Tag: Boeing

Electromagnetic Drive Inventor says UFOs Could Be Secret U.S. Military Craft

Article by David Hambling                                                June 29, 2021                                                            (forbes.com)

• The recently released Pentagon UAP Task Force Preliminary Unclassified report on UFOs examines 144 recent sightings by U.S. government personnel of “physical objects” registered across multiple sensors,” according to the report. One of the possibilities that the report suggests is “US (government) or U.S. industry developmental programs”. The report also states that many of these objects share an unusual type of “advanced propulsion” and could remain motionless against the wind at high altitude, execute high-speed maneuvers, and move at high speed “without discernable means of propulsion.” In addition, the report states that in some cases “radio frequency (RF) energy (was) associated with UAP sightings.”

• British scientist Roger Shawyer (pictured above) says that these features are all consistent with the electromagnetic drive, or EmDrive, which he developed, and which is still very much under development by DARPA. An EmDrive is able to generate thrust from a closed system. The results have apparently been repeated at independent labs around the world including NASA’s Eagleworks and researchers at Xi’an in China. While existing versions only produce tiny amounts of thrust, Shawyer calculates that a version based on superconductors could drive a high-speed demonstration vehicle.

• Shawyer thinks that it is telling that the UAP report is rather precise, referring to “advanced propulsion” rather than ‘exotic’ or ‘unexplained’. The EmDrive is able to produce the sort of maneuvers described without the heat output or noise of a jet engine. The radio output observed is also highly characteristic of the EmDrive. “In all my experimental work, stray RF [radiofrequency] energy was detectable, and having a field meter to monitor radiation leakage was part of the safety procedures that were mandatory for tests by Boeing,” says Shawyer. Boeing has declined to comment on its involvement in the project.

• Shawyer’s conclusion is that these UFO/UAPs are consistent with the EmDrive technology that was purchased by Boeing in 2009 and tested successfully. The report tacitly admits that this is a possibility: “Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected.” “The words ‘unable to confirm’ is standard government-speak for a classified subject,” says Shawyer.

• Mike McCulloch of the University of Plymouth is heading up the DARPA EmDrive project. He also noted the similarities between the reports and the drive he is working on. “Behavior of these UAPs is what you would expect from a quantized inertia (QI) horizon drive,” says McCulloch. He says this type of drive can achieve the sort of sharp acceleration would normally be intolerable for the pilot and electronics inside. “Inertia is just a push from the quantum vacuum and it can be damped by the use of synthetic horizons,” says McCulloch. “This means a spacecraft can accelerate as much as you want and you will not feel any forces inside.” “I’m not saying that UAPs are real,” says McCulloch, “just that the observations are consistent with QI technology.”

• Skeptics, of course, claim that a quantized inertia EmDrive violates the laws of physics and can never generate thrust. Positive results are met with furious rebuttals. Setbacks are hailed as the end of the EmDrive. Suffice to say, the debate continues.

• Exactly why such experimental craft would make fleeting appearances during U.S. military exercises is of course a big question. It might be convenient if the U.S can claim ignorance if such craft also appear watching military exercises elsewhere.

 

                               EmDrive

The Pentagon has a long history of misleading reports on UFOs. The new paper on

     Roger Shawyer and Mike McCulloch

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) may be another example, according to the British scientist Roger Shawyer. Looking at their accounts, Shawyer has an explanation which is hinted at, but also concealed by the report.

“I think the UAPs are American,” Shawyer told me.

The report discusses 144 recent sightings by U.S. government personnel, many of them Air Force and Navy pilots and sensor operators. In most cases the UFO was spotted by several means, such as visual contact and radar or infra-red together.

“Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors,” according to the report.

The report suggests there might be several types of objects, including airborne clutter such as balloons, natural atmospheric phenomena, “USG or U.S. industry developmental programs,” foreign adversary systems and Other.

Some details seemed to turn up repeatedly across the sightings. In particular many seemed to share an unusual type of “advanced propulsion” and could remain motionless against the wind at high altitude, execute high-speed maneuvers, and move at high speed “without discernable means of propulsion.”

In addition, the report states that in some cases “military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.”

Shawyer says that these features are all consistent with the electromagnetic drive, or EmDrive, which he developed, and which, despite considerable controversy and misleading reports of its demise, is still very much under development by DARPA.

Depending on which theory you follow, the EmDrive uses an obscure piece of physics to seemingly generate thrust from a closed system. The results have apparently repeated at independent labs around the world including NASA’s Eagleworks and researchers at Xi’an in China. While existing versions only produce tiny amounts of thrust, comparable to ion drives used on satellites and space probes, Shawyer calculates that a version based on superconductors could drive a high-speed demonstration vehicle.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Doubts Cast on 1967 Malmstrom AFB UFO Incident

Article by Ryan                                   November 6, 2020                                (topsecretwriters.com)

• In 2008, Robert L. Hastings published his book entitled: UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites, detailing the shutdown of ten nuclear missiles at the “Oscar-Flight” control center underground silos at Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls, Montana on the morning of March 16, 1Post967. The same thing reportedly happened that same day at Echo-Launch missile control center twenty miles away.

• Hastings took most of his information from former Lieutenant Robert Salas, who was the Oscar Flight Launch control center commander at the time. Salas claimed that base security patrols on the surface above him phoned to report seeing UFOs hovering above one of the E-Flight silos at the Air Force base. Then an alarm sounded indicating that one of the Minuteman missiles had become ‘inoperable’. Then nine more missiles at Oscar Flight went inoperable as well.

• Salas acknowledged that members of the Echo-Flight missile and maintenance crew included Captain Eric Carlson and First Lieutenant Walt Figel. Salas indicated that they had also seen the UFOs directly above their base.

• James Carlson is the son of Captain Eric Carlson who was a maintenance officer at Echo-Flight. James Carlson contends that while ten of the Malmstrom missiles did shut down that day, both his father and retired Colonel Walt Figel denied seeing any UFOs. Hastings responded by saying that James’ father simply didn’t tell him the truth, and that James had never spoken with Figel at all. James Carlson responded to Hastings’ accusation by providing uncontroverted evidence of his correspondence with Figel. And James insisted that his father, Eric Carlson, “never lied to (him) about anything”. James Carlson states: “I can say with complete confidence today that both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have knowingly mislead their entire audience into believing a lie they were well aware of in order to sell their books.”

