Propulsion Without Propellant?
Since the very first V2 rockets in World War 2, the base concept for the propulsion of rockets has been to expel high-speed gases in the opposite direction of the rocket destination.
To this day, this is the almost sole form of propulsion used by rockets and spacecraft to leave Earth’s gravity and move around in space.
It is formalized under the rocket equation, which, in simple terms, states that the more mass that is expelled and the quicker it is expelled, the more propulsion. This is sometimes referred to as “the tyranny of the rocket equation”. This is because the more propellant is used, the more propellant is needed to lift said propellant.
For a typical single-stage rocket, approximately 90% of its initial launch mass must be propellant to overcome Earth’s gravity and atmospheric drag. This leaves only 10% for the rocket’s structure, systems, and payload.
But what if there was an alternative? For a very long time, propellant-less propulsion has been considered mere fantasy by the scientific community and the realm of science fiction.
Still, a few dissonant voices from serious and accomplished scientists are demonstrating puzzling experimental results and exploring unconventional theories to explain them.
One recent example is the presentation given by Dr. John Brandenburg at the APEC Propulsion Conference on the 31st of August 2024 under the title “Gravity Modification Experiment Description and Results”.
Can Anti-Gravity Be Real
Credibility
At first glance, the concept of antigravity seems very outlandish and “un-scientific,” more suited to science fiction, conspiracy theorists, UFO enthusiasts, and amateur inventors.
So it comes as a surprise when someone with the profile of Dr Brandenburg comes out with a presentation on the topic.
He is a physicist specializing in plasma, with experience in research on nuclear fusion, and “9 ½ years at Nuclear Weapons Labs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Sandia Labs in Albuquerque”, both institutions requiring a serious level of security clearance.
He is also the inventor of the microwave-electrothermal (MET) Thruster, an advanced form of space propulsion using microwaves to create ultra-hot plasma.
Source: URA Thrusters
This background puts out of the way the idea that this is coming from an unserious, unscientific source.
Gravity Electro-Magnetism – GEM
Fundamental Forces
There are 4 fundamental forces of the Universe recognized by modern physics, 2 operating at a very short, atomic level or smaller, and 2 operating at a very large scale.
Source: ResearchGate
GEM is a new theory stating that both long-range forces, electromagnetism, and gravity, could be considered only one unique force manifesting in two different ways depending on circumstances.
This would be a continuation of the efforts by physicists to unify fundamental forces, especially following the discovery of the merging of electric and magnetic forces into electromagnetism in the early 19th century and the electroweak interactions, merging the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force, rewarded by 2 Nobel Prizes in 1979 and in 1999.
Merging Gravity And Electromagnetism
Going into the details of the mathematics of GEM would be beyond the scope of this article. Overall, the idea is that the main equations for electromagnetism and gravity are very similar.
This is something that Einstein already noted, as both forces act according to the inverse of the radius of the distance: 1/r2.
Source: Mr. Naga Physics
So, while definitely novel, this is not a totally outlandish idea in itself.
This is something Dr Brandenburg has been working on for a long time, with publications about this theory dating back more than a decade:
- “The Problem of Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces and Prediction of the Higgs-Boson Mass using the GEM (Gravity Electro-Magnetism) Unification Theory” STAIF II, Albuquerque, NM February (2012).
- “A Derivation of the Newton Gravitation Constant and the Proton Mass From the GEM Unification Theory of Baryon-Genesis.” Journal of Cosmology Volume 17, 2011.
- “The Value of the Gravitation Constant and its Relation to Cosmic Electrodynamics,” IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, Plasma Cosmology Issue Vol. 35, No. 4. p845.
Why Is It Controversial?
The problem with such an approach is that it upends quite a few fundamentals of gravity as it is commonly understood today.
First, it would make the “G” constant not a constant at all.
Secondly, it would mean that negative gravity, or anti-gravity is possible. This would change completely all of physics, including current quantum physics which categorically rejects the idea of negative gravity.
Such ideas are generally met with derision or outright ostracism by the broader scientific community (for example, the French plasma scientist Jean-Pierre Petit’s cosmological theory “Janus”, developed using negative gravity and rejecting the concept of dark matter or energy, essentially blacklisted).
So, with extraordinary claims upending physics, as we know, serious proof is required.
