging, and fundamental physics research. Some of the key issues governing the viability of such devices include the energy transfer mechanisms and the low efficiencies predicted. This is an embryonic area where a wide variety of research remains to be addressed.
This is silly also - for metric engineering. However, it should be investigated for other reasons.
3.3.3. Project Greenglow, British Aerospace System. Similar to the NASA BPP Project, British Aerospace Systems, Inc. sponsored a modest project to look at a variety of breakthrough propulsion approaches. Headed by Dr. Ron Evans, incremental research tasks were supported that included assessments of Podkletnov's gravity shield claims (null findings) , experimental and theoretical works on microwave thrusters , and various theoretical works on gravitation [72 to 76], vacuum forces , and “what-if” assessments . It is not known if, or at what level, this project will continue.
3.3.4. Private Quantum Vacuum Research.
Since 1990, the small Advanced Studies Institute, in Austin Texas, has been supported through private funds to test claims of new energy devices and related physics [31, 41, 79 to 82]. Their most relevant publications for BPP deal with the connection between the quantum vacuum and the definitions of inertia and gravity [41, 79, 81]. Like the NASA-HQ sponsored task previously mentioned, these make the controversial assertion that inertia is merely an electromagnetic drag force against the quantum vacuum fluctuations
 and closely related, that gravity is a consequence of the quantum vacuum fluctuations .
Beginning in 2000, the small California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (CIPA) has also been privately supported to conduct research on quantum vacuum physics. Their work also explores the controversial assertion that inertia is an electromagnetic drag force, in addition to exploring other issues [83 to 88].
CIPA has been out of business since 2002. Essentially ISSO and CIPA were in tough competition with opposing physics ideas. Both are now defunct, but I carry on with the ISSO program now based on "dark energy" control directly opposing the position in:
On Jun 9, 2004, at 4:50 PM, michael ibison wrote:
Even though you may not agree with its disposition, I'd appreciate it if you
were to post the Cosmological Smugness link
to your list.
4. Future Prospects
The search for new, breakthrough propulsion methods from physics is an embryonic field encompassing many differing approaches and challenges. In addition to the research already described, there are many more approaches published in the literature and presented at aerospace conferences.
At this stage it is still too early to predict which, if any, of the approaches might lead to a successful breakthrough. Objectively, the desired breakthroughs might be impossible to achieve. Reciprocally, history has shown that break•throughs tend to take the pessimists by surprise.
A key challenge, in addition to the daunting physics, is dealing with such visionary topics in a credible, impartial, and productive manner. When considering future prospects, this management challenge must be taken into account to ensure genuine, reliable progress. The methods used by the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project are offered as a benchmark.
4.1. Research Support
Much of the past research has been conducted in the form of individual discretionary efforts, scattered across various government, academic, and private organizations. This practice of isolated efforts is likely to continue, but there is no way to gauge the level of effort or the fidelity of this research. The more rigorous and open progress will continue to appear in the peer-reviewed journals, however.
Regarding the NASA BPP Project, future funding is uncertain. NASA is now assessing how to respond to the President’s priorities on Moon and Mars exploration. It is not clear if there is a place for propulsion physics research within these priorities. Previously, the President’s Aerospace Commission recommended supporting such visionary work. Quoting from the Commission’s report : “In the longer-term, breakthrough energy sources that go beyond our current understanding of physical laws... must be credibly investigated in order for us to practically pursue human exploration of the solar system and beyond. These energy sources should be the topic of a focused, basic research effort.” If NASA sponsorship resumes, it might appear under the revised title: “Fundamental Propulsion Physics.”
Regarding the privately sponsored projects, such as the British Aerospace Systems' Project Greenglow and the institutes that examine quantum vacuum physics, future funding details are unknown. Recently, an Aviation Week and Space Technology article states: “At least one large aerospace company is embarking on ZPE (quantum vacuum) research in response to a Defense Dept. request.”  Given the private and protected nature of such sponsorship, it is not known to what extent these results will be disseminated.
4.2. Research Options
The few research approaches that have been summarized here mostly started from the point of view of seeking propulsion breakthroughs, and went on to confront the immediate issues and unknowns that these goals evoked. Many of these approaches await resolution and many sequels to these approaches remain unexplored.
