What NASA's Exotic Propulsion Research Actually Shows

Introduction

NASA’s speculative propulsion work is often cited in UFO and antigravity narratives as evidence that apparently fringe physics was taken seriously behind institutional doors. The first half of that claim is true: NASA deliberately investigated ideas including gravity–electromagnetism coupling, vacuum physics, propellantless “space drives”, warp metrics and wormholes. But the documentary record points to a more restrained conclusion. NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project was explicitly designed to ask whether extraordinary possibilities could survive credible theoretical or experimental tests, not to certify that a hidden antigravity technology already existed.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Research ProgramNASA Technical Reports ServerBreakthrough Propulsion Physics Research Program - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)December 1, 1996…Published: December 1, 1996

That distinction matters to suppressed-scientist narratives. An institution can investigate a controversial claim precisely because it is uncertain. NASA’s published programme documents show researchers establishing tests, ranking evidence by reliability, recording null results and leaving some questions unresolved. That process is almost the reverse of the logic by which later suppression lists can turn participation in speculative research into evidence that researchers possessed dangerous or secret knowledge.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govNASA Technical Reports ServerBreakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: Project Management Methods - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)De…

The range of ideas NASA deliberately put on the table

NASA established the BPP programme in 1996, managed through what was then Lewis Research Center, later renamed Glenn Research Center. Its three headline ambitions were deliberately extreme: propulsion without propellant, the maximum transit speeds permitted by nature — potentially including ways around conventional light-speed limitations — and radically improved energy sources capable of supporting such propulsion. NASA’s own descriptions stressed that these goals lay beyond established engineering and might require new physics.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Research ProgramNASA Technical Reports ServerBreakthrough Propulsion Physics Research Program - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)December 1, 1996…Published: December 1, 1996

The resulting research territory was unusually broad. NASA documents identify gravity–electromagnetism coupling, vacuum-fluctuation energy, warp drives, wormholes and superluminal quantum phenomena among the subjects considered. Marc Millis, the programme’s central NASA figure, also formulated hypothetical “space drives” as thought experiments for identifying what physics would actually have to change before propellantless propulsion became possible. Questions included whether inertia or gravity could somehow depend on electromagnetic interactions, whether vacuum fluctuations could be exploited asymmetrically and whether negative mass existed or could be simulated.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server The challenge to create the space driveNASA Technical Reports ServerThe challenge to create the space drive - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)August 1, 1996…Published: August 1, 1996

Those subjects explain why BPP material travels so easily into antigravity and UFO literature. Its vocabulary genuinely overlaps with ideas frequently proposed as explanations for extraordinary craft: manipulated inertia, altered spacetime, gravity control and reactionless propulsion. The overlap is therefore not invented.

What changes the interpretation is the programme’s treatment of those concepts. NASA described the objectives as “presumably far from fruition”, and later assessments acknowledged that some might prove impossible. Rather than beginning with a working propulsion technology and developing it, BPP sought comparatively inexpensive experiments and theoretical studies that could decide smaller questions on which the grander concepts depended.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From PhysicsNASA Technical Reports ServerProspects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)May 1, 2004…Published: May 1, 2004

That approach produced a mixture of outcomes rather than a breakthrough. Millis’s 2004 retrospective examined 16 incremental research tasks conducted by BPP or related sponsors: roughly a third had been found non-viable, about a quarter offered clear opportunities for further work, and the remainder were unresolved. A later assessment of 14 tasks categorised six as reaching null conclusions, four as unresolved and four as offering possible sequels.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Assessing Potential Propulsion BreakthroughsNASA Technical Reports ServerAssessing Potential Propulsion Breakthroughs - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)…

This is an important boundary for interpreting the historical record. “NASA researched warp drives” and “NASA demonstrated warp propulsion” are radically different propositions. The surviving programme literature supports the first and not the second.

Why gravity-anomaly experiments were tests, not confirmations

The superconducting-gravity work provides an especially useful example because it comes closest to the language of literal antigravity.

