Pulsing Thrust
Home Natural Motion Universal Gravitation Cold Fusion Pulsing Thrust ShuttleFactor Challenger Studies STEMnP Oil Spill Disaster

 

 

Home
Natural Motion
Universal Gravitation
Cold Fusion
Pulsing Thrust
ShuttleFactor
Challenger Studies
STEMnP
Oil Spill Disaster

 

To be added:

AntiGravity

Failure Mechanisms

Cosmic Life Line

Sci Study of UFOs

Solo Sapiens

Philosophy of Science

Pulsing Thrust – Bragging Rights (Part I)

The “dynamic overshoot” saga was gruesome (see Shuttlefactor webpage). At one point, someone from the Office of Vice President Dan Quayle asked AbuTaha, “Can this “dynamic overshoot” be turned into something useful, like an invention?” “Actually, there is more than one invention in the concept,” answered AbuTaha. Months later, he called VP Quayle’s office to tell them that he invented a method, which he called “Pulsing Thrust,” to “double” the thrust of rocket engines and motors; and that the invention was based on the “dynamic overshoot” ideas. The VP Office told AbuTaha to take it to NASA. He  had already taken it to NASA and DOD. The administrator then, Dan Goldin, referred the invention to a propulsion manager, William Escher. After a rough start, the “Pulsing Thrust” made it to the NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) in Ohio. Captain Neil Roble from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) requested, and received, a long briefing on “dynamic overshoot,” “pulsing thrust,” and AbuTaha’s lengthy mathematical analysis of the thermodynamics, propulsion, physics, and mechanics of the invention. Then hundreds of pages were faxed to Phillips Laboratory (PL) at Edwards AFB, Space Command, LeRC and others.

As the sole inventor of the method to ”double” the specific impulse, isp, of engines, AbuTaha expected “sole source procurement” with DOD and NASA. That was the Law. Sole source procurement means that you, and only you, submit initial proposals for the work. Everyone was agreeable. AbuTaha was invited to go to Edwards, and he expected invitations to WPAFB, LeRC and other Centers.

Then, out of the blue, Robert Corley, from Phillips Laboratory at Edwards called AbuTaha on July 6, 1993. Everything was canceled. All arrangements were canceled. Why? Corley, the Chief Scientist at Phillips, said  that “response from engineers” was “fundamentally same response as NASA.”  Corley went on to say that in his 30 years experience, he “never found a failure” attributed to the dynamic overshoot effect! He concluded the telecon with the words, “I hope this conversation is adequate. Sorry!

AbuTaha made a few calls. The engineers who received details of his invention at WP, Edwards and LeRC were still onboard. He called Corley on July 9, 1993. Corley refused to send anything in writing about his telecon. He told AbuTaha that if DOD pursued the subject, it would be “competitive procurement,” and AbuTaha would have to compete for the contract like everyone else. Dr. Corley did not know that AbuTaha gave lectures on defense and aerospace procurement to military personnel in the early 1980s. AbuTaha cited exact civil and military Codes that give the inventor the right to “sole source procurement.” Corley was not expecting this, and he dropped a bombshell, explaining his real reasons for canceling the above arrangements. He said that he checked with NASA and discovered that AbuTaha’s “transient” studies were all “nonsense,” and on the “pulsing thrust” method, Corley said that you “can’t get more than 100%,” and other things. The real damaging words from Corley were the accusation that there was “a Court Order to keep you (AbuTaha) away from MSFC (Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama). Neil Young fared better in Alabama. The NASA MSFC deep throat in Huntsville struck again.

A scathing telex from MSFC to KSC in October 1986 led to the cancellation of a Purchase Order agreement between NASA and AbuTaha to do the dynamic overshoot transient analysis. A scathing letter to Dr. Stephen Trachtenberg, the President of the George Washington University, from MSFC in 1989 led to the cancellation of AbuTaha’s course on the Challenger Accident, the cancellation of a coast-to-coast telecast on Cold Fusion, and the cancellation of a 3-day Cold Fusion Program. And now, the NASA MSFC phantom was at it again.