In addition to this propulsion-initiated perspective, an alternative approach is to examine the various disciplines of physics, and then ask how their emerging insights, and anomalies, might be relevant to propulsion. In the first step of the scientific method, where one clearly formulates the problem to guide the search for knowledge, the propulsion challenge is different than the broader scientific objective to fully understand nature. This change in focus presents a different perspective, and therein provides an opportunity to possibly discover what the more general approach might overlook.
Both of these perspectives, studying the physics required for propulsion, and considering the propulsive implications of emerging physics, provide many options for future research.
5. Concluding Remarks
A wide variety of small research tasks explored the physics issues associated with seeking breakthrough propulsion. Although many approaches were found to be dead-ends, more remain unresolved and further possibilities remain unexplored. At this stage, the work is embryonic and faces challenges typical of any new, emerging area.
 Millis, M.G., “NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program,” Acta Astronautica, 44 (1999), pp. 175–182.
 Millis, M.G., “Challenge to Create the Space Drive,” AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, 13 (1997), pp. 577–582.
 Mojahedi, M., Schamiloglu, Hegeler, and Malloy, “Time-domain detection of superluminal group velocity for single microwave pulses,” Physical Review E, 62 (2000) pp. 5758–5766.
 Mojahedi, M., Schamiloglu, Kamil,, and Malloy, “Frequency Domain Detection of Superluminal Group Velocities in a Distributed Bragg Reflector,” IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, 36 (2000), pp. 418– 424.
 Segev, B., Milonni, Babb, and Chiao, “Quantum noise and superluminal propagation,” Physical Review A, 62 (2000), pp. 0022114–1 to 0022114–15.
 Maclay, G. J., “Analysis of zero-point electromagnetic energy and Casimir forces in conducting rectangular cavities,” Physical Review A, 61 (2000), pp. 052110–1 to 052110–18.
 Esquivel-Sirvent, R., Villarreal, and Cocoletzi, “Superlattice-mediated tuning of Casimir forces,” Physical Review A, 64 (2001), pp. 052108–1 to 052108–4.
 Maclay, G.J., Fearn, and Milonni, “Of some theoretical significance: implications of Casimir effects,” European Journal of Physics, 22 (2001), pp. 463–469.
 Esquivel-Sirvent, R., Villarreal, Mochan, and Cocoletzi, “Casimir Forces in Nanostructures,” Physica Status Solidi (b), 230 (2002), pp. 409–413.
 Mochan, W.L., Esquivel-Sirvent, and Villarreal, “On Casimir Forces in Media with Arbitrary Dielectric Properties,” Revista Mexicana de Fisica, 48 (2002), p. 339.
 Villarreal, C., Esquivel-Sirvent, and Cocoletzi, “Modification of Casimir Forces due to Band Gaps in Periodic Structures,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, 17 (2002), pp. 798–803.
 Milonni, P.W., and Maclay, “Quantized-Field Description of Light in Negative-Index Media,” Optics Communications, 228 (2003), pp. 161–165.
 Maclay, J. and Forward, R., “A Gedanken spacecraft that operates using the quantum vacuum (adiabatic Casimir effect),” Foundations of Physics, 34 (March, 2004) pp. 477–500.
 Schlicher, R.L, Biggs, and Tedeschi, “Mechanical Propulsion from Unsym•metrical Magnetic induction Fields,” AIAA 95-2643, Joint Propulsion Conference, San Diego, CA (1995).
 Fralick G. and Niedra, “Experimental Results of Schlicher’s Thrusting Antenna,” AIAA–2001–3657, Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT (2001).
 Maly, J. and Vavra, J., “Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels I and II,” Fusions Technology, 24 (1993), pp. 307–381, and 27, (1995) pp. 59–70.
 Podkletnov E. and Nieminen, “A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBCO Superconductor,” Physica C, 203 (1992) pp. 441–444.
 Robertson, G.A., “Exploration of Anomalous Gravity Effects by RF-Pumped Magnetized High-T Superconducting Oxides,” AIAA–2001–3364, Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT (2001).
 Woodward, J.F., “A New Experimental Approach to Mach's Principle and Relativistic Gravitation,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 3 (1990), pp. 497–506.
 Woodward, J.F., “Measurements of a Machian Transient Mass Fluctuation,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 4 (1991), pp. 407–423.
