Enterprise Mission
Enterprise Mission To Enterprise Mission Home Page



Von Braun’s 50-Year-Old Secret:

The US Explorer I Discovery that Could Have Saved

the World ….


Part II


By Richard C. Hoagland
© 2008 The Enterprise Mission



In Part I, we described surprising -- and apparently totally unrecognized, until now -- pivotal new details around the seminal events which quietly unfolded the night of January 31, 1958 -- when the United States finally carried out its first successful launch of an artificial Earth satellite, Explorer I.



How, Wernher von Braun -- "Operation Paperclip" chief German rocket engineer, and head of the US Army effort that actually launched Explorer I (using the Jupiter-C rocket that von Braun and his German team had specifically designed) -- was, at first, intensely disappointed ... then, obviously surprised and overjoyed ... and finally, completely baffled ....

By the totally unexpected orbital performance of "his" first US satellite.

For -- mysteriously -- Explorer I had reached an orbit of the Earth that night fully one third higher than the one (green line - below) originally planned!

We also noted in Part I of this report the immediate -- and still continuing -- national security classification of these amazing scientific findings, which have both prevented open civilian research into the far-reaching implications of Explorer I's astonishing "anti-gravity" behavior for these past fifty years ... as well as any application of those findings to desperately-needed energy or transportation problems here on Earth.

Yet, despite this "security lid," we were able to document von Braun's surprising, clandestine, years-long personal search -- following Explorer I -- for "answers" to these inexplicable celestial-mechanics questions ... which eventually set him on a remarkable one-man quest for "an entire alternative physics" -- which could explain America's first satellite achieving an orbit (yellow line - below) for which von Braun's own rocket was literally incapable of reaching ... on its own.



But, even more remarkable ... Explorer I was not alone in this achievement!

Review of the publicly-available data revealed the equally-unexpected "over performance" of two additional Explorer satellites in von Braun's early Army program, as well as similar "mysteriously enlarged orbits" of all three successful US Navy Vanguard satellites ... to the point where the latter have now become the oldest man-made artifacts still orbiting the Earth!

And yet, as also noted in our first section -- even after fifty years -- no one seems to have noticed or asked any in-depth questions about this astonishing sequence of events: the repeated, gross violations of both "Newton's Laws" and "Einstein's Relativity" ... in the launching of America's first satellites!

To say nothing of the simultaneous appearance of enormous quantities of literal "free energy" ... in each of their much larger orbits--

All ... apparently from nowhere!


* * *


In this -- Part 2 of our continuing investigation into von Braun's amazing "secret" -- we will now lay out, based on our own ~ 20 years of "hyperdimensional research and experimentation," just how we "figured it out"; how we have been able to "back engineer" what von Braun (and JPL ...) themselves eventually had to have deciphered about this startling phenomenon, and what it could mean even beyond "a fundamental revolution in celestial mechanics ...."

Explorer I's radically "non-Newtonian" orbital behavior (and that of the other US satellites' ...) must rank as THE major scientific and political discovery of the early space program ... if not the last fifty years of solar system exploration!

Regardless of the public secrecy and security classifications that high-level governmental policy makers immediately placed around this night, the question which MUST be asked now is: "were von Braun (and his associates at JPL) eventually able to turn this revolutionary scientific discovery--

Into a workable technology?

A technology which ultimately could control even--

Gravity itself?!

And if so, has this overwhelmingly important technical and political development also been officially kept secret, literally for decades ... from both the American taxpayer ... and the world?

As noted earlier, our own ~ 25 years of research may have given us a technical advantage that von Braun (at least, initially ...) did not possess: a working scientific theory (the Hyperdimensional Model) -- which, from the beginning, has predicted distinct "non-Newtonian" spacecraft motions and behavior ....

There is, however, another school of thought vis a vis "what did von Braun (and other Operation Paperclip Germans) really know about Explorer I's 'non-Newtonian dynamics' ..?" -- an historical perspective extensively documented and discussed in the works of our friend and colleague, Dr. Joseph Farrell:



In this discussion, there was the definite possibility that von Braun (after all, once a Major in Himmler's "SS" ...), in fact, was privy (along with other key members of his own "Operation Paperclip" imported German team ...) to a major, ultra-secret, Nazi black-ops SS research and development program -- termed "the Nazi Bell Experiment" (above and below); an extraordinary experiment which (according to officially declassified "intel" documents from Eastern Europe, made available after the reunification of Germany ...) "manifested several, extremely anomalous phenomenon .... "



Which would have been, of course, directly relevant to Von Braun's own ability to instantly recognize the similar "non-Newtonian behavior" of Explorer I!



