what's the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program?
145032
The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program (BPP) is a research program which was funded from 1996 through 2002 by NASA, in the hope of studying various proposals for "revolutionary" methods of spacecraft propulsion which would require breakthroughs in physics before they could be realized, hence the name. Specific proposals studied under the aegis of the BPP included the Diametric drive, the Pitch drive, the Bias drive, the Alcubierre drive, the Disjunction drive, and the Differential sail.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program
573816
If you mean research programs, yes.  You can find out more at BALF.org or LFA.org
589868
Elaborating on strangeberry's; try to do some of your research in grad school with NASA staff.  There are grad student fellowships. The GSRP listed below is an excellent way to do this.  Try to attach yourself as a grad student to a faculty member who has had several students win them.  As a grad student, I saw students of certain faculty win them over and over and over again, so I think it helps to be with one of these "in" faculty. \n\nI am sure NASA has public stats on who wins them and what universities they attend so I would look for that info starting at the link below and pick your grad school and advisor based on what you find.  If that fails, then picking a school physically near a NASA center (like Ames or Goddard) is a good fallback. I have another link below listing all the centers. Good luck!\n\n(BTW, if you mostly just want to work for NASA and the Physics or Astrophysics PhD is beyond your reach, they also like engineers! Contact me directly if you want some tips on going that route.)
145674
You can try NASA WORLDWIND
595925
Spacecraft propulsion is used to change the velocity of spacecraft and artificial satellites, or in short, to provide delta-v. There are many different methods. Each method has drawbacks and advantages, and spacecraft propulsion is an active area of research. Most spacecraft today are propelled by heating the reaction mass and allowing it to flow out the back of the vehicle. This sort of engine is called a rocket engine.\n\nAll current spacecraft use chemical rocket (bipropellant or solid-fuel) for launch, though some (such as the Pegasus rocket and SpaceShipOne) have used air-breathing engines on their first stage. Most satellites have simple reliable chemical rockets (often monopropellant rockets) or resistojet rockets to keep their station, although some use momentum wheels for attitude control. Newer geo-orbiting spacecraft are starting to use electric propulsion for north-south stationkeeping. Interplanetary vehicles mostly use chemical rockets as well, although a few have experimentally used ion thrusters with some success (a form of electric propulsion).
190039
Just watch a NASA space rocket take off. \n\nThe enegergy created to get a rocket off the ground and into space comes from the power generated by the controlled mixing (fusion reaction) of liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen.
257523
Lift, thrust, gravity, drag.
920996
Breakthrough to Literacy has been around for quite a long time.  It was developed in the 1980's, and has been considerably updated since then.  It is a program to teach literacy skills to  young children, usually up to about 8 years old.  It has complete packages of materials for grades K to 3.  It uses a variety of strategies to teach reading, writing, phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, etc. \n\nThese sites will give you more information.
850701
Cold fusion : http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/3/8/3099\n\nPerpetual motion:\nhttp://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2004/12/perpetual_motio.html\n\nMale performance enhancers:\nhttp://www.themediadesk.com/files/enhancements.htm
422042
NASA WorldWind:\nhttp://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/
517900
You should totally learn about Particle Accelerators... they are amazing!  I am not sure where most of them are, but I know that they have one in Batavia, Illinois.  And it is huge!!!
10042
The following technologies require further research:\n\nMagnetic sails\nMini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion\nNuclear pulse propulsion (Orion drive)\nGas core reactor rocket\nAntimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion\nNuclear salt-water rocket\nBeam-powered propulsion\nFission sail \nFission-fragment rocket\nNuclear photonic rocket\n\nThe following technologies are significantly beyond current engineering:\n\nFusion rocket\nBussard ramjet\nAntimatter rocket\nRedshift rocket
747869
This was an experimemt the US Navy conducted.  They attempted to "Cloak" a destroyer using magnetism.  How successful it was I am not sure.  There are several myths surrounding the experiment which depict gross outcomes of the experiment.
