DOI: To be assigned
John Swygert
August 15, 2026
—
Abstract
Claims of propellantless electrostatic thrust present an unusual experimental problem. The weaker the reported force, the more elaborate the terrestrial apparatus required to establish that the force is real; yet every balance, suspension, vacuum chamber, grounded wall, electrical feedthrough, shield, support structure, thermal gradient, nearby conductor, and measurement receiver also introduces possible pathways through which an apparent force may arise. Better controls are therefore indispensable, but controls do not make an experiment relationless. They change the relations that must be accounted for.
Recent public discussion by Charles Buhler and collaborators associated with Exodus Propulsion describes electrostatic-force experiments spanning approximately two thousand test articles or experimental variations, including scale measurements, reversal tests, high-vacuum configurations, shielding, pendulum and rotational arrangements, and attempts to suppress ion wind and Coulomb interaction with surrounding structures. Some configurations are reported in the millinewton range and spacecraft application is discussed explicitly. These statements are treated here as reported experimental claims requiring independent validation, not as established new physics.
Buhler also explicitly separates the private propulsion work from his NASA duties in the interview. NASA independently identifies him as a lead research scientist at Kennedy Space Center’s Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory.
This paper proposes that a decisive next experimental boundary may be a free-flying spacecraft rather than an increasingly elaborate terrestrial force balance.
The central proposition is:
> When a claimed propulsion force is sufficiently large to produce measurable spacecraft acceleration, remove the terrestrial support architecture and let the motion of the complete spacecraft become the primary detector.
Space is not treated as perfect isolation. An orbiting spacecraft remains coupled to Earth’s gravitational field, residual atmosphere, solar radiation, Earth radiation, plasma, spacecraft charging, geomagnetic fields, thermal radiation, outgassing, electromagnetic emission, attitude-control systems, and other environmental and operational processes. These relations must be measured and bounded.
The advantage of space is therefore not the absence of boundaries. It is the replacement of one experimental architecture with another in which the central observable is no longer the deflection of an apparatus relative to a laboratory support. It is the change in motion of the complete apparatus.
A prospective free-flight falsification architecture is developed using whole-spacecraft momentum accounting, matched active and sham states, internal thrust-vector reversal, charged-but-unpowered states, deliberate discharge, independent orbital and inertial receivers, environmental-vector discrimination, randomized command schedules, blinded analysis, signal-injection tests, preflight sensitivity qualification, prospectively defined equivalence margins, and explicit failure criteria. A stronger two-spacecraft crossover architecture is also proposed.
The central question is not initially whether electrogravity, vacuum structure, quantum phenomena, or deeper substrate coupling explains the reported effect.
It is more fundamental:
\[
\boxed{
\text{Does the complete free-flying spacecraft acquire a repeatable, device-correlated change in motion?}
}
\]
If the answer is no under a qualified experiment, a broad class of propulsion interpretations is constrained.
If the answer is yes, the experiment establishes the momentum-accounting problem that any deeper explanation must solve.
The spacecraft does not merely carry the experiment.
The spacecraft becomes the experiment.
Keywords: electrostatic propulsion; propellantless propulsion; free flight; orbital experiment; anomalous thrust; spacecraft acceleration; SmallSat; CubeSat; momentum conservation; boundary conditions; falsification; experimental controls; orbital metrology; TSTOEAO
—
1. Purpose
Experimental claims of anomalous thrust are often framed too quickly as theoretical questions:
What force is this?
That is not yet the first question.
The first question is:
What physically moved?
The second is:
Relative to what?
The third is:
What complete momentum boundary was actually measured?
Only after those questions are answered does mechanism become scientifically meaningful.
A laboratory force measurement necessarily requires a receiver. That receiver may be a scale, torsion balance, pendulum, optical displacement sensor, rotary stand, flexure, suspension, or another calibrated apparatus.
For ordinary force measurement this architecture is indispensable.
For a purported propellantless force it creates a special difficulty because the central claim concerns whether the experimental system exchanges momentum with something outside itself.
A force observed between two components of an apparatus does not by itself establish propulsion.
The complete system must acquire a corresponding external dynamical consequence.
That distinction motivates the present paper.
—
2. Experimental Motivation
The supplied Buhler interview describes extensive attempts to distinguish the reported effect from ion wind, Coulomb attraction, nearby grounded structures, chamber walls, and receiver-specific artifacts. Buhler states that high-voltage devices can interact with walls, floors, ceilings, and other nearby conductors and therefore emphasizes grounded shielding and enclosure.
Particularly important is his description of the vacuum-chamber problem.
Moving a device into vacuum suppresses many atmospheric pathways, including ordinary ion-wind mechanisms.
It also places the device inside another substantial physical object: the vacuum chamber.
Buhler therefore argues that the relevant force should be measured on the complete enclosure and that the apparatus should be reversed to determine whether an apparent directional force instead follows coupling to surrounding boundaries.
This embodies a more general experimental principle:
\[
\boxed{
\text{A control that removes one pathway can create, expose, or transform another.}
}
\]
Vacuum is not nothing.
A Faraday enclosure is not nothing.
A balance is not nothing.
A spacecraft is not nothing.
The correct question is therefore never merely:
Is the experiment isolated?
It is:
\[
\boxed{
\text{What remaining relations are capable of producing the registered observable?}
}
\]
—
3. Claim Status and Source Discipline
This paper does not claim that the Exodus experiments have established:
a new fundamental force;
electrogravity;
reactionless propulsion;
vacuum propulsion;
violation of Newton’s third law;
violation of energy conservation;
violation of momentum conservation;
spacetime curvature;
quantum propulsion;
or TSTOEAO substrate coupling.
The approximately two thousand experimental variations, millinewton-scale measurements, and persistence claims discussed publicly by Buhler are treated as claims to be tested. The interview itself is not independent replication.
The proposal developed here is therefore conditional:
\[
\boxed{
\text{If the complete spacecraft experiences a genuine external force, its free-flight dynamics must reveal it.}
}
\]
No prior commitment to the underlying mechanism is required.
—
4. The Terrestrial Boundary Problem
Consider a device \(D\).
A first experiment places it on a scale.
A force is reported.
Possible electrostatic interaction with the scale is identified.
The device is mechanically separated from the scale.
A pendulum is introduced.
Now suspension behavior matters.
The experiment is moved into vacuum.
Gas-mediated effects are reduced.
Now chamber-wall coupling matters.
A grounded Faraday enclosure is added.
External electrostatic coupling is reduced.
Now induced charge, grounding paths, enclosure geometry, field leakage, mechanical attachment, thermal gradients, and remaining electromagnetic pathways must be considered.
The experimental architecture evolves approximately as:
\[
D
\rightarrow
D+B_1
\rightarrow
D+B_1+B_2
\rightarrow
D+B_1+B_2+R
\rightarrow\cdots
\]
where:
\[
D=\text{device},
\]
\[
B_i=\text{successive boundary or control structures},
\]
and:
\[
R=\text{receiver}.
\]
This is not an argument against terrestrial experimentation.
It is an argument for recognizing when the architecture used to suppress artifacts has itself become part of the dominant uncertainty.
At that point, a powerful experiment may involve changing the boundary altogether.
—
5. From Force Balance to Free Flight
A terrestrial force balance asks:
\[
F=?
\]
through the response of an apparatus against its support environment.
A free-flying spacecraft instead asks:
\[
a_{\mathrm{COM}}=?
\]
for the complete system.
The architecture changes from:
\[
\text{device}
\rightarrow
\text{receiver}
\rightarrow
\text{laboratory support}
\]
to:
\[
\boxed{
\text{device}
\rightarrow
\text{complete spacecraft}
\rightarrow
\text{trajectory}.
}
\]
For spacecraft mass \(m\),
\[
\mathbf F_{\mathrm{net}}
=
m\mathbf a_{\mathrm{COM}}
\]
in the appropriate dynamical description.
Internal forces can redistribute stresses, move components, alter attitude, or temporarily change the position of the spacecraft bus relative to the system center of mass.
They cannot by themselves generate sustained acceleration of the total center of mass of an otherwise closed mechanical system.