What NASA did, and did not do, after Corley's shocking accusation demands explanation. The facts are presented here to Corley, and everyone from PL, WP, Space Command, the Pentagon, NASA, GWU, defense and aerospace Contractors and others. The meetings AbuTaha held at KSC in October 1986 were portrayed by someone(s) from MSFC as AbuTaha crashing into the Cape and getting caught and exposed by MSFC. This is blatantly false, and Richard Truly and Dan Goldin should have struck down the false accusations during their tenure at NASA, but they didn't.

The facts, in the possession of NASA and the Courts, show the following: (1) AbuTaha’s visit to KSC was arranged by astronaut Bonnie Dunbar, who was assigned to interface with him by Admiral Richard Truly, then NASA Associate Administrator, (2) A Congressional Science and Technology Committee asked AbuTaha to witness the Atlantis rollout, (3) AbuTaha personally briefed an assistant to General James Abrahamson, then Director of SDIO, on the transient dynamic overshoot effect in the Space Shuttle and defense systems before going to the Cape, and (4) AbuTaha’s primary objective at the Cape was to check out the “damping” measures that some engineers claimed to exist on the Shuttle to counter the lift-off transient “dynamic overshoot” forces. He had challenged that claim by NASA engineers while still in Washington. It turned out that the "damping" measures the NASA engineers claimed had nothing whatsoever to do with the lift-off dynamic overshoot, and AbuTaha's trip to KSC was very productive. At the Cape and as required, a NASA escort accompanied AbuTaha at all times and meetings. As was his practice in all missions to secured centers before, he was completely compliant with all laws. AbuTaha was not at KSC for a 3-hour in-and-out dash. Over a period of 3-days at KSC, he had productive meetings with several teams. The visit to KSC culminated in a large meeting headed by the Space Shuttle Engineering Director and attended by MSFC’s Representative at KSC. The “dynamic overshoot” mistake in the Space Shuttle was clearly established in the meeting using actual Shuttle lift-off data. There were about 15 senior engineers in the meeting, all of them were involved in the Space Shuttle for years, and not one of them expressed dissent over the "dynamic overshoot" evidence. That was the basis for the Purchase Order agreement with NASA mentioned above. But, Corley did not want to hear any of it telling AbuTaha, "I know the people I spoke with at NASA."

AbuTaha called the offices of the Administrator, Associate Administrators, IG (inspector general), GC (General Counsel); he called and met with admirals and generals he knew, he tried the Offices of his legislators from Virginia, Senator John Warner and Congressman Frank Wolf, and others. No results. Escher from NASA said that he was "unaware of any negative reactions" about AbuTaha or his Invention. Captain Neil Roble and the Commander at Edwards said that they sent written recommendation about the pulsing thrust invention to Space Command. But, no one could reverse Corley’s call. 

The only thing that resulted from the flurry of activities was a letter of denial from the NASA General Counsel Office, dated July 20, 1993, stating,

Please know that NASA has not sought, and to the best of our knowledge, there are no “Court Orders” to keep you away from any NASA Center or surrounding towns and cities” as stated in your message. Ordinarily, there are security restrictions on visitors attempting to enter Government facilities, and you may wish to clarify your communications with the non-specified “U.S. Space Command” to which you refer in your message.”

The letter was useless. Robert C. Corley is a distinguished propulsion expert and leader, recognized by aerospace communities, and AbuTaha did not name Corley as the source of the allegation. AbuTaha had heard similar allegations in the 1980s and he dismissed them as innuendo. But coming from Corley, the allegation carried more weight, hence, the complaint to NASA.

Then on August 27, 1993, the Dan Goldin’s NASA General Counsel Office sent AbuTaha a letter requesting termination of all communications with the agency:

…no useful purpose is served by your continuing faxes, telephone calls, or other communications. Accordingly, your ceasing such contacts is requested, and your cooperation will be appreciated.