512134
A. First, do a quick magnitude check to see if you can use Newtonian physics or need to use special relativity. Your Newtonian velocity would be \nv = at \n  = 1g x seconds in a year  \n  = 10m/s x 3.15x10^7 seconds \n  = 3.15x10^8 m/s.\nwhich is greater than the speed of light (= 2.99x10^8 m/s), so you do need to use relativity.\n\nThe relativistic equation for velocity after constant acceleration is (source 1):\n v = c tanh(aT/c)\nusing aT from above, \n v = c tanh(3.15x10^8 / 2.99x10^8)\n   = 0.78c\n   = 2.34 x 10^8 m/s\n\nB. Now that you have v, use the special relativity energy equation to calculate your energy (see source 3)\nE = (gamma) x mc^2\n(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)\n(gamma) = 1.61\nE = 1.61mc^2\n\nThis energy includes the rest mass, mc^2, which we don't need to add (it was there before we started), so the kinetic energy is\nKe = 0.61mc^2\n   = 5.48x10^19 Joules\nOf course, no propulsion systems are 100% efficient, so it would take more energy than this.  Rockets, in particular, are very inefficient, and would take many orders of magnitude more energy.\n\nC.  Nothing we have even comes close. For comparison, this is about 100 times the entire world's energy production in 2002.
117189
Depends.  (How many times does that answer show up?)\nThe rocket equation is\nV = Vex * log(m0/m1)\nwhere \nV is final velocity\nVex is the rocket exhaust velocity\nm0 is liftoff mass\nm1 is burnout mass\nThis equation says (e.g.) that you need a ratio of liftoff to burnout weights = e (2.718, base of natural logarithms) to achieve a V = Vex.\nThe equation is used as-is for a single-stage rocket.  For multistage (serial not parallel burns) rockets you sum the V values for each successive stage.\nVex of the Shuttle main engines, which are pretty state of the art for efficiency, is about 15000 ft/sec.  (You could do better but you'd be working with much more exotic, toxic and pricey chemistry than Shuttle's good old LH/LOX system.)\nSo the answer to the first question is: Every time you increase the m0/m1 ratio by a factor of 2.718 the burnout velocity becomes 15000 ft/sec larger, so there is no theoretical maximum speed.  However, you say "using current designs".  If in addition to using the Shuttle main engines this means using existing vehicles, propellant tanks, etc. then a lot of work would be needed to get the answer.  The Shuttle itself cannot go beyond low earth orbit, so you'd have to piece parts together to make the fastest practically achievable interplanetary (IP) vehicle.  You need ~35000 ft/sec to escape earth's gravitational field.  This means you need an m0/m1 of about e^2.3 or 10 just to get into IP orbit.  Now you get into tradeoffs.  How fast do you want to get there?  Slower means less rocket fuel needed, but more mass is needed to support a longer trip which means more fuel.  How comfortable must it be?  There are too many questions, too many trades, too much engineering to cover it all here.  I hope this gives you a start.
1031753
well, it could be possible like anything yet very difficult. there would have to be an imbalance of electromagnetic fluctuations. This could be done with a halbach array. Wait never mind the Halbach idea it just moves the magnetic fluxes. It would have to constantly have some magnetic material not connected to the shuttle to propel it. this a a link to an article about a ion powered space thruster and an ion is an electromagnetically charged particle negatively,too. http://www.physorg.com/news9786.html\n\nupdate here's the link that has an ESA plasma electro-statically powered space thruster:http://www.physorg.com/news9016.html
574734
Something very close to it already exists:  Ion drive.  This uses charged xenon particles as its propellant.  The acceleration is very low, but it is much more efficient than chemical rockets.  NASA has already put it to practical use with their Deep Space 1 probe, and will use it again with their Helium 3 probe.\n\nOf course, that's still a mass-reaction drive.  A rather exotic one, but still...\n\nOne way of using light for propulsion is with a "solar sail," which The Planetary Society tried to test with its Cosmos-1 mission.  Unfortunately, the probe was lost in a launch failure.  They want to try again, though; you might want to write to them about your idea.