After looking at this really hard, I happen not to share this point of view ... and neither, by the way, does Dr. Farrell.

If von Braun had been knowledgeable about prior "... Nazi inertia and gravity-control experiments" ala "the Bell," why did he then personally go "in hot persuit" of an alternative physics theory to explain "the inexplicable" around Explorer I?; in other words, why was he so obviously surprised ...!?

Why, as part of his major effort to understand the startling phenomenon that accompanied Explorer I's launch into orbit, did he subsequently write to all those "alternative physicists" around the world, seeking a new theoretical "non-Newtonian solution" to "the Problem?"

Why not simply, quietly, consult with more knowledgable members of his own German team ... in terms of details of the Bell Experiment he might not have personally known?

In fact, von Braun's well-documented, "inquisitive behavior" -- after the "shock" of Explorer I -- compellingly argues for a distinct lack of knowledge of the "Nazi Bell" on his part ... and certainly, a total ignorance of the radical, alternative physics that the Bell manifested to those directly interacting with its technology ... to the point of actually killing some of the scientists and technicians involved during the SS-run experiments!

However, there is one other possibility ....

That von Braun might have heard "just enough" about the Bell (from "someone" that he trusted ...) to impel him -- after his Explorer I experience -- to seek further information ... to find independent, contemporary confirmation of the existence of such a "radical, alternative physics" ... on his own.

Whatever the facts around his "curious interest" in such physics (and we may never know, for sure ...), unlike von Braun, we at Enterprise, as previously noted, had the distinct advantage of a remarkable, redundant, beautifully convergent series of non-classified "anomalous gravity and inertia experiments" to start out with -- when we began seriously to examine "the Explorer problem."

In addition, also unlike von Braun (if you totally discount the "he knew about the Bell" scenario ...), we had the distinct advantage of a set of precise theoretical predictions from our "Hyperdimensional Model" to go on ....

All of which formed an extremely solid foundation from which Enterprise could attempt to "back engineer" the ultimate process von Braun and JPL must have used in their years-long, documentable efforts to "figure out the Problem."


* * *


It is at this point that we must introduce another remarkable player in this "drama" -- the late "alternative physicist," Dr. Bruce DePalma (below).



DePalma (whose brother is the well-known Hollywood director, Brian DePalma) started his career by graduating from MIT the very year von Braun put Explorer I in orbit -- 1958. In graduate school, he pursued electrical engineering -- both at MIT and Harvard.

After grad school, DePalma went to work for some of the Nation's most prestigeous scientists and scientific institutions -- serving as Lecturer at MIT under Herold Edgerton; and Head of Photographic R&D for Dr. Edwin Land -- at the famed Polaroid Corporation.

But after almost 20 years of watching the American Science Establishment "up close" -- as it repeatedly ignored new experimental evidence in favor of traditional theoretical "explanations" -- DePalma one day got fed up, and decided to resign ... to create his own independent research organization -- which he called "The Simularity Institute."

Based in part on his extensive lab experience with rotating electrical equipment (motors, generators, etc.), DePalma initially became fascinated by the electrical and inertial properties of "magnetized gyroscopes ...."; after leaving MIT and extending this to gyroscope dynamics in general, he investigated a wide-ranging series of "systems in rotation" ....

Which is how our totally independent research paths eventually crossed.

In 1989, as Erol Torun and I were just beginning to grapple with some of the higher-level implications of our brand-new "Hyperdimensional (HD) Physics Model," paraphrasing the old joke about "the most important things to remember about business real estate ..." I paraphrased a (somewhat flip ...) response to a similar question about our work--


"What are the three most important things to remember about 'Hyperdimensional Physics?'; rotation ... rotation ... rotation ...."


Later, when I went looking for a serious "alternative physicist" (meaning, someone who was open to the "unexpected" ...) to run some of our HD ideas past, a major figure in the "free energy" community, Don Reed, strongly recommended that I talk to "Bruce DePalma."