Around this time, the NASA engineers (including, Dr. Mike McGowan at LeRC in Ohio and others) were beginning to realize that AbuTaha's "thrust doubling" technique was credible, and not "trash" as they had insinuated for a long year. Did Dan Goldin know that AbuTaha's pulsing thrust method was credible when NASA dismissed AbuTaha? Did the General Counsel know that "thrust doubling" is real? Did Goldin and the General Counsel consider reversing their Order when the Air Force issued solicitation to "double" the thrust of rocket motors and engines only four months later? During Goldin’s tenure at NASA, the Air Force began to work on AbuTaha’s invention to double (200%) the thrust or exceed the "impossible" 100% barrier. Then, Air Force and NASA collaboration on AbuTaha’s Invention was established. The Invention would be described as “world-class.” The aerospace contractors, professional organizations and universities were brought into the collaboration to move the Invention forward to the benefit of our defense, space program, economy, and education. At no time did Goldin, Corley, or others who knew full well that AbuTaha was the first and sole inventor of the method to double thrust would invite him to participate or send him a simple apology, thank you, or recognition note for his Invention. Who invented the “world-class” method to double the thrust of engines and motors? Did anyone "boast" about the "world-class" Invention? These questions are answered later below.

First, here are some of AbuTaha's write-ups on his "Pulsing Thrust," or "Thrust-Doubler," Invention, including the Patent Application that he filed with the USPTO on September 9, 1992.

Back to Top

Go To: Pulsing Thrust - Bragging Rights (Part II)


The Sensible Way to Space - 35 Years Late
At the World Space Congress, August 24, 1992 (PDF 1.1MB)

Doubling an electric force, as in the voltage-doubler which is used in most radios and television sets today, has been used effectively and profitably in electronic engineering for more than 30-years. The same process, which could double physical forces, such as the thrust in rockets, has been completely overlooked, misunderstood and mishandled in aerospace engineering. Rather than turn the excess force into great benefit as has been done in electronics, the excess force, which occurs naturally at the start-up of rocket engines and motors has been the source of many problems for space systems. We describe how thrust-doubling, like voltage-doubling, can be done by clamping and rectifying the thrust force to achieve unprecedented performance from satellites, launch vehicles, and related systems.

…The above facts have been masked by the common practice in science and engineering of indiscriminately referring simple harmonic motion to the equilibrium position.

The peak rectifier gives at its output a voltage that is equal to its peak input voltage, which by the action of the clamper is, Vo = 2Vs.8 Thus, the input electric force, or voltage, is doubled at the output.

There is nothing magical about the voltage-doubler or its force-doubling effect and the circuit is found in modern radios and television sets, providing reliable, economical and profitable products and operation. Similarly, a physical force, such as the thrust of a rocket engine, can be clamped, rectified, doubled and used to achieve greater safety, reliability, unprecedented performance, and economic advantage. The force-doubling-process will revolutionize aeronautics and astronautics, as it has done in electronics for 35 years.

…Since the beginning of the space program, only the steady-state thrust force, which comprises half of the attainable performance, have been known, listed, or used. At no time has force magnification by dynamic overshoot been listed, analyzed, or used with these (Scout, Delta, Atlas, Titan, Saturn) and other launch vehicles in propulsion textbooks.

We emphasize that a design based on Fo is an inferior one, and that space systems designed to the overshoot forces, 2Fo, are ineffective. The former is destined to fail catastrophically or fatigue prematurely, and the latter is wasteful. Why burden the total mass of a launch system and reduce its performance to resist the overshoot force for only a fraction-of-a-second?

Method for Substantial Increase in Effective Thrust
Patent Application, September 9, 1992 (PDF 745KB)

A method comprising the application of thrust in rocket engines and motors in sequential short-pulses to maximize or magnify the effect of the applied forces, by up to 100% in the ideal case; where each pulse is of sufficiently long duration to produce the maximum or desired transient magnification effect, which is also known as the dynamic overshoot; and where the pulses are applied with sufficient frequency to rectify the thrust, or force, near the peak dynamic overshoot value before the magnification effect is lost to other forms of unusable energy, such as, heat.

Pulsing Thrust and The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Response to Critique, December 1992

In both cases, the entropy is positive, and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. The second law is violated only if the entropy is negative. At the ideal limit of "pulsing-thrust" operation, the entropy will be zero. In practice, there will be energy losses, and the entropy will be a positive value, but much less than in steady-state combustion. 

It is true that the efficiency of rocket engines has reached 99% of steady-state combustion. But, this is only 99% out of 200%; or more accurately, 50% of 100%. "Pulsing-thrust" utilizes that part of the combustion energy that is usually dissipated into strain energy, heat and other forms of unusable energy.