That is what makes free flight scientifically attractive.
—
6. Space Is Not Zero Gravity
The proposal does not depend upon describing orbit as “zero gravity.”
A satellite in low Earth orbit remains strongly within Earth’s gravitational field.
It is in continuous free fall.
The primary observable is therefore not weight reduction.
It is non-gravitational acceleration relative to the predicted trajectory.
Let the measured state be:
\[
\mathbf x(t)
=
[\mathbf r(t),\mathbf v(t)].
\]
Let the conventional dynamical model predict:
\[
\hat{\mathbf x}_C(t).
\]
The unresolved acceleration can be represented conceptually as:
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}
=
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{obs}}
–
\mathbf a_C.
\]
The scientific task is then to determine whether:
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}
\]
correlates with the registered experimental state more strongly than with conventional environmental or spacecraft variables.
—
7. Why Free Flight May Be More Discriminating
Buhler reports force levels reaching roughly 5–10 mN in some configurations and explicitly discusses spacecraft applications.
The interview also presents lower-force demonstrations, including a scale response described as approximately 1 mN and a vacuum-spinner response interpreted there as approximately 2.5 mN.
These values remain reported claims, but they illustrate why free flight could be decisive.
Acceleration follows:
\[
a=\frac{F}{m}.
\]
For illustration only, suppose:
\[
m=10\ \mathrm{kg}
\]
and:
\[
F=1\ \mathrm{mN}=10^{-3}\ \mathrm N.
\]
Then:
\[
a=10^{-4}\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}.
\]
If such acceleration persisted for:
\[
\tau=1000\ \mathrm s,
\]
the idealized accumulated velocity change would be:
\[
\Delta v=a\tau=0.1\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}.
\]
Actual orbital response depends upon direction, orbital geometry, attitude, and the full equations of motion.
The important point is that a small force becomes an accumulating dynamical quantity.
—
8. Time as an Experimental Lever
For a persistent acceleration:
\[
\Delta v\propto \tau.
\]
The corresponding trajectory consequence also grows with observation time, although radial, along-track, and cross-track accelerations map differently into orbital elements and must be propagated using the complete orbital dynamics.
The methodological advantage remains:
A terrestrial force balance attempts to resolve a small force locally.
A spacecraft allows the same force, if real and persistent, to accumulate a dynamical signature.
Thus:
\[
\boxed{
\text{time becomes part of the measurement gain}.
}
\]
Longer observation is not automatically better, because systematic orbit-model errors and instrument drift can also accumulate.
The appropriate integration interval must therefore be established prospectively.
—
9. The Correct System Boundary
The declared experimental boundary must include:
\[
\boxed{
\text{payload + enclosure + power system + spacecraft bus + all internal moving systems}.
}
\]
The relevant momentum equation concerns the complete spacecraft:
\[
\frac{d\mathbf P_{\mathrm{sc}}}{dt}
=
\mathbf F_{\mathrm{external}}.
\]
If one capacitor plate attracts another:
internal.
If a cable pulls on a support:
internal.
If an actuator shifts a mass:
internal.
If an electrostatic device presses against its enclosure:
internal.
Such forces can move individual components relative to the spacecraft body.
They do not constitute sustained propulsion of the complete center of mass.
The experiment must therefore measure the motion of the whole vehicle.
—
10. The Primary Experimental Question
The orbital experiment should ask:
> Does changing a registered internal electrostatic state produce a repeatable change in the complete spacecraft’s acceleration that follows the predicted device vector after conventional external forces and measurement uncertainties are accounted for?
Let experimental state \(S_i\) produce residual acceleration:
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}(S_i).
\]
A minimal propulsion hypothesis should predict more than:
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}\neq0.
\]
It should predict a direction.
Let:
\[
S_+\rightarrow+\hat{\mathbf n}_D
\]
and:
\[
S_-\rightarrow-\hat{\mathbf n}_D.
\]
A substantially stronger result is:
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}(S_+)
\approx
–
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}(S_-).
\]
The null state should satisfy a prospectively registered equivalence criterion.
—
11. Direction Is More Informative Than Detection Alone
A spacecraft can deviate from a predicted trajectory for many reasons.
Therefore:
\[
a_{\mathrm{res}}\neq0
\]
is not sufficient.
Define the registered device axis:
\[
\hat{\mathbf n}_D.
\]
Project the residual onto that axis:
\[
a_D
=
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}
\cdot
\hat{\mathbf n}_D.
\]
The orthogonal component is:
\[
\mathbf a_\perp
=
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}
–
a_D\hat{\mathbf n}_D.
\]
If the propulsion model predicts thrust along the device axis, the candidate signal should organize preferentially in \(a_D\).
When the internal thrust geometry reverses:
\[
\hat{\mathbf n}_D
\rightarrow
-\hat{\mathbf n}_D,
\]
the registered acceleration prediction must reverse as well.
This turns anomaly detection into causal discrimination.
—
12. Do Not Begin by Rotating the Whole Spacecraft
Rotating the satellite 180° is an attractive test.
It is not necessarily the cleanest first test.
Whole-spacecraft rotation simultaneously changes relationships to:
sunlight;
residual atmosphere;
Earth infrared radiation;
geomagnetic field;
solar-radiation pressure;
antenna geometry;
spacecraft charging;
and thermal emission.
A stronger primary experiment reverses the internal predicted thrust vector while holding the external spacecraft geometry approximately fixed.
This can be implemented using:
two mirrored experimental modules;
a reversible internal module;
or equivalent opposite-axis assemblies.
Then:
\[
D_+\rightarrow+\mathbf F
\]
and:
\[
D_-\rightarrow-\mathbf F
\]
without deliberately rotating the spacecraft itself.
—
13. The Matched-Mirror Architecture
Consider two internal modules:
\[
D_+
\]
and:
\[
D_-,
\]
mounted along opposite directions of the same spacecraft axis.
They should be matched as closely as technically practical in:
mass;
electrical demand;
stored electrical energy;
thermal output;
shielding;
attachment;
wiring;
materials;
timing;
and diagnostic instrumentation.
During one window:
\[
D_+\text{ active},\qquad D_-\text{ inactive}.
\]
During another:
\[
D_-\text{ active},\qquad D_+\text{ inactive}.
\]
The propulsion hypothesis predicts:
\[
a(D_+)\approx-a(D_-).
\]
A useful differential observable is:
\[
\Delta a
=
a(D_+)-a(D_-).
\]
Many external environmental conditions remain approximately common between these states.
The predicted device vector does not.
—
14. The Experimental State Matrix
A scientifically useful test should contain more than ON and OFF.
Define:
\(S_0\) — Discharged Baseline
The experimental assembly is inactive and deliberately discharged.
\(S_+\) — Positive Active Vector
The registered configuration predicted to accelerate along \(+\hat{\mathbf n}_D\).
\(S_-\) — Reversed Active Vector
The matched configuration predicted to accelerate along \(-\hat{\mathbf n}_D\).
\(S_H\) — Sham State
Electrical and thermal activity is reproduced as closely as possible without the claimed thrust-producing asymmetry.
\(S_C\) — Charged, Supply Disconnected
The electrostatic state is established, then the external charging supply is disconnected.
\(S_D\) — Deliberately Discharged
Stored charge and field are intentionally collapsed according to a registered discharge criterion.
A basic sequence could therefore contain:
\[
S_0
\rightarrow
S_+
\rightarrow
S_0
\rightarrow
S_H
\rightarrow
S_0
\rightarrow
S_-
\rightarrow
S_0.
\]
The confirmatory ordering should later be randomized or pseudorandomized.
—
15. The Power-Off Claim Must Be Separate From the Powered Claim
The supplied interview describes materially different regimes.
In one scale demonstration, the reported force appears after applied voltage and disappears after the electrical power is removed.
Elsewhere, Buhler discusses configurations in which force is claimed to persist after external power removal while an electrostatic field state remains.
Those regimes should never be merged.
Define:
\[
H_P:
\text{force requires active powered operation}
\]
and:
\[
H_C:
\text{force persists in a stored electrostatic state}.
\]
They require separate predictions and separate falsifiers.
