IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster orbital testing attempt 2

[Asteroza]

So Rogue Space's OTP-2 launched on SpaceX Transporter 13, and signal seems to have been acquired.

Waiting on commissioning info and when the IVO thruster will be started...

[demofsky]

 The test has now started!! 🤞

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/07/potential-worldchanging-ivo-quantum-drive-orbital-test-is-finally-starting.html

[demofsky]

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1952343016422723879

Mod edit to change to permalink

[edzieba]

Celestrack page for OTP-2
Nothing other than normal orbital decay thus far.

[StraumliBlight]

Celestrack page for OTP-2
Nothing other than normal orbital decay thus far.

OTP-2's drive only started initial calibration 3 days ago.

[edzieba]

Celestrack page for OTP-2
Nothing other than normal orbital decay thus far.

OTP-2's drive only started initial calibration 3 days ago.

Celestrack since 8th August.

[RareSaturn]

Any updates?

[edzieba]

Celestrack since 8th Aug. Nothing of note thus far.

[Uncle Slacky]

Any updates?

They're having intermittent communication problems, so testing hasn't started yet:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/09/ivo-quantum-drive-tests-delayed-by-infrequent-communication-problems.html

[demofsky]

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️


It looks like IVO is live and thrusting folks!!!  🎉🥳🥳🥳🎉


https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/10/significant-slowing-of-orbital-decay-of-the-ivo-quantum-drive-satellite.html

[demofsky]

Obviously if this is confirmed it has huge implications for orbital and above space flight.  However the bigger implications are likely to be the theoretical impacts that confirmation of McCulloch will lead to.

[edzieba]

What's the test schedule for the Mile Space water-ion thruster that is also on board OTP-2?

[demofsky]

I don’t know the details but it is my understanding that there were an earlier set of tests done for a different technology and that IVO would be last.

[StraumliBlight]

What's the test schedule for the Mile Space water-ion thruster that is also on board OTP-2?

OTP-2, 63235

Doesn't seem to have noticeably increased altitude.

Rogue Space Linkedin [Sep 11]

Rogue’s Operational Test Program (OTP)-2 hits 180 days in orbit today!
 
Real on-orbit wins…all payloads commissioned, customer hardware tested, and first photos downlinked / processed using Rogue’s next-generation edge computing Scalable Compute Platform (SCP).
 
Next: On-orbit data-triage & autonomy tests with #SCP, customer payloads keep iterating, and even sharper on-board image processing, where Rogue’s performance and learning translates into smarter, faster, and more resilient hosting.

No information on either Rocketstar Inc's or Mile Space's website.

[demofsky]

The claim so far is that orbital decay has slowed to date:

Semi Major Axis (SMA) – Main way to measure altitude
Sept 23, 2025. 507.6 kilometres
Sept 25, 2025. 507.4 kilometres
Ssept 27, 2015. 507.2
Sept 28, 2025. 507.1 kilometres
Sept 30, 2025. 506.9 kilometres
Oct 1, 2025. 506.7 kilometres
Oct 2, 2025 506.6 kilometers
Oct 3, 2025 506.5 kilometres
Oct 4, 2025 506.5 kilometres
Oct 5, 2025 506.5 kilometres
Oct 6, 2025 506.5 kilometres
Oct 7, 2025 506.4 kilometres
Oct 8, 2025 506.4 kilometres

From:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/10/significant-slowing-of-orbital-decay-of-the-ivo-quantum-drive-satellite.html

[CoolScience]

The claim so far is that orbital decay has slowed to date:

False, what you claimed was:

It looks like IVO is live and thrusting folks!!!  🎉🥳🥳🥳🎉

The article you linked does not support this claim, it even goes on in detail as to why:

A temporary reduction in upper atmospheric density would slow the orbital decay. It would directly lowers aerodynamic drag on the satellite. This density variation is a natural consequence of space weather dynamics and does not require active intervention like propulsion.

Solar extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation ionizes and heats the thermosphere, puffing it up and increasing density by 20–100% during active periods. Lower F10.7 → cooler, denser contraction → less drag.

September saw elevated activity (monthly F10.7 ~130 sfu), with flares and coronal activity noted mid- and late-month (e.g., farside blasts visible ~Sept 27). Early October quieted (low flare chance by Oct 7), likely dipping daily F10.7 below September averages, reducing heating and density by ~10–20%.

Late September had moderate-to-strong storms (G2–G3 watches Sept 1–2, ongoing activity mid-month). Early October started with a G3 storm (Oct 2, high-speed solar wind stream), causing brief density spike (explaining small drops Oct 2–3). Post-storm quiet (Kp ~4 on Oct 6–8, low activity forecast) allowed rapid cooling, dropping density ~30–50% below storm levels and stabilizing the orbit (no decay Oct 4–6).