 Woodward, J.F, “Method for Transiently Altering the Mass of an Object to Facilitate Their Transport or Change their Stationary Apparent Weights,” US Patent # 5,280,864 (1994).
 Woodward, J.F., “Mass Fluctuations, Stationary Forces, and Propellantless Propulsion,” AIP Conference Proceedings, 504, STAIF, Albuquerque, NN, (2000), pp. 1018–1025.
 Cramer, J., “Tests of Mach’s Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator,” AIAA–2001– 3908, Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT (2001).
 Woodward, J.F., “Life Imitating ‘Art’: Flux Capacitors, Mach Effects, and Our Future in Spacetime,” AIP Conference Proceedings, 699, STAIF, Albuquerque, NM, (2004), pp. 1127–1137.
 Ringermacher, H. “An Electrodynamic Connection,” Class. Quantum Grav., 11 (1994), pp. 2383–2394.
 Cassenti, B.N., and Ringermacher, “The How to of Antigravity,” AIAA Paper 96– 2788, Joint Propulsion Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, (1996).
 Ringermacher, H., Conradi, Browning, and Cassenti, “Search for Effects of Electric Potentials on Charged Particle Clocks,” AIAA–2001–3906, Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT (2001).
 Milonni, P. W., The Quantum Vacuum, Academic Press, San Diego, CA (1994).
 Sparnaay, M. J., “Measurements of Attractive Forces between Flat Plates,” Physica, 24 (1958), pp. 751–764.
 Forward, R.L., “Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of charged Foliated Conductors,” Phys Rev B, B30 (1984), pp. 1700–1702.
 Cole, D.C. and Puthoff, “Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum,” Phys. Rev. E. 48 (1993), pp. 1562–1565.
 Corum, J.F., Keech, Kapin, Gray, Pesavento, Duncan, and Spadaro, “The Electromagnetic Stress-Tensor as a Possible Space Drive Propulsion Concept,” AIAA–2001–3654, Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT (2001).
 Bulmer, J.S., and Lawrence, T., “Inter•ferometer Examination of the Time Derivative of Electromagnetic Momentum Created by Independent Fields and Applications to Space Travel,” USAFA TR 2003–03, (2003) United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO.
 Brito, H.H., “Experimental Status of Thrusting by Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation,” Paper IAF–01–S.6.02, 52nd International Astronautical Congress, Toulouse, France (2001).
 Feigel, A., “Quantum Vacuum Contribution to the Momentum of Dielectric Media,” Physical Review Letters, 92 (2004 January 16), pp. 020404–1 to 020404–4.
 Rueda, Haisch and Cole, “Instability in Astrophysical Plasmas and the Formation of Cosmic Voids,” Astrophysical Journal, 445 (1995), pp. 7–16.
 Ibison, M. and Haisch, “Quantum and classical statistics of the electromagnetic zero-point-field,” Physical Review A, 54 (1996), pp. 2737–2744.
 Haisch and Rueda, “Reply to Michel’s ‘Comment on Zero-Point Fluctuations and the Cosmological Constant,’” Astrophysics. Journal, 488 (1997), p. 563.
 Rueda and Haisch, “Inertial mass as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion,” Phys. Letters A, 240 (1998), pp. 115–126.
 Rueda and Haisch, “Contribution to inertial mass by reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion,” Foundations of Physics, 28 (1988), pp. 1057–1108.
 Puthoff, Little, and Ibison, “Engineering the zero-point field and polarizable vacuum for interstellar flight,” Jour. Brit. Interplanetary Soc. (JBIS), 55 (2002), pp. 137–144.
 Park, R.L., Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, Oxford University Press (2001).
 Li, Noever, Robertson, Koczor, and Brantley, “Static Test for a Gravitational Force Coupled to Type II YBCO Superconductors,” Physica C, 281 (1997), pp. 260–267.
 Hathaway, Cleveland, and Bao, “Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields,” Physica C, 385 (2003), pp. 488–500.
 Podkletnov, E., and Modanese, “Impulse Gravity Generator Based on Charged YBa2Cu3O7–y Superconductor with Composite Crystal Structure,” arXiv:physics/ 0108005 v2, (30 Aug 2001).
 Bertolami, O., and Tajmar, “Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion: A Scientific Study,” ESA CR (P) 4365, on Contract ESTEC 15464/01/NL/Sfe (2002).
