One is left to wonder why the ESA experiments showed no Frame Drag from the London moment when type II superconductors are used. Yet the (arguably) weaker type I superconductor showed a pronounced effect. Using our basic understanding of the physics of super-conduction (cooper-pairs) this result can not be predicted.

We know that the two types are quite different, not just in transition temperature, but in the fundamental nature of the macro-quantum processes involved. Type I is reasonably will modeled by the BCS theory. Type II has no excepted model that can explain more than 50-60% of the interactions and strengths. The work I performed during the development of the model described in my theory of Quantum Relativity offers an explanation for the differences between these types of super conductors and how even larger effects could be created using type II superconductors.

States of cryogenic matter:
During my tenure designing and setting up instrumentation for several solid state physicists I was exposed to a new concepts in the states of matter that were outside of the four accepted ones (solid, liquid, gas, plasma). These included the bizarre behavior of various isotopes of Helium at temperatures within a few degrees of absolute zero. Under the right conditions the Helium would become a "super fluid". That means it can flow without frictional loss much in the same way electrons can flow in a super conductor. All very interesting information and made for great experiments. Then they started working with "super solids", a far more obscure state, where a solid block of matter can "flow" through another super solid block of matter without interacting! One could not apply a force to the other. Imagine walking through a wall, without interacting with it. Super solids are fascinating almost ethereal in how they interact. 

Quantum Relativity requires that quantum states enable a potential for interaction speeds to exceed that of light. Nature does not allow for information exchange to exceed light speed and causes the features we see as mass and inertia to isolate the particles quantum ability. Superconductors achieve a quantum state as the materials are cooled. The prediction is that the two types of super conduction are in reality two states of the same quantum concept. One is just a little more super than the other.

Ice as compared to Super fluids:
The model based on Quantum Relativity predicts that the Type I super conductors are more ice like in that they freeze into a single crystalline structure that moves or transfers its energy as a unit. This explains its "weakness" to magnetic fields, high current densities and super conduction only at very cold temperature. Basically the ice freezes out of the normal vibration states of the metal crystals enabling cooper pair production and exhibiting super conduction locked to the crystalline metal structure.

When the metal is accelerated the cooper-pairs are also accelerated. This acceleration is what causes the London Moment magnetic gravity effect measured by the ESA team.

Type II materials are more akin to a super fluid/solid resting inside a bottle or brick. Each cooper-pair is free to move independently with respect to the material matrix. This is exampled in its robustness against magnetic fields, flux pinning, reduced current densities, and higher transition temperatures.  What you could expect is that the material that houses the cooper-pair could be accelerated WITHOUT acceleration of the cooper-pairs (super fluid or solid) thereby yielding a negative result in these breakthrough experiments.

This same effect requires type II super conductive particles to be restricted to <100nm in diameter before gravitational effects are exhibited as measured by Tao. This physical restriction locks the cooper-pair into separate chambers. Now the pairs can not flow with respect to the matrix because each pair is isolated physically. Quantum Relativity predicts that the same or greater London Magnetic gravity effects can be seen in Type II super conductors only when the particle size in restricted to sub 100nm in size. Bulk materials are incapable of producing substantial effects.

Continued experiments supported by ESA may yet yield this frame dragging effect in type II materials. The prediction I make is that it can not be produced until it is realized that the super fluid that is the macro-quantum state must be restricted by physical isolation of the cooper-pairs.

This may also be the reason many attempts at recreation of gravity effects purported to involve type II materials fail under well controlled experimental conditions (NASA et al). Due to the fact that they would produce only bulk materials where less well funded groups could have poorer quality materials with isolated regions or pockets that could produce gravity effects.