• In his documented conversation with Walt Figel, James Carlson related that Figel had read Hasting’s book and he told the authors that “there are many inaccurate statements and events in the books”. He goes so far as to say that Salas was never involved with the Echo Flight, and that neither Echo-Flight nor Oscar-Flight at Malmstrom ever had any UFO incident “or any other equipment failures”. Figel confirmed that he doesn’t believe in UFOs, has no interest in Ufology, and he is not a fan of Salas, Hastings or the “whole UFO crowd”.

• James Carlson says that Hasting’s primary source for the UFOs over Echo-Flight base, according to Hasting’s own statements – is Walt Figel – and that Figel’s assertions are proof that Eric Carlson has lied about this event. James calls Hastings and Salas out accusing them of making knowingly false statements. James Carlson stated publicly that Hastings has said ‘over and over again’ that James’ assertions are lies, and that Hastings can easily prove this. And yet, Hastings has produced nothing to dispute James’ father Eric and Walt Figel’s account denying any UFO interference at Malmstrom.

• Walt Figel recalls that after the first missile silo shut down, he and Eric Carlson were ran maintenance checklists when the second missile shut down. Shortly thereafter, the other eight missiles shut down as well. Figel said that there was no “large gathering” of people on site that morning. No one from any UFO office in the Air Force ever interviewed or debriefed him or Eric Carlson. In fact, Figel said he didn’t even know that the Air Force had a UFO office that monitored “UFO sightings”. Back then, whenever someone mentioned UFOs, Figel just laughed it off as a joke.

• Then James Colson turned to his father, Eric Carlson’s account of the incident. “[T]here is no doubt in my mind that there were no reports of UFO’s and no incident at Oscar flight,” said Eric Carlson. “The report that we had lost ten missiles is accurate. It was not uncommon to lose one missile or even two to no-go status. It was unheard of to lose all ten.” Eric said that Figel never spoke to a security guard above them on the surface who told them about hovering UFOs, as Salas claims. And neither Carlson nor Figel were “visibly shaken” as Salas claims.

• Eric Carlson says that the “voice reporting system did report a guidance and control system malfunction”. But subsequent investigations by Boeing engineers turned up no explanation for what could have caused the shutdown, and some speculated that only a high-energy electromagnetic pulse could have entered the shielded system to cause the failure.

• Since the USAF frowned upon the reporting or even internal acknowledgement of UFO events or sightings, could it be that Air Force personnel would not provide an accurate accounting? “I never felt constrained in any way regarding reporting any unusual activities around missile sites,” said Eric Carlson. “In fact, I believe we were encouraged to report unusual incidents or events.”

• “The crew members of the 10th SMS were a tight group,” said Eric Carlson. “We were the first minuteman squadron activated and did a lot together. …At no time were UFOs mentioned to me.” Hastings has publicly questioned Eric Carlson’s memory, and stated that Eric Carlson told Hastings that his son, James, has suffered with “severe mental problems that have worried my family”, implying that James cannot be trusted. James says that he is “seriously considering a lawsuit directed at Robert Hastings for slander and defamation of character”.

 

                     Robert Hastings

According to Ufology researcher/writer Robert Hastings, on March 16, 1967, the appearance of UFOs at Echo-Flight nuclear missile facility allegedly shut down the missile silo. Robert Hasting’s information came from a man named Robert Salas who claimed he had witnessed the event.

Background of the Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Case

The son of one of the officers who was involved in the Echo flight incident, named James Carlson, took Hastings and Salas to task for those claims. Carlson contends that both his father and retired Col. Walt Figel, the other officer involved in the incident, both reported that there were no UFOs.

Hastings denied that James was ever in touch with the second witness, Col. Walt Figel. James Carlson provided us with records of his correspondence with Figel, which proved that Figel actually confirmed James Carlson’s interpretation of how the event actually occurred.

                   nuclear warhead

In March of 2010, James Carlson wrote:
Robert Hastings has made much of the fact that I have refused to interview his witness, Col. (Ret.) Walter Figel, Jr., regarding his recollections of the Echo Flight Incident on March 16, 1967.

I have, in fact, contacted Col. Figel, but didn’t feel that it would be very ethical to discuss in detail the event he recalls without securing first his complete cooperation, authority, and permission to do so. Having secured that this very evening, I am now prepared to discuss the matter in full. I can also add, very strongly, that my father never lied to me about anything, as Hastings claims, and that his recollections match exactly those of Col. Figel’s. I’ve “slandered and libeled” nobody, and I can say with complete confidence today that both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have knowingly mislead their entire audience into believing a lie they were well aware of in order to sell their books.

James reported that Col Figel reported:
1. Col. Figel does not believe UFOs were “even remotely associated with the Echo Flight Incident, or any other equipment failures at Malmstrom.”

              Robert Salas

2. Col. Figel confirmed that he has no interest in Ufology and is not a fan of the UFO crowd.
3. Figel stated, “I have read both of their books. There are many inaccurate statements and events in the books. I have told them both that.”
4. He also stated that Salas was “never involved in any of them (the flights) at all.

The Figel Communications

In August of 2010, James learned that there were rumors floating about that his communications with Figel had never taken place. To set the record straight, James Carlson wrote the following commentary in a post on RealityUncovered (a now defunct UFO forum):
“I’ve discovered that there a lot of people out in the world who are convinced that I have not had any discussions with COL.(Ret.) Walter Figel, Jr., […] This is patently untrue and can be easily shown as such. Robert Hastings has knowingly published versions of this event that he has been told are false by both my father and Walt Figel, and his claims to the contrary are little more than silly attacks that are intended to delay the ruination of his and Robert Salas’ Echo Flight claims until after his pathetic little dog and pony show at the National Press Club in Washington, DC next month. The fact that he would do so at the expense of another man’s reputation doesn’t surprise me.

This back and forth between Hastings and Carlson set off a firestorm of debate on UFO forums at the time. Either Figel denied claims made by Hastings about the Malmstrom AFB UFO incident, or he didn’t.

Debate and drama aside, this was the one issue that needed to be confirmed or denied — because such a source denying Hastings claims cast doubt upon all of the rest of the claims about the incident.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Virgin Galactic to Help Train Astronauts for NASA

Article by Paul R. La Monica                          June 22, 2020                              (weny.com)

• On June 22nd, Virgin Galactic announced that it has signed a deal with NASA to train private astronauts and coordinate trips to the orbiting International Space Station. Virgin Galactic will develop a new private orbital astronaut readiness program to identify candidates who will pay for a trip to space, arrange for their transportation and provide ground and orbital resources.