In the 1990s, Eugene Podkletnov reported that objects positioned above a rotating superconducting disc appeared to lose a small fraction of their weight. His published claim described reductions beginning around 0.3–0.5 per cent and reaching approximately 1.9–2.1 per cent under particular conditions. If reproducible, such an effect would plainly have been important for fundamental physics and potentially propulsion.[arXiv]arxiv.orgWeak gravitation shielding properties of composite bulk YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-x} superconductor below 70 K under e.m. fieldJanuary 10, 1997…Published: January 10, 1997

NASA-associated researchers therefore had a legitimate reason to test the underlying proposition. A 1997 Physica C paper involving Ning Li, David Noever, Tony Robertson, Ron Koczor and Whitt Brantley examined whether a gravitational force could be coupled to a type-II YBCO superconductor. The NASA Technical Reports Server records the work under Marshall Space Flight Center and describes its result not as the discovery of antigravity but as placing new limits on the proposed coupling’s strength and range.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govOpen source on nasa.gov.

That difference is easy to lose when the episode is retold backwards from its technological implications. A laboratory can investigate “gravity shielding” because confirmation would be revolutionary, while simultaneously regarding the reported phenomenon as unconfirmed. The experiment is evidence that NASA considered the question worth resolving; it is not evidence that NASA accepted the answer claimed by the original experimenter.

BPP’s wider methodology makes that interpretation explicit. The programme deliberately tried not to reject proposals merely because their eventual technological implications sounded implausible. Instead, reviewers were asked whether a proposed experiment rested on sufficiently credible foundations and could produce a meaningful, reliable result. Crucially, NASA’s management paper says useful research could include experiments demonstrating that a proposed approach was not feasible.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govNASA Technical Reports ServerBreakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: Project Management Methods - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)De…

That is a subtle but important scientific-policy choice. If reviewers had been instructed to fund only concepts already judged technically feasible, a breakthrough-physics programme could scarcely investigate genuinely new physics. BPP instead separated two questions:

• Is the extraordinary final technology already credible? Often no, or impossible to determine.
• Can a specific underlying claim be tested credibly? Sometimes yes.

The distinction allowed NASA to investigate anomalous claims without converting institutional curiosity into institutional endorsement.

NASA built scepticism into the programme

The strongest counterpoint to a suppression interpretation is not that NASA avoided unconventional ideas. It plainly did not. It is that NASA constructed a public research framework for sorting them.

Millis’s later account of BPP project management says proposals were restricted to immediate unknowns, curious effects or critical issues rather than attempts to build entire speculative propulsion systems. Reviewers were instructed to give the reliability of an assertion greater importance than the magnitude of its implications. They were also asked to judge the credibility of the proposed research rather than prejudge whether the hoped-for phenomenon was physically feasible.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govNASA Technical Reports ServerBreakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: Project Management Methods - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)De…

This produced an unusually useful model for frontier research. A claim could have enormous consequences and still score poorly if the experiment could not distinguish the claimed effect from mundane alternatives. Conversely, a highly speculative idea could justify modest investigation if a well-designed experiment could settle an important uncertainty.

The programme also entertained theories only to discover constraints on them. Proceedings from the 1997 BPP workshop included discussion of zero-point-field models of inertia and gravitation, for example, but the same work argued against one proposed propulsion route involving negative inertial mass. The workshop record also noted theoretical difficulties with the Alcubierre warp concept rather than presenting a mathematically permitted spacetime geometry as an achievable spacecraft design.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govOpen source on nasa.gov.

Vacuum physics followed a similarly incremental route. NASA-supported work examined measurable Casimir forces — genuine quantum effects between closely spaced surfaces — and developed instrumentation and theoretical models for investigating them. The existence of Casimir forces did not establish the much stronger proposition that usable spacecraft energy could simply be extracted from the vacuum. NASA’s archive distinguishes experimentally accessible vacuum physics from the speculative technologies that motivated interest in it.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server SearchTechnical Reports Server Search

The result was therefore neither blanket dismissal nor blanket acceptance. BPP occupied the less dramatic territory between them: formulate the extraordinary proposition, identify the smallest decisive question, design a measurement and accept that a null result is scientifically useful.

A programme ending is not evidence of suppression

BPP ran from 1996 through 2002. Its end can look suggestive when inserted into a narrative in which promising unconventional research repeatedly disappears from public view. Contemporary documentation, however, provides a much more ordinary institutional explanation.

In July 2002, a notice originating from NASA Glenn warned researchers that a planned solicitation had been put on hold because the project’s budget was being cut. It stated that future budgets were uncertain and that 21 per cent of funds already allocated for that year had been requested for withdrawal. The practical consequences included no further research solicitations and an inability to re-establish in-house BPP research.[SpaceRef]spaceref.comOpen source on spaceref.com.

