Thank you for your active interest in the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project.

Due to the overwhelming number of inquiries and requests that the BPP Project receives, we regret that we will not be able to review your web site. The BPP Project does not have the means to provide consulting services to individual researchers for this purpose.

If you need assistance regarding your device or theory, we strongly advise you to collaborate with a local university or other educational institute. If your device or theory is ready to be tested, the university can propose (to the BPP Project) to conduct the test as an independent, educational student project.

Should you be interested in submitting a proposal in the future, please note that before any type of review can take place, a formal call for papers/proposals must be open.

The BPP Project is in the process of first establishing a Consortium, which will be implemented through the Ohio Aerospace Institute (OAI). OAI will be responsible for setting up the guidelines and parameters of the proposals, reviewing and evaluating them, and for responding to any concerns and questions that occur during that process. The Consortium will include an electronic database on-line so that researchers can submit proposals electronically, and will include a network of reviewers to evaluate the proposals.

OAI's new Consortium web site will go on-line no earlier than the fall of 2002, and an announcement and cross-link to the web site will be posted on the BPP Project web site at that time (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/)

Until the Consortium is fully up and running, we will not know when the formal BPP Call for Proposals will be posted. At this time, it is tentatively scheduled for sometime in the fall of 2002, and an announcement will also be posted on the BPP Project web site. Once the Call is posted, there will be a 3-month window for accepting submissions.

To prepare yourself for future calls for proposals, you may wish to study the scope and evaluation criteria used in the previous call, which is still posted on the Internet (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/bpp/NRA-99.htm). Similar criteria will be applied to any future research solicitations from the BPP Project. An example of the ?Credibility Criteria? which are used to screen proposals has been provided as an attachment to this letter. If you are considering submitting future proposals or papers, you are strongly advised to study and follow these criteria.

Please also view the BPP Project Plan, which is located within the BPP Project web site at http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/BPP_Project_Plan_FY2001.htm, so that you can ensure your concepts will be considered with others that are credible. The sections of "Technical Summary," particularly subsections B, C, and D, and the "Appendix," should prove most helpful.

We thank you once again for your interest, and hope this helps you in your endeavors.

Ms. Jean Schuerger
QSS Group, Inc.
Document Control Specialist for the
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project
 
 

Attachment

CREDIBILITY SCREENING CRITERIA

 The following criteria will be used to screen proposals and papers submitted to the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project. These criteria are based on normal scientific methods and specifically emphasize openness to visionary perspectives while still retaining the credible rigor necessary to make progress.

(1) Based on Credible References:
The work must be based in some way on data or theories that are in the recognized peer-reviewed journals or textbooks. Note that Internet sites and conference papers are NOT considered peer-reviewed references.

(2) Must Be Leading Toward a Discriminating Test:
The work must be leading to a discriminating test to determine if it accurately represents the effects being investigated. This implicitly requires that the work be compared to established interpretations and/or theories, so that the critical make-or-break issues can be identified. Reference citations for the established theories are mandatory. Also, the increment of work suggested must be consistent with the scientific method, with due consideration for the current status of the topic. It is preferred that the work is matured to the point where a discriminating test is reported, but it is also sufficient that the work simply provide a design for such a test, or to simply identify the critical make-or-break issues for the immediate area of investigation.

(3) Overall Credibility:
To be considered as genuine progress, the results of any research must be accepted by other researchers as a credible foundation for future decisions. The conclusions must be sound and stay within the scope of the supporting evidence. Unresolved issues or experimental uncertainty should be articulated, including error ranges on any data. The methods used to reach the conclusions should be correctly employed. This includes mathematical correctness, correct descriptions for any cited works, citing the most relevant works, and sound experimental methods. Note that negative, credible test results are considered progress. For proposals, the research team should have a track record for producing credible work. The proposed work should be reasonable given the proposed costs.
 

HOW THESE CRITERIA MAP TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PAPERS/PROPOSALS
 The criteria above have been re-packaged below to address how they fit different types of reports and proposals:

(A) Benefit Analysis:
Any benefit analysis must cite devices, effects, or theories that are already in the peer-reviewed literature. They must summarize the current status of the approach they have chosen to explore. The scientific method levels can be used as a measure of maturity. This status summary should identify the critical make-or-break issues already identified in the prior literature. The analysis must be numeric (not just hand waiving), and must acknowledge the unknowns of the estimates in a credible manner. Predicted performance must be presented in a credible manner with due consideration for the large uncertainties and assumptions used to arrive at the predictions.

(B) Further Advancement of Published Theories:
In those cases where the author asserts that they are building upon work that is already in the peer-reviewed literature, they must cite that reference. They must also report some progress toward advancing the theory toward a discriminating test. They must identify the critical issues facing the correctness and utility of the theory. The utility of the theory to BPP must be clearly stated. While illustrating the potential benefits of the theory to the problems of spaceflight, the submission must adhere to the benefit analysis criteria specified above.

(C) New Theories:
In the case of new theories that are not yet in the literature, the author must cite peer-reviewed references for the PHENOMENON with which they are claiming consistency. It is not necessary that the author agrees with current interpretations of the data, but it is mandatory that the theories are consistent with the credible empirical evidence. It is also mandatory that the new theories be compared to the accepted theories that address the same phenomena. Reference citations for the contemporary theories are required. The comparison must explain how they differ so that the critical make-or-break issues can be identified, and so that the work can be advanced toward a discriminating test. It is mandatory that the new theories be at least matured to the point where mathematical models are offered. It is preferred that the work is matured to the point where a discriminating test is reported, but it is also sufficient that the work simply provide a design for such a test, or to simply identify the critical make-or-break issues for the immediate area of investigation.

(D) Further Investigation of a Confirmed Anomalous Effect:
An anomalous effect is defined as physical phenomena whose characteristics are not describable by established theories. In cases where an anomalous effect is being discussed that has already been CONFIRMED in the literature, the author must cite peer-reviewed references that describe the effect. The author must explain why the effect might be advantageous to the BPP propulsion challenges. The expected next logical step would be to articulate a theory to describe the anomaly or to devise a means to apply the effect toward solving BPP goals. If a new theory is presented, the criteria discussed above, for new theories, must be followed.

(E) Investigation of an Unconfirmed Anomalous Effect:
In cases where an anomalous effect is being discussed that has NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED in the literature, it is mandatory that the author concentrate on the experimental methods for isolating the effect rather than speculating on a new theory to describe the unconfirmed effect. (No jumping to conclusions!) To demonstrate that the author is fully aware of why the effect is anomalous, they must cite references for related physical effects and for the relevant current theories. The author must acknowledge possible conventional explanations for the anomaly, and the steps needed (or already taken) for a discriminating test. A discriminating test must be suggested that could distinguish between possible conventional explanations or whether this is a genuine new effect. In cases where the author is challenging negative test results that have already been published, the author must cite these references and explain why the prior tests were incomplete or why a reinvestigation is warranted. Also, the author must explain why the effect (if genuine) might be advantageous to the propulsion challenges.
 

* * * * * *
 At 06:03 PM 06/05/2002 -0700, you (Enrico) wrote:

enrico@mail.uniroma3.it