It was probably one of the most important recommendations I've ever received ....


As noted above, DePalma -- since the 1970's -- had been carrying out perhaps the most exhaustive laboratory studies of "bodies in rotation" -- including MASSIVE objects (~ 30 pounds ...), spinning at very high velocities (~ 7600 revolutions per minute ...) -- that I had ever seen (below); he had, thereby, accumulated an extensive experimental database on a subject not normally dealt with in mainstream physics or mechanics:




Matching our theoretical predictions of "the HD Model" against Bruce's extensive experimental lab results in rotation, became one of the true joys of our initial professional collaboration.

For instance, early on Bruce introduced me to the simplest -- yet, probably, the most profound -- of all his many rotational experiments. He just called it (fittingly ...) "the spinning ball."

Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below).



Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!

The above ~ 34-year-old image is a recent scan of one of the original "spinning ball photographs" from DePalma's own ~30-year-old files, contrast-adjusted in PhotoShop (with text and grid added), to bring out the data in the faded original. Nothing else has been added or altered.

What this photograph reveals is truly remarkable ... for, in direct violation of both Newton and Einstein, it SHOUTS that "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass" are NOT equivalent--

Thus violating the foundation of all modern physics in one elegantly simple experiment -- which anyone can safely repeat ... even at home!!


* * *


When I first saw the orbit of Explorer I (below, right - outer blue line) -- compared to the intended orbit (below, right - inner red line) -- my thoughts instantly flashed to the DePalma's remarkable (and highly controversial) "spinning ball experiment" (below - left)--



The physics of each was identical -- a "mass" thrust vertically against the pull of Earth's gravity by an "outside" force; in Depalma's case, literally the hand of the experimeter -- throwing the two pinballs simultaneously into the air at the same speed; in the Explorer I example, von Braun's Jupiter-C rocket supplying the "outside force" -- accelerating the satellite into a trajectory fast enough and high enough to eventually "fall around the Earth" without hitting it ... the quintessential definition of a satellite orbit.

Was it possible that von Braun had -- inadvertantly --somehow duplicated some aspect of Depalma's elegantly simple "spinning ball experiment" that night in January, 1958 ... some ~ 20 years before DePalma would, in fact, carry it out?!

Was THAT why Explorer I had been boosted so much higher than originally planned that night ...?

Could it be as simple as ... that!?

Of course, this didn't explain anything about why the DePalma Spinning Ball Experiment works the way it does ... the underlying physics that (somehow!) changes a spinning object's inertia against "an outside force," compared to one that's NOT spinning ....

But, it was a start!

Now, as I've often noted "science is nothing ... if it's not prediction."

For this comparison between Explorer I and DePalma's elegent experiment to physically hold true, for it to be real science -- there HAD TO BE some aspect of von Braun's Jupiter-C rocket that was spinning ... during and after launch, as Explorer I was injected into orbit.

Here is George Ludwig's (Van Allen's assistent on the Explorer I electronics) official description of von Braun's modifications of the "Jupiter-C" -- before the effort to launch Explorer I:


" ... as the building of the Army’s Redstone rocket was nearing completion, the ABMA group undertook the development of the Jupiter rocket, a much longer-range Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. As a part of that program, in order to test nosecones for reentry through the atmosphere, they developed a special test vehicle to achieve the necessary high velocity. Since it was part of the Jupiter program, it was called the Jupiter C (Jupiter Composite). It consisted of a Redstone first stage, topped by clusters of small solid propellant rockets forming an additional two stages. It was consciously designed from the beginning so that an additional stage could be added in place of the test nosecone to make the vehicle orbit-capable.

"... sixty miles up, 156 seconds after takeoff, the first stage [would burn] itself out. The three upper stages with the satellite payload [would then separate] from the booster and zoom upward, spinning in their tub-shaped assembly in free-coasting, unpropelled flight, toward the apex ... at which instant the remaining three rocket stages had to be fired.

"... a radio signal [would then be sent] to the speeding missile to fire the second stage. Off [would go] the first cluster of scaled Sergeants, which quickly [would boost] the speed [of the entire, still spinning "tub"] by thousands of miles per hour. Seconds later, the next cluster of rockets [would ignite], pushing the final-stage rocket, with its satellite, ever closer to that critical orbital velocity. Then the single rocket in the final stage [would be triggered]. Its thrust [would drive] the 18.13-pound payload over the 18,000 mile per hour mark [emphasis added] ...."



