Cook Inertial Propulsion?US Patent #4238968
Fax- David Stephens

Force Borne Web
Technical Info
Cook's Biography
Cook's Commentary

Latest Updates
News - 08/18/2007
Cook's Commentary - 09/20/2007
Midway Driller 2 - 08/02/2004
West Kern Today - 07/2004
Most Frequented

Cook's Commentary
CIP Principle
Contact Information

David W. Stephens
Senior Project Engineer
Launch Systems Engineering and Operations

Hughes Space and communications Company




July 16, 1997

July, 1997

Dear Dr. Xxxxxxx,

I am responding to your request for a brief description of my qualifications to pass credible scientific judgment on the Cook Inertial Propulsion (CIP) system.

I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) in 1985, the year I began my 12-year career as an engineer at the Hughes Aircraft Company.  While at Hughes, I attended UCLA on the Hughes Masters Fellowship program, obtaining my Master of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering in 1989 (my area of specialization was dynamics analysis).  I also completed a series of spacecraft engineering courses through UCLA Extension, which earned me a certificate in Astronautical Engineering in 1993.

I worked in the Spacecraft Dynamics organization at Hughes Space and Communications Company for nine years (1986 - 1995), first as an analyst, then as a technical team leader and project manager.  In October, 1995 I accepted a position as a launch systems engineer, integrating spacecraft with launch vehicles (also my current position).

I was first introduced to Bob Cook and the CIP engine in 1989.  During that and subsequent years, I spend a great deal of time discussing the system with Bob and his colleagues, reviewing drawings, video tapes, crude models and dynamics analyses, in an effort to determine whether the principle upon which the CIP is based was valid.

As I told you on the phone, based on my assessment, I can honestly say that if I had access to sufficient funds, I would not hesitate to finance the project to the extent that the principle could be proven (or disproven) conclusively.  The example I used was that if I had 10 million dollars, I would gladly risk the half-a-million or so required to build a model which could theoretically generate enough propulsive force to levitate itself.  In other words, I believe that the CIP system has more than a decent chance of working, and therefore its reward-to-risk ratio is astronomical!

I have already gone to great lengths to support Mr. Cook in any way I can, from convincing my uncle to have Bob as a guest on his radio program, to convincing Hughes management to fund a dynamics analysis of the CIP system, to making two appearances on local television as one of Bob's technical supporters. 

I realize that it takes a tremendous leap of faith for someone like myself, who has been formally schooled to "understand" that building a reactionless propulsion system is impossible.  However, in this case, I have seen sufficient evidence to the contrary that I believe it would be a grave mistake to ignore the CIP's potential as a major scientific breakthrough in propulsion and energy technology.  Indeed, history has proven repeatedly that virtually every revolutionary invention is deemed "impossible" by the majority of the so-called "experts" of its time; in fact, this appears to be a prerequisite for such a breakthrough to occur!

I sincerely hope I live to see the CIP engine receive its well-deserved day in court.

                                                                        Yours truly,


                                                                                                David W. Stephens
                                                                                                Senior Project Engineer
                                                                                                Hughes Space & Communications



To print, change the paper orientation in print settings from "Portrait" to "Landscape".