Even without looking at the details of what the space weather conditions were like, anyone can plainly look back and see that the altitude has not changed that much in absolute terms the last couple months making the data all comparable, but periods have existed of equally slow orbital decay. This demonstrates this is natural variation.

Your original post stated something as a fact, which is not supported by the evidence you provided.

When you run an experiment like this, you should predict the results before you run the experiment. In this case, if the drive worked the altitude would raise and significantly. Since they have not provided great details on what they have provided (especially since it seems there is an actual ion thruster on board) they should be able to launch this satellite to the moon if it were useful propellantless thrust.

Obviously if this is confirmed it has huge implications for orbital and above space flight.  However the bigger implications are likely to be the theoretical impacts that confirmation of McCulloch will lead to.

This literally cannot confirm McCulloch's theory, because his theory has been disproven multiple times over, both theoretically and experimentally.

See the (locked) thread below for many details:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.0
A TL;DR is that the claims of conservation laws are incorrect, other theoretical inconsistencies, and a paper showing math problems and how to correct them which would produce different answers. Experimental issues include his claims about the Pioneer anomaly, multiple predictions of propellantless thrusters that have failed to work, and incorrect claims about other experimental data such as wide binaries.

[Twark_Main]

...

Obviously if this is confirmed it has huge implications for orbital and above space flight.  However the bigger implications are likely to be the theoretical impacts that confirmation of McCulloch will lead to.

This literally cannot confirm McCulloch's theory, because his theory has been disproven multiple times over, both theoretically and experimentally.

Let's not be anti-science. Adherence to empiricism says the experiment can prove it, if the data gives a certain result.

The data hasn't (and won't, IMO) show that, but if we say "no experiment could ever prove me wrong" then that veers into unfalsifiable belief and is no longer empirically-based science.

We don't reject McCulloch because it's impossible for it to be proven right. We reject it precisely because it could be proven right, and yet all experimentation has failed to do so.

</end Philosophy of Science nerd> 

[Bob Shaw]

I wish this sort of subject simply wasn’t allowed on NSF. Not only is it a waste of time but it impacts negatively on the authority of the site and the excellent material presented within it.

[Twark_Main]

I wish this sort of subject simply wasn’t allowed on NSF. Not only is it a waste of time but it impacts negatively on the authority of the site and the excellent material presented within it.

The New Physics board, I think, is largely maintained as a sort of quarantine/honeypot to prevent it from invading the remainder of the forum. Not perfect, but probably the "least bad" solution...

[edzieba]

Plotted the first derivative of the SMA (a good proxy for the decay rate) since March, sourced from the Celestrak data. Decay had been increasing from around mid-August, but has recently returned to the same sort of values as it has been from April to August. That could very well just be a short term increase in atmospheric drag that has now abated.

We don't reject McCulloch because it's impossible for it to be proven right. We reject it precisely because it could be proven right, and yet all experimentation has failed to do so.

No, we reject it because the predictions it makes are contrary to measurements of actual reality, and because the math to make those predictions is often... questionable at best.

[Twark_Main]

We don't reject McCulloch because it's impossible for it to be proven right. We reject it precisely because it could be proven right, and yet all experimentation has failed to do so.

No, we reject it because the predictions it makes are contrary to measurements of actual reality

We're saying the same thing.

[CoolScience]

...

Obviously if this is confirmed it has huge implications for orbital and above space flight.  However the bigger implications are likely to be the theoretical impacts that confirmation of McCulloch will lead to.

This literally cannot confirm McCulloch's theory, because his theory has been disproven multiple times over, both theoretically and experimentally.

Let's not be anti-science. Adherence to empiricism says the experiment can prove it, if the data gives a certain result.

Empiricism does not say that. Anti-science typically manifests in ignoring empirical evidence as you imply here. You are ignoring the empirical evidence I provided that McCulluch's theory is self-contradictory and makes multiple incorrect predictions.

The experiment at question in this thread is a test of whether IVO has built a propellantless thruster. There are many good reasons to believe that it won't work, but if it somehow did, it still would not prove McCulloch's theory. It would mean that we would need to go looking for an actually sensible theory to explain it.

The data hasn't (and won't, IMO) show that, but if we say "no experiment could ever prove me wrong" then that veers into unfalsifiable belief and is no longer empirically-based science.