 Anderson, J.D., et al., “Indication from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo and Ulysses Data of an Apparent Anomalous Weak Long-range Acceleration,” Phys Rev Let, 81 (1998),
p. 2858–2861; and response to comments in Phys Rev Let, 83 (1999), p. 1891.
 Tajmar, M. and de Matos, C.J., “Gravito•magnetic Field of a Rotating Superconductor and a Rotating Superfluid,” Physica C, 385 (2003) p. 551–554.
 Szpak, S., and Mosier-Boss, (eds), “Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System, Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories,” Technical Report 1862, SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CA. (Feb. 2002).
 Brown, T.T., “A Method of and an Apparatus or Machine for Producing Force or Motion,” GB Patent #300,311 (1928).
 Campbell, J.W., “Apparatus and Method for Generating Thrust Using a Two Dimensional, Asymmetrical Capacitor Module,” US Patents 6,317,310 (2001) and 6,411,493 (2002).
 Talley, R. L., “Twenty First Century Propulsion Concept,” PL–TR–91–3009, Final Report for the period Feb 89 to July 90, on Contract FO4611–89–C–0023, Phillips Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Edwards AFB, CA (1991).
 Tajmar, M., “Experimental Investigation of 5–D Divergent Currents as a Gravity-Electromagnetism Coupling Concept,” AIP Conference Proceedings, 504, STAIF, Albuquerque, NM, (2000), pp. 998–1003.
 Tajmar, M., “The Biefeld-Brown Effect: Misinterpretation of Corona Wind Phenomena,” AIAA Journal of Propulsion & Power, 42, (2004), pp. 315–318.
 Canning, F.X., Campbell, J., and Winet E., “The ISR Asymmetrical Capacitor Thruster; Experimental Results and Improved Designs,” Planned for the 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL (July 2004).
 Morris, M.S., Thorne, and Yurtsever, “Wormholes, time machines, and the weak energy condition,” Physical Review Letters, 61 (1988), p. 1446.
 Morris, M.S., and Thorne, “Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity,” American Journal of Physics, 56 (1988), pp. 395–412.
 Hochberg, D., and Kephart, “Lorentzian wormholes from the gravitationally squeezed vacuum,” Physics Letters B, 268 (1991),
 Visser, M., Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking, AIP Press, New York (1995).
 Visser, M., Kar, and Dadhich, “Traversable wormholes with arbitrarily small energy condition violations,” Physical Review Letters, 90 (2003), p. 201102.
 Alcubierre, M., “The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity,” Class. Quantum Gravity, 11, (1994), p. L73.
 Pfenning, M.J., and Ford, “The unphysical nature of warp drive,” Class. Quantum Gravity, 14 (1997), p. 1743.
 Krasnikov, S.V., “Hyperfast Interstellar Travel in General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. D, 57 (1998), p. 4760.
 Van Den Broeck, C., “A ‘warp drive’ with more reasonable total energy requirements,” Class. Quantum Grav, 16 (1999), p. 3973.
 White, H., “A Discussion of Space-Time Metric Engineering,” General Relativity and Gravitation, 35 (2003), pp. 2025–2033.
 Bennett, G.L., Forward, and Frisbee, “Report on the NASA/JPL Workshop on advanced quantum/relativity theory propulsion,” AIAA Paper 95–2599, Joint Propulsion Conference (1995).
 Cramer, J., Forward, R.L., Morris, M., Visser, M., Benford, G. and Landis, G., “Natural Wormholes as Gravitational Lenses,” Physical Review D, (March 15, 1995), p. 3124–3127.
 Barish, B. and Weiss, “LIGO and the Detection of Gravitational Waves,” Phys. Today, 52 (1999), pp. 44–50.
 Baker Jr., R, “Precursor Proof-of-Concept Experiments for Various Categories of High-Frequency Gravitational Wave (HFGW) Generators,” AIP Conference Proceedings, 699, STAIF, Albuquerque, NN, (2004), pp. 1093–1097.
 Woods, R.C., “Review of Claims of Interaction Between Gravitation and High-Temperature Superconductors,” AIP Conference Proceedings, 699, STAIF, Albuquerque, NM, (2004), pp. 1085–1092.
 Smith, P.D., and Vinogradov, “Microwave Thrust Mechanism,” AIAA–2001–3802, Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT (2001).
