Match Exact Phrase    

Whatfinger: Frontpage For Conservative News Founded By Veterans

"The Best Mix Of Hard-Hitting REAL News & Cutting-Edge Alternative News On The Web"

June 25, 2019

More Evidence That NASA Really Does Stand For: 'Never A Straight Answer'

- Should we not by now have all learned to question everything the government and academia and the controlled media tell us?

By William B. Stoecker - All News Pipeline

Is the US government operating a secret space program with advanced propulsion technology far beyond anything known to the public? Are they continuing to waste money and risk lives with the public space program…limited mainly to conventional rockets burning chemical fuels…as a cover for the real program? On a broader scale, are our glorious masters ignoring or even suppressing advanced “free” energy, propulsion, and even medical technologies that could raise our living standards, clean up the environment, alleviate suffering, and save lives?

Are people dying slow and horrible deaths from cancer or heart disease, their health actually harmed, not helped, by chemotherapy and statin drugs, while the elites (note how long-lived they tend to be) heal themselves with real medicine? There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence pointing in this direction, as well as wild claims by people who claim to have been to Mars and other worlds while working for the secret space program, but all of them lack hard proof.

(If you appreciate stories like this, please consider donating to ANP to help keep us in this battle for the future of America.)


I have written previously about electrogravitics technology, the claims and counter-claims made about it, and the need for open testing before witnesses to determine once and for all if it is really gravity control or simply a reaction to the ion “wind.” I have pointed out how odd it is that NASA boasts of future manned flights to Mars using conventional technology, and long-term bases on the Moon, when no tests have shown that humans could long survive in such low gravity, or in Earth orbit without spin-induced gravity.

It would have been relatively easy to test the effects of spin gravity on astronauts by using two satellites connected by a long tether (to reduce harmful coriolis forces) and spinning around a common center of gravity. This has never been done. I have also written about the pattern of evidence indicating that NASA and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) may have lied to us about the density of the Martian atmosphere. And then there are the anomalous structures in photographs taken from orbit near Mars and our Moon, including high towers that clearly appear to be artificial. It appears that NASA really does stand for “Never A Straight Answer.”

But then there is the matter of the tethered satellite experiments conducted using the manned space shuttle, and culminating in the STS-75 mission on 2/25/96. NASA deployed a fairly weighty satellite from the shuttle, attached by a 20 kilometer cable and an electrical wire that could complete a circuit. NASA announced that this would be used to generate electricity as the shuttle orbited at some 18,000 miles per hour through Earth’s vast but diffuse magnetic field. But a short circuit occurred, melting the cable.

Most people accepted NASA’s story without questioning or thinking about it. But a few of us had a lot of questions. First of all, NASA never said why the shuttle needed more power, or why the power wasn’t produced by adding more fuel cells, or a photovoltaic array. Because the tethered satellite, while generating electric power, would do so at a cost. As with any electric dynamo, the induced current would generate its own electromagnetic field, which would react with Earth’s field, causing resistance…and slowing the shuttle down until it fell out of orbit.

But this is precisely what the astronauts need to do at the end of a mission, before they run out of oxygen. Normally, this is accomplished with a rocket burn, but it might be practicable to do it with this tethered satellite system. But there’s more. An electric dynamo is really an electric motor in reverse. A dynamo turns kinetic energy, or movement against a resistance, into electric energy. An electric motor turns electric energy into kinetic energy. If the astronauts used an array of solar cells to turn sunlight into electricity, pointed the tethered satellite forward, and put energy into it, the tether would generate thrust, slowly accelerating the shuttle and causing it to spiral outward into a higher orbit.

There is nothing to prevent it from going farther and accelerating the shuttle (or a purpose-built manned or unmanned spacecraft) past escape velocity and cruising around the inner Solar System, where sunlight provides the energy and it could react with the Sun’s magnetic field. The thrust would be too weak to take off from Earth’s surface or to land on another planet, but the system could carry manned or unmanned craft into and from Lunar orbit, or on orbital missions to Mercury, Mars, and Venus. It could also propel unmanned craft on one-way missions to the outer planets.


Five years after I wrote about this in my book in 2000, the 2005 issues of Discover and Scientific American magazines published articles about NASA’s plans to equip satellites with this system, powered by solar cells and described exactly as I (and I alone) had described it five years earlier. These satellites could use the system for station keeping or to spiral into higher orbits. But they failed to mention STS-75 or the possibility of interplanetary orbital missions.

There is yet another possible use for such a system, but it’s a long shot and I doubt that there would be enough thrust to do it. SpaceX has finally produced a two stage orbital system, with a fully reusable first stage that descends tail first to a soft landing, making spaceflight a whole lot cheaper. But they still have not been able to make the second stage reusable. The problem is that it is one thing to make a relatively small reentry vehicle strong enough to withstand the temperatures, pressures, and vibrations of atmospheric braking from orbit. But the second stage must be large enough to carry a huge amount of propellant, yet light enough to reach orbital velocity and do so with a significant payload.

So far, no one can do this, although advances in materials technology might one day make it possible. An alternative to atmospheric braking would be to use the rocket engines to slow the craft at least enough so that it would not be destroyed on reentry, and perhaps use atmospheric braking for the rest of the descent and landing. So far, we can’t even do this. Perhaps an electromagnetic system as described above could slow the craft enough, although I doubt it.

Be that as it may, the real questions are: why didn’t NASA admit the real purpose of STS-75 from the beginning? And why did they not follow up on an experiment that showed great promise, when the flaws in the cable that allowed the short circuit could easily be corrected? Why didn’t Discover and Scientific American mention STS-75 and openly discuss the possibility of using the system for deep space missions, including manned missions? Could it be that NASA has, instead, been developing even more promising technologies, along the lines of electrogravitics or other methods of gravity control, or (supposedly impossible) reactionless space drives? But the real question is, why was I seemingly the only author really questioning the official NASA story regarding STS-75? Should we not by now have all learned to question everything the government and academia and the controlled media tell us?

 EMERGENCY FUNDRAISER: Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.

So ANP is accepting emergency reader donations during the months of June and July. 


One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:



Donate monthly from $1 up by becoming an ANP Patron.


Donate Via Snail Mail

Checks or money orders made payable to Stefan Stanford or Susan Duclos can be sent to:

P.O. Box 575
McHenry, MD. 21541


WordPress Website design by Innovative Solutions Group - Helena, MT
comments powered by Disqus

Web Design by Innovative Solutions Group