And here (below), is a modified NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center cut-away of the basic solid-fueled upper stages of the Jupiter-C IRBM configuration. The diagram shows how the third stage fit neatly inside the second stage (like a set of nested decanter glasses ...), and the entire upper-stage configuration was then rapidly ROTATED in flight ... as each subsequent stage separated and ignited.



Von Braun and JPL (which designed this rotating, solid-propellant upper stage configuration ...), as Ludwig wrote, simply modified their existing IRBM version a bit more, adding a fourth solid-rocket upper stage (attached directly to Explorer I) -- which then became von Braun's "Jupiter-C satellite launcher."

There -- plain as day! -- was the simple fact these upper stages (called collectively "the tub") were all deliberately set spinning just before launch ... to provide (according to the JPL engineers ...) "gyroscopic stability against uneven burn of the Sergeant solid rockets in each stage, during their subsequent ignition phases."

The added color inset (above - left) is a frame from a 1958 US Army PR film -- showing a top-down view of a one-third scale model of a "nuclear reentry vehicle" for a forthcoming IRBM test, carefully mounted on "the tub"; with the cover not yet in place, you can also see clearly the placement of the 11 second-stage JPL "Sergeant" rockets, mounted in their circular (waiting to be spun up ... ) configuration.

The dummy warhead is the purplish "cone" on top of the (hidden) third stage.

As Ludwig noted, this one-third scale warhead model was simply replaced in the "satellite Jupiter-C configuration," by that additional fourth stage solid-fuel rocket -- atop which was literally bolted the Explorer I satellite itself (below).



Here (below), JPL engineers work on a full-size mock-up of this "spinning tub" assembly, with a separate mock-up of the fourth stage and Explorer I on top -- the full "satellite version" of the Jupiter-C.



And here (below), is the three-stage "rotating tub's" operational configuration -- complete with the real Explorer I -- all mounted atop the conical "instrument section" and (below that), the liquid-fuel main stage of the Jupiter-C booster itself.

The vertical black stripe painted on the side of the "tub" is to allow blockhouse engineers to optically monitor the rate of spin of the three nested upper stages on the pad, as they were coming "up to speed" (between 450 and 750 rpm ...) just before launch.



So, precisely as predicted by the HD model (and DePalma!) -- a key section of von Braun's rocket, in fact, did rotate that night ... as it placed Explorer I into space!

Mystery of "the unexplained higher orbit" ... finally ... solved.

Well ... not quite, of course.

For, this "confirmation" only deepened the real mystery:

Why does "spinning" a steel pinball, or ... rotating a one-ton, high-tech "tub" -- containing 15 solid rockets -- allow both to climb SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER against gravity ... than if they were NOT spinning!?

One of the first reactions I had to this fascinating confirmation -- that portions of von Braun's rocket HAD to spin, inevitably (from DePalma's experiment ...) resulting in the higher orbit for Explorer I -- was a feeling of intense gratification for Bruce; for, this simple engineering detail proved that Bruce DePalma has been absolutely right all along ... for over 34 years ... in insisting that "spinning a mass" also creates "some kind of anti-gravitational, anti-intertial field ..." which allows the object to fly higher against gravity than if it was NOT spinning!

Von Braun -- decades before Bruce DePalma ever conceived of his elegant little "spinning ball experiment" -- had already PROVED Depalma right ... with easily the most expensive "spinning ball" demonstration one could possibly imagine (Explorer I cost the American taxpayer approximately 20 million dollars, in 1958; today, allowing for inflation, that would be something like "half a billion ... ").

Further, it was now obvious that this is why von Braun also missed the Moon ... by those "pesky ~37,000 miles" with Pioneer 4.

Again he was using, in his Juno-2 "moonrocket" (a further modification of the Jupiter-C ...), EXACTLY the same "spinning tub" arrangement for the four solid-rocket upper stages that he'd used in the previous Earth-orbiting Explorer launches; and (from what we now know ...), the "DePalma Effect" struck again ... neatly over-accelerating the Pioneer 4 spacecraft to a slightly higher velocity than JPL