top of page
  • Writer's picturePeter Fuller


Project Gemini – NASA program operational from 1961 -1966, designed to test various aspects necessary to launch successful missions to the moon. Gemini had four main goals – to test astronaut’s ability to fly long duration missions, to develop spacecraft rendezvous and docking procedures in orbit, to perfect re-entry and landing methods, and to understand the effects of longer spaceflights on astronauts.

SpaceX – Space Exploration Technologies, Inc. Founded in 2002 by entrepreneur Elon Musk, its primary goal is to create an affordable space transportation system that will enable man to travel to Mars, where Musk intends to establish a permanent human colony. On May, 30 2020, SpaceX launched two astronauts in their Crew Dragon capsule atop a Falcon 9 rocket into orbit. The capsule successfully docked with the International Space Station.

So I ask you – what’s the difference?

Seriously. Compare the two programs. In the mid-1960s, Gemini used chemical rockets to launch two astronauts into orbit. There they tested various elements necessary to complete a manned mission to the moon. Now in 2020, SpaceX launched two astronauts into orbit using chemical rockets, to test various elements necessary to complete a manned mission to Mars. Keep in mind, 54 years separate the two programs. Let that sink in for a second. You would think that the technology would have advanced somewhat since the 1960s. Granted, SpaceX is digital whereas Gemini was analogue, and the SpaceX boosters are designed to return to earth and land unscathed, but the method of propulsion is pretty much identical. Two astronauts sit on top of a rocket, the design of which was created in 12th century China, where several tons of propellant is ignited, creating chemical thrust. Analogue or digital, self-landing boosters or not, those rockets are the same basic technology.

So what should SpaceX be using? What alternative is available? How about electrogravitics? Thomas Townsend Brown was experimenting with a form of anti-gravity propulsion as early as the 1920s. I touched on this in a previous post, where I explained T.T. Brown’s work with electrogravitics. He and physicist Dr. Paul Biefeld (a close personal friend of Albert Einstein) developed several working prototypes that flew using electrogravitics. Critics insisted that what had actually moved their experimental craft was nothing more than “ionic wind,” however, Brown conducted the same experiments in a vacuum chamber with identical results, eliminating the ionic wind theory. What the pair achieved has become known as the “Biefeld-Brown effect.”

Townsend Brown served in the US Navy during WWII as an electrical engineer. Rumor has it he was involved with the mysterious “Philadelphia Experiment.” After the war, he conducted a demonstration of his electrogravitics for the Navy. Officially, they claimed they were uninterested, but shortly thereafter, Brown began “Project Winterhaven” at a facility in Los Angeles. The project was highly classified and heavily funded, so there are many who felt the Navy took Brown’s research, classified it and bankrolled it.

Regardless, something was definitely going on behind the black (project) curtain. In March of 1992, Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine reported that Northrop’s B-2 bomber incorporated a system of black technologies that included electrically charging the leading edge of the aircraft, supposedly meant to reduce its radar cross-section. It also reported that the exhaust gases are negatively charged. “This process of positively charging the leading edge, and negatively charging the exhaust gasses is virtually identical to the electrogravitics propulsion system developed by Thomas Townsend Brown … This system produces a ‘gravity well’ in the front of the craft, and a ‘gravity hill’ behind the craft, which allows the B-2 to ride on a ‘gravity wave’ similar to a surfer riding a wave on the ocean. The four F-118-GE-100 engines inside the B-2 serve as ‘flame jet generators,’ producing up to 100 megawatts of electrical power.”

The article goes on to explain, “This electrical power can be stored directly inside the structure of the B-2 which is primarily made up of an advanced dielectric ceramic material, and essentially turns the B-2 into one large capacitor. Once the ‘gravity wave’ is established, the engines on the B-2 can be shut down, turning the craft into an ‘overunity device,’ that can fly at supersonic speed with unlimited range.”

It appears that T.T. Brown’s anti-gravity propulsion system was picked up by the military and is being used in current flight systems.

By therein lies the problem. The military has captured the technology and is unwilling to release it to the general public. In his book, “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion,” Dr. Paul LaViolette wrote, “In October of 2007 I heard from a reliable U.S. government source that Boeing recently completed a classified electrogravitics propulsion project for the military that had certain novel features. The technology worked so well that they felt it could be of fantastic benefit if used on their commercial jet airliners. They reportedly applied for declassification of their invention for commercial use, but were denied permission.”

Bottom line – the military has had this technology for decades. They’ve been developing and using it behind a screen of secrecy, with no intention of allowing it to be released for public consumption. Imagine if NASA or SpaceX had such technology, which would allow them to travel to the moon, Mars, and who knows where else without the use of dangerous, clunky and primitive chemical rockets. With an electrogravitics anti-gravity propulsion system, people could commute to the moon and Mars could be a weekend getaway. The late Ben Rich, former head of Lockheed Skunkworks confirmed Dr. LaViolette's statement – “We already have the means to travel to the stars, and it won’t take a lifetime to get there. But these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to even get then out to benefit humanity … Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”

So while so many were all excited and the internet was abuzz with the SpaceX launch on May 30, I'm forced to think, what a tragedy that SpaceX looks so much like Project Gemini.

We haven’t come a long way – we’ve done nothing more than come full circle.

13 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page