Antigravity Measured?
In his presentation, Dr. Brandenburg showed an experiment he performed using simple devices, such as a helium balloon, a toy motor armature, and thin wire and rope.
Source: ResearchGate
Source: ResearchGate
He claimed that the contraption measured regularly a 150 mg weight loss when the current was applied, with weight loss longer for 8 seconds than 6 6-second long current.
Source: ResearchGate
Other Research
Brandenburg also points out other troubling experimental results by Brazilian researchers Elio B. Porcelli and Victo dos Santos Filho, which reported weight loss can be induced by a laser, explaining by electromagnetic effect induced by the laser.
This could also connected to another explained phenomenon, with the potential to create electrostatics thrusters described by NASA’s top expert in electrostatics, Dr. Charles Buhler.
Buhler’s devices tested in 2016 produced less than one hundred thousandth of a gravity. The unit they demonstrated in the 2020 paper and subsequent patent showed results up to 1 earth gravity (the amount of energy needed to overcome gravity on an item).
It could also be looked at with respect to the proposed “warp drives” and other Faster-Than-Light (FTL) theoretical propulsion systems.
Overall, Dr Brandenburg’s results are still from an unconfirmed experiment, but one that should be both extremely cheap and simple to replicate.
So we can hope more researchers take the time to check on it and at least confirm the puzzling loss of 150mg observed by Dr Brandenburg.
Could Modern Sciences Be So Blind?
This looks a little too good to be true, and this single fact probably explains the general skepticism around this idea.
This would, however, not be the first time scientific consensus is wrong. Of course, there is the famous historical example of Galileo, realizing the place of the Earth orbiting around the Sun, against the intellectual consensus of his time.
But the modern scientific era has also often ignored inconvenient truths or abnormal experimental results:
- Albert Michelson—a famed scientist at the time, having recently disproved the existence of “ether” and Nobel Prize winner in 1907 — said in 1894 that “the great principles had already been discovered, and that physics would henceforth be limited to finding truths in the sixth decimal place”.
- This was not long before the discovery of relativity and quantum physics.
- Lord Kelvin, one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century, said about the future of aeronautics: “Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success”
- This was just 3 years before the Wright brothers’ first flight.
- Meanwhile, Einstein was dismissive of quantum physics: “God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed.”
So maybe in a few decades, the rejection of antigravity, negative mass particles, and GEM theory will be considered equally short-sighted.
Other Exotic Propulsion Systems
While we now have a glimmer of hope for antigravity propulsion, something that would instantly open the stars to colonization, a few other exotic propulsion systems based on known physics have been discussed over the years.
The Orion Project
The Orion project was a concept from the late 1950s based on nuclear pulse propulsion.
Behind this name is the rather surprising idea to use nuclear explosion (from A-bombs) to propel a spacecraft to speeds so high to even potentially allow interstellar travel.
Source: NASA
By using a significant percentage of the energy released by a nuclear explosion, this would have been the most fuel-efficient propulsion system ever created.
Ultimately, the project would be abandoned, in large part due to the Cold War era 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear explosions in space.
Nuclear Thermal Propulsion
A maybe less spectacular way to harness nuclear energy for propulsion is nuclear thermal propulsion.
The idea is that instead of using chemical reactions to propel a spacecraft in the void, nuclear power could be used to turn a gas into plasma and propel it at high speed.
As the rocket equation stipulates, the quicker the expulsion, the more thrust and fuel efficiency the propulsion system provides.
With the Moon and Mars soon in sight, NASA is revisiting this concept. It recently awarded $5M to BWX Technologies, General Atomics, and Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies for a concept of nuclear reactors able to perform this role.
Similar but non-nuclear systems using electricity to propel ions at high speed, or Hall-effect thrusters, are also being tested by NASA.
Laser & Solar Sails
Another way to propel spacecraft without propellant would be to use the push of light instead.
Such solar sails have already been tested and work for delivering small spacecraft to the deep parts of the solar system.
A step further in that concept would be a network of powerful lasers in deep space or orbit, pushing spacecrafts with the lasers’ light. This would have the advantage of not requiring any propellant onboard the spacecraft, and providing a small, but continuous acceleration during the whole travel.
Ultimately, such a network of laser-powered fixed propellers pushing solar sails would likely be powered by collected solar energy, from large arrays of space-based solar panels.
