
	by Richard C. Hoagland
	with David Wilcock
	December 9, 2007
	from 
	EnterpriseMission Website
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	Today, a second launch attempt will be made to 
	get Space Shuttle “Atlantis” off the pad successfully in this December 
	window. Regardless of how this turns out, it’s now obvious that the NASA 
	Shuttle Program will continue grappling with the hydrogen tank "Engine 
	Cutoff Sensor (ECO) problem."
	
	This has now been going on for over two and a half years after the NASA 
	engineers had thought they’d fixed it! The now-admitted "failure and 
	frustration" over this recurring shuttle problem among NASA’s senior 
	management is palpable.
	
	This perplexing problem initially appeared just a few months prior to the 
	STS-114 launch of Space Shuttle “Discovery,” back in 2005, and its important 
	“return to flight” mission for the previously grounded shuttle program. 
	STS-114 was also the first flight of the shuttle following the tragic 
	Columbia Disaster of STS-107, in February, 2003.
	
	Like the current sensor problems we are experiencing with “Atlantis,” this 
	initial “anomaly” for “Discovery’ was signaled by erroneous electrical 
	readings... coming from a set of four “engine cutoff sensors,” located at 
	the bottom of (and inside) the enormous orange fuel tank of the shuttle 
	(below).
	
	
	
	
	These maddeningly erratic, “on-again, 
	off-again,” apparently completely random failures in this critical shuttle 
	system soon became the focus of an enormous, expensive, NASA-wide 
	engineering effort - waged over the next two years.
	
	NASA needed to determine (and then permanently fix) the cause of 
	these unpredictable failures in a “mission critical” shuttle engineering 
	system. The “ECO fuel sensors” are essential to launching a space shuttle 
	safely. Otherwise, the spacecraft’s on-board computer cannot warn of an 
	impending “low fuel situation” – caused by a depleted hydrogen level in the 
	massive shuttle tank.
	
	The sensors, when they’re working properly, automatically trigger Main 
	Engine Cutoff before the engines would run dry, and potentially explode 
	as a result of losing all their fuel (below)!
	
	
	
	
	NASA is suffering from increasingly limited 
	resources in the face of other program challenges - such as "Constellation," 
	which hopes to build an entirely new spacecraft, and “return to the Moon.”
	
	Nonetheless, NASA admits it has spent literally MILLIONS of dollars in the 
	last two and a half years - expending thousands of engineering man-hours - 
	on what SHOULD have been a relatively simple engineering solution, for a 
	simple engineering problem.
	
	The fact that NASA has spent all this time and money... and STILL has "a 
	recurring hydrogen level sensor problem"...is strong indication now that 
	"something radically new" is called for – in terms of both finding the 
	problem’s “root cause”… and then providing an acceptable engineering 
	solution.
	
	It's past time, in my opinion, for NASA to embrace some serious "out of the 
	box" thinking on this mysterious "ECO sensor problem". NASA has already 
	expended an enormous effort on this issue. 
	
	 
	
	And now as of yesterday, Shuttle 
	Program manager Wayne Hale announced, 
	
		
		"a new, Agency-wide, research and 
		engineering effort to finally resolve this continuing sensor problem..."
	
	
	The alternative can only be more months 
	(possibly even YEARS...) of identical, equally frustrating and expensive 
	failures... to CORRECTLY analyze the underlying situation - let alone 
	implement a safe and workable solution.
	
	Based on highly unusual “HD” experimental data collected in Florida over the 
	past three years by The Enterprise Mission, I am now strongly 
	recommending the instigation at NASA of a fundamental NEW research approach:
	
		
		A formal NASA scientific investigation into 
		a possible "NEW PHYSICS" underlying this entire, scientifically 
		baffling, "shuttle sensor issue."
	
	
	This recommendation is based, in part, on the 
	remarkable theoretical and experimental physics work clandestinely carried 
	out by scientists and engineers in the former Soviet Union over the past 
	half century - work that, until the collapse of the Soviet system in 1991, 
	was largely unknown outside Russia.
	
