An engineer who once worked with NASA says he has built a machine that can push against gravity without burning a drop of fuel, a claim that, if true, would upend how rockets, satellites, and even cars move. The device, developed by Charles Buhler and his startup Exodus Propulsion Technologies, is pitched as a propellantless drive that uses electric fields and carefully arranged materials to generate thrust in apparent defiance of textbook physics. I want to unpack what Buhler is actually claiming, how his hardware is supposed to work, and why experts are both fascinated and deeply skeptical.
The engineer who says gravity is optional
The central figure in this story is Dr. Charles Buhler, a NASA veteran who has spent years working on electrostatic systems and spacecraft hardware before turning his attention to what he calls propellantless propulsion. Reporting describes him as a co-founder of Exodus, a company built around the idea that electric fields interacting with specially prepared materials can create a net force without throwing mass out the back, a concept that would seem to clash with the conservation of momentum that underpins modern mechanics. In coverage of a NASA veteran’s propellantless propulsion drive, Buhler is presented as someone who believes he and his collaborators have found a repeatable effect that standard models do not yet explain.
Other reports frame him as an ex-NASA engineer who now openly talks about having “conquered gravity,” language that has drawn both excitement and criticism from physicists who see echoes of past fringe propulsion claims. One skeptical analysis of an Engineer Claims He Conquered Gravity, Here, Why We, Skeptical piece notes that science encourages bold ideas but insists they survive rigorous testing, and it places Buhler squarely in that tension between visionary ambition and the need for extraordinary proof. That tension is what makes his story so compelling: he is not a random inventor in a garage, but a researcher with mainstream credentials now staking his reputation on a device that many colleagues would have dismissed on sight.
Inside Exodus and its propellantless dream
Buhler’s company, Exodus Propulsion Technologies, is based in Merritt Island, Florida, and it exists for a single purpose: to turn this controversial drive into a practical engine. Local reporting describes Exodus Propulsion Technologies, a Merritt Island company, as aiming to revolutionize space travel with an electrostatic propulsion system that manipulates the force on an object without expelling propellant. In that framing, Exodus is not just tinkering with lab curiosities, it is positioning itself as a future supplier of engines for satellites, deep space probes, and perhaps even terrestrial vehicles if the effect scales.
Technical write-ups on alternative propulsion forums describe how Exodus and Buhler talk about “propellantless propulsion” as a new category of drive that could let spacecraft maneuver indefinitely without carrying huge tanks of fuel. One detailed profile of Charles Buhler and Exodus Technologies on Propellantless propulsion asks what would happen if spacecraft could maneuver endlessly with only electrical power, and suggests that such a system would rewrite the fundamentals of spaceflight. In that vision, Exodus is not just another startup chasing incremental efficiency, it is trying to open a new regime of motion where gravity and fuel budgets no longer dominate mission design.
How the “gravity workaround” is supposed to work
At the heart of the claim is a device that looks deceptively simple: a stack or array of materials with different charge carrier coatings, arranged on a dielectric film, and driven by high voltage. Buhler has described the hardware as relying on asymmetric capacitors and complex layering to create a directional force when an electric field is applied, a concept that has roots in older “lifters” and ion wind experiments but that he insists goes beyond mere air effects. In one interview, he explained that Our materials are composed of many types of charge carrier coatings supported on a dielectric film, and that this engineered stack is what allows the drive to generate thrust without consuming propellant in the conventional sense.
Supporters of the concept often compare it to other controversial drives that tried to get something for nothing, such as the EmDrive, which used microwaves in a tapered cavity to claim a tiny net push. Coverage of a NASA engineer creates propellantless propulsion system notes that the broader quest for such drives has long attracted inventors who hope to exploit subtle electromagnetic effects. Buhler’s approach, however, leans on electrostatics rather than microwaves, and he argues that the thrust he sees cannot be explained away as simple ion wind or measurement error, although independent data to back that assertion remains limited based on available sources.
From lab bench to APEC stage
To move beyond private lab claims, Buhler has taken his device into public technical forums where other engineers can at least scrutinize his methods. One key venue has been the Alternative Propulsion Energy Conference, often abbreviated as APEC, where enthusiasts and some credentialed researchers present speculative propulsion concepts. A video titled Propulsion Breakthrough!? New Electric Drive Defies Physics highlights how dr charles Brer, a misspelling of Buhler that appears in some captions, recently revealed an electric drive at APEC based on an asymmetric capacitor design, underscoring that the core idea is to use uneven electric fields to generate a net force.
Another detailed profile of Charles Buhler and Exodus Technologies on propellantless propulsion notes that he has used these conferences to argue that his measurements show a repeatable effect that persists across different setups. In that setting, he is not just pitching investors, he is effectively asking a room of alternative propulsion enthusiasts to hold him accountable to their own standards of experimental rigor, even if those standards are looser than what a mainstream aerospace lab would demand.
Can it really lift against Earth’s gravity?