—
16. Power-Off Does Not Mean Energy-Free
Disconnecting an electrical supply does not remove stored electrostatic energy.
For an ideal capacitor:
\[
U_E=\frac12CV^2.
\]
A real distributed electrostatic device may require a fuller field-energy model, but the principle is unchanged.
A persistence test should therefore measure, as technically feasible:
\[
V_D(t),
\]
\[
Q_D(t),
\]
\[
I_{\mathrm{leak}}(t),
\]
\[
E_D(t),
\]
\[
T_i(t),
\]
and:
\[
a_D(t).
\]
The critical sequence is:
\[
\text{charge}
\rightarrow
\text{disconnect}
\rightarrow
\text{observe}
\rightarrow
\text{deliberately discharge}
\rightarrow
\text{observe}.
\]
This is much stronger than simply stating that the power cable has been disconnected.
—
17. Energy Accounting in the Persistent Regime
If a charged spacecraft continues to accelerate, the mechanical consequence must be compared with the complete energy account.
At minimum:
\[
\Delta E_{\mathrm{mech}}
\]
must be evaluated relative to:
\[
\Delta U_E,
\]
together with:
thermal energy;
electromagnetic radiation;
emitted particles;
interaction with the plasma environment;
field energy;
material loss;
and other registered channels.
The condition:
\[
P_{\mathrm{external}}=0
\]
does not imply:
\[
E_{\mathrm{available}}=0.
\]
A claim of anomalous energy accounting therefore requires more than power-supply disconnection.
—
18. The Spacecraft Becomes the Primary Receiver
The fundamental receiver is:
\[
R_1=\text{spacecraft trajectory}.
\]
A second receiver should be substantially independent:
\[
R_2=\text{onboard inertial measurement}.
\]
Additional receiver classes can include:
GNSS orbit determination;
ground Doppler;
radiometric ranging;
laser ranging where compatible;
intersatellite ranging;
star-tracker attitude data;
spacecraft-potential sensing;
magnetometry;
thermal mapping;
and complete electrical telemetry.
NASA formation-flight work has used geodetic-quality dual-frequency GPS receivers together with high-accuracy accelerometers for precise orbit determination, demonstrating that these measurement classes are established spacecraft technologies.
The unusual feature here is what they are being asked to establish.
Reference-point discipline
The spacecraft center of mass, accelerometer proof-mass location, GNSS antenna phase center, star-tracker frame, and payload thrust axis must be surveyed and transformed into a common spacecraft coordinate system.
Changes in propellant, deployables, battery state, moving hardware, or other mass redistribution must either be eliminated during science windows or included in the mass-property model.
Otherwise, sensor-reference motion could be mistaken for center-of-mass motion.
—
19. The No-Single-Receiver Rule
No single measurement channel should carry the entire claim.
Suppose:
\[
R_1
\]
reports acceleration but:
\[
R_2
\]
does not.
That disagreement is itself a result.
An accelerometer can drift.
An orbit solution can contain model error.
GNSS can contain estimation bias.
An antenna can move relative to the spacecraft center of mass.
Thermal deformation can alter sensor geometry.
A strong candidate effect therefore requires receiver convergence.
Ideally:
\[
a_{\mathrm{IMU}}
\approx
a_{\mathrm{orbit}}
\]
within the prospectively qualified transfer function and uncertainties.
A two-spacecraft mission can add:
\[
R_3=\text{relative ranging}.
\]
—
20. Space Is Not Isolated
The most serious conceptual mistake would be:
\[
\text{space}
=
\text{nothing}.
\]
It is not.
A free-flying spacecraft remains coupled to:
Earth’s gravitational field;
residual atmosphere;
solar photons;
Earth-reflected sunlight;
Earth infrared radiation;
geomagnetic fields;
ionospheric or magnetospheric plasma;
spacecraft charging;
electromagnetic emission;
thermal radiation;
outgassing;
charged-particle emission;
attitude-control systems;
internal rotating machinery;
structural deformation;
and other environmental processes.
Free flight therefore does not remove the relational ledger.
It changes it.
—
21. The Orbital Force Ledger
Conceptually, write:
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{obs}}
=
\mathbf a_G
+
\mathbf a_D
+
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{SRP}}
+
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{ER}}
+
\mathbf a_Q
+
\mathbf a_M
+
\mathbf a_T
+
\mathbf a_O
+
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{RF}}
+
\mathbf a_X,
\]
where:
\[
\mathbf a_G
\]
represents modeled gravitational dynamics;
\[
\mathbf a_D
\]
atmospheric drag;
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{SRP}}
\]
solar-radiation pressure;
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{ER}}
\]
Earth radiation and albedo;
\[
\mathbf a_Q
\]
charging, plasma, or electrodynamic interaction;
\[
\mathbf a_M
\]
magnetic interaction;
\[
\mathbf a_T
\]
thermal recoil;
\[
\mathbf a_O
\]
outgassing and operational effects;
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{RF}}
\]
intentional electromagnetic emission;
and:
\[
\mathbf a_X
\]
the unresolved remainder.
This is a conceptual ledger, not an assertion that every contribution is statistically independent or linearly separable.
Actual estimation must account for vector structure, covariance, temporal correlations, parameter degeneracy, and mission-specific dynamics.
The rule is simpler:
\[
\boxed{
\text{An omitted conventional effect does not become new physics merely because it appears in the residual.}
}
\]
—
22. Atmospheric Drag
Low Earth orbit is not a perfect vacuum.
A standard approximate drag expression is:
\[
\mathbf F_D
=
-\frac12
\rho C_D A v_{\mathrm{rel}}^2
\hat{\mathbf v}_{\mathrm{rel}}.
\]
The mission should therefore characterize:
spacecraft attitude;
projected area;
atmospheric density;
relative velocity;
drag coefficient;
orbital altitude;
and the environmental drivers relevant to density variability.
This strengthens the case for internal vector reversal with fixed external attitude.
If spacecraft geometry remains unchanged while the residual changes sign with the internal device, ordinary drag becomes substantially less plausible as the source.
—
23. Solar-Radiation Pressure
Solar photons transfer momentum.
Every science interval should therefore preserve the Sun vector:
\[
\hat{\mathbf s}.
\]
If the unexplained acceleration follows:
\[
\hat{\mathbf s}
\]
instead of:
\[
\hat{\mathbf n}_D,
\]
solar-radiation pressure or solar-driven thermal behavior becomes more plausible.
If the device vector reverses while solar geometry remains nearly unchanged and the acceleration reverses with the device, that explanation becomes more constrained.
Environmental variation thus becomes an experimental discriminator rather than merely noise.
—
24. Thermal Recoil
Directed electromagnetic radiation carries momentum:
\[
F=\frac{P}{c}.
\]
For a perfectly directed emitted photon flux, a force of:
\[
1\ \mathrm{mN}
\]
would correspond to approximately:
\[
P
=
Fc
\approx
3\times10^5\ \mathrm W.
\]
That scale does not license the dismissal of thermal effects.
Smaller forces, asymmetric heating, long integration, surface emission, desorption, geometry changes, and correlations between electrical state and temperature must still be measured.
The correct experimental statement is not:
thermal recoil cannot matter.
It is:
\[
\boxed{
\text{bound the maximum receiver-visible thermal contribution}.
}
\]
—
25. Outgassing and Conventional Reaction Mass
A device described as propellantless must still be tested for unintended mass ejection.
Possible sources include:
adsorbed moisture;
polymer outgassing;
dielectric decomposition;
field-induced desorption;
sputtering;
venting;
charged particles;
battery products;
and contamination release.
Conventional reaction-mass thrust obeys:
\[
F=\dot m v_e.
\]
Thus:
\[
\dot m=\frac{F}{v_e}.
\]
For any proposed exhaust velocity, the force claim implies a required mass-flow rate.
Preflight vacuum characterization can therefore place quantitative bounds on conventional mass-ejection explanations.
—
26. Spacecraft Charging and Plasma
Because the payload is electrostatic, spacecraft charging is central rather than peripheral.