	Even now, the number of engineers and physicists familiar with the 
	startling, highly controversial results of this all-but-classified Soviet 
	program is very limited.
	
	Since Russia is participating in the 
	
	International Space Station Program 
	(below), one might hope that these highly relevant Soviet research results 
	could finally be shared... and applied by NASA to its current, 
	"increasingly serious" shuttle situation.
	
	
	
	
	Briefly, what the Soviet Union discovered in 
	these radical experiments was that there exists in Nature - in addition to 
	the four known forces, a REAL fifth force - the so-called "torsion 
	field."
	
	The theoretical foundation of this new science was laid out by Einstein 
	and Cartan over eighty years ago. In the original theory, these 
	fields were 'static,' meaning they could not move from point A to point B - 
	only appearing as the basic 'spin forces' within the atom.
	
	Other Relativity theoreticians later proposed the possible existence of 
	dynamic torsion fields - meaning that these 'spin forces' can propagate 
	through space, creating "action at a distance" effects.
	
	Soviet laboratory experiments in the 1950s, conducted by the
	
	pioneering scientist Dr. 
	Nikolai Kozyrev, found irrefutable 
	proof of these 'dynamic torsion fields' in action.
	
	Kozyrev, and others after him, found that the "torsion field" can indeed 
	affect electrical phenomena under certain circumstances. Electrical 
	resistors can experience substantial changes in how conductive they are, 
	especially when made of denser metals such as tungsten. Quartz 
	crystal oscillators can have notable changes in their vibrational frequency. 
	Photocells demonstrate measurable discrepancies in how much 'work' they can 
	perform.
	
	Electrical anomalies are a classic sign of torsion-field 
	interference, as can be routinely seen in the well over 10,000 published 
	scientific papers on the subject. This appears to be due to a unique 
	coupling of electromagnetic energy and torsion fields - hidden away in Sir
	Edmund Whittaker's original 200-plus "scalar potentials" before 
	Heaviside eviscerated them down to the four we now use.
	
	Given this scientific background, when we see disruptions in the electrical 
	currents flowing through a platinum-based "ECO sensor," buried at the bottom 
	of a tank filled with super-cold liquid hydrogen, we have to expand our 
	investigation.
	
	Here's the critical point: the shuttle's almost equally-cold liquid OXYGEN 
	tank "ECO sensors" have been TOTALLY UNAFFECTED by "whatever" this recurring 
	problem is!
	
	This indicates that it may be, in fact, some type of "torsion phenomenon" - 
	uniquely associated with "ultra-cold, liquid HYDROGEN."
	
	Super-cooled hydrogen is already known to mysteriously crawl up the sides of 
	a test-tube in a laboratory. This may be another anomaly explained by 
	torsion-field activity. The utterly simplistic structure of the hydrogen 
	atom, with just one "proton" and one "electron" - plus the lack of molecular 
	vibration (temperature) in a super-cooled environment - may present the 
	perfect antenna or conduit for torsion fields to move through.
	
	Thankfully, the Russian research has determined that torsion-field 
	effects CAN be shielded - using the proper materials and protocols.
	
	
	
	
	A much more elaborate description of the effects 
	of "torsion fields" - including some of the decades-long, remarkable Soviet 
	experiments which have confirmed the existence of this fundamental "new 
	physics" - may be found in Chapter 2 of my recent New York Times Best 
	Seller (with Mike Bara): "Dark 
	Mission: the Secret History of NASA."
	 
	
	This "Soviet Connection" to our own, continuing 
	Enterprise research in this area could also now explain part of the
	
	recent, major Russian media interest in The Enterprise Mission. 
	Four Russian television networks (in addition to a number of print media) 
	showed up in Washington DC to cover our
	
	recent National Press Club briefing on the 
	contents and political implications of our research, published in "Dark 
	Mission."
	