The boldest part of Buhler’s pitch is not that his device nudges a torsion balance in a vacuum chamber, but that it can actually lift itself against Earth’s gravity without burning fuel. One widely shared video titled NASA Veteran Claims He’s Built an Engine That Defies Gravity recounts how, in 2023, an ex-NASA engineer claimed he built a machine that can lift itself against gravity without using any fuel, no propellant, and no moving parts in the conventional sense. That framing is what turns a niche propulsion experiment into a headline-grabbing “anti-gravity” story, even if the underlying physics, if real, might still be compatible with some extended version of known laws.
Written coverage has picked up the same theme, often under variations of the phrase “An Engineer Says He’s Found a Way to Overcome Earth’s Gravity.” One detailed explainer on how An Engineer Says He, Found, Way, Overcome Earth, Gravity describes the device as a machine that could somehow produce thrust without ejecting mass, which would appear to violate the conservation of momentum. Another report on how An Engineer Claims, Have Unlocked the Secret, Overcoming Earth, Gravity, NASA frames it as a former NASA engineer saying gravity is not a fundamental barrier but a problem that can be engineered around, provided one is willing to rethink how electric fields and materials interact.
What the company says comes next
For all the talk of rewriting physics, Exodus still has to follow a very down to earth roadmap: build prototypes, secure funding, and fly something in space. A technical overview of the Exodus Propellantless Propulsion Device notes that the next steps include space demonstrations in early 2024, pending funding, and describes Dr. Buehler’s work as a story worth following closely. That plan, to bolt a small version of the drive onto a satellite or cubesat and see if it can change orbit measurably, is crucial, because it would move the debate from tabletop measurements to orbital mechanics that can be tracked independently.
Broader explainers on this theme emphasize that the team behind the drive is not just Buhler alone but a group of collaborators who have been refining the design since at least 2016. One account of how An Engineer Says He, Found, Way, Overcome Earth, Gravity, Here explains that he says his team, made up of engineers and scientists, first built what they called an “impossible” drive in 2016 and have been iterating ever since. That timeline matters, because it suggests this is not a one-off stunt but a long running effort that will either culminate in a convincing space demo or fade if the promised results do not materialize.
Why physicists are deeply skeptical
For many physicists, the red flag is not the hardware itself but the claim that it produces net thrust without expelling mass, which appears to contradict the conservation of momentum that underlies both Newtonian mechanics and modern field theories. A detailed critique of the “engineer conquered gravity” narrative points out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that so far the public data around Buhler’s device does not meet that bar. The skeptical analysis of Why We, Skeptical stresses that science asks us to dream big but also to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism, especially when a proposal seems to overturn centuries of well tested theory.
Even within alternative propulsion circles, there is an awareness that many past “reactionless” drives have fallen apart under tighter scrutiny, often because of subtle experimental errors, thermal effects, or misinterpreted forces. A discussion thread in a Comments Section, MOD post about a NASA veteran’s propellantless propulsion drive highlights how enthusiasts are intrigued but still ask for independent replication, vacuum tests, and peer reviewed data. That community level skepticism mirrors what mainstream physicists are saying more bluntly: until multiple labs can reproduce the effect and rule out mundane explanations, talk of defying gravity is premature.
Between breakthrough and buzzword
Part of the confusion around Buhler’s work comes from how it is framed in popular coverage, which often leans on dramatic language about anti-gravity and rewriting every rule of physics. One analysis titled This Engineer Says He, Found, Way notes that in the realm of space exploration, a propulsion system that could operate without propellant would have a massive potential impact on space travel, but it also cautions that such a device would need to survive intense scrutiny before anyone rewrites textbooks. That duality, between the marketing friendly story and the sober technical reality, is a recurring theme in how this project is discussed.
Other explainers on how An Engineer Says He, Found, Way, Overcome Earth, Gravity frame the device as an “improbable engine,” a phrase that captures both the allure and the doubt surrounding it. They point out that before any alternative propulsion enthusiasts get carried away, the drive has to clear basic tests that previous candidates like the EmDrive ultimately failed. In that sense, Buhler’s work sits in a liminal space: too intriguing to ignore, too unproven to embrace, and wrapped in buzzwords that risk outpacing the underlying data.
What it would mean if Buhler is right
If, against the odds, Buhler’s propellantless drive survives independent testing and proves capable of sustained thrust in space, the implications would be enormous. A propulsion system that only needs electrical power could let satellites stay on station for decades, enable deep space probes to accelerate continuously instead of coasting, and shrink the mass of launch vehicles that currently devote most of their weight to propellant. Technical profiles of Propellantless Propulsion imagine spacecraft that could maneuver endlessly with only solar power, a scenario that would fundamentally change mission planning and economics.
On Earth, a scalable version of the same effect could reshape transportation, from aircraft that do not need jet fuel to hovering platforms that treat gravity as a manageable engineering constraint rather than an immutable limit. Coverage of NASA, Exodus style concepts often notes that such breakthroughs would also force physicists to revisit core assumptions about momentum and fields, potentially revealing new layers of physical law. That is the wild promise at the heart of Buhler’s claim: not just cheaper rockets, but a deeper understanding of how the universe lets objects move, or a hard lesson in why gravity is harder to hack than even a seasoned engineer might hope.
More from MorningOverview