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."
There is something definately wrong with the picture on cnn.com. This picture looks very wrong someone must have been thinking bad thoughts at the time.
There's an older (1999) article on nasa's site with a bit more technical detail.
Hogsback
When antimatter is made in the lab, it is stored in something called a "Penning Trap". Indeed, it is a type of magnetic confinement.
More info, here
I thought you needed a reactor core with dilithium crystal to make a matter-antimatter reaction possible. Can NASA produce dilithium crystals yet ? and visors for the reactor core technicians ?
Containment depends on what form it's in. Slashdotters have been referring to Penning traps here. Well, a Penning trap only works for charged particles, not neutral atoms, and it only traps one sign of charge -- you can't trap both + and - particles in the same Penning trap. Therefore, I don't think a Penning trap would be suitable for storing even microgram quantities of bulk matter; if you have matter or antimatter in bulk quantities, it has to be electrically neutral. I think the posters were confused between containment of plasma and containment of antimatter.
Containing antimatter, if you had it in bulk quantities, would be much easier than containing a plasma, since it doesn't have to be superhot like a plasma. You have to have an extremely good vacuum, however, because any matter that finds its way in will annihilate with the antimatter. I doubt that even the vacuum of interplanetary space would be good enough.
Find free books.
I would be rich... (this abused phrase notwithstanding).
/. readers) would consider archaic. I mean, 16 bit processors are finally being used for many missions and 8 bit processors are still common.
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
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}
Nuclear efficiency is in between. While there is not complete conversion, there is some mass going to energy, unlike in chemical rockets. However, nuclear physics is practical and well understood. A system would probably not work just as a bunch of bombs going off(though research was done on that, see The Binding Curve of Energy), instead liquid fuel, possibly liquid hydrogen or ammonia, would be sent through a nuclear core, then expelled. This would allow radiation release to be kept in check pretty easily, and a highly efficient super-heated plasma would propel the ship. In addition, unlike normal rockets the plasma could be controlled with magnetic fields.
While nuclear certainly holds a great stigma to many people, and is not as sexy as advanced antimatter/space warp/whatever systems, it is here and could be turned into a drive with minimal fuss. I could see a single nation/group(of sufficient economic strength, aka US, EU, possibly Japan) or coalition of nations getting behind this and making a ship to do it. The others will be needed, and research should continue, but if we want to go to other planets in the next couple of decades, this is probably the technology to do it with.
You don't understand thermodynamics. Of course it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it. 2nd law of thermo. For spacecraft, small and light is better. Antimatter, per joule, is the smallest and lightest allowable by the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
The idea is that we can use wind power, solar power, or crude oil generated power to make the antimatter here on Earth, and then take antimatter into space with us. None of those other types of power exist in space (except solar, which doesn't exist for any practical purposes if you start using antimatter propulsion to go to other stars..which is entirely possible when you have an exhaust velocity equal to the speed of light..well, almost, since matter and antimatter produce neutral and charged pi-mesons when they annihilate. the neutral pi-mesons decay into gamma rays that spray in random directions very quickly, but the charged pi mesons don't. so the idea is to shape the exhaust flow by moving the charged pi mesons when an electrostatic or electromagnetic field before they decay).
You're a victim of the same mistaken thinking that the comments about the hydrogen power generation story a few days ago were saturated with.
The job of a rocket is to create a stream of really fast particles moving in a particular direction. The faster, the better. Newton's Third Law and all that.
Those particles could be gas, accelerated with good old heat, ions accellerated with an electric field, or plasma.
Here's the rub: matter-antimatter reactions produce really energetic particles. Gamma rays, like. They kind a whiz right through the fuel you want to heat up. And the "combustion chamber." And the crew, and . . .
I read up on antimatter and fusion propulsion at grad school. (There's a suprising amount of good material out there; do not rely solely on the word of popularizers like Robert Forward!) The most-fully-realized antimatter rocket was kind of clunky. In the middle of the "combustion" chamber would be a cylinder of dense tungsten alloy full of tubules. A slow but steady stream of antiparticles are shot into the cylinder, which heats up. Hydrogen in pumped into the tubules; it heats up and "whoosh."
The disappointed bit: The specific impulse would "only" be about 5,000 seconds. This is about ten times what a liquid-fueled motor is capable of, and about 50% better than the little ion motor tested out on Deep Space One, but it's not amazing.
The most promising use for animatter: Using it as part of a fusion drive. A antimatter-catalyzed fusion drive described in the text I read was predicted to have a total impulse of something like 130,000 seconds. THAT is impressive. The thrust wouldn't be high, but you could keep it up for months and months.
What we might see are ships that use the direct-thermal sort of antimatter motor for getting a ship going (e.g., reaching escape velocity out of the Earth / moon system), then the fusion drive would be used to provide constant acceleration to speed up the trip.
Stefan
First, you seem to have the misconception that NASA is entirely devoted to the manned exploration of space, and that moreover, they haven't done anything new since Apollo.
You are simply misinformed. You're just plain wrong.
Take a look at some of the projects that NASA has been up to recently, and then see if you can still claim they are "living in the past" :
Space Observatories
Chandra X-Ray Observatory
Hubble Space Telescope
Earth Observatories
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer"
Solar System Missions
Mars Rovers
Astrophysics Research
Origins Program
And a sampling of the slate for future missions :
The Terrestrial Planet Finder
Deep Impact Comet Mission
Dawn Asteroid Flyby"
As you can see, NASA is not just about flying shuttle missions. They are actively sponsoring research in the space sciences and astrophysics across the board... from the study of our own planet, to the solar system, other stars and galaxies, and the cosmos as a whole. Their missions support the development of new technologies (which, unlike the previous poster seems to believe, are not limited to propulsion technologies, but include a wide array of telescopes and detectors across the entire spectrum). And NASA also actively supports scientists at all levels -- from graduate students through postdocs and faculty.
I think we live in a unique time where we as a species are really beginning to understand what makes up the universe, and how it works. I'm quite
confident that when the history of science of the 20th and 21st centuries is written, NASA will have played an enormously significant role in that process of discovery.
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.