The mission should monitor, where feasible:
\[
V_{\mathrm{sc}},
\]
spacecraft potential;
\[
Q_{\mathrm{sc}},
\]
or a physically justified proxy for spacecraft charge;
\[
\mathbf B,
\]
the local magnetic field;
and relevant plasma/environmental variables.
For a net charge \(Q_{\mathrm{sc}}\) moving with velocity \(\mathbf v\) through a magnetic field:
\[
\mathbf F_L
=
Q_{\mathrm{sc}}
\mathbf v\times\mathbf B
\]
is an immediately relevant conventional pathway, together with electric-field interactions.
Current loops and magnetic moments may create additional forces or torques.
The experiment must therefore determine whether activating the payload changes the electrical state of the complete spacecraft.
A Faraday enclosure changes selected electric-field relationships.
It does not remove every electromagnetic relationship.
Buhler explicitly makes the distinction between electric-field shielding and magnetic effects in the supplied interview.
—
27. Attitude-Control Contamination
Primary science intervals should minimize activity by systems capable of producing poorly characterized forces or torques.
Where safe and feasible, avoid:
wheel desaturation;
magnetorquer actuation;
conventional thruster firing;
moving appendages;
deployment mechanisms;
large heater transitions;
and unnecessary transmitter operation.
Wheel speeds, currents, commanded torques, pointing error, and angular rates should nevertheless be logged continuously.
The distinction between torque and translation must also be preserved.
A force applied away from the spacecraft center of mass can generate torque, and attitude-control response to that torque can itself produce secondary disturbances.
—
28. Radio-Silent Science Windows
Radio emission carries momentum and can create electrical and thermal transients.
A clean science interval may therefore use:
onboard data storage;
receive-only navigation where appropriate;
no intentional high-power transmission;
stable attitude;
no propulsion;
no wheel desaturation;
no deployment;
and no unnecessary switching.
Telemetry can be transmitted after the measurement interval.
The purpose is to create a deliberately quiet spacecraft while the candidate acceleration is being accumulated.
—
29. Let the Environment Rotate Around the Hypothesis
Orbital motion naturally changes the relationship between the spacecraft and multiple environmental vectors.
Over repeated arcs:
Sun geometry changes;
magnetic-field direction changes;
Earth radial direction changes;
velocity direction changes;
plasma conditions change;
atmospheric density changes;
eclipse conditions change.
These changes create competing hypotheses.
For example:
\[
H_D:
\mathbf a_X
\parallel
\hat{\mathbf n}_D,
\]
\[
H_S:
\mathbf a_X
\parallel
\hat{\mathbf s},
\]
\[
H_V:
\mathbf a_X
\parallel
\hat{\mathbf v},
\]
\[
H_R:
\mathbf a_X
\parallel
\hat{\mathbf r}_E,
\]
and:
\[
H_B:
\mathbf a_X
=
f(\mathbf B,Q,V).
\]
The experiment can therefore ask:
\[
\boxed{
\text{Which physical vector actually organizes the residual?}
}
\]
—
30. The Sham Experiment
Leaving the device off is not a sufficient sham.
A serious sham should reproduce, as closely as technically possible:
electrical power;
switching behavior;
stored electrical energy;
timing;
heat production;
electromagnetic noise;
mechanical structure;
mass;
shielding;
wiring;
and control commands,
while eliminating or symmetrizing the specific architecture claimed to generate thrust.
The sham asks:
> Does merely charging, heating, switching, or electrically stressing the spacecraft reproduce the candidate acceleration?
If yes, the propulsion interpretation weakens.
If no, the conventional route space narrows.
—
31. Randomization
A perfectly periodic experimental schedule can accidentally correlate with:
orbital period;
eclipse timing;
thermal cycling;
communication passes;
geomagnetic geometry;
or another recurring environmental variable.
The confirmatory state sequence should therefore be randomized or pseudorandomized under operational constraints.
For example:
\[
S_H,\quad
S_+,\quad
S_0,\quad
S_-,\quad
S_C,\quad
S_0,\ldots
\]
The schedule should be generated before confirmatory analysis and preserved immutably.
—
32. Blind the Analysts
The orbital-dynamics team need not know which intervals contain the active state.
A stronger architecture separates functions.
Command Group
Holds the randomized experimental schedule.
Payload Group
Verifies electrical, thermal, charge, and hardware state.
Orbit Group
Estimates trajectory and residual acceleration without access to the active/sham labels.
The orbit team freezes:
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}(t)
\]
before unblinding.
Only then are the state labels revealed and:
\[
P(\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}\mid S_i)
\]
evaluated.
This reduces the opportunity for unconscious tuning of:
filtering;
orbit-model parameters;
data windows;
exclusion criteria;
or estimator settings
toward the expected answer.
—
33. Preflight Prediction Lock
Before confirmatory flight data are examined, the experiment should register or cryptographically timestamp:
1. complete spacecraft system boundary;
2. exact flight-article identity;
3. active state;
4. reverse state;
5. sham state;
6. charged-unpowered state;
7. discharged state;
8. predicted thrust axis;
9. predicted sign reversal;
10. predicted magnitude or bounded range if justified;
11. minimum detectable acceleration;
12. required integration interval;
13. thermal operating limits;
14. spacecraft-potential limits;
15. environmental exclusion criteria;
16. orbit-model architecture;
17. calibration procedure;
18. data-exclusion rules;
19. analysis pipeline;
20. falsification criterion.
An unexpected result may legitimately motivate a new hypothesis.
But:
\[
\text{unexpected result}
\rightarrow
\text{new hypothesis}
\rightarrow
\text{new locked experiment}
\]
is scientifically different from:
\[
\text{unexpected result}
\rightarrow
\text{retroactive prediction}.
\]
This is the prospective logic emphasized in modern preregistration methodology. See Nosek et al. (2018).
—
34. A Formal Orbital Prediction Record
The confirmatory experiment can be summarized as:
\[
P_O
=
(B,D,S,R,\tau,E,N,\Delta,F),
\]
where:
\[
B
\]
is the complete system boundary;
\[
D
\]
the device configuration;
\[
S
\]
the registered experimental state;
\[
R
\]
the receiver set;
\[
\tau
\]
the observation interval;
\[
E
\]
the environmental ledger;
\[
N
\]
the strongest conventional comparator or null;
\[
\Delta
\]
the decision threshold or equivalence margin;
and:
\[
F
\]
the explicit falsifier.
A positive result must be able to satisfy the record.
A negative result must also be allowed to count.
That symmetry is essential.
—
35. The Mission Must Be Capable of Falsification Before It Flies
Placing a device in orbit does not automatically create a decisive experiment.
Before launch, the mission must demonstrate quantitatively that the planned measurement architecture can distinguish the registered prediction from the combined environmental, operational, and measurement floor.
Let the registered thrust prediction be:
\[
F_P.
\]
For spacecraft mass \(m\):
\[
a_P=\frac{F_P}{m}.
\]
Now define a qualified one-axis residual floor:
\[
a_{\mathrm{floor}}
(\tau,\hat{\mathbf n}_D),
\]
which represents the mission’s ability to resolve acceleration along the registered thrust direction over science interval \(\tau\).
Conceptually:
\[
a_{\mathrm{floor}}
=
f(
u_{\mathrm{orbit}},
u_{\mathrm{IMU}},
u_{\mathrm{drag}},
u_{\mathrm{SRP}},
u_{\mathrm{ER}},
u_{\mathrm{charge}},
u_{\mathrm{plasma}},
u_{\mathrm{mag}},
u_{\mathrm{thermal}},
u_{\mathrm{outgas}},
u_{\mathrm{RF}},
u_{\mathrm{ops}}
).
\]
These terms must not automatically be combined using a simple root-sum-square operation.
Some may be:
correlated;
systematic;
directional;
time dependent;
non-Gaussian;
or degenerate with the candidate signal.
The uncertainty architecture must represent the actual physical covariance and error structure of the mission.
35.1 Detection Margin
Define a prospectively selected detection factor:
\[
\Gamma>1.
\]
A confirmatory mission should satisfy:
\[
\boxed{
a_P>\Gamma a_{\mathrm{floor}}
}
\]
or equivalently:
\[
\boxed{
\frac{F_P}{m}
>
\Gamma a_{\mathrm{floor}}.