Pulsing Thrust Seminars
Seminar Proposals, December 1992

Explaining the "Pulsing-Thrust" Technique

The speaker has developed a new process that can substantially improve the performance of engines and motors; which he dubbed: "pulsing-thrust." The pulsing-thrust advantage is NOT obtained by simply pulsing the thrust on-and-off, as was supposed by some experts. It was specifically noted that there is correlation between the proposed thrust-doublers and the successful voltage-doublers. In the latter, the electric force is clamped and rectified to achieve the doubling effect. These steps involve the intentional and controlled accumulation, storage and release of the available 100% energy by the action of diodes and capacitors. Diodes and capacitors have equivalents in Mechanical Engineering.

Pulsing-Thrust Advantage: 50% to 100% Efficiency

In this talk, the speaker will (1) describe the specific steps required to achieve the substantial "pulsing-thrust" advantage, (2) discuss the energy-overshoot-component, and (3) show compatibility with the laws of thermodynamics, propulsion principles, etc.

Articles on Pulsing Thrust
Pulsing engines could boost Shuttle Loads, by Tim Furniss, Flight International, 16 - 22 September 1992, p. 44
Pulsing engines could double thrust, Professional ENGINEERING, UK, October 1992, p. 15

Pulsing engines could double thrust
Professional Engineering, England, October 1992, p. 15

The principle is that of dynamic overshoot, similar to that experienced when stepping on weight scales and watching the dial overshoot before it settles down to the correct reading. The same idea of increasing forces is similar to that of the voltage doubler which was introduced by the electronic industry over 30 years ago, which doubles electrical output by clamping and rectifying the force signal.

AbuTaha says that the implications of dynamic overshoot have never been recognized before and systems would need extensive alterations before the principle could be adopted. However, he believes that pulsing engines could revolutionise space travel.

Pulsing engines could boost Shuttle loads
By Tim Furniss in the World Space Congress, Washington DC 1992
Flight International, England, 16 – 22 September 1992, p. 44

Pulsing-engine technology could enable the Space Shuttle to carry a load up to four times greater than its present capability into low-Earth orbit, according to Ali AbuTaha…

The key to the engine is a phenomenon called dynamic overshoot. Dynamic Transients has gained an understanding of this under-researched phenomenon through independent investigations into a range of test and operational databases of space systems, including the Space Shuttle and Intelsat communications satellites.

“The extraordinary implications of dynamic overshoot have not been recognised before,” said AbuTaha, speaking at the World Space Congress. “It will never happen overnight and existing systems would need extensive modifications, but pulsing thrust engines could revolutionise our next era.”

Use of the concept on Ariane 4’s first stage alone could double the performance of the three-stage vehicle, says AbuTaha, enabling it to achieve single-stage-to-orbit capability, which could also apply to the Atlas, Titan and Delta rockets.  


Anyone familiar with procurement of defense and aerospace systems would instantly recognize Robert Corley’s unreasonable, and even wrong, attitude described above. To submit sole-source proposal, Corley invoked another ridiculous requirement. He insisted that AbuTaha must submit a “refereed paper” with any proposal. Anyone familiar with “refereed papers” will deduce that either Corley was vehemently opposed to the possibility of “doubling” the thrust (in July 1993), or he had other agendas. Everyone AbuTaha dealt  with from WP, PL, Space Command, Lewis, and other Centers was professional and polite. Corley's actions remain incomprehensible to this day (2009).

AbuTaha to Lt Col Mike Heil
Telecon from Dr. R. A. Corley, July 9, 1993

...I had contacted your Command on the specific written recommendation of the Space Command; and this came only after I had shared specific technical information without hesitation (and without playing any "games") with the Air Force, at their request, in a long five-hours meeting. I am surprised that Dr. Corley considers Captain Neil Roble of the Wright Laboratory to be "unqualified" on the basis of a telephone conversation. In our long meeting, Captain Roble asked me very piercing technical questions and I found him to be rather keen and technically qualified.

