Brian O'Leary

"Two years ago, I resigned from the scientist‐astronaut program primarily because of NASAs indifference to science in its manned space efforts. Since then an impressive array of scientists associated with the Apollo program have also resigned for similar reasons. They include the chief scientist, the director of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, the principal investigator of Apollo lunar surface geology, the curator of the lunar samples, and another scientist-astronaut.It seems utterly incredible that so many well-respected scientists could resign at a time one would suppose to be their finest hour - the return of the first rocks and detailed pictures from the lunar surface. Eugene Shoemaker, now the chairman of Caltechs Division of Geological Sciences, quit his Apollo work “out of deep concern for the direction of the nations space goal.” He described Apollo as a “poor system for exploring the moon… The same job could have been done with unmanned systems at one-fifth the cost three or four years ago.” […] In these times of conflicting, uncertain goals both inside and outside NASA, I think the unmanned planetary program provides a good example of what can be done. The Mariner 6 and 7 flyby missions gave us remarkable pictures and valuable scientific information, yet each cost less than 15 percent of the price of sending two test pilots to the moon.In the future, probes will be sent to the Martian surface and to the other planets; these relatively inexpensive projects should go far in satisfying our most fundamental reason for going into space: to understand nature and ourselves better by exploring the universe."

"What I am suggesting is the indefinite postponement of the space shuttle program, a reduction in excessive NASA management costs and the establishment of a moderate unmanned space program emphasizing space science and applications. I believe all this can be done with an annual budget of less than $2 billion. How about changing the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston into the National Energy Research Center?"

"Nuclear power. Carbon sequestration at coal plants. Ethanol-from-corn. Other kinds of biofuels. Carbon cap-and-trading. Hybrid cars. Conventional electric cars. Air cars. Gas-turbine micropower. Efficient powerplants. Hydrogen economy. Hydro-power. Geothermal energy. Solar. Wind. Tides. Waves. Ocean thermal gradients.Which one(s) of these will solve our climate crisis and give us a large and lasting contribution to energy sustainability? The sobering answer to any truthful inquiry, I am sorry to say, is none of the above."

"Deke [Slayton], I’ve spent a month now at flight school, have flown fifteen hours and soloed, and after much soul-searching, I have decided to resign from the program. I guess flying isn’t my cup of tea."

"[…] my basis for confidence in declaring my reality checks as valid is based primarily on observing repeatable, nonlinear electric outputs in many demonstrations and in replicated experiments which I have witnessed. I could not explain the anomalous results in traditional ways. These direct observations combined with a rudimentary theoretical understanding of the physics give me reasonable confidence that the effects both measured and calculated are real. Add to this fact that I am building relationships with these individuals based on growing mutual respect and trust among colleagues. I would be surprised that all of these people, for the years of work they have put into these experiments, are either deliberately or naïvely fraudulent. On the contrary, these are the explorers of a new reality, often cut off from the mainstream, because the mainstream will more often than not debunk this reality, with a denial based on the most superficial and ad hoc reasoning."

"Interviewer at astronaut interview: Dr. O’Leary, would you submit to a hazardous two-year journey to Mars? O’Leary: Whew. A two-year trip to Mars. I must admit that I haven’t given it much thought. Are you serious? Interviewer: Sure we’re serious. You’re twenty-seven years old, you could be an astronaut for twenty years and within twenty years we could be sending men to Mars. And Mars is your field of specialty, isn’t it, Dr. O’Leary?"

"Can we really accomplish a program like Mars 1999? The sad truth is, we won’t be able to do it in today’s climate. Today’s paralysis will be tomorrow’s paralysis unless the workings of the institutions and the attitudes of individuals at the helm change toward the positive. The prerequisite to a successful Mars 1999 program is not engineering feasibility. It is people. And there is hope. Meanwhile, as the dust settles from Challenger, NASA continues to search its soul. In the wake of the accident, it becomes all the more evident that the U.S. civilian space program has been suffering from conflicting interests and goals, intercenter rivalries, uneconomical operations, and an apparent inability to make the sweeping changes that are required. Management of the space station program suffers from this confusion. The space agency’s technical achievements have been, and continue to be, extraordinary. Nowhere can more intelligent and competent engineers and scientists be found. But there appears to be a bureaucratic inertia that inhibits the innovative thinking and risk taking required to blaze new trails."