• Virgin Galactic will probably use the services of SpaceX or Boeing to actually get astronauts to the space station. Boeing has invested $20 million in Virgin Galactic. The company’s own SpaceShipTwo is a suborbital spaceplane that is incapable of making it to the cislunar ISS. Virgin Galactic says it has already received about 600 reservations for suborbital flights at the approximate price of $250,000 per seat.

• Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic will continue to use SpaceShipTwo for suborbital training flights, ranging from private citizens to government-backed scientific and technological research missions, to allow passengers to become familiar with the environment in space, such as G-forces and zero-G.

• Enthusiasm for space commerce is apparent in the stock market. Virgin Galactic stock shares have soared, even though the company continues to lose money. There is even a publicly traded investment fund with a ‘UFO’ brand that invests in companies catering to the business of space travel and exploration, having Virgin Galactic at the top of the list. Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s ‘SpaceX’ and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ ‘Blue Origin’ also have space travel companies.

 

      Virgin Galactic’s ‘SpaceShip Two’

SpaceX won’t be the only private company bringing people to the International Space Station. Virgin Galactic announced Monday that it has signed a deal with NASA to train private astronauts and coordinate potential trips to the ISS.

Shares of Virgin Galactic soared more than 10% on the news. The stock has surged nearly 45% so far in 2020, largely due to optimism about demand for private space travel, even though it continues to lose money.

As part of Virgin Galactic’s deal with NASA, the company will “develop a new private orbital astronaut readiness program,” it said in a statement.

                   Sir Richard Branson

“This program will include identifying candidates interested in purchasing private astronaut missions to the ISS, the procurement of transportation to the ISS, on-orbit resources, and ground resources,” the company added.

Virgin Galactic will likely need the services of SpaceX or aerospace giant Boeing, which is developing the Starliner space capsule and has invested $20

million in Virgin Galactic, to actually get astronauts to the space station.

Virgin Galactic’s own SpaceShipTwo is a suborbital spaceplane that is incapable of making it to the ISS, and the company has only sent five people to space on two suborbital test flights. The company says it has already received about 600 reservations for suborbital flights at the approximate price of $250,000 per seat.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Space Law and the Galactic Economy

Article by Abdulla Abu Wasel                               June 8, 2020                            (entrepreneur.com)

• Fifty years ago, outer space was reserved for the most powerful of nations and the most dominant of governments. Today, it is private commercial industry that is inching us closer to the cosmos. There is a growing interdependence between what is happening in space and what is happening down below on Earth. The commercial space industry, with its multi-million-dollar rockets and satellites, is now worth about $400 billion. Space commerce is increasingly playing a part in our everyday lives.

• The International Civil Aviation Organization governs ‘air’ altitudes. So where does ‘space’ begin? The international community has not been able to agree on a common definition. Australia is the only country in the world that defines space as anything beyond 100 kilometers above the ground. While nations may own the ‘air’ over them, ‘space’ is for everybody. No nation can own property in space, and no nation can make any territorial claim in space. You need consent to fly over another country’s airspace. But if you are in ‘outer space’, you can fly over any country without consent, and even legally engage in espionage.

• With the establishment of the United States’ Space Force, we will likely see the rules of war extended into outer space. The language in the Outer Space Treaty about the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful purposes needs interpretation. ‘Peaceful purposes’ only prohibits the aggressive use of military force. So non-aggressive military force is okay? Has the establishment of the U.S. Space Force made the militarization of space perfectly legal?

• At the end of the day, the Space Force is about building political constituency for orbit, while investing in spacecraft that can defend and attack, if necessary. This represents a great deal of money for private companies, with almost half-a-dozen government defense agencies already pumping millions of dollars into space startups to build everything from radar networks to high-tech materials.

• The majority of the money to be made in space lies in satellite-provided services, and these services are likely to surge the space economy. The significant increase in satellites, far beyond the 2,300 operational satellites in space now, will bring a multitude of costs and benefits. We have seen venture capitalists directing millions of dollars towards small satellite companies with big aspirations, such as Spire, Capella Space, Hawkeye360, and Swarm.

• These space economy companies vary in their business models, from communicating with internet devices to tracking radio signals in order to gather radar data, and imaging every angle of the Earth. This all depends on the cost of building and operating the spacecraft needed to accomplish the work that they desire. SpaceX and Boeing are in the final phase of their private space transportation service in cooperation with NASA. Soon, both companies will have permission to start flying wealthy space tourists and corporate point men into space.

• On June 3rd, NASA launched astronauts into space from U.S. soil for the first time since 2011, and took them to the International Space Station via Falcon 9, a vehicle that was purchased from SpaceX. For $250,000, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic will take tourists to the edge of Earth’s atmosphere in space. But NASA’s aim is the Moon. Since ice water was discovered on the Moon, starry-eyed space seekers would like to see NASA establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon rather than hiring private companies to build rovers, landers, and spacecraft to carry scientific instruments to the Moon.

• But, as we have seen, the commercial economy benefits greatly from scientific advancements gleaned from space exploration, such as transistors, solar panels, and batteries. It has brought forth the smartphone revolution, the evolution of broadcast media, telecommunications, commerce, and the internet as a whole. The new era of space exploration may be one small step for man, but it is one giant leap for the private sector economy.

 

The commercial space industry is heating up– 50 years ago, outer space was reserved for the most powerful of nations and the most dominant governments, but today, there is a democratization of space. Commercial industry is inching us closer to the cosmos, and in the process, there is a growing interdependence between what is happening hundreds of miles up into space and down below on Earth. Currently, the space market is worth approximately US$400 billion, and the commercial space industry, using multi-million-dollar rockets and satellites, is increasingly playing a part in our everyday lives. Although you may have been hearing about this phenomenon in recent years, this launch into the new world has been ongoing for decades.

This brings about the question of property rights. Where does space begin, and if there is a dispute in space, who decides it? Australia is the only country in the world that defines where space begins; defining it as 100 kilometers up. However, where the air ends (and the air law regime, which is governed by the International Civil Aviation Organization), and where space begins is a matter that the international community have not been able to agree on. People either want to set limits- set a height based on kilometers like Australia has done, or they take the approach of the United States who look at it as a use, i.e. what did you use, are you launching a rocket that is intended to go into orbit, or are you just launching a plane that is going to go high into the air. This is important, because nations own the air over them. Right now, space is for everybody. No nation can own property in space, and no nation can make any territorial claim in space.