Earlier budget documentation also shows BPP operating through identifiable appropriations rather than as an invisible programme. A fiscal-year 2001 congressional earmark included $1 million to continue BPP, alongside funding for other NASA activities.[SpaceRef]spaceref.comnasa fy 2001 budget congressional earmarksnasa fy 2001 budget congressional earmarks

None of this proves that every government activity involving advanced propulsion was public; such a conclusion would go beyond the evidence. It does show that the termination of this particular NASA programme does not require a suppression explanation. There is contemporaneous evidence for budgetary vulnerability, and NASA subsequently published technical retrospectives describing both what the programme attempted and how its research performed.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From PhysicsNASA Technical Reports ServerProspects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)May 1, 2004…Published: May 1, 2004

Nor did unconventional propulsion disappear from institutional research once BPP ended. Later NASA-associated work again examined highly controversial propulsion claims. Johnson Space Center’s Eagleworks laboratory, led by Harold “Sonny” White, investigated advanced propulsion ideas including the EmDrive and warp-related concepts. A 2016 experiment initially appeared to detect tiny thrust from an EmDrive-like device, but independent investigations failed to establish a reproducible anomalous thrust, and specialists emphasised possible experimental artefacts.[WIRED]wired.comNASA's Em Drive Leader Has a New Interstellar ProjectNASA's Em Drive Leader Has a New Interstellar Project

The continuity is significant. Frontier topics can move between programmes, laboratories, grants and private research as funding priorities and technical judgements change. Administrative discontinuity by itself cannot establish that a successful technology was removed from public science.

How institutional investigation differs from suppression-list logic

NASA’s BPP record is especially valuable for understanding research field drift because it shows how genuinely related but scientifically distinct subjects can gather beneath one organisational umbrella.

A programme concerned with revolutionary spaceflight could reasonably discuss gravity modification, wormholes, quantum vacuum effects and propellantless drives because all might, if physically possible, overcome limitations of rockets. But organisational proximity does not make those ideas manifestations of a single phenomenon. Nor does it establish a technological connection to UFOs simply because similar concepts are invoked to explain reported UAP performance.

Suppression narratives often reverse that distinction. Once “antigravity researcher” becomes a broad retrospective category, a scientist working on superconductors, another studying vacuum forces and another considering theoretical spacetime metrics can appear to belong to the same technological project. If unusual deaths, disappearances, career setbacks or terminated funding are then collected from across that enlarged population, the resulting pattern can seem more coherent than the underlying research actually was.

NASA’s programme documents provide a useful control against that process because they show what a real umbrella programme looks like. It can deliberately place heterogeneous ideas next to one another while continuing to distinguish their evidential status. A workshop volume could contain superconducting-gravity experiments, Casimir-energy proposals, quantum tunnelling and spacetime concepts without asserting that all were facets of one discovered propulsion principle. The 1999 proceedings alone ran to hundreds of pages precisely because “breakthrough propulsion” functioned as a research question broad enough to accommodate competing and sometimes incompatible possibilities.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server SearchTechnical Reports Server Search

The programme’s results also cut against a simple binary in which unconventional scientists must either be vindicated or suppressed. Some investigated ideas failed tests. Others remained unresolved. Others generated narrower follow-up questions. NASA’s later assessments openly recorded that distribution.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Assessing Potential Propulsion BreakthroughsNASA Technical Reports ServerAssessing Potential Propulsion Breakthroughs - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)…

That middle category — worth investigating but not established — is crucial. It is often lost in retrospective narratives because it is less memorable than either “NASA proved antigravity” or “NASA refused to investigate antigravity”. The historical documentation supports neither extreme.

What NASA’s exotic propulsion research actually establishes

NASA’s involvement establishes something narrower, but still interesting: reputable scientific institutions have sometimes judged apparently exotic propulsion questions sufficiently important to investigate even when the proposed technology lay beyond accepted engineering and perhaps beyond physically achievable limits. BPP was intentionally structured to make room for such investigation.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics ProgramNASA Technical Reports ServerNASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)…

That fact should correct one common misconception in suppression narratives. A researcher’s interest in gravity modification, vacuum energy or propellantless propulsion does not by itself demonstrate exclusion from institutional science. NASA researchers and contractors publicly worked on precisely those subjects, held workshops about them and deposited reports in an openly accessible technical archive.