}
\]
The value of \(\Gamma\) should follow from the required confidence, covariance analysis, receiver performance, repetition strategy, and scientific burden—not from rhetorical preference.
If this condition cannot be satisfied, the mission may still be exploratory.
It is not yet a decisive falsification experiment.
35.2 Integration Time
For persistent acceleration:
\[
\Delta v=a_P\tau.
\]
The mission should prospectively determine a minimum useful observation interval:
\[
\tau_{\min}.
\]
Conceptually:
\[
S(\tau_{\min})
>
\Gamma N(\tau_{\min}),
\]
where:
\[
S(\tau)
\]
is the predicted accumulated signal and:
\[
N(\tau)
\]
the qualified disturbance or uncertainty envelope.
Longer observation does not automatically improve discrimination because systematic error can also accumulate.
Mission simulation should therefore determine the useful range of \(\tau\).
35.3 Orbital Equivalence Margin
A null result should not mean merely:
\[
p>0.05.
\]
Define a prospectively meaningful orbital equivalence margin:
\[
\delta_O.
\]
The null-equivalent region is:
\[
-\delta_O
<
a_D
<
+\delta_O.
\]
If the registered propulsion model requires:
\[
|a_D|>\delta_O
\]
but the qualified confidence interval for the measured acceleration lies wholly within:
\[
[-\delta_O,+\delta_O],
\]
then the registered prediction has failed for that spacecraft, configuration, and experimental domain.
This is a substantially stronger statement than failure to achieve conventional statistical significance and follows the logic of equivalence testing described by Lakens (2017).
35.4 Signal-Injection Qualification
Before launch, the complete analysis pipeline should be challenged using simulated or representative mission data containing injected signals:
\[
a_{\mathrm{inj}}<a_P,
\]
\[
a_{\mathrm{inj}}\approx a_P,
\]
and:
\[
a_{\mathrm{inj}}>a_P.
\]
The analysis should demonstrate that it can:
recover a qualifying signal when present;
distinguish reversed vectors;
avoid creating false signals in null data;
and return an equivalence-qualified null when the signal is absent.
This is a direct test of the test.
35.5 Preflight Go/No-Go Criterion
Proceed to a confirmatory flight only when:
\[
\boxed{
\frac{F_P}{m}
>
\Gamma a_{\mathrm{floor}}
}
\]
and the required signal can be recovered over the registered observation interval.
If not, one or more of the following must change:
spacecraft mass;
receiver performance;
environmental uncertainty;
operational quietness;
integration strategy;
or demonstrated terrestrial thrust magnitude.
A spacecraft incapable of seeing the predicted effect cannot produce a scientifically meaningful null.
The mission begins with the question:
\[
\boxed{
\text{If the claimed force is real, is this spacecraft capable of seeing it?}
}
\]
If no, redesign.
If yes, fly.
—
36. Primary Falsification Condition
Suppose the registered prediction is:
\[
a_P.
\]
The claim fails its primary orbital test for the registered configuration when:
1. the flight article reaches its specified operating state;
2. the manipulation checks pass;
3. sensitivity satisfies the preflight qualification;
4. environmental conditions fall inside registered limits;
5. spacecraft operations remain clean;
6. sham behavior is acceptable;
7. and the device-axis acceleration lies within the prospectively defined equivalence region.
A weak experiment cannot falsify a signal it was never capable of seeing.
A sufficiently sensitive null can.
—
37. Directional Falsification
Suppose:
\[
S_+\rightarrow+a_D
\]
and:
\[
S_-\rightarrow-a_D
\]
are registered predictions.
If both states produce acceleration in the same external direction, the device-axis hypothesis is weakened.
If the residual follows:
\[
\hat{\mathbf s},
\]
\[
\hat{\mathbf v},
\]
\[
\hat{\mathbf r}_E,
\]
or:
\[
\mathbf B
\]
rather than:
\[
\hat{\mathbf n}_D,
\]
the relevant environmental mechanism gains explanatory priority.
A propulsion hypothesis must be capable of losing on direction.
—
38. Persistence Falsification
A charged-unpowered claim requires a separate falsifier.
Register:
what “external power disconnected” means;
allowed residual supply current;
minimum stored voltage or charge state;
expected persistence duration;
expected force direction;
expected decay if known;
and the deliberate-discharge criterion.
A decisive sequence is:
\[
S_+
\rightarrow
S_C
\rightarrow
S_D.
\]
If acceleration persists during:
\[
S_C
\]
and collapses during:
\[
S_D,
\]
the stored electrostatic state becomes causally implicated.
If acceleration continues after verified discharge, that interpretation weakens.
Neither result alone establishes new physics.
Both constrain mechanism.
—
39. Whole-Spacecraft Reversal as a Secondary Test
After internal reversal has been characterized, the complete spacecraft can be rotated.
For example:
\[
\text{attitude}
\rightarrow
\text{attitude}+180^\circ.
\]
This intentionally changes the relationship between the device and:
Sun;
Earth;
velocity;
magnetic field;
thermal environment;
and charging geometry.
The maneuver is therefore a boundary-swap test, not an isolated proof.
If an acceleration follows the device axis through this larger transformation, the hypothesis gains additional discrimination.
—
40. The Stronger Two-Spacecraft Experiment
A stronger architecture uses two nearly identical spacecraft:
\[
A
\]
and:
\[
B.
\]
They should be matched as closely as practical in:
mass;
geometry;
area-to-mass ratio;
surface materials;
thermal design;
solar arrays;
electronics;
sensors;
attitude;
communication schedule;
and orbit.
Initially:
\[
A=\text{active},
\]
\[
B=\text{control}.
\]
Later:
\[
A=\text{control},
\]
\[
B=\text{active}.
\]
The differential observable becomes:
\[
\Delta\mathbf a
=
\mathbf a_A-\mathbf a_B.
\]
Common-mode environmental disturbances can then be reduced, although differences in orbit, surface charging, drag, and thermal state must still be modeled.
—
41. The Crossover Experiment
The strongest twin-spacecraft architecture moves the active causal condition between vehicles.
For example:
\[
A_+B_0
\rightarrow
A_0B_+
\]
and:
\[
A_-B_0
\rightarrow
A_0B_-.
\]
If a residual initially appears on spacecraft \(A\), a spacecraft-specific artifact remains possible.
If the residual disappears from \(A\) when its payload becomes inactive and appears on \(B\) when the corresponding experimental state is transferred to \(B\), the candidate causal association has moved with the experimental condition rather than spacecraft identity.
That is powerful causal discrimination.
—
42. Relative Ranging
Two spacecraft permit a third receiver class.
Define:
\[
\mathbf r_{AB}
=
\mathbf r_A-\mathbf r_B.
\]
Then:
\[
\Delta\mathbf a_{AB}
=
\mathbf a_A-\mathbf a_B.
\]
Relative ranging can suppress selected common-mode orbit-estimation errors.
It does not eliminate the need for environmental modeling because two nearby spacecraft do not occupy perfectly identical environments.
The differential architecture nevertheless provides an independent test of the same physical claim.
—
43. Proprietary Hardware Does Not Prevent the First Whole-System Test
A commercial developer may reasonably protect:
electrode geometry;
manufacturing methods;
material composition;
field-enhancement structures;
or other intellectual property.
That does not prevent the first fundamental question:
\[
\boxed{
\text{Does the complete spacecraft accelerate?}
}
\]
Independent analysts require adequate access to:
total spacecraft mass;
thrust axis;
registered state;
electrical power;
stored-energy state;
leakage;
spacecraft potential;
thermal output;
switching times;
field containment information;
environmental telemetry;
and trajectory data.
Mechanism-level replication ultimately requires deeper disclosure.
Whole-system acceleration can be tested before every proprietary detail is public.
—
44. Why a Rideshare Mission Is Realistic
The experiment does not require purchasing an entire launch vehicle.
SpaceX currently advertises its dedicated smallsat rideshare service beginning at $350,000 for up to 50 kg to sun-synchronous orbit, with additional mass priced separately.