	Afterward, the largest Russian commercial television network - 
	NTV - 
	traveled all the way from Moscow to New Mexico, to interview us about our 
	on-going research...
	
	
	
	
	Shortly, we will post a far-ranging review of 
	these pioneering Soviet physics investigations into "torsion," an overview 
	of some of our own extraordinarily confirming observations – including 
	measurements made at Florida’s infamous “Coral 
	Castle” - and their unique relevance to the current, recurring 
	“NASA shuttle crisis.”
	
	In the face of a potentially catastrophic, future Main Engine failure on a 
	future shuttle mission - from this "still unresolved" hydrogen sensor 
	problem - what has NASA got to lose by really investigating ALL options?
	
	The real question, considering the devastating consequences of such a future 
	shuttle failure on the crew - on NASA and on the Nation - is simple:
	
		
		"How can NASA NOT afford to seriously 
		investigate this very real, if 'unconventional,' research proposition?"
	
	
	Based on the SCIENCE underlying the Soviet 
	torsion investigations and our own, parallel work, I can predict with some 
	confidence - along with Wayne Hale's totally separate, more "empirical" 
	comments, made at Saturday’s NASA shuttle briefing - that,
	
		
		"Sunday’s launch attempt will encounter NO 
		anomalous ECO sensor readings," either before the launch... or after.
	
	
	"HOW" that prediction can be made scientifically 
	- BEFORE the fact - will be the subject of the impending Enterprise 
	“torsion” publication ....
	
	
	
	
	Update (12/10/07)
	
	Obviously, much to everyone's frustration at NASA (and even among the 
	press...), the Space Shuttle "Atlantis" did NOT launch successfully 
	yesterday morning (Sunday, December 9th) - despite three days of intensive 
	analysis of the continuing "ECO sensor problem."
	
	Another recurrence of the "ever-more-baffling" fuel-level sensor issue in 
	the shuttle's giant hydrogen tank violated the new mission rules - mandating 
	"four working ECO sensors at shuttle liftoff" - implemented at the specific 
	insistence of the crew of "Atlantis." And, the launch was scrubbed... 
	again...
	
	A new attempt cannot now be made until early January, 2008.
	
	This, of course, would appear to be in direct contradiction to our own, 
	specific "sensor prediction" - made hours BEFORE the launch, on Saturday, 
	December 8th, that, during the Sunday, December 9th second launch attempt, 
	"all FOUR ECO sensors will be working fine."
	
	Thus, on the surface, our "torsion model" - on which we based this sensor 
	predictive analysis - would seem to have been "falsified"; some could 
	rightly argue (and have!), based on this "prediction failure," that 
	"torsion" - and our proposed "torsion's subtle effects on electrical 
	systems, immersed in hundreds of thousands of gallons of ultra-cold liquid 
	hydrogen" - is NOT responsible after all for the continuing shuttle "ECO 
	sensor woes"...
	
	But... not so fast.
	
	On Thursday, December 7th, when "Atlantis" original launch was cancelled 
	because of the "failing ECO sensors" at that attempt, three of the critical 
	sensors failed: #3 and #4, and later, #2.
	
	This morning, as the tank was filling, two out of the three sensors that had 
	previously failed, "magically" worked FINE; only one of the original three - 
	#3 itself - failed again, a few minutes after becoming immersed in the -423 
	Degree F. liquid hydrogen.
	
	This, in fact, is strong support FOR our "torsion model," underlying this 
	entire, mysterious "shuttle sensor problem."
	
	As, without some actual mechanical "fix" to the shuttle sensor system in the 
	last three days (which NASA didn't carry out), or, some other mechanical 
	"intervention," NASA itself was completely baffled this morning as to how 
	two "previously broken electrical system" - sensors #2 and #4 - could 
	suddenly "heal themselves."
	
	Our continuing bet is that the varying effects of "torsion" are directly 
	responsible... as we'll demonstrate in our coming, full shuttle analysis.