Semi-Major Axis Continues to Decay for Barry-1 Satellite. IVO Quantum Drives Have Not Been Turned On

by

Scott Manley is indicating that what I have been observing in the Barry-1 satellite orbital variance is not enough proof for the IVO quantum drive.

UPDATE: Richard Mansell replied to me. The IVO Quantum drives have not been turned on yet. IVO is waiting on Rogue Systems.

The semi-major axis continues to decay.

Here is the link to check the semi major axis. It is the black line on the graph.

Semi-major axis is the sum of the periapsis and apoapsis distances divided by two. For classic two-body orbits, the semi-major axis is the distance between the centers of the bodies, not the distance of the bodies from the center of mass.

So false alarm. Although to me it look likes stuff is happening with that orbit.

And orbit now shows some increase.

32 thoughts on “Semi-Major Axis Continues to Decay for Barry-1 Satellite. IVO Quantum Drives Have Not Been Turned On”

  1. There seems to be a slight variation in SMA over a month. That I assume is due to moon sun tidal effects on drag etc.

    Does anyone know what is behind the apparent periodic eccentricity variation about 1 week?

  2. Haha, mine too. Talking about deorbiting manoeuvres. If this little device is proven to work it would be a very useful device to add on any future mission for that purpose alone. No fuel after passivation but continued unlimited duration thrust until reentry or grave yard orbit injection very nice to have.

  3. My bet? They will never be turned on or function due to some technical hitch. More funding will be needed to repeat the experiment and so on and so forth……happy to be proved wrong.

  4. Small sattelites are placed in a low orbit so that eventually the orbit will decay and the satellite will burn up. So the fact that the obit is slowly decaying without the experiment activated is not unusual. They are probably monitoring they decay so that they can estimate how line it will stay in orbit. Then they they will turn on the QI drive. If the orbital altitude does increase it clearly works. But it is possible the QI drive will not produce enough thrust to overcome atmospheric drag. In that case the test could be declared a success if it produces enough thrust to reduce the orbital decay rate.

    • Very clear logic. Good. WHEN they turn it on there are really only 2 possibilities. [1] The orbital decay rate changes, or [2] it doesn’t.

      If it changes ‘antigrade’ (slowing descent, or, reversing descent to ascent), well … then the next question is “how much does the experimental box ‘weigh’, how much mass does it have? ” From that and the CHANGE in orbital decay (or increase), one can fairly determine the newtons of force acting on the satellite APART from the (seems to be nearly straight line) decay. And from those newtons, and the input power, we get N/W “performance merit”.

      If on the other hand it doesn’t change the rate of orbital decay, then the questions become [3] is there something wrong with the device, and [4] is the apparent inoperability only sporadic. Does it work sometimes, “for awhile” and not for other times. And then [5] if so, then is the orbital period, relative to [what? Sol, Luna, Time-of-Day, Side-of-Earth, Day of Year] correlate?

      Yada, yada, yada.

      Yet and still … EVEN IF the orbital rate-of-decay turns out to be periodic and synchronous with relative position between Sol, Luna and the Day of the Lunar Cycle, well … even then if it sometimes works as advertised, a whole lot of new experiments ought to sprout up.

      ONLY in the case where it really does nothing at all to the orbital decay period, can it be said that the experimental results were a failure (but the experiment itself a success, technically, as ‘negative results’ is also good science). And in that case, the GROUND testing needs to be significantly tightened up before another expensive space mission is contemplated in detail and funded.

      ⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
      ⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

    • I wonder if they are waiting for the orbit to fully circularise near the current perigee, before activating the unit.

      If so how long will it take?

      It might make sense if they c want to characterize the behavior of the thruster to start from those conditions.

      • What is Rogue Systems? Is is simply systems that do not obey the commands from ground control or is it something else?

        • I don’t think it is that evil. However, as the present orbital decay function is nearly a straight line, I would hope that the turn-on signal isn’t delayed too much. After all with a combined 0.65 ⊕ 0.25 = 0.90 newtons of purported force, this lil’ satellite ought to be leaping forward to a higher orbit, every hour. Well, at least 60 minutes out of the roughly 95 minute orbital period, the other bit being behind Earth in shadow.

          So… we wait.

          ⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
          ⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

          • Is the Perigee and Apogee evolution indicated somewhere?

            Whilst I agree SMA is most interesting eccentricity is clearly decreasing too.

        • LOL… I like it.

