Slashdot Mirror


NASA Researching Antimatter Engines

dbolger writes: "CNN has a story about how scientists at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama are researching ways to use antimatter to fuel missions to Mars and beyond within the next 50 years. It very light on technical details, but does give an interesting look at current and future potential uses of antimatter."

1 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Teancum · · Score: 4, Flamebait

    I would be rich... (this abused phrase notwithstanding).

    Seriously, there are so many futuristic NASA research projects (most of them in the $10,000 to $100,000 range). They cover everything from anti-gravity to blowing bubbles (liquid soap bubbles).

    I personally think this is what NASA does best, and the results from these research grants are quite interesting. It is also very unlikely that NASA will ever do anything with most of these research projects.

    {Rant Mode On}
    Just for an example, there hasn't been a new propulsion technology for manned spaceflight since the 1970's (mainly due to politics... including internal NASA stuff too), and even the robotic probe missions are using what most geeks (and /. readers) would consider archaic. I mean, 16 bit processors are finally being used for many missions and 8 bit processors are still common.

    I would consider myself to be a major NASA supporter, and I do vote for congressmen that are supportive of the space industry. I would also say, however, that I think the days of NASA are numbered and I wouldn't mind the complete dismantling of the entire agency. They are too stuck in the past (reliving the glory days of Apollo), and are actually doing more harm than good now for giving me or my children the opportunity to work and live in space.

    As a percentage of the US Federal budget, NASA is now totally inconsequential. During the 1960's NASA was second only to the Department of Defense. Now, NASA doesn't even show up except on a list of miscellaneous agencies, and even the Department of Defense now comes in third of fourth (it is grouped with the Department of Veteran Affairs and the State Department to show it as a bigger piece of the federal budget in the 2001 tax booklet from the IRS).

    I'm not advocating a renewal of NASA funding to 1960's funding levels (which was about 10% of the Federal Budget), but I am suggesting that it certainly is no longer a national priority, as defined by the United States Congress and the President of the United States.

    Unfortunately, with much of the space infrastructure in Texas and strong Republican states (like Alabama, Utah, or swing states like Florida and California), I highly doubt that it could be cut with the current administration either.
    {Rant Mode Off}