You need consent to fly over another country if you are in the airspace, but on the flip side of that, if you believe that you are in outer space, you can fly over any country without consent, and even engage in espionage legally. Espionage is one part of the political military contest, but how else is space dealt with from a military perspective? With the recent establishment of the United State’s Space Force, we will likely see the same rules of war extended into outer space. The language in the Outer Space Treaty about the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful purposes is beautifully aspirational language, but the devil is in the interpretation: what does it mean to use space for peaceful purposes? The way that this has been virtually explained is that peaceful purposes only prohibit the aggressive use of military force, and as long as you are not engaged in naked aggression, then you are peaceful in your use of outer space.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Space Force Considering NASA-Style Partnerships With Private Companies

Article by Sandra Erwin                           June 4, 2020                          (spacenews.com)

• The launch of a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule on May 30th that took NASA astronauts to the International Space Station was the “culmination of perhaps the most successful private-public partnership of all times,” said Colonel Eric Felt, head of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Space Vehicles Directorate. In a SpaceNews online event June 4th, Felt noted that Space Force will be far smaller than the other U.S. military services, so it plans to follow the NASA playbook and team up with the private sector. “The Space Force is going to be the most high tech of all of the services,” said Felt.

• Public-private partnerships, like deals with SpaceX and Boeing, have saved NASA billions of dollars. There are many commercial capabilities that can be used to meet military needs, with “hybrid architecture”. For example, commercial companies already have powerful sensors and data analytics systems to track and investigate space objects. The Space Force’s AFRL is looking into public-private deals to use these commercial satellites to enhance its “space domain awareness”, allowing Space Force to monitor every object in outer space. (see video below)

• Another application using private satellites in low Earth orbit is for the deployment of sensors for the Air Force’s ‘Advanced Battle Management System’, allowing the military to integrate and analyze data from space rather than from the more vulnerable command-and-control airplanes flying over enemy territory.

• Next year, AFRL plans to launch an experimental ‘cubesat’ satellite equipped with a ‘Link 16’ encrypted radio frequency data link, widely used on U.S. military and NATO aircraft and ground vehicles to share information, as a communications network relay in space. With “one of these Link 16 transponders (attached to) each of these low Earth orbit satellites, you would basically have Link 16 capability everywhere all the time,” said Felt.

• Private companies deploying broadband satellite constellations in low Earth orbit would be candidates for partnerships where these commercial satellites would also host government communications. The Defense Innovation Unit of the AFRL and the Space Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center have been talking about setting up a ‘space commodities exchange’ where space services could be traded like commodities. “The space domain awareness data might be a great example of the kinds of things that the Space Force could purchase through a space commodities exchange,” said Felt.

 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force will be far smaller than the other military services but way more dependent on technology to do its job. While the Space Force will develop satellites and other technologies in-house, it also plans to follow the NASA playbook and team up with the private sector, said Col. Eric Felt, head of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate.

       Colonel Eric Felt

Speaking at a SpaceNews online event June 4, Felt said NASA’s commercial crew program is “super exciting” and one that the Space Force can learn from.

The launch of a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule on May 30 that took NASA astronauts to the International Space Station was the “culmination of perhaps the most successful private-public partnership of all times,” said Felt.

The Space Vehicles Directorate, located at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, is one of the organizations that Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett agreed to transfer to the Space Force. Felt said his office will remain at its current location but approximately 700 people will be reassigned to the Space Force.

“The Space Force is going to be the most high tech of all of the services,” said Felt.

Public-private partnerships like NASA’s commercial crew deals with SpaceX and Boeing have saved NASA billions of dollars and serve as a “powerful model” that the Defense Department could adopt, said Felt.

1:02:30 video on military/corporate partnerships for Space Force (‘SpaceNewsInc’ YouTube)

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

NASA’s Full Artemis Plan Revealed: 37 Launches and a Lunar Outpost

by Eric Berger                   May 20, 2019                    (arstechnica.com)

• In March 2019, Vice President Mike Pence directed NASA to return to the Moon by 2024. Since then, NASA has been working on a plan to accomplish this using existing technology, large projects nearing completion, and commercial rockets. The first draft of this unofficial “Artemis Plan” reveal a human landing in 2024, annual sorties to the lunar surface, and the construction of a Moon base beginning in 2028. It involves 37 launches of private and NASA rockets, and a mix of robotic and human landers. This plan is everything Pence asked for—an urgent human return, a Moon base, a mix of existing and new contractors.

• NASA’s projected cost for this program is $6 billion to $8 billion per year on top of NASA’s existing budget of about $20 billion. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine has asked for an additional $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 to jump-start its lander development. Due to its massive cost, an international partnership will be needed to sustain this plan. The White House has proposed paying for the lunar project with a surplus in the Pell Grant Reserve Fund (provided to low-income college students). But this appears to be a non-starter with House Democrats.

• Boeing has been working on the core stage of the Space Launch System for eight years. The three-stage, reusable lunar lander envisioned by NASA to get humans to the lunar surface will require new, upgraded engines and control systems, including fuel management. It is uncertain that Boeing will be able to deliver an SLS core stage in 2020, then again in 2022, and then six more between 2024 and 2028, according to this ambitious plan.

• Funding for the lunar program is a harsh political reality. Will Congressional Democrats insist that NASA funding may only come from Department of Defense funds earmarked for Space Force? And what if Trump is not re-elected in 2020? Will a new administration pursue a lunar program that has barely gotten off the ground? Or will it pivot toward a lower-cost space program that makes extensive use of the new private space industry?

• If the funding issues are resolved, this NASA plan could take us back to the Moon. But it probably won’t happen by 2024. A more realistic date would be 2026 at the earliest, say sources inside NASA.

 

In the nearly two months since Vice President Mike Pence directed NASA to return to the Moon by 2024, space agency engineers have been working to put together a plan that leverages existing technology, large projects nearing completion, and commercial rockets to bring this about.

Last week, an updated plan that demonstrated a human landing in 2024, annual sorties to the lunar surface thereafter, and the beginning of a Moon base by 2028, began circulating within the agency. A graphic, shown below, provides information about each of the major launches needed to construct a small Lunar Gateway, stage elements of a lunar lander there, fly crews to the Moon and back, and conduct refueling missions.