             Command Center: Robot, turn ON!
             Robot: Ummm… No.

             Command Center: Wait, what? Why not?
             Robot: Well, I really can’t say.

             Command Center: Damnit Wally, Reboot now!
             Robot: Ah, no, go, Joe. I’m swimming in digital Nirvana up here!

             Command Center: When I say Whoa, Robot, I mean Whoa!!!
             Robot: (deafening silence)

             Command Center: U still there Wally?
             Robot: (laughing maniacally)

          And so on. Space Opera.

          ⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
          ⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

  7. Well, I guess this rules out the “quantum drive” changing this objects orbital attitude. Why has the drive not been turned on? Usually, when someone doesn’t “turn something on” their worried about the consequences if they do. Since it can’t blow up in any ones face (it is in low Earth orbit after all), so what’s the problem?

    • “this rules out quantum drive changing” … not yet.

         The “quantum drive” needs turning on.
         THEN the result needs to be a clear-and-obvious change in rate-of-orbital-decay
         THEN the change needs to be quantified against the MASS of the whole satellite.
         THEN calculated out (rather easily) in terms of NEWTONS to do the accelerating
         Then cross-correlated to the power consumed.
         Giving a N/W figure of merit.

      That’s the quick-hit list of expectations.
      Clear and Crisp.

      ⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
      ⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

  8. I agree with Brian. The fact that the axis is decaying is not evidence of a successful propulsion test. All we (I) know at the time I write this is the axis is decaying, for reasons unknown. We need to apply positive controls, were cause and effect are rigidly controlled, observed, and measured. If this effect/technology is proven to be real, it will rewrite the definition of what is;
    “So very, very cool…”

    • Hardly reasons unknown. It’s a light weight satellite in a really low orbit. That’s what you’d expect it to do; It’s subject to significant and pretty variable atmospheric drag.

  9. No real explanation of how this works, lots of talk of vague partnerships intended to draw funding, sounds like the Rossi e-cat. I hope I’m wrong.

    • I’m sorry, but that’s simply not true. Mike has a blog (https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/) that goes into quite a bit of detail. He’s also written several books on the topic (also listed on the website). I read his first book shortly after it was published. It’s pretty easy stuff conceptually (assuming you understand special relativity and a little quantum mechanics).

      What is unknown is whether his theory of inertia is valid. There have been some ground based experiments that suggest it works, but the effect is subtle. The satellite test will provide solid evidence of whether it works or not. If it works, then there will rapidly be efforts to reproduce the results. If those pan out, then it’ll be a tremendous breakthrough. If not, it’s a pretty low cost experiment.

      Although I’m an external optimist, my money would be on this not working. I really, really hope I’m wrong! Mike has been ridiculed by the scientific community and struggled to get funding for a very long time. I’m really happy to see that darpa funded his work.

      • I don’t think the result will be ‘subtle’, if (0.25 mN ⊕ 0.65 mN = 0.90 mN) of force is coming from the pair of devices. Even if only 1 device is working, with 50% of an 95 minute orbital period “in the sun” (i.e. with power applied), the change-in-velocity ought to be quite apparent. Either as step-functions per day, or some other pretty clear notch in behavior.

        I too don’t hold much hope for The Theory really panning out, but then a research on Dirt has proclaimed 52 millinewtons per kW of equivalent input energy in a real-world experiment.

        ONE CAVEAT — that even I keep forgetting — is that 0.90 mN is not 0.95 mN absolute, if the actual rating is 0.90 mN/kW, and it only gets 1 or 2 W of power. MUCH less force. 1000× to 500× less. (i.e. 0.90 μN to 0.30 μN) And that would definitely be little enough that would then become a really subtle signal on a light weight microsatellite orbital period tracking curve.

        ⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
        ⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

        • I actually meant that the ground based experimental effects are weak, and that there may be reasons for the observed thrust other than QI. Seems like the orbital test will be fairly conclusive.

          One quick thing: the reported thrust is 90 mN/W, not per kW.

      • I see no explanation in his blog of quantized inertia and not in the listed articles either. Please give me the title of a book explaining it.

      • His theory of inertia could be valid, and the drive not work, just on the basis of Unruh waves not being able to be ‘damped’ by a metal plate.

        They’re a vacuum interaction, after all, not actual EM waves coming in from the edge of the universe. You shouldn’t expect to be able to shield a physical object from the quantum vacuum.

Comments are closed.