starship-design: Re: Alcubierre Drive... How?

["Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

bfranchuk wrote:
> 
> KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Don't bet on that.  Now-a-days things go from weird physics concepts, to
> > marketed products REAL fast!  NASA's funding research into this stuff.  They
> > obviousl expect something far less long term then centuries.
> >
> >
>   Research is ok, but NASA seems to have it's nose in too many places
> right now. ( personal comment only ).

Agreed. Such as wasting money on worthless studies. Billions spent to
determine the 'feasability' of the ISS, or whatever they've changed the
name to. Many scientists criticised the studies as unecessary, since we
already knew it (the ISS) could be built. Also, the research they do is
not exactly the best. For one thing, they admit they have confirmed a
slight gravitational modification from E. Podkletnov's spinning
superconductor system. However, they will not give out information on
how to replicate it, saying only that it is a sensitive project and
would not be wise to hand out detailed information. This is not science!
Like Steve told me when I was carrying on about my FTL signalling
research, don't brag until you are willing to disclose replication
information. When I get more accomplished I will give out info on how to
replicate. Until then, I will lay low. NASA seems to think they are
above this somehow. Also note that they could have completed this
research much faster if they had hired either Podkletnov or Schnurer to
show them how to do it right. They're 'research' into Hooper's claimed
electromagnetic/gravity coupling was not carried out well either. They
claim negative results, when they used a setup fundamentally different
from the one Hooper used, and a power level less than half of what
Hooper used. While I don't think Hooper found anything revolutionary,
but NASA's replication was lousy. Now we also have to worry about
whether NASA's already limited funding will be sliced.

Just my $.02
Kyle R. Mcallister