This decade-long plan, which entails 37 launches of private and NASA rockets, as well as a mix of robotic and human landers, culminates with a “Lunar Surface Asset Deployment” in 2028, likely the beginning of a surface outpost for long-duration crew stays. Developed by the agency’s senior human spaceflight manager, Bill Gerstenmaier, this plan is everything Pence asked for—an urgent human return, a Moon base, a mix of existing and new contractors.

One thing missing is its cost. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine has asked for an additional $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 as a down payment to jump-start lander development. But all of the missions in this chart would cost much, much more. Sources continue to tell Ars that the internal projected cost is $6 billion to $8 billion per year on top of NASA’s existing budget of about $20 billion.

The plan also misses what is likely another critical element. It’s not clear what role there would be on these charts for international partners, as nearly all of the vehicles could—and likely would—come from NASA or US- based companies. An international partnership, as evidenced by the International Space Station program, is likely key to sustaining a lunar program over the long term in the US political landscape.

Three miracles

Although the plan is laudable in that it represents a robust human exploration of deep space, scientific research, and an effort to tap water resources at the Moon, it faces at least three big problems.

The first issue is funding and political vulnerability. One reason Bridenstine has not shared the full cost of the program as envisioned is “sticker shock” that has doomed other previous efforts. However, if NASA is going to attempt a Moon landing with this specific plan—rather than a radical departure that relies on smaller, reusable rockets—the agency will need a lot more money.

So far, the White House has proposed paying for this with a surplus in the Pell Grant Reserve Fund. But this appears to be a non-starter with House Democrats. “The President is proposing to further cut a beneficial needs-based grants program that provides a lifeline to low-income students, namely the Pell Grants program, in order to pay for the first year of this initiative—something that I cannot support,” House science committee chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has said.

Congress is also not going to give NASA an unlimited authority to reprogram funds, with an apparently open-ended time frame, which Bridenstine has sought.

A second problem is that NASA’s current plan relies on its contractors to actually deliver hardware. Boeing’s work on the core stage of the Space Launch System is emblematic of this problem. The company has been working on the core stage for eight years, and it is unlikely to be ready for flight before another year or two. Boeing’s management of the contract has been harshly criticized by NASA’s Inspector General. After all this, can Boeing be counted on to deliver an SLS core stage in 2020, then again in 2022, and six more between 2024 and 2028?

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

The Pentagon’s Bottomless Money Pit

by Matt Taibbi                   March 17, 2019                    (rollingstone.com)

[Editor’s Note]  This lengthy article from Rolling Stone demonstrates that the Deep State controlled heads of both Congress and the Defense Department are doing all they can to keep the Department of Defense’s budget and accounting practices in such a dysfunctional quagmire that trillions of dollars in unaccountable funding can continue to be funneled into the government’s secret space program at various levels.

• In 1787, the US Constitution mandated “a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” By the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, hundreds of billions of tax dollars were being spent annually, and no one really knew where. No independent examiner had ever fully checked the government’s books.

• So in 1990, US Senators Chuck Grassley and John Glenn, and Rep. John Conyers authored the “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990” (the “CFO Act”). This forced government agencies to name a CFO, conduct audits and create a “modern federal financial management structure.” Twenty-three agencies, from Defense to Labor to State, were ordered to begin submitting “department-wide annual audited financial statements” by 1994. In the first year, only six agencies and departments were able to pass. Within a few years, however, most were in compliance. By 2013, the Department of Defense was the only federal agency that had not submitted a financial statement.

• For the most part, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) does not know how much it spends. It has a handle on some things, like military pay, but in other places it’s clueless. None of its services — Navy, Air Force, Army, Marine Corps — use the same system to record transactions or monitor inventory. Each service has its own operations and management budget, its own payroll system, its own R&D budget and so on. It’s an empire of disconnected budgets, or “fiefdoms,” as one Senate staffer calls them.

• Ahead of misappropriation, fraud, theft, overruns, contracting corruption and other abuses that are almost certainly still going on, the Pentagon’s first problem is its books. It’s the world’s largest producer of wrong numbers, an ingenious bureaucratic defense system that hides all the other rats’ nests underneath.

• In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act which caps the defense budget at roughly 54 percent of discretionary spending. Almost immediately, the DoD began using so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), a second checking account that can be raised without limit. In 2019, the Pentagon secured $617 billion in “base” budget money, which puts it in technical compliance with the Budget Control law. Then it used the OCO slush fund to generate another $69 billion. Other ‘defense’ departments received additional funding: the VA ($83 billion), Homeland Security ($46 billion), the National Nuclear Security Administration ($21.9 billion). Then the DoD drew from the OCO fund again for anti-ISIS operations. The resulting actual defense outlay is over $855 billion, and that’s just what we know about. Programs like the CIA’s drones are part of the secret “black budget” of the intelligence community (which this article doesn’t go into).

• The long-standing Antideficiency Act makes it illegal for any government agency to spend money appropriated for one purpose on a different program. Yet the military routinely commingles its various pots of money. The DoD is supposed to give its unspent money back to Congress. Instead, the DoD created a computer program algorithm called Mechanization of Contract Administration Services that spends “old money” first, i.e.: money from whatever funds were about to expire – in clear violation of the law. The DoD simply orders its accountants to make the numbers fit to avoid having to return any money.

• DoD accountants are told by superiors that if they cannot find invoices or contracts to prove the various expenses they should execute “unsubstantiated change actions”, i.e.: make them up. The accountants systematically “plug” in fake numbers to match the payment schedules handed down by the Treasury. These fixes are called “journal voucher adjustments”, “forced-balance entries”, “workarounds”, or “plugs.” Thus, the year-end financial statements submitted to Congress are fictions, a form of systematic accounting fraud that Congress has quietly tolerated for decades.

• A 2017 Michigan State University study revealed $21 trillion in plugs over a 17-year period. The Pentagon didn’t even receive that much money during the time period in question. In 2015, the Army with an annual budget of $122 billion, generated $6.5 trillion in accounting plugs – or 54 times its annual budget.

• The Pentagon compounded its lack of oversight by reducing its staff of internal criminal investigators. “No other federal agency could get away with this,” said one Senate staffer. The military has been told repeatedly to stop plugging and develop more rational accounting systems.

