Slashdot Mirror


Antimatter Space Drive

sckienle writes "Space.com has an article on using anti-matter for propulsion in space. It isn't true Star Trek warp stuff, in fact it is a variation on an fusion based pellet design I saw in the late 70's, but interesting concept. The concept is still somewhat of a dream, as stated in the article: 'The real hub is the storage [of antimatter]. There's a lot of technology between here and there.' Later on it also mentions that we can't produce a lot of antimatter efficiently yet. Still it might be worth the effort if the theoretical acceleration proves out." The BBC has a story about studying antimatter in a lab.

359 comments

  1. Interesting by drhairston · · Score: 4, Funny
    However, any advanced design like this is not without its hurdles. "The real hub is the storage," Howe says. "There's a lot of technology between here and there."

    That is quite possibly the most circuitous way I have ever seen someone admit that something is impossible. Fascinating.
    --
    Dr. Joseph Hairston
    Superintendent, CCBC
    1. Re:Interesting by KeatonMill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't impossible. By using a strong magnetic field, you could store antimatter in a vaccum without contact with the walls of the container. However, if the field were to fail at all, anhiliation would come pretty quick.

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Huh? Just because we don't currently have the technology to do something, that means it's impossible? Does that mean we should just give up and not try at all for it? Just where do you think progress comes from, then? 'Cuz it sure ain't delivered by a flock of Canadian geese 'dropping it off' on your lawn.

    3. Re:Interesting by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "That is quite possibly