As a last ditch effort, AbuTaha met with the Director of Advanced Technology R&E, Donald Dix, at the Pentagon on September 20, 1993. As far as Dix was concerned, there was no “dynamic overshoot” effect. The NASA engineers who measured the effect from actual Space Shuttle lift-off were probably "idiots." And 100% (one hundred percent) was the limit to the performance of engines and motors. Our space program, AbuTaha thought, was in for a long winter night.

Almost all major aerospace contractors responded to AbuTaha, most negatively. Without consulting with AbuTaha, one major Contractor put an engine on a rack, set the engine pulsing, and reported to AbuTaha no improvement. AbuTaha had given details of the invention only to the folks at Edwards AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB and NASA Lewis Research Center. To get the thrust advantage, one must "pulse" the engine, "clamp" the pulse, and then "rectify" the repeated pulses. “Clamp” and “rectify” signals are common speak in electronics. In propulsion, no one knew what “clamp” and “rectify” pulses meant. That was the heart of AbuTaha’s Invention (see patent application and other write-ups above).

By the end of 1993, the Phillips Laboratory at Edward Air Force Base released Program Solicitation 94.1, titled, Advanced Rocket Propulsion Technology:

DOD Solicitation 94.1 (FY 1994)
Advanced Rocket Propulsion Technology
Propulsion and Energy Conversion
Assured Access to Space

Closing Date: 14 January 1994

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort is to develop innovative rocket component technologies, component manufacturing techniques and component integration technologies which will contribute to the doubling of existing rocket propulsion capabilities by the year 2010. (my emphasis)

DESCRIPTION: The Phillips Laboratory (PL) is in need of new, innovative approaches in the development of technologies which can double the existing rocket propulsion capability by the year 2010… (my emphasis)

It is not clear when Corley became a convert to "Thrust Doubling." In AbuTaha's opinion, the solicitation was written for someone else. He did not submit a proposal. Corley would probably state indignantly, the solicitation was out there and AbuTaha could have responded like everyone else. AbuTaha earned "sole source solicitation" opportunity as the record shows. The PL's, or Corley's, Solicitation, did NOT ask for "refereed papers." This webpage should  remind the distinguished Robert Corley and others who was the first and sole inventor of the method to "DOUBLE" thrust.

Back to Top


Pulsing Thrust – Bragging Rights (Part II)  

Back to "Pulsing Thrust - Bragging Rights (Part I)

In 2004, President George W. Bush announced a vision for space exploration (VSE) to go back to the Moon, on to Mars, and Beyond. A Presidential Commission was formed to look into it: The President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, which also became known as the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond; or Moon to Mars (MtM). The Commission was headed by Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge, and it held hearings in different major cities and listened to an incredibly large number of people from all over the Country and the World. The Commission listened to experts on education, industry, economy, space, and the military. On March 3 and 4, 2004, the Commission held hearings at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Ohio.

Ten years after the top propulsion and aerospace experts from NASA and elsewhere proudly dismissed AbuTaha’s invention to “double” the specific impulse of rocket engines and motors, the subject came up in the Aldridge Hearings – in Ohio. By now, AbuTaha's invention had a new name: the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion System (IHPRP). And by now, his  invention was a joint collaboration between NASA and the Air Force. In the Science and Technology Sessions, the Aldridge Commission Reports states:

“In response to a question from Mr. Aldridge, Col. Boyle and Col. Leahy provided a few examples of collaboration between NASA and the Air Force, e.g., the integrated high payoff rocket propulsion system (IHPRP) (MtM, p. 21).

AbuTaha watched all the sessions of the Aldridge Commission. Many great people spoke and many great ideas were presented. One subject stood out above all the others; that was the reports from the Air Force that they had successfully exceeded the 100% thrust level and were now trying to achieve the 200% (double) thrust advantage described in this webpage. Here are some excerpts from the Commission's proceedings.

Moon to Mars Commission, March 2004

Col. Boyle

…I’m Colonel Joe Boyle and on behalf of the men and women of the propulsion directorate I want to thank you for this opportunity to present to you our capabilities and our science and technology program…

We have a long history of collaboration with NASA dating back to the development of the F-1 engine that powered the Saturn-5 moon rocket. This collaboration has continued to today where we are coordinating our efforts through both the National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance known as NRPTA which coordinates test infrastructure across the country and schedule and the integrated high payoff rocket technology propulsion program known as IHPRT whose goal is to double performance, reliability, performance, and cost effectiveness of rocket propulsion systems today (MtM, p. 110).