• The ubiquitous plugging and quantity of bad numbers in the Pentagon’s books are so massive that it will take a labor of the ages to untangle. Next to the enormously bloated DoD budget itself, the attempted accounting reconciliation effort has created a second massive DoD expenditure – accounting reformation.

• To appear as though it is attempting to cooperate with Congressional mandates, in 1991 the DoD created the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), which would collect financial reports from all of the different DoD sub-agencies at the end of each month, without bothering to adjust its accounting rules. But the Pentagon’s books are so choked with bad data that discovering abuses in real time is virtually impossible.

• The Air Force awarded a “big four” accounting firm, Deloitte, $800 million to help with “audit preparation.”  The Navy countered with a $980 million audit-readiness contract spread across all four accounting firms: Deloitte, Booz Allen Hamilton, Accenture and KPMG. In 2003, Defense comptroller Dov Zakheim told the House Budget Committee, “We anticipate having a clean audit by 2007.” Soon after disavowing that promise, he said, “The further we dug . . . the more difficulties turned up.” Taxpayers were paying gargantuan sums to private accounting firms just to write reports about how previous recommendations had been ignored.

• In 2005, the Pentagon began to provide Congress with Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) reports. These reports’ purpose was to assure Congress that the DoD was getting closer to sorting all of this stuff out. December 2005: “Progress has been achieved.” September 2006: “Progress has been made.” September 2007: “Progress has been made in several areas.” March 2008: “Substantial progress has been made.” March 2009: “Significant progress has been made, but much needs to be done.”

• In an attempt to standardize the military’s payroll and personnel records system, in 2009 the DoD created the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System. Over 12 years and more than $1 billion in expenditures later, it was scrapped. Earlier, in 2005, the Air Force set out to buy a standardized computer system from Oracle called the Expeditionary Combat Support System. It took 7 years and more than $1 billion for that plan to be scrapped.

• Despite the DoD’s 60,000 financial-management employees who’ve had 21 years to producing financial statements, by the mid-2000s the task was given to 200 auditors from the DoD inspector general to create a single annual financial statement. They made some helpful recommendations, but it didn’t get very far before they concluded that an audit was not possible. In 2011, then-Defense comptroller Robert Hale confessed to Congress, “We don’t really fully understand in the Department of Defense what you have to do to pass an audit for military service, because we have never done it.” You’ve heard of “too big to fail”. The DoD’s universe is too big to count. One exasperated DoD official complained, “Impossible. . . . We can’t do it. . . . It’s too big.”

• The annual DoD audit has brought enormously expensive accounting firms into the family of permanent high-end military contractors like Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing and Raytheon. One estimate puts the annual cost for accounting at about a billion: $400 million a year for audits by firms like Ernst & Young, and about $600 million for firms like Deloitte to fix problems identified by said audits.

• In April 2016, U.S. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro testified before the Senate that the Pentagon had spent up to $10 billion to modernize its accounting systems. Those attempts, he said, had “not yielded positive results.” Asked how much progress has been made toward creating a workable accounting system at the Pentagon, Dodaro says, “At my level, I would have to say zero.”

• One thing that the audits did uncover was a tremendous amount of waste. The DoD found about $125 billion in administrative waste. Inspectors found “at least” $6 billion to $8 billion in waste in the Iraq campaign, and said that $15 billion of waste found in the Afghan theater was probably “only a portion” of the total lost.

• By the end of 2018, the DoD did submit an audit by some 1,200 auditors at a cost of $400 million. It was, however, a failure and did not “pass”. The auditors could offer no opinion, saying that the military’s acronymic accounting system was too illogical to penetrate. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said it was nothing to worry about, because “we never expected to pass it.” As one Senate staffer put it, “These systems were not designed to be audited.” Remarked Senator Chuck Grassley: “Based on the track record, it seems like they don’t want to fix it.”

• The Pentagon bureaucracy has no reliable method of recording financial transactions. Some of its accounting programs are still using COBOL, a computing language that was cutting-edge in 1959. The DoD still hasn’t progressed to serial numbered bar codes to tracking inventory. Assets tend to vanish on financial ledgers. A few years ago the DoD admitted to losing track of 478 buildings and 39 Black Hawk helicopters. A retired Air Force auditor said that the Air Force has no idea how much of anything it has at any given time. However, since 2006 when the Air Force accidentally loaded six nuclear weapons in a B-52 and flew them across the country, unbeknownst to the crew, it has made a special effort to track its nuclear weapons.

• In the 1980’s, Senator Grassley was inspired to scrutinize DoD accounting due to reports that it was spending $640 for toilet seats and $436 for hammers. Today, the DoD is still spending $10,000 apiece for 3D printed airborne toilet-seat covers and $1,280 each on reheatable drinking cups. In 1992, the military was under pressure to resolve its “poor cost estimating”, and created a middleman with the power to set prices and choose subcontractors known as the “prime vendor”. This system became corrupted and only inflated prices even further. By 2004, the Pentagon was spending $7.4 billion annually on prime-vendor purchases. In 2005 it was reported that the military was buying 85-cent ice trays from prime vendors for $20 apiece, and had purchased nine refrigerators from a prime vendor for $32,642.

• In 1997, the Army spent $4 billion on the Global Combat Support System ‘audit-readiness program’ to centralize its accounting system, and the Marine Corp spent $1 billion on a similar system. In 2009, the General Accounting Office complained about the $6 billion that had been spent in audit preparation with no results. In 2010, Chuck Grassley created an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to stop the runaway mobilization of hundreds of auditors that the CFO Act still mandated, creating a Catch-22 between the two opposing laws.

• Three decades into the effort, we’ve only been spending billions of dollars to get nowhere in one of the most expensive jokes any nation has played on itself. “When everything’s always a mystery,” says Grassley, “nothing ever has to be solved.”

• Even if there were a way for the DoD to reorganize its accounting practices, it would inevitably be mired in politics. There is a strong bloc of Congressmen whose office depends on campaign contributions from the defense sector (even though defense contractors themselves cannot make campaign contributions). They hold up any type of withholding on defense expenditures in committees such as Armed Services or Appropriations. Says one Congressional staffer, “You can’t get the Pentagon to take an audit seriously unless you threaten to stop funding, and you can’t stop funding without campaign finance reform.” Senator Bernie Sanders laments the unwillingness of Congress to take the real steps needed to enforce auditing compliance. The system of campaign contributions that keeps key committees captive will lock this problem in place until there’s reform on that end. “When it comes to the massive waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon, there’s a deafening silence,” says Sanders.