At the same time, institutional attention should not be upgraded into proof of the underlying claims. NASA’s own retrospective assessment said no propulsion breakthrough appeared imminent and recorded substantial numbers of null or non-viable outcomes alongside unresolved questions.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Assessing Potential Propulsion BreakthroughsNASA Technical Reports ServerAssessing Potential Propulsion Breakthroughs - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)…

For evaluating alleged connections between UFO research, antigravity scientists and suspicious deaths or disappearances, this supplies a practical evidential boundary. The relevant question is not simply whether a person worked on something that resembles a NASA frontier-physics topic. It is whether there is independent evidence that the researcher possessed a validated result, that the result threatened identifiable interests, that suppression actually occurred, and that any later death or disappearance was causally connected to it.

NASA’s speculative propulsion history demonstrates why those steps cannot safely be collapsed. Institutions sometimes investigate extraordinary claims because the potential payoff is enormous and a decisive test is affordable. They sometimes terminate programmes because budgets change. They publish null results alongside unresolved ones. And they can take an exotic possibility seriously enough to test it without believing that the extraordinary technology already exists. In a research landscape where “gravity”, “vacuum energy”, “warp propulsion” and “UFO technology” are easily blended into one retrospective category, that distinction is one of the most important safeguards against mistaking scientific exploration for evidence of suppression.[nasa.gov]ntrs.nasa.govNASA Technical Reports ServerBreakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: Project Management Methods - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)De…

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to What NASA's Exotic Propulsion Research Actually Shows. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The Hunt for Zero Point

By Nick Cook

The atomic bomb was not the only project to occupy government scientists during the 1940's. Antigravity technology, originally spearheade...

See on Amazon

Book

Physics of the Impossible

By Michio Kaku

Physics of the Impossible takes us on a journey to the frontiers of science and beyond, giving us an exhilarating insight into what we ca...

See on Amazon

Book

Frontiers of Propulsion Science

By Marc G. Millis, Eric W. Davis

Frontiers of Propulsion Science is the first-ever compilation of emerging science relevant to such notions as space drives, warp drives,...

See on Amazon

Book

The Physics of Star Trek

By Lawrence Krauss, Lawrence M. Krauss

Introduces physics as it analyzes the science behind "Star Trek," explaining the intricacies of warp speed and showing the difference bet...

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:The Hunt for Zero PointPhysics of the ImpossibleFrontiers of Propulsion Science

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Selected fromNASA patch oneBay.co.uk.

Related eBay result

Military style Embroidered Iron On Sew On Patches Badges Transfers Fancy Dress

GBP 2.79 | Free shippingNewSeller: wor gra (98.7% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Related eBay result

NASA Embroidered Patch – Space Logo Badge – Sew On / Iron On Patch for Jackets,

GBP 2.49 | Free shippingNewSeller: nextgentrade (99.4% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Related eBay result

NASA Iron On Patch Embroidered Astronaut Fancy Dress T Shirt Black Sew On Badge

GBP 2.79 | Free shippingNewSeller: ellultd (99.6% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Related eBay result

NASA Logo Embroidered Patch Iron/Sew On Patch For Clothes

GBP 2.49 | Free shippingNewSeller: real-co2021 (99.7% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Research Program
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19970009634

Published: December 1, 1996

2. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980201240.pdf

3. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20050041926

4. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Assessing Potential Propulsion Breakthroughs
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060000022

5. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server The challenge to create the space drive
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960048672.pdf

Published: August 1, 1996

6. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Challenge to Create the Space Drive
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19980021277

7. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20040070788

Published: May 1, 2004

8. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Search
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=213082

9. Source: arxiv.org
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9701074

Published: January 10, 1997

10. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19990039542

11. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050041926/downloads/20050041926.pdf

12. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19990023211

13. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Search
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=alcubierre

14. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Search
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=Breakthrough+Propulsion+Physics

15. Source: spaceref.com
Link:https://spaceref.com/status-report/nasa-grc-funding-in-jeopardy-for-breakthrough-propulsion-physics-bpp/

16. Source: spaceref.com
Title: nasa fy 2001 budget congressional earmarks
Link:https://spaceref.com/status-report/nasa-fy-2001-budget-congressional-earmarks/

17. Source: wired.com
Title: NASA’s Em Drive Leader Has a New Interstellar Project
Link:https://www.wired.com/story/nasas-emdrive-leader-has-a-new-interstellar-project

18. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Search
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=%22space+drive%22

19. Source: nasa.gov
Title: 1996 ames earth science publications
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/1996-ames-earth-science-publications/