Yet again, you put words in my mouth. Stop pretending I said something different than what I did to insult me. What we have is a mountain of experiments that momentum is conserved in all cases making claims like IVO's doubtful. We also have a pile of reasons that McCulloch's theory is self-contradictory, and predictions he has made that do not match reality. This falsifies McCulloch's theory and a new experiment won't change any of those facts.

We don't reject McCulloch because it's impossible for it to be proven right. We reject it precisely because it could be proven right, and yet all experimentation has failed to do so.

We reject it because it has already been disproven, in extremely solid and rigorous ways. It would literally have to be re-written from scratch and make a new set of predictions before any new consideration of it. The key in science is not the ability to be proven right, but the ability to be proven wrong: falsifiability. McCulloch's theory has been falsified already and to claim otherwise is to ignore the evidence.

You claim to agree with edzieba above, but he is saying the same thing as me, yet you call me names and disagree with me.

[Star One]

I wish this sort of subject simply wasn’t allowed on NSF. Not only is it a waste of time but it impacts negatively on the authority of the site and the excellent material presented within it.

Vigilante moderation, as you appear to be engaged in, is also frowned on in most forums.

[edzieba]

We don't reject McCulloch because it's impossible for it to be proven right. We reject it precisely because it could be proven right, and yet all experimentation has failed to do so.

No, we reject it because the predictions it makes are contrary to measurements of actual reality

We're saying the same thing.

No, we're not, in quite an important way: We don't "prove right" theories, we propose theories and try every way we can think of to prove them wrong - by testing its predictions against the next best theory available in areas where their predictions diverge and seeing which is more accurate. It's 'failure to falsify' rather than 'proved correct'. Scientific theories are the constant pursuit of being less wrong with each advancement.

The distinction is subtle, but it's the reason (as an example) that Superstring theories have not displaced the Standard Model: once their parameters are tweaked so they are not trivially falsifiable with existing measurements, they also fail to make predictions that differ from the standard model.

The distinction is also why we continue to use 'disproven' theories in areas where their predictions remain valid - Newtonian gravity still provides perfectly valid solutions for non-relativistic situations, for example. We occasionally need to care about Frame Dragging (e.g. for GNSS timing) and the like, but for the vast majority of orbital mechanics the Newtonian solution works just fine.

[CoolScience]

We occasionally need to care about Frame Dragging (e.g. for GNSS timing) and the like, but for the vast majority of orbital mechanics the Newtonian solution works just fine.

Off topic at this point but frame dragging is a subtle effect related to the rotation of the Earth in GR and GNSS does not care about it, it was only barely measured (due to an unexpected error source) by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B which launched in 2004. There have been more recent satellites called LARES to improve the measurement, but I haven't researched them closely.

Gravitational time dilation is the effect that GPS satellites account for. (along with velocity based time dilation, which is actually in the opposite direction and partially cancels.)

[duh]

Plotted the first derivative of the SMA (a good proxy for the decay rate) since March, sourced from the Celestrak data. Decay had been increasing from around mid-August, but has recently returned to the same sort of values as it has been from April to August. That could very well just be a short term increase in atmospheric drag that has now abated.

We don't reject McCulloch because it's impossible for it to be proven right. We reject it precisely because it could be proven right, and yet all experimentation has failed to do so.

No, we reject it because the predictions it makes are contrary to measurements of actual reality, and because the math to make those predictions is often... questionable at best.

The graph is intriguing but, at least on my display, I do not see where the 0 value is or what the magnitudes of the variations are. (yes, I am too lazy to go do the work that was done in creating the graph to try to answer my own question.) Recognizing that the graph is representing an analysis fo data made available by one or more sources separate from the poster, it is not the poster's task to explain some of the ripples,
spikes, and other variations in the data. Simply find it intriguing, but some intriguing thinks are significant and some are not. Thanks for presenting the graphical form of the data. My conclusion: "interesting" and|or "intriguing"

[Twark_Main]

...

Obviously if this is confirmed it has huge implications for orbital and above space flight.  However the bigger implications are likely to be the theoretical impacts that confirmation of McCulloch will lead to.

This literally cannot confirm McCulloch's theory, because his theory has been disproven multiple times over, both theoretically and experimentally.

Let's not be anti-science. Adherence to empiricism says the experiment can prove it, if the data gives a certain result.

Empiricism does not say that. Anti-science typically manifests in ignoring empirical evidence as you imply here. You are ignoring the empirical evidence I provided that McCulluch's theory is self-contradictory and makes multiple incorrect predictions.

That's a theoretical problem, not an experimental problem.

The experiment could give positive results. That's not "literally" impossible, and we shouldn't act like it is. It's just that in reality the experiment has consistently failed to do so.