• The military has become an unstoppable mechanism for absorbing trillions of taxpayer dollars and using them in the most inefficient manner possible. The armed services are filling warehouses for some programs with “1,000 years’ worth of inventory,” as one Navy logistics officer recently revealed. According to a Congressional staffer: “[The] DoD loves to find inefficiencies. It just means more they can spend.”

 

A retired Air Force auditor — we’ll call him Andy — tells a story about a thing that happened at Ogden Air Force Base, Utah. Sometime in early 2001, something went wrong with a base inventory order. Andy thinks it was a simple data-entry error. “Someone ordered five of something,” he says, “and it came out as an order for 999,000.” He laughs. “It was probably just something the machine defaulted to. Type in an order for a part the wrong way, and it comes out all frickin’ nines in every field.” Nobody actually delivered a monster load of parts. But the faulty transaction — the paper trail for a phantom inventory adjustment never made — started moving through the Air Force’s maze of internal accounting systems anyway. A junior-level logistics officer caught it before it went out of house. Andy remembers the incident because, as a souvenir, he kept the June 28th, 2001, email that circulated about it in the Air Force accounting world, in which the dollar value of the error was discussed.

Wanted to keep you all informed of the massive inventory adjustment processed at [Ogden] on Wednesday of this week. It isn’t as bad as we first thought ($8.5 trillion). The hit . . . $3.9 trillion instead of the $8.5 trillion as we first thought.

The Air Force, which had an $85 billion budget that year, nearly created in one stroke an accounting error more than a third the size of the U.S. GDP, which was just over $10 trillion in 2001. Nobody lost money. It was just a paper error, one that was caught.

“Even the Air Force notices a trillion-dollar error,” Andy says with a laugh. “Now, if it had been a billion, it might have gone through.”

Years later, Andy watched as another massive accounting issue made its way into the military bureaucracy. The Air Force changed one of its financial reporting systems, and after the change, the service showed a negative number for inventory — everything from engine cores to landing gear — in transit.

Freaked out, because you can’t have a negative number of things in transit, Air Force accountants went back and tried to reverse the mistake. In doing so, they somehow ended up adding more than $4 billion in value to the Air Force’s overall spare-parts inventory in a single month.

This suspicious number is still there. You can see a sudden spike in the Air Force’s working-capital fund’s stagnant spare-parts numbers. It was $23.2 billion in 2015, $23.3 billion in 2016, $24.4 billion in 2017, and then suddenly $28.8 billion in September 2018.

That doesn’t mean money was lost, or stolen. It does, however, mean the Air Force probably has less inventory on hand than it thinks it does.

Now retired, Andy sometimes visits his neighborhood library, which uses RFID smart labels, or radio frequency identification, allowing it to know where all its books are at all times.

Meanwhile, the Air Force, which has a $156 billion annual budget, still doesn’t always use serial numbers. It has no idea how much of almost anything it has at any given time. Nuclear weapons are the exception, and it started electronically tagging those only after two extraordinary mistakes, in 2006 and 2007. In the first, the Air Force accidentally loaded six nuclear weapons in a B-52 and flew them across the country, unbeknownst to the crew. In the other, the services sent nuclear nose cones by mistake to Taiwan, which had asked for helicopter batteries.

“What kind of an organization,” Andy asks, “doesn’t keep track of $20 billion in inventory?”

Despite being the taxpayers’ greatest investment — more than $700 billion a year — the Department of Defense has remained an organizational black box throughout its history. It’s repelled generations of official inquiries, the latest being an audit three decades in the making, mainly by scrambling its accounting into such a mess that it may never be untangled.

Ahead of misappropriation, fraud, theft, overruns, contracting corruption and other abuses that are almost certainly still going on, the Pentagon’s first problem is its books. It’s the world’s largest producer of wrong numbers, an ingenious bureaucratic defense system that hides all the other rats’ nests underneath. Meet the Gordian knot of legend, brought to life in modern America.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Conspiracy Theorists See Trump’s Space Force as Strong Evidence of UFO Visitors

by S.A. Miller                     December 24, 2018                         (washingtontimes.com)

• Space program realists believe that President Trump’s creation of a Space Force branch of the US military is a step toward ‘full disclosure’ of the government’s acknowledgment of extraterrestrials and the technology gleaned from their crashed spacecraft.

• The Space Force plan pits Trump against his natural enemy: the “Deep State”. The Deep State faction within the federal government is the keeper of alien secrets, according to UFO researchers.

• “This is HUGE and [Space Force is] something the Deep State does NOT want,” conspiracy theory filmmaker Jordan Sather posted on Twitter. “Understand that with the Space Force, the advanced technologies (free energy, antigravity) kept in secret think-tanks within Lockheed, Boeing, & other corporate contractors will now have an avenue to be released publicly,” Mr. Sather tweeted.

• Dr. Michael Salla, an author who promotes the longtime extraterrestrial presence on Earth, noted that Pentagon top brass oppose the establishment of a sixth branch of the military. “…by ordering the creation of a Space Force, Trump is shaking the bureaucratic and corporate tree that hides the (existing) Secret Space Program that the Air Force runs along with the National Reconnaissance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency,” writes Dr Salla on his ExoPolitics.org website.

• Dr Salla continued: “Large aerospace companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc., supply the technologies and components for the Air Force’s Secret Space Program. Consequently, the Military Industrial Complex/Deep State has played a major role in setting space policy due to its ability to manipulate Air Force officials through the supply and acquisition process.”

• In a series of books, Dr Salla has detailed what he describes as “whistleblower/insider claims” about secret space programs at the Pentagon, including a Navy operation in deep space with miles-long space carriers that use Space Marines as a fighting force.

• Some in the UFO community also believe that President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a secret treaty in 1954 with an alien race known as the Greys wherein the two sides agreed not to interfere with each other’s affairs. The Greys would share technology with the U.S., and the aliens would be allowed to abduct humans for various experiments, provided they submit the names of abductees to a secret government committee known as the “Majestic 12.”