Pete Aldridge

We use the word participation and collaboration and several others. I can’t remember what they were especially with NASA. What does that mean? Does it mean that we meet every three or four months and talk about what we’re doing? Does it mean that there are NASA representatives in your offices? Does that mean that the Air Force is represented in NASA offices? What is this level of collaboration we are talking on?

Col. Boyle

I can give you a few examples of that. The first that I’ll talk about is the IHPRP program. It’s the integrated high payoff rocket propulsion program. We meet twice a year in conference where we review each other’s work but that’s not it. We are constantly meeting. We actually have joint programs, the IDP program up until 2 years ago was Air Force program. It is now a joint program with NASA. The deputy program manager, though he doesn’t sit in our office, he’s named the deputy program manager for the IDP. (MtM, p. 119)

Les Lyles

Joe… It’s (IHPRP) been going on for several years, is the collaboration with the Air Force, NASA and industry. We have watched this collaboration with the goal of doubling the isp and propulsion systems.

Col Boyle

…The IHPRP program is set up in three phases, five years at a time. We are currently in the second phase. The first phase we have demonstrated significant improvement in specific impulse, thrust capability and not only solid rocket motors, that was the big thing we did but also in the electric propulsion area. We have had significant advances.

We have not gotten to two times yet but that is a lofty goal and challenging one and that is what we think we need to go after as part of the Air Force Research Lab and making the challenges in technology really push us. But I will get you full report on that. (MtM, p. 120)

Neil Tyson

I, too, was impressed by the list of materials and technological advances you shared… (MtM, p. 123).

Col Boyle

What I will say, however, is that we set our goals, make them really difficult to achieve, specifically in the IHPRP program that I mentioned earlier. But one of the people that’s not here today that was originally on the list, Air Force Office of Scientific Research where most of our basic-six-one research is done, that’s where those folks do revolutionary kinds of things that they hand off to some of us folks to move along a little bit further.

Col McCasland

We may ask for unrestricted intellectual property rights because of our investment with defense applications, but those are negotiations we have in any particular partnership agreement. (MtM, p. 125)

Pete Aldridge

Again, thanks to the panel. It’s been very enlightening and sounds like there’s a lot of collaboration and partnership going on. Keep it up and I think we got a vision statement that can, in fact, we can do better by getting closer together and using a lot of the talent and capability that exists in the Air Force to support this new national vision, not just the President’s vision, and it’s not just the NASA vision. It is a national vision, and we think it’s something that is very important (MtM, p. 125).

And so, there it was, AbuTaha's "Pulsing Thrust" Invention to double the thrust of engines and motors. But as one can tell from the above briefs, or from the full Aldridge commission record, AbuTaha did not exist, did not invent, did not struggle to advance the national security, defense, space program, economy, education, or World leadership. No one was there to boast, to brag, to show off. Or, was there? Col. Joe Boyle made an impressive presentation. Boyle did not claim to invent "doubling" the thrust. He honestly referred that to anonymous "folks" who "do revolutionary kind of things." Who are those folks who do revolutionary kind of things? Do they have "unrestricted intellectual property rights" to AbuTaha's invention? Who invented the thrust "doubling" method? Was it Robert Corley, William Escher, Mike McGowan, or, someone else who took the invention from AbuTaha? Col. Boyle boasted about the world-class work that he and his colleagues were doing. Everyone was happy to hear Boyle say those words. AbuTaha was too. Boyle described other great achievements that he and his teams achieved, other than just the "doubling" of thrust.

Col. Boyle

…Members of the Commission, I thank you again for this opportunity to boast about the world-class capabilities of the propulsion directorate (MtM, p. 113).

In its Report to the President, the Commission said that it “strongly support the Centennial Challenge established by NASA. This program provides… for the payment of cash prizes for advancement of space or aeronautical technologies…" Only ten years earlier, doubling the thrust sounded worse than inventing the perpetual machine. Was anyone rewarded for the invention? Who? When? And, how much?

The Aldridge Commission wanted to hear from everyone.