Positive experimental result would have huge implications for space flight, so demofsky is correct about that. The requirement to follow empirical evidence would demand nothing less than a complete rethink of physics, so who knows what theoretical implications that would have that totally invalidate our current arguments against McCulloch. It's just that... we won't see a positive experimental result, so fortunately we'll never have to figure out how to resolve things theoretically.

If somehow this experiment showed positive results it would be such a seismic shakeup of theoretical physics that I wouldn't leave anything off the table. None of that's gonna happen of course, but if it did then empiricism demands that what the universe says wins over "theory says."

We don't reject McCulloch because it's impossible for it to be proven right. We reject it precisely because it could be proven right, and yet all experimentation has failed to do so.

No, we reject it because the predictions it makes are contrary to measurements of actual reality

We're saying the same thing.

No, we're not, in quite an important way: We don't "prove right" theories, we propose theories and try every way we can think of to prove them wrong

I don't disagree, but this misses my point. See above.


And right on time, the orbit is starting to decay more rapidly again. Yet another negative experimental result.

[edzieba]

The experiment could give positive results. That's not "literally" impossible, and we shouldn't act like it is. It's just that in reality the experiment has consistently failed to do so.

Only in the same way the releasing a weight and having it fall upwards is not "literally impossible" (in that the weight is not restricted from upward motion by a physical attachment) and has merely consistently failed to do so, and that this alone is justification enough for testing novel release mechanisms.

[CoolScience]

This literally cannot confirm McCulloch's theory, because his theory has been disproven multiple times over, both theoretically and experimentally.

Let's not be anti-science. Adherence to empiricism says the experiment can prove it, if the data gives a certain result.

Empiricism does not say that. Anti-science typically manifests in ignoring empirical evidence as you imply here. You are ignoring the empirical evidence I provided that McCulluch's theory is self-contradictory and makes multiple incorrect predictions.

That's a theoretical problem, not an experimental problem.

See the bolded statements. Those are experimental problems.

Positive experimental result would have huge implications for space flight, so demofsky is correct about that.

I never said otherwise, my complaints were the inaccurate claim that it was thrusting, and the claim that it would prove McCulloch's theory, which it would not. (As edzieba pointed out above, claiming an experiment proves a theory is bad phrasing in general, in addition to the specific problems in this case.)

The requirement to follow empirical evidence would demand nothing less than a complete rethink of physics, so who knows what theoretical implications that would have that totally invalidate our current arguments against McCulloch. It's just that... we won't see a positive experimental result, so fortunately we'll never have to figure out how to resolve things theoretically.

Anyone who has read that thread I linked to can say that there would be no meaningful change to the arguments against McCulloch, since some of them are experimental, his theory will continue not matching multiple experiments. 1+1 is not equal to 3 by definition, and nothing can change it because that is based on definition. Similarly, there are mathematically rigorous arguments against McCulloch's theory that won't change no matter how much our understanding of the universe evolves. There is a paper in that thread that redoes some of his calculations using correct math. It entirely changes the results and predictions. That corrected theory could be considered, but as far as I know McCulloch still sticks with his original theory, rejecting the corrections.

[Vultur]

Even if something like this did work in LEO (which it isn't) it would probably be more parsimonious to assume that it was conserving momentum by pushing on something not immediately obvious (like a magnetic sail or something) than that known physics is completely wrong.

[Jrcraft]

They claim that tests are ongoing, for what it's worth.

https://x.com/RaMansell/status/1982630980759560595
"Quantum Drive tests are ongoing. Be careful of analysis you get from Grok Fast-free version. I've found it cannot get TLE dates correct at times let alone orbital mechanic calculations. It also at times gets simple things like the satellite's size (8U) or weight (11kg) wrong."

[Hug]

New year, new graph.

[InterestedEngineer]

New year, new graph.

thanks for the updated graph!

Alas, The black SMA (semi-major axis) line shows the satellite dropping from ~515 km to ~503 km altitude over 9 months. That's roughly 12 km of altitude loss, with the decay rate accelerating noticeably after September 2025. This is atmospheric drag doing its work—the lower it gets, the faster it falls.  The SMA curve's shape looks like a textbook exponential decay profile—steepening as altitude drops and atmospheric density increases. That's exactly what uncontrolled decay looks like.

If we know the BC of the satellite, we might be able to see if there's some very small thrust countering the calculated drag rate given the altitude and BC, but we don't have that.

If it is working, the the thrust is so small as to be useless.

So I don't think it's working.  but IR not an expert on reading these graphs either.

[jcm]

 I concur, absolutely no evidence of thrust suffficient to meaningfully affect the orbit.