Did the orbital test of the IVO Quantum Drive produce a real thrust signal in orbit—or did an ambitious experiment leave us with an intriguing but unresolved anomaly?
Physicist and author Dr. Mike McCulloch, originator of Quantised Inertia, describes the IVO Ltd.’s attempt to test a propellantless electric-drive concept in space.
Mike developed Quantized Inertia as a proposed physical explanation for inertia based on acceleration, Unruh radiation, relativistic horizons, and restrictions on quantum-vacuum modes. He has applied the theory to problems ranging from galaxy rotation and particle masses to laboratory thrust experiments and future propulsion.
The path to orbit began after IVO CEO Richard Mansell contacted Mike in 2019. Building on earlier capacitor experiments, IVO developed its own stacked-capacitor hardware, conducted pendulum and high-vacuum tests, and partnered with Rogue Space Systems to fly the experiment.
The first opportunity launched aboard Rogue’s BARRY-1 satellite on SpaceX Transporter-9 in November 2023. Power-system and communications problems aboard the host spacecraft prevented the Quantum Drives from ever being activated.
A second attempt flew aboard Rogue’s OTP-2 satellite, launched on SpaceX Transporter-13 in March 2025. According to Mike’s current account, the team later reported an apparent thrust response, but a problem involving the testing hardware and command-and-control system limited drive operation to less than approximately one minute per day. That prevented the large, unmistakable orbital maneuver the team had hoped to demonstrate.
Mike subsequently compared OTP-2 with a reportedly similar satellite and calculated that the IVO spacecraft experienced approximately 600 meters less orbital decay over three months. He argues that the difference is in the general range expected from intermittent drive operation—but he also emphasizes that the result is not conclusive and could have a conventional explanation, including a possible Lorentz force.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Brian,
It is great that you cover Dr McCulloch’s work, I know of no other theory ( hypothesis) that explains away so many anomalies with “our” Lambda CDM model
Please keep following future results
Sergio
I follow Dr. McCulloch on X and youtube. He’s been doing frequent youtube video’s lately – shorts on QI, and is a good follow.
Thanks Brian, for your support of his work.
There’s one born every minute. I bet the next test will also run into technical problems that prove inconclusive
Mansell needs to partner with someone who knows how to build satellites so he can get his test done properly.
This is a persistent problem with testing of ‘exotic’ space drives: Goalpost shifting after the test fails.
And that’s what happened here: The test failed. It was supposed to produce an unambiguous thrust signal, an actual increase in altitude, that could not be explained by anything except thrust.
Instead the satellite lost altitude, at a rate within a normal range of rates.
Now, maybe they can convince somebody to fund a second test, and maybe a second test would be a success, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
In the late 1790’s Cavendish measured the gravitational constant to reasonable accuracy, despite the gravitational force being much, much less than this drive is supposed to produce. There is simply no reason that the drive could not be tested in an earthly laboratory and clearly validated or rejected, using well known techniques for eliminating spurious effects.
And every time somebody tests it without going to great lengths to eliminate thermal and EM effects, I get more convinced that they’re too invested in it working to do a proper test.
^^^^^^^ This! ^^^^^^^
Yes, but if the hardware actually failed I don’t think they moved the goalposts here. The prediction was “the spacecraft will do X if we run the hardware for Y hours.” If the hardware only ran a few minutes, then the prediction hasn’t been falsified.
I think the prediction *will* be falsified, but I don’t think it’s happened yet.
Brian, with all due respect, the signal-to-noise ratio on this blog has been on a bad trajectory since the advent of AI. I used to come here for tech- and science-heavy news with your unique summaries and insights (complete with constant typos). Now it’s mostly copy-pasted LLM outputs and crappy AI slop figures (the ones in this article are particularly egregious. tons of needless fluff and nonsensical illustrations). Other articles are effectively “watch my video” with no summary provided, or just regurgitations of some other “content creator” video. It’s a bummer to see. I used to recommend this blog to people all the time, but not as of late. Respectfully,
I put effort into shaping the AI analysis. It is me working to make what I think is a superior analysis. I put effort into the videos and the decks and analysis that go into what becomes the videos. The AI screen shots in this video are the work from someone elses analysis presented in their video. No other sources of the IVO review.
My previous work covering all the top developments in technology and science was part of my effort to predict what would become important. I was successful with this effort because what I researched has become huge multi-billion and multi-trillion dollar companies and industries.
I looked at all of the nuclear fission and nuclear fusion projects. I covered Nanonuclear, Helion Energy, etc… before they became billion dollar or multi-billion companies. I cover and covered almost one hundred quantum computer companies. Many of those have become billion dollar companies.
I am focused on what will be the important things for the future what will happen. This was my purpose before and it is my purpose now. The most important and fastest impact things are space and AI. It is space with SpaceX and AI. I am not going to dig into some laundry list of science or technology that are low probability long shots and will take over ten years because that is ignoring the new agent impacts happening week to week now. If you think I am missing something that should be covered let me know.
If we are heading through AI expanding by 100 to 1000 times over the next 2-3 years, then tracking those things and foreseeing it a few weeks or months ahead is the most useful.
I really appreciate the thoughtful reply Brian. You have always covered interesting and important topics and this is why I have consistently come here. No complaints on that front. My point is that IMO an increasing number of articles seem to be missing your unique voice and insights that have always made this blog special. I don’t come here to read what an LLM’s fluff-filled opinion is on these topics, or to see nonsense-filled graphics copy-pasted from someone else. That is all. I appreciate and thank you for your efforts regardless.