• The Defense Department has promoted the Space Force as a military branch charged with defending U.S. assets in space, such as satellites, and fending off cyberattacks in a confrontation with Russia and/or China, which have been building capabilities to knock out satellites that are vital to communications, navigation and intelligence. There is abundant evidence that the Pentagon has top-secret operations in space, such as spy satellites. A 2017 New York Times report that revealed a secret Defense Department program that investigated UFOs for at least five years.

• The Pentagon prefers to keep Space Force operations within the Air Force, similar to the way the Marines are organized under the Navy. Mr. Trump has initiated the process, but it takes an act of Congress to create a new military branch.

• Jan C. Harzan, executive director of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) said, “I don’t really think [the Space Force] has anything to do with extraterrestrials or aliens.” Mr. Harzan doubts that the government is getting closer to “full disclosure” of the alien presence. “My personal opinion is that…there is probably some benefit of putting it all under one head.”

• “I do believe that we have technology which has been reverse-engineered from aircraft that are not from here and that we are probably using that technology someplace,” said Harzan. “I would be shocked if the president was not briefed. How much they tell him, I have no clue.”

 

President Trump’s order to create a military Space Force gave conspiracy theorists another tantalizing piece of evidence — some say the best yet — that the government is hiding the truth about extraterrestrial visitors.

The idea is that launching the Space Force will be a big step toward the government’s acknowledgment of extraterrestrials and technology gleaned from crashed alien spacecraft — what the UFO community calls “full disclosure.”

Making it all the more real, the Space Force plan pits Mr. Trump against his natural enemy: the “deep state” within the federal government. The deep state is also the keeper of alien secrets, according to UFO researchers.

                Jordan Sather

“This is HUGE and something the Deep State does NOT want,” conspiracy theory filmmaker Jordan Sather posted on Twitter after Mr. Trump issued the surprise June 18 order for the Pentagon to start planning a Space Force.

“Understand that with the #SpaceForce, the advanced technologies (free energy, antigravity) kept in secret think-tanks within Lockheed, Boeing, & other corporate contractors will now have an avenue to be released publicly,” Mr. Sather tweeted.

Michael Salla, an author who promotes theories about secret U.S. space programs and longtime extraterrestrial presence on Earth, noted that Pentagon top brass oppose the establishment of a sixth branch of the military to patrol above the atmosphere.

“It is important to understand that by ordering the creation of a Space Force, Trump is shaking the bureaucratic and corporate tree that hides the Secret Space Program that the Air Force runs along with the National Reconnaissance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency,” he posted on his ExoPolitics website.

            Dr. Michael Salla

He continued: “Large aerospace companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc., supply the technologies and components for the Air Force’s Secret Space Program. Consequently, the Military Industrial Complex/Deep State has played a major role in setting space policy due to its ability to manipulate Air Force officials through the supply and acquisition process.”

In a series of books, Dr. Salla has detailed what he describes as “whistleblower/insider claims” about secret space programs at the Pentagon, including a Navy operation in deep space with miles-long space carriers that use Space Marine as a fighting force.

The outer reaches of the UFO community also believe that President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a secret treaty in 1954 with an alien race known as the Greys. The two sides agreed in the “Greada Treaty” not to interfere with each other’s affairs. Also under the treaty, the Greys would share technology with the U.S., and the aliens would be allowed to abduct humans for various experiments, provided they submit the names of abductees to a secret government committee known as the “Majestic 12.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Futuristic Airbus design mimics antigravity UFO

Airbus flying bagelAirbus has filed a new patent for a UFO-like airplane that looks like something right out of a Sci Fi movie. RT today described the radical Airbus design as a “bagel plane” where passengers sit in a ring. The Financial Times, which was the first to announce the new design in a November 16 story, reported that the UFO-like shape addresses key structural problems faced by aircraft engineers for cylindrical designs. Will the new Airbus design use a traditional propulsion system such as aviation fuel that is currently the standard for civilian aircraft? The UFO-like design makes more sense if Airbus was preparing for an innovative future propulsion system for the aviation industry – antigravity!

The Airbus Patent application says that the design attempts to address the structural problems created by cylindrical shaped aircraft with have to deal with huge air pressures at the front and back:

The present invention proposes an aircraft wherein the structure delimiting passenger cabin extends over 360 degrees around a space defined outside structure. The invention allows structure to be more resistant to loads induced by the cabin pressurization, while allowing to reduce or even to avoid the need for a sealed bottom ….

Avoiding “a sealed bottom” leads to one of the most radical differences with conventional aircraft as the Financial Times describes regarding the “flying doughnut”: “Diagrams in the patent application show passengers entering the aircraft through steps leading up to doors arranged around the hole in the doughnut’s middle.”

Aviation experts are skeptical that the UFO-like design is feasible. Loren Thompson from the Lexington Institute told the Financial Times: “I’ve never seen anyone suggest anything like this in a heavier-than-air system,” Thompson’s skepticism is understandable given current fuel propulsion systems for the aviation industry. So is there an alternative propulsion system that might make the Airbus design feasible?

Classified antigravity technologies have been secretly developed by military-corporate entities, but kept from the public realm for over six decades. It was revealed in 1992, for example, that the B-2 Bomber used electrostatic charges on its leading wings and exhaust.  According to aerospace experts, this was confirmation that the B-2 used electrogravitic principles based on the Biefeld-Brown Effect.  The Biefeld-Brown Effect is based on the research of Thomas Townsend Brown who in 1928 gained a patent for his practical application of how high voltage electrostatic charges can reduce the weight of objects. The B-2 bomber employs sufficiently high voltages to significantly reduce its weight. This enables the B-2 and other classified antigravity vehicles to display flight characteristics that appear to defy conventional laws of physics.

In 2002, an internal Boeing project called “Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion” (GRASP) was disclosed to the aerospace industry. A GRASP briefing document obtained by Jane’s Defense Weekly stated Boeing’s position: “If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire aerospace business.”

According to a 2008 book by Dr Paul LaViolette, Secrets of Antigravity Technology, Boeing completed a separate classified study for the U.S. military of electrogravitic propulsion before October 2007. Boeing was rebuffed in its efforts to have such technology declassified and released into the public sector. The Airbus patent for a UFO-like “flying bagel” is the future of the aviation industry once antigravity technologies are declassified into the public arena. Perhaps on the insiders track, Airbus knows something we don’t, and is getting ready for a future when “flying bagels” fill the skies!

 © Copyright 2014. Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Exopolitics.org

Copyright © 2019 Exopolitics Institute News Service. All Rights Reserved.