 Tucker, R.W. and Clark, “Gauge Symmetry and Gravito-Electromagnetism,” Quantum Gravity, 17 (2000), p. 4125.
 Burton D., et al., “Towards the Control of Matter with Gravity,” AIAA–2001–3912, Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT (2001).
 Tucker, R.W., et al., “On the Motion of Spinning Test Particles,” Class. Quant. Grav., 18 (2001), p. 3007.
 Tucker, R.W. and Dereli, “A Broken Gauge Approach to Gravitational Mass,” J. High Energy Phys., JHEP 03 (2002), p. 042.
 Tucker, R.W., et.al., “On the Detection of Scalar Field induced Spacetime Torsion,” Mod. Phys. Lett., A17 (2002), p. 421.
 Speake, C.C. and Trenkel, “Forces between Conducting Surfaces due to Spatial Variations of Surface Potential,” Physical Review Letters, No. 160403 (25 April 2003).
 Allen, J.E., “Quest for a Novel Force: A possible Revolution in Aerospace,” Prog. Aerospace Sci., 39 (2003), p. 1.
 Puthoff, H. E. “Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force,” Phys. Rev. A, 39 (1989),
2333; Comments, Phys. Rev A, 47 (1993),
 Puthoff, H. E., “On the source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point Energy,” Phys. Rev. A, 40 (1989), p. 4857; Errata and Comments, Phys. Rev. A, 44 (1991), pp. 3382–3385.
 Haisch, B., Rueda, and Puthoff, “Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force,” Phys. Rev. A, 49 (1994), p. 678.
 Puthoff, H. E., “Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) approach to general relativity,” Found. Phys., 32 (2002), pp. 927–943.
 Haisch and Rueda, “The Case for Inertia as a Vacuum Effect: a Reply to Woodward and Mahood,” Physics Letters A, 268 (2000),
 Dobyns, Rueda, and Haisch, “The Case for Inertia as a Vacuum Effect: a Reply to Woodward and Mahood,” Foundations of Physics, 30 (2000), p. 59
 Modanese, G., “Large ‘Dipolar’ Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B, 588 (2000), p. 419.
 Modanese, G., “The Paradox of Virtual Dipoles in the Einstein Action,” Phys. Rev. D, 62 (2000), p. 087502.
 Cole, D.C., Rueda, Danley, “Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces,” Phys. Rev. A, 63 (2001),
 Haisch, Rueda, and Dobyns, “Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields,” Annalen der Physik, 10 (2001), pp. 393–414.
 Walker, Robert S. (2002), Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, Arlington VA, p. 9–6. [http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/]
 Scott, W., “To The Stars: Zero point energy emerges from realm of science fiction, may be key to deep-space travel,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, (1 March 2004), pp. 50–53.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE May 2004 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics 5. FUNDING NUMBERS WBS–2262–949–10-01
6. AUTHOR(S) Marc G. Millis
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Aeronautics and Space Administration John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field Cleveland, Ohio 44135 – 3191 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER E–14560
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546– 0001 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM—2004-213082
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Prepared for the 2004 Conference on Evolvable Hardware cosponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD), Seattle, Washington, June 24–26, 2004. Responsible person, Marc G. Millis, organization code 5870, 216–977–7535.
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301–621–0390. 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov Unclassified -Unlimited Subject Categories: 70, 20, and 44 Distribution: Nonstandard 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) “Space drives,” “Warp drives,” and “Wormholes:” these concepts may sound like science fiction, but they are being written about in reputable journals. To assess the implications of these emerging prospects for future spaceflight, NASA supported the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project from 1996 through 2002. This Project has three grand challenges: (1) Discover propulsion that eliminates the need for propellant; (2) Discover methods to achieve hyper-fast travel; and (3) Discover breakthrough methods to power spacecraft. Because these challenges are presumably far from fruition, and perhaps even impossible, a special emphasis is placed on selecting incremental and affordable research that addresses the critical issues behind these challenges. Of 16 incremental research tasks completed by the project and from other sponsors, about a third were found not to be viable, a quarter have clear opportunities for sequels, and the rest remain unresolved.
14. SUBJECT TERMS Spacecraft propulsion; Physics; Project management; Relativity; Antigravity 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 18
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassified 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102