"I sympathize with my former colleagues in Houston who are spending ten years, perhaps forever, awaiting their flights into space. But this alone cannot justify the shuttle.On the positive side, I believe that an unmanned space program emphasizing applications satellites and the exploration of the planets would be both economical and fundamental in our quest for knowledge. Such a program could be funded annually for between one and two billion dollars and thus free money and resources for more urgent priorities. Cooperating with the Soviet Union may reduce the costs further."

"Dear Mr. [Al] Gore: I am a former astronaut, Cornell professor, physics faculty member at Princeton University and visiting faculty member in technology assessment at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, I was Mo Udall’s energy advisor and speechwriter during his 1975 Presidential campaign, author, AAAS Fellow, World Innovation Foundation Fellow, NASA group achievement award recipient, and founder of the New Energy Movement.You have asked the public to address the important question, “How can we reverse global climate change?” I agree that taking on that task is critical for our collective survival. You have also stated that we must freeze and drastically reduce our carbon emissions. I agree.The most promising answer to your question is surprisingly simple and can be summed up in two words: new energy. My experience finds that serious discussion of new energy is still politically incorrect in mainstream circles, which is appalling. Delays in implementing life-saving innovation will be at our collective risk and peril. The urgency for action in these times is unprecedented in the human journey. Quantum leaps in energy innovation, which some of us in the scientific community are aware of, can provide the needed solution, hopefully in time to avert global disaster."

"The governments and private industry in India and Japan are funding top-level scientists and engineers to develop free energy for commercial applications, something about which the American government appears to know little or nothing. Cold fusion pioneers Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons, formerly of the University of Utah, are now in France being funded by a Japanese consortium. The inventor of the N-machine, Bruce DePalma, formerly of MIT, is now developing his free energy concepts in New Zealand. Other American inventors and researchers have gone underground most of the time (e.g. Thomas Bearden and Sparky Sweet), have been sued (Sweet), had their devices confiscated by the Government (e.g., the Canadian inventor John Hutchinson and American Dennis Lee), been convicted and jailed under questionable charges (Lee) and in at least one case have been told by the Government to change careers – or else (e.g. Adam Trombly).In all, I have met several dozen free energy researchers. What all of these individuals have in common is the underfunding of their work such that it proceeds to proof-of-concept but no further. Developing useful prototypes requires a much larger effort as would come from bringing the researchers together in a research and development effort analogous to the Apollo or Manhattan projects. But there has been no public and little private support for free energy inventors – particularly in the United States – even though this country is where most of the ideas come from. We seem to be so active in repressing this technology we have driven most of our brightest inventors away or underground. The remarkable fact is, we seem to have had this technology for one century! Nikola Tesla was among the first of such energy mavericks, who through the decades, have repeatedly demonstrated free energy, only to be suppressed later. For a whole century we probably didn’t have to pollute the Earth to meet our energy needs!"

"Between 2002 and 2006, I taught a course in the Masters program in Transformational Psychology at the University of Philosophical Research in Los Angeles. Part of the intent of the course was to embrace all four cultures of the Phoenix. The title of the course was Science, Ecology, Ethics and Consciousness. The attendance was low, but the students that did attend were among the most aware and sentient beings I have ever met. They began to understand how important all four cultures were for our future, and if we leave out any of these qualities and beliefs, or specialize too much in any one, we will box ourselves in.[…] I believe that the world needs to come together in a blend from the four cultures of the Phoenix, but only the “Spiritualists” of consciousness scientists can provide lasting solutions. All other groups [Truth-Seekers, Deep Ecologists, and Pragmatists] simply do not have the awareness to get there, but they have an important role to play in presenting the depth of our problems."