Transporter-17, launched July 7, 2026, carried 81 payloads, demonstrating the scale at which many independent payloads can share one launch.
NASA’s own R5-S9 CubeSat flew on Transporter-17 as a technology demonstration, further illustrating that commercial rideshare is an established route for experimental small spacecraft.
This does not mean the entire experiment costs the advertised launch price.
The spacecraft still requires:
design;
fabrication;
qualification;
integration;
licensing;
ground systems;
operations;
tracking;
and disposal.
NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute explicitly notes that rideshare integration remains a complex and critical mission activity and that spacecraft owners/operators remain responsible for applicable licensing and launch-provider requirements.
The essential point is narrower:
\[
\boxed{
\text{The experiment need not purchase the rocket.}
}
\]
High-voltage integration constraint
Because the proposed payload involves high voltage, the mission must be engineered around launch-provider safety and “do no harm” requirements.
The experimental high-voltage system should remain physically and electrically safed during launch and deployment and become capable of activation only after separation and spacecraft commissioning.
Rideshare therefore lowers launch cost.
It does not eliminate spacecraft safety engineering.
—
45. The Mission Should Be Built Around Science, Not the Cheapest Orbit
The cheapest available rideshare orbit is not automatically the best experiment.
Orbit selection should consider:
atmospheric drag;
charging environment;
geomagnetic geometry;
plasma environment;
GNSS coverage;
eclipse frequency;
thermal cycling;
communications;
mission lifetime;
disposal;
and expected thrust magnitude.
The experimental objective is:
\[
\boxed{
\text{maximum discrimination per total mission cost}.
}
\]
not merely:
\[
\text{minimum launch price}.
\]
—
46. End-of-Life Must Not Depend on the Experimental Thruster
A propulsion experiment should not depend upon an unvalidated propulsion system for safe disposal.
The FCC adopted a five-year post-mission disposal rule for covered spacecraft operating in low Earth orbit.
The experimental device should therefore not be the sole means of:
deorbit;
collision avoidance;
mission survival;
or required attitude control.
A technology under test must be allowed to fail safely.
—
47. The Minimal Science Window
A primary science interval should be intentionally quiet.
Pre-Window
establish orbit solution;
stabilize attitude;
record environmental state;
establish thermal baseline;
characterize spacecraft potential;
complete communication activity;
settle attitude-control transients;
verify payload readiness.
Measurement Window
fixed external attitude where possible;
no conventional translational propulsion;
no wheel desaturation;
no unnecessary magnetorquer activity;
no deployment mechanisms;
preferably no intentional transmission;
continuous navigation reception;
continuous inertial measurement;
continuous electrical, thermal, magnetic, and environmental logging;
blinded experimental state.
Post-Window
return payload to safe state;
preserve raw data;
resume communications;
update orbit solution;
proceed to the next randomized state.
Repeated windows create a structured dataset rather than a single dramatic event.
—
48. What the Strongest Positive Result Would Look Like
A compelling positive result would require substantially more than:
the orbit changed.
A strong result would show:
1. \(D_+\) produces acceleration along \(+\hat{\mathbf n}_D\);
2. \(D_-\) produces acceleration along \(-\hat{\mathbf n}_D\);
3. external spacecraft attitude remains unchanged during primary internal reversals;
4. sham states remain null;
5. discharged states remain null;
6. independent orbital and inertial receivers agree;
7. the magnitude follows a prospectively registered device variable or scaling law;
8. environmental-vector hypotheses fail to explain the sign changes;
9. the result repeats across different orbital conditions;
10. independent replication reproduces the effect.
Only then does the phrase:
\[
\boxed{
\text{whole-spacecraft residual}
}
\]
become justified.
—
49. What the Strongest Null Result Would Look Like
A strong null also requires structure.
Suppose:
the flight article passes qualification;
its registered state is achieved in orbit;
independent diagnostics verify that state;
the mission sensitivity satisfies Section 35;
environmental disturbances remain within registered limits;
the sham behaves correctly;
and neither trajectory nor inertial measurements reveal the predicted acceleration.
Then the result can establish:
\[
|a_D|<\delta_O
\]
with the required equivalence confidence.
That is not “nothing happened.”
It is a quantitative constraint on the propulsion claim.
—
50. A Null Result Could Reveal the Boundary
Suppose a terrestrial effect remains reproducible but disappears in free flight.
One possible structure would then be:
\[
F
=
F(D,B_{\mathrm{Earth}})
\]
rather than:
\[
F=F(D)
\]
alone.
The terrestrial environment may provide a necessary reaction pathway through:
surrounding conductors;
support structures;
grounding;
atmosphere;
nearby fields;
nearby mass;
or some other relationship.
This would not validate a new force.
It would establish that the terrestrial boundary participates causally in the observation.
A good null can therefore reveal the architecture of the phenomenon.
—
51. A Positive Result Creates a Momentum Problem
Suppose the complete spacecraft demonstrably accelerates.
The question changes from:
Did the apparatus move?
to:
\[
\boxed{
\text{What external interaction accounts for the spacecraft momentum change?}
}
\]
The conventional analysis must investigate:
electromagnetic radiation;
electromagnetic fields;
ambient plasma;
charged particles;
expelled matter;
gravitational interaction;
solar radiation;
geomagnetic interaction;
and other conventional channels.
Only if these accounts remain quantitatively insufficient does the physical problem escalate.
A positive orbital result is therefore not the end of conventional physics.
It is the beginning of a much stricter momentum audit.
—
52. Only Then Does Latching Onto Space Become Necessary
Latching Onto Space asks what a surviving whole-system momentum residual might imply.
That question should not precede the orbital measurement.
The proper sequence is:
\[
\text{reported laboratory force}
\]
\[
\downarrow
\]
\[
\text{qualified terrestrial residual}
\]
\[
\downarrow
\]
\[
\text{whole-spacecraft free-flight residual}
\]
\[
\downarrow
\]
\[
\text{conventional momentum accounting}
\]
\[
\downarrow
\]
\[
\text{mechanism discrimination}
\]
and only then, if required:
\[
\boxed{
\text{deeper substrate-coupling hypothesis}.
}
\]
This prevents substrate language from becoming a post-hoc explanation for every unexplained residual.
—
53. Relationship to Inside Is Not Isolated
The orbital experiment directly extends the principle developed in Inside Is Not Isolated:
> A boundary suppresses some relations while admitting, transforming, or creating others.
A vacuum chamber suppresses many gas-mediated routes.
It introduces a nearby chamber boundary.
A Faraday enclosure suppresses selected electric-field coupling.
It does not remove gravity, magnetism, heat, mechanical interaction, radiation, or all electromagnetic behavior.
A spacecraft removes the floor, terrestrial support, and local laboratory force receiver.
It introduces orbital plasma, radiation, spacecraft charging, drag, thermal recoil, and other relationships.
Thus:
\[
\text{Earth laboratory}
\neq
\text{orbit},
\]
but neither is:
\[
\text{isolated from reality}.
\]
The experiment works because the relationship set changes in a measurable way.
—
54. Relationship to Before the Residual
Before the Residual established the progression:
\[
\text{Observation}
\rightarrow
\text{Validated Measurement}
\rightarrow
\text{Model Discrepancy}
\rightarrow
\text{Qualified Residual}
\rightarrow
\text{Mechanism-Specific Anomaly}
\rightarrow
\text{Theory Discrimination}.
\]
A trajectory discrepancy begins only as:
\[
r
=
O_{\mathrm{observed}}
–
O_{\mathrm{predicted}}.
\]
It does not begin as new propulsion.
The residual must survive:
calibration;
orbit-model uncertainty;
drag;
radiation pressure;
charging;
plasma interaction;
magnetic interaction;
thermal effects;
outgassing;
spacecraft operations;
receiver comparison;
sham states;
reversal;
and replication.
Only then does interpretation escalate.
—
55. Relationship to TSTOEAO
Within TSTOEAO, the experiment may be expressed through:
\[
V=E\times Y,
\]
where realized expression \(V\) depends not only on available Energy/Opportunity \(E\), but upon Encoded Equilibrium \(Y\): the architecture of admissible routes, boundary conditions, transformations, receiver access, cost, and correction.