Such infrastructure could not only speed up space exploration but also provide unlimited energy to Earth, as we discussed in “Space-Based Energy Solutions For Endless Clean Energy”.
Pulse Fusion
A more speculative but in-development propulsion method would be to propel a spacecraft using nuclear fusion (not fission, like in traditional nuclear power plants).
Energy-positive nuclear fusion has been so far elusive, even if it made significant progress in recent years, as we discussed in “Nuclear Fusion – The Ultimate Clean Energy Solution on the Horizon”.
A key limit in fusion reactions for power generation is that they are difficult to sustain, so they produce positive energy returns.
Alternatively, a fusion propulsion system does not need to be positive energy; it just needs to be more efficient than the alternatives in generating thrust.
So, the energy input could be supplied by solar or traditional nuclear power, and even a negative return on energy could still be better than the alternative.
Such fusion drive leveraging a short pulse of nuclear fusion is what the startup Helicity Space is working on.
“Helicity’s work could enable humanity’s extensive access to the entire solar system and might even enable missions to the nearest stars.”
Gen. Pete Worden, PhD, Former Director of NASA Ames Research Center
Source: Helicity
Investing In Space
Space is a very established industry experiencing a rebirth and explosive growth on the back of reusable rockets. We discussed how this will create whole opportunities in our article “Reusable Rockets To Create Multiple New Markets By Lowering Costs Drastically”.
The current space market is $443B. Even when ignoring more speculative (but potentially very lucrative) ideas like asteroid mining, just space tourism & hypersonic flight could add another $350B in revenues, to which can be added a forecast of satellite-based Internet worth $17B, as well as military applications and subsidized Moon bases, scientific projects, etc.
You can invest in space-related companies through many brokers, and you can find on this website our recommendations for the best brokers in the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, as well as many other countries.
If you are not interested in picking specific space-related companies, you can also look into ETFs listed in our article “5 Best Aerospace ETFs to Invest In” which includes ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF (ARKX) or VanEck Space Innovators UCITS ETF (JEDI) to capitalize on the growth of the space sector as a whole.
You can read more about the space exploration in “The Future Space-Based Economy“, “Space Infrastructure – Building Stairways To The Heavens“, and “Space Based Energy Solutions For Endless Clean Energy“.
Innovative Propulsion Company
Lockheed Martin Corporation
One notable exception to privately-listed startups dominating nuclear fusion is the publicly traded company Lockheed Martin Corporation, a giant of the defense industry.
Lockheed has worked since the early 2010s on Compact Fusion, a nuclear fusion reactor that is expected to be ready by the 2020s. However, it has since been announced that the work on the project was stopped in 2021.
The company has been very discreet about this project after an initial very public announcement. To this day, it is unclear what could have prompted the company to abandon the idea.
At the same time, it seems that it did not fully abandon the concept, notably with investments in 2024 in Helicity, a startup developing a fusion engine. As explained before, the idea would be to propel spacecraft with short bursts of fusion. Helicity is planning to use a plasma gun to achieve it.
Source: Helicity
Potentially, Lockheed’s own internal results have shown that their design could not sustain fusion in a way that is compatible with energy production.
But maybe, at the same time, short bursts are enough for the need for propulsion in space and much closer to becoming an actual product. It would also be a better fit with the overall aerospace and defense-focused profile of the company than power generation.
Lockheed is also deeply involved in other aspects of space exploration and industry, with over the history of the company 8 planets visited by Lockheed Martin spacecraft and 300+ mission payloads built for customers.
Notably, its space division is currently working on:
Besides space, Lockheed is behind some of the most powerful (and expensive) weapon programs in the USA, like the F-35. The stealth plane developed together with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems suffered a troubled development but is now “debugged” and getting built in large quantities, with demand outpacing production.
While it is active in all branches of the military, the company is mostly active in advanced technologies and aerospace, with aeronautics representing $6.2B of revenues in Q1 2023, missiles & fire control $2.3B (including the HIMARS, now famous in Ukraine), rotary (helicopters) $3.5B, and space $2.9B, for total sales of $15.1B total sales.
Lockheed is also active in cyber defense and naval systems (AEGIS anti-air systems and long-range anti-ship missiles).