Friday, November 6, 2009

NASA Says No Sale

As previously reported here, NASA internal discussions seemed to indicate that at one point they had acquired EEStor technology. According to follow up correspondence today between a FOIA administrator and Mr. Ambrose, NASA did not ever purchase EEStor technology as Ambrose seemed to indicate in his released email.

The NASA information on EEStor is still under investigation and it would appear that there is definitely more to learn. For example, the six SBIR proposals EEStor supposedly submitted in 2002. Proposals, I can't seem to find in the online NASA database.

Lockheed Ad in Scientific American

Pick up a copy of the November 2009 Scientific American. It has an interesting set of articles about wind, solar and water power source systems. Somewhat interesting was the full page add that Lockheed Martin has on page 3 where they go into detail comparing their new mission as an energy company to the Apollo space mission, a program Lockheed was heavily involved with at the time. They talk about "energy security" as the goal and list energy storage as one of the means.

To my knowledge, Lockheed has no special connection to energy storage other than EEStor Inc., despite what any occasional Lockheed employed lithium researcher might tell you. Sure, Lockheed runs Sandia Labs, but no one is going to make the claim that any lithium ion solution Lockheed is directly working with will provide the means to energy security. No one with a brain that is.

NASA: Do They Own EEStor Tech or Something Else?

So, as predicted, yesterday's NASA revelations have been dissected by few thousand EEstory addicts and the consensus appears to be, what else, extreme uncertainty. :-) While these several thousands continue to orbit around the truth, let's summarize the current mission status. Doubters believe the key correspondence includes reference to generic ultracapacitors as having been purchased while others looking at the context of the discussion, point out that EEStor is the topic of interest in the thread...and want to believe, as I did, that NASA may be in possession of at least some components. I'll accept the plausibility of the doubts registered in discussion and simply say, we await NASA for more answers on this.

In the meantime, there is still very intersting new information in this FOIA. Additional specs, EESU sizes. And probably the most important revelation is that EEStor claimed in writing to NASA that their underlying technology was already "completely" developed, tested and certified. I dont know how many times I have to say it---ALL of the evidence gathered to date means EEStor can only be a scam or real. Anyone who looks at the scam theory with any depth, rejects it. Ergo, EEStor is real.