The orbital experiment deliberately changes:
\[
Y.
\]
The device may remain substantially similar.
Its relational architecture does not.
Thus:
\[
Y_{\mathrm{lab}}
\neq
Y_{\mathrm{orbit}}.
\]
This does not mean every measured difference confirms TSTOEAO.
Instead it creates a disciplined boundary-swap experiment.
If:
\[
F_{\mathrm{lab}}
\approx
F_{\mathrm{orbit}},
\]
one relationship is supported.
If:
\[
F_{\mathrm{lab}}
\neq
F_{\mathrm{orbit}},
\]
another is supported.
If:
\[
F_{\mathrm{orbit}}
\approx0,
\]
that result must also be accepted.
The framework must permit all three.
—
56. The Four-Paper Scientific Sequence
The methodological sequence is:
I. Before the Residual
What must a discrepancy survive before science should interpret it?
II. Inside Is Not Isolated
What does an experimental boundary actually suppress, and what relations remain?
III. Space Is the Experiment
Does the complete free-flying system acquire the claimed acceleration?
IV. Latching Onto Space
If a genuine whole-system momentum residual survives, what deeper coupling might explain it, and how could that explanation be discriminated from conventional physics?
The complete sequence becomes:
\[
\boxed{
\text{Measure}
\rightarrow
\text{Bound}
\rightarrow
\text{Challenge}
\rightarrow
\text{Fly}
\rightarrow
\text{Qualify}
\rightarrow
\text{Account}
\rightarrow
\text{Interpret}
\rightarrow
\text{Discriminate}.
}
\]
No step is forbidden.
No step is automatic.
—
57. Proposed Orbital Evidentiary Ladder
O-0 — Qualified Null
No device-correlated acceleration outside the registered equivalence region.
O-1 — Operational Correlation
Acceleration correlates with payload activity, but ordinary spacecraft mechanisms remain plausible.
O-2 — Reversible Device-Vector Residual
Acceleration reverses with the internal device vector while the external spacecraft geometry remains approximately fixed.
O-3 — Multi-Receiver Residual
Independent orbital and inertial receivers agree.
O-4 — Environmental Discrimination
The residual survives registered tests against drag, radiation pressure, charging, magnetic interaction, thermal recoil, outgassing, and spacecraft operations.
O-5 — Independent Replication
A separately constructed mission reproduces the result.
O-6 — Momentum-Accounting Anomaly
Known external momentum pathways remain quantitatively insufficient.
O-7 — New-Mechanism Discrimination
Competing physical mechanisms make distinct prospective predictions and a subsequent experiment distinguishes them.
A successful first flight does not automatically place the result at O-7.
—
58. Failure Modes of the Experiment Itself
An orbital experiment would be scientifically weakened if:
active windows are selected after examining the trajectory;
payload state is poorly diagnosed;
spacecraft attitude changes whenever the device vector changes;
temperature is inadequately measured;
spacecraft charging is ignored;
the sham is physically weak;
attitude-control activity correlates with the active state;
data exclusions are invented after the result;
sensor lever arms are ignored;
only one receiver reports the effect;
orbit-model parameters are tuned until a preferred anomaly appears;
negative runs are hidden;
the equivalence margin is invented after seeing the null;
or the hypothesis changes after flight.
Putting an experiment in orbit does not make it rigorous.
\[
\boxed{
\text{The experiment is rigorous only if it is designed so that it can lose.}
}
\]
—
59. Why the Test Is Worth Doing
The relevant question is not whether revolutionary physics is probable.
It is whether the information obtained justifies the experiment.
That depends upon:
reported force magnitude;
terrestrial repeatability;
remaining ambiguity;
total mission cost;
achievable measurement sensitivity;
strength of the control architecture;
consequence of a positive result;
consequence of a qualified null;
and accessibility of small-spacecraft infrastructure.
Commercial rideshare has substantially changed one historical constraint: a small experimental spacecraft does not need to purchase its own launch vehicle. SpaceX currently advertises dedicated smallsat rideshare directly, while NASA continues to fly technology-demonstration spacecraft on commercial rideshare missions.
If millinewton-class whole-system thrust exists, a small free-flying vehicle may transform it into an accumulating dynamical signal.
If it does not, a sufficiently sensitive null can constrain broad classes of interpretation.
Either result can advance the problem.
—
60. The Deeper Experimental Principle
The methodological lesson extends beyond electrostatic propulsion.
Sometimes science improves an experiment by adding another control.
Sometimes science improves an experiment by changing the boundary.
If every new terrestrial control creates another physical relationship that must itself be modeled, there comes a point at which the more discriminating test is not:
\[
\text{another enclosure}.
\]
It is:
\[
\boxed{
\text{a different experimental architecture}.
}
\]
For a propulsion claim, free flight is uniquely compelling because propulsion is fundamentally a claim about the motion of a free vehicle.
There may be no better final force balance for a spacecraft propulsion system than the spacecraft itself.
—
Conclusion
Claims of propellantless electrostatic thrust should not be accepted merely because a laboratory device moves.
Nor should they be dismissed merely because the proposed mechanism does not yet fit an accepted theoretical category.
The correct response is experimental escalation.
The publicly described Buhler experiments reveal both sides of the problem. Considerable effort is reported toward suppressing ion wind, Coulomb attraction, measurement artifacts, chamber interaction, and orientation-dependent false positives. Yet those same efforts reveal how deeply the measurement is entangled with its physical surroundings. Buhler’s own insistence that the complete enclosure—not merely the internal device—must be measured points directly toward the next boundary enlargement.
Remove the terrestrial support.
Put the complete apparatus in free flight.
Do not merely ask whether an internal component appears to push.
Ask whether the complete spacecraft accelerates.
Do not merely turn the device on.
Reverse its predicted internal vector while holding the external spacecraft configuration fixed.
Do not merely compare ON with OFF.
Compare:
\[
S_+,\quad
S_-,\quad
S_H,\quad
S_C,\quad
S_D,\quad
S_0.
\]
Do not merely look for an effect.
Demonstrate before launch that:
\[
\frac{F_P}{m}
>
\Gamma a_{\mathrm{floor}}.
\]
Do not call failure to reach statistical significance a null.
Define:
\[
\delta_O
\]
before flight and require a true equivalence-qualified result.
Do not trust one sensor.
Require independent receiver agreement.
Do not call space isolated.
Measure drag, radiation pressure, charging, plasma, magnetic interaction, thermal recoil, outgassing, mass properties, operational disturbances, and electromagnetic emission.
Do not reveal every state label to every analyst.
Blind part of the analysis.
Do not decide afterward what the device was supposed to do.
Lock the prediction first.
And do not call a surviving acceleration evidence of a substrate until the conventional momentum ledger has been attacked as aggressively as possible.
The scientific outcomes then separate cleanly.
If the effect disappears in free flight, the terrestrial boundary becomes part of the explanation.
If the effect follows a conventional orbital variable, that variable becomes part of the explanation.
If the effect survives but follows spacecraft identity rather than payload state, the spacecraft becomes part of the explanation.
If the effect reverses with the hidden internal device vector while the external spacecraft geometry remains substantially unchanged, the evidentiary burden shifts.
If the active condition is moved between two spacecraft and the residual follows the experimental state rather than the vehicle identity, the burden shifts again.
If independent investigators reproduce the same behavior, the question becomes stronger still.
And if, after all registered external momentum pathways are measured or bounded, a complete free-flying spacecraft repeatedly acquires a commanded momentum change without conventional reaction mass or identified external momentum exchange, science has finally earned the right to ask:
\[
\boxed{
\text{What is the spacecraft exchanging momentum with?}
}
\]
That is where deeper physical interpretation should begin.
Not before.
The experiment does not require prior acceptance of electrogravity.
It does not require prior acceptance of vacuum propulsion.
It does not require prior acceptance of TSTOEAO.
It requires only that a propulsion claim eventually be tested as propulsion.
A propulsion system is supposed to move a free vehicle.
So free the vehicle.
The spacecraft does not merely carry the laboratory.