Contact Us: Thank you for visiting the Moon to Mars website. We would like to hear from you. You may contact us by mail or electronically.” Chairman Aldridge said, “Anyone may submit a written statement to the Commission.”

Pete Aldridge

…We are listening to experts and the public… Through our website, we’re accepting comments from people around the world who want to be heard on this (President Bush’s VSE) subject… Also, we’ve been charted to layout the science agenda for the next decades. What should we be pursuing? What makes the best use of our investment? (MtM, p. 2).  

On the basis of everything described above, AbuTaha couldn't resist the temptation to write to the Aldridge Commission to rightfully "boast" that he was the first and sole inventor of the "world-class" Thrust Doubler. There was a slight chance the Commission might right the wrongs of the past.

From Ali F. AbuTaha’s Letter to the MtM Commission, March 2004

On March 4, 2004, the Commission heard about high payoff rocket propulsion (IHPRP) from Air Force experts. Twelve years ago, this was considered impossible, a “mirage.” Today, the concept is reality. As General Lyles noted, the program’s “goal of doubling the isp.” The Air Force witness told the Commission, “thank you again for this opportunity to boast about the world-class capabilities of the propulsion directorate,” (p. 113). “Thrust augmentation” was perhaps the most important technical breakthrough brought to the attention of the Commission. Why is this matter relevant here?

I am the first and sole inventor of the propulsion process, which I called in the early 1990’s “Pulsing Thrust.” There are more than 1,000 communications on record, with DOD (Wight-Patterson, Edwards, Space Command, etc.), NASA (HQ, JSC, MSFC, Lewis, etc.), the Congress, academia and the aerospace industry and communities. My work with NASA in the 1980’s became controversial and was known to everyone. The staff of the National Space Council had asked if useful applications could be derived from my theories. I developed the propulsion method and filed a Patent Application, “Method for Substantial Increase in Effective Thrust,” in September 1992. I shared the invention with DOD, NASA and the industry by fedex, fax, mail, telecons and meetings. NASA ridiculed the invention and asked me to cease all contacts with the Centers. WP requested in writing, and received, a very lengthy briefing. Later, the officer told me that he was leaving the AF to the private sector (with my invention?) and not to expect to hear from him nor from the Air Force again! A team assigned by the Honorable Norman Augustine, then head of MM, wrote me that my method was impossible, a “mirage.” I can go on and on about this. After a sizable investment on my part, I abandoned my Patent in July 1993. I considered my Invention a gift to the Nation. Abandoning my patent did not mean that I did not invent the very difficult process.

AbuTaha also proposed to share other significant achievements with the Commission [same subjects described in AbuTaha's 2009 Letter to NSF - see STEMnP webpage]. The Commission did not answer.

In an email message to the NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, dated August 23, 2003, AbuTaha requested that the "10-year old instruction from NASA" not to communicate with anyone in the agency be reversed. O'Keefe did not reply.

AbuTaha sent another email to Richard A. Howell, NASA Assistant General Counsel, on September 6, 2005

Thank you for speaking with me today. I called about a letter from the NASA Office of the General Counse, dated August 27, 1993 (attached), in which I was asked to cease contacts with our space agency. I did. Subsequently, I answered technical questions from NASA engineers who initiated the calls themselves. Also, I limited communications to the Administrators, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) and the Presidential Moon to Mars Commission. My messages related to important "scientific and technical" issues, which are urgent and essential to our space agency, our space program, our economy, education and national security. I am disappointed that no one followed up on my messages since the 1990's - I am disappointed, not for myself, but for our space agency and space program.

...As an aerospace professional, I request that you consider removing the restriction imposed in the 1993 letter. As a Citizen, I urge your Office to allow the science and engineering experts at NASA to determine the value and consequences of my "scientific and technical findings."

Howell's response, less than half-an-hour later on September 6, 2005, was a brief half-liner, dry as crisp bacon:

"NASA desires to maintain the existing restriction."

Anyway, "AbuTaha’s Pulsing Thrust = IHPRP;" that NASA and Phillips first ridiculed as impossible in 1992-93, walked away with in 1994, and boasted about as their world-class invention for a decade.

Back to Top


Home ]

Comments or Questions; send mail to: info@shuttlefactor.com
Copyright © 2010 Ali F. AbuTaha