20. Source: techport.nasa.gov
Link:https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/95581

21. Source: techport.nasa.gov
Link:https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/92617

22. Source: nasa.gov
Title: The Future of Space Exploration
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/headquarters/library/find/bibliographies/the-future-of-space-exploration/

23. Source: nasa.gov
Title: Nuclear Power in Outer Space
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/headquarters/library/find/bibliographies/nuclear-power-in-outer-space/

24. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20180006480

25. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160007780

26. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160008979

27. Source: nasa.gov
Title: NAC A Publications
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/history/naca/pubs.html

28. Source: cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov
Title: qa gp gr
Link:https://cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_gp_gr.html

29. Source: spaceref.com
Link:https://spaceref.com/status-report/nasa-gsfc-solicitation-future-collaborative-research-and-education-opportunities/

30. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060000022.pdf

31. Source: nature.com
Title: Antigravity has feet of clay: Nature News
Link:https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/news050124-8.html

32. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050041926.pdf

33. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20040171927&hterms=breakthrough+propulsion+physics

34. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040070788.pdf

35. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20020068834

36. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020016600.pdf

37. Source: spaceref.com
Title: hr4635 nasas fiscal year 2001 budget
Link:https://spaceref.com/uncategorized/hr4635-nasas-fiscal-year-2001-budget/

38. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023236.pdf

39. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990023204

40. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990046249.pdf

41. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990068007

42. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990023209

43. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990104365

44. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19990047463

45. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19990023210

46. Source: wired.com
Title: es warp
Link:https://www.wired.com/1998/07/es-warp/

47. Source: wired.com
Link:https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/

48. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19990019627&hterms=superconducting+gravity

49. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990064220

50. Source: wired.com
Title: motorola satellites set for chinese launch
Link:https://www.wired.com/1997/12/motorola-satellites-set-for-chinese-launch/

51. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980017317

52. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980021277

53. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19970009634

54. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19960048672

55. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930044044

56. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900010659.pdf

57. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900028351

58. Source: techport.nasa.gov
Link:https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/10880

59. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=Breakthrough+Propulsion+Physics+Workshop

60. Source: nasa.gov
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/history/SP-4219/Chapter1.html

61. Source: giss.nasa.gov
Link:https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/year/1996.html

62. Source: nasa.gov
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/earth-science-at-ames/earth-science-publications/archive/1996-2/

63. Source: taskbook.nasa.gov
Link:https://taskbook.nasa.gov/tbp/index.cfm?action=bib_search

64. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19650000295

65. Source: youtube.com
Title: Marc Millis
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StKLeD5h_Tw

66. Source: en.ikwipedia.org
Title: Eugene Podkletnov
Link:https://en.ikwipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

67. Source: fcoiaa.it
Link:https://fcoiaa.it/nasa-breakthrough-propulsion/

68. Source: zamandayolculuk.com
Link:https://www.zamandayolculuk.com/html-3/electrostatic_propulsion.htm

69. Source: nypl.org
Link:https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/browse/subjects/Spacecraft%20propulsion

70. Source: nypl.org
Link:https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/search?filters%5BcreatorLiteral%5D%5B0%5D=Millis%2C+Marc+G

71. Source: ouci.dntb.gov.ua
Title: 9Zkj EPO7
Link:https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/9ZkjEPO7/

72. Source: ouci.dntb.gov.ua
Link:https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/4OrJ6Gq7/

73. Source: ouci.dntb.gov.ua
Title: 4YEJo M04
Link:https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/4YEJoM04/

74. Source: ouci.dntb.gov.ua
Link:https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/4YXDvr67/

75. Source: altpropulsion.com
Link:https://www.altpropulsion.com/superconductors/

Additional References

76. Source: youtube.com
Title: Casimir Zero-Point Energy & Warp Drives | Harold “Sonny” White
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atGD9dIgYgg

77. Source: youtube.com
Title: Dr. Harold “Sonny” White
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA

78. Source: youtube.com
Title: Killer Patents & Secret Science Vol. 1 | Free Energy & Anti-Gravity Cover-Ups
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRwlYtAMps

79. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/a/ab-ramjet%2Bspace%2Bpropulsion

80. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/a/aneutronic%2Bfusion%2Bpropulsion

81. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/b/breakthrough%2Bheart%2Bscanner

82. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/c/concentration%2Bbreakthrough%2Bcurve

83. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/e/electromagnetic%2Bpropulsion%2Bsystem

84. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/e/evolving%2Bwormhole%2Bgeometries.html

85. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/g/gravity%2Bgradiometer%2Bbased