The spacecraft becomes the laboratory.
Space is the experiment.
—
Appendix A
Minimum Orbital Prediction Record
Before confirmatory flight data are examined, register:
System boundary
\[
B=\text{complete spacecraft}.
\]
Flight article
Immutable hardware/configuration identifier.
Experimental states
\[
S_0,\quad
S_+,\quad
S_-,\quad
S_H,\quad
S_C,\quad
S_D.
\]
Declared thrust axis
\[
\hat{\mathbf n}_D.
\]
Spacecraft mass
\[
m\pm u_m.
\]
Predicted force
\[
F_P.
\]
Predicted acceleration
\[
a_P=\frac{F_P}{m}.
\]
Qualified acceleration floor
\[
a_{\mathrm{floor}}(\tau,\hat{\mathbf n}_D).
\]
Detection factor
\[
\Gamma.
\]
Preflight sensitivity criterion
\[
\frac{F_P}{m}
>
\Gamma a_{\mathrm{floor}}.
\]
Orbital equivalence margin
\[
\delta_O.
\]
Minimum useful observation interval
\[
\tau_{\min}.
\]
Primary receiver
Orbit determination.
Independent receiver
Onboard accelerometry.
Optional third receiver
Relative spacecraft ranging.
Environmental ledger
Drag, solar-radiation pressure, Earth radiation, charging, plasma, magnetic interaction, thermal recoil, outgassing, RF recoil, mass-property changes, and spacecraft operational disturbances.
Analysis qualification
Signal-injection recovery test completed before confirmatory data analysis.
Falsifier
Qualified null, wrong-direction result, failed reversal, or registered comparator outcome.
Replication criterion
Predeclared repeat count and independent mission standard.
—
Appendix B
Required Vector and State Ledger
For every confirmatory science interval preserve at least:
\[
t
\]
time;
\[
\mathbf r(t)
\]
spacecraft position;
\[
\mathbf v(t)
\]
spacecraft velocity;
\[
\hat{\mathbf n}_D
\]
registered device axis;
\[
\hat{\mathbf s}
\]
Sun vector;
\[
\hat{\mathbf r}_E
\]
Earth radial vector;
\[
\mathbf B
\]
magnetic field;
\[
V_{\mathrm{sc}}
\]
spacecraft potential;
\[
Q_{\mathrm{sc}}
\]
spacecraft charge estimate or qualified proxy where measurable;
\[
V_D(t),\quad Q_D(t),\quad I_D(t)
\]
device electrical state;
\[
T_i(t)
\]
thermal sensor field;
\[
\boldsymbol\omega(t)
\]
spacecraft angular rate;
\[
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{IMU}}(t)
\]
onboard acceleration measurement;
\[
\mathbf r_{\mathrm{GNSS}}(t)
\]
navigation/orbit solution where applicable;
\[
S_i
\]
blinded experimental-state code;
and spacecraft operations including:
reaction-wheel state;
magnetorquer state;
transmitter state;
heater state;
deployment state;
conventional thruster state.
The central discrimination is:
\[
P(
\mathbf a_{\mathrm{res}}
\mid
\hat{\mathbf n}_D,S_i
)
\]
against competing models based upon:
\[
\hat{\mathbf s},
\quad
\hat{\mathbf v},
\quad
\hat{\mathbf r}_E,
\quad
\mathbf B,
\quad
T,
\quad
Q,
\quad
\text{operations}.
\]
The preferred explanation should organize the data prospectively with the least unsupported adjustment.
—
Appendix C
Recommended Mission Sequence
Phase 0 — Preflight Falsifiability Qualification
Establish:
\[
a_P,
\]
\[
a_{\mathrm{floor}},
\]
\[
\Gamma,
\]
\[
\delta_O,
\]
and:
\[
\tau_{\min}.
\]
Run signal-injection tests.
Do not launch as a confirmatory experiment unless the registered prediction is recoverable.
Phase 1 — Commissioning
No anomalous-thrust claims.
Establish:
communications;
navigation;
attitude determination;
thermal behavior;
spacecraft charging;
accelerometer performance;
mass-property model;
orbit solution;
payload health.
Phase 2 — Long Baseline
Keep the experimental payload discharged.
Characterize ordinary non-gravitational spacecraft acceleration.
Phase 3 — Sham Testing
Operate matched electrical and thermal null states.
Phase 4 — Active Testing
Introduce randomized \(S_+\) intervals.
Phase 5 — Internal Vector Reversal
Introduce randomized \(S_-\) intervals without intentionally changing external spacecraft attitude.
Phase 6 — Power-Off Persistence Test
\[
S_+
\rightarrow
S_C
\rightarrow
S_D.
\]
Phase 7 — Environmental Discrimination
Repeat across differing:
magnetic fields;
solar geometries;
orbital positions;
plasma conditions;
thermal states;
and drag conditions.
Phase 8 — Whole-Spacecraft Reversal
Change external orientation and repeat selected registered states.
Phase 9 — Crossover
For a two-spacecraft mission, exchange active and control roles.
Phase 10 — Freeze Analysis
Orbit and inertial-analysis teams lock confirmatory residual estimates.
Phase 11 — Unblind
Reveal experimental-state sequence.
Phase 12 — Replicate
Repeat on a separately constructed spacecraft or through an independent experimental team.
—
References
1. Michels, J. (Host). (2026, March 30). NASA Chief: “We Just Built Antigravity Propulsion!” American Alchemy. Interview with Charles Buhler. The title is that of the published program; the present paper does not adopt the title’s characterization as a scientific conclusion.
2. Buhler, C. R. (2026). Interview transcript supplied for the present analysis. Experimental discussion includes shielding, reversal, whole-enclosure measurement, vacuum testing, approximately two thousand test articles or variations, spacecraft applications, and distinct powered and charged-unpowered configurations.
3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2024). NASA Technology Helps Guard Against Lunar Dust. Identifies Charles Buhler as lead research scientist at Kennedy Space Center’s Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory.
4. Swygert, J. (2026). Before the Residual: A General Boundary-First Framework for Scientific Measurement, Controls, Model Comparison, and Anomaly Claims.
5. Swygert, J. (2026). Inside Is Not Isolated: Faraday Boundaries, Channel-Selective Shielding, and the Relational Architecture of Experimental Control Through TSTOEAO.
6. Swygert, J. (2026). Latching Onto Space: Asymmetric Electrostatic Propulsion, Relational Momentum Accounting, and a TSTOEAO Substrate-Coupling Hypothesis.
7. Swygert, J. (2026). Pathways, Boundaries, and Phases: The Relational Expression of Reality.
8. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (2026). Smallsat Rideshare Program. Current published service information lists rideshare pricing beginning at $350,000 for up to 50 kg to sun-synchronous orbit.
9. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (2026). Transporter-17 Mission. Reports 81 payloads aboard the July 7, 2026 dedicated smallsat rideshare flight.
10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute. (2026). Integration, Launch, Deployment, and Orbital Transport. Review of dedicated and rideshare SmallSat launch architectures, integration requirements, licensing responsibilities, and rideshare “do no harm” constraints.
11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2026). NASA CubeSat to Speed Technology Testing in Orbit. R5-S9 technology demonstration launched aboard SpaceX Transporter-17.
12. D’Amico, S., et al. (2018). Satellite Formation-Flying and Rendezvous. NASA Technical Reports Server. Includes formation-flight architectures using dual-frequency GPS receivers and high-accuracy accelerometers for precise orbit determination.
13. Federal Communications Commission. (2022). FCC Adopts New “5-Year Rule” for Deorbiting Satellites. Establishes the five-year post-mission disposal requirement for covered low-Earth-orbit spacecraft.
14. Taylor, B. N., & Kuyatt, C. E. (1994). Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results. NIST Technical Note 1297.
15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/25303.
16. Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., et al. (2017). “A Manifesto for Reproducible Science.” Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
17. Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). “The Preregistration Revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
18. Lakens, D. (2017). “Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. DOI: 10.1177/1948550617697177.
19. Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). “The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose.” The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.
20. Box, G. E. P. (1976). “Science and Statistics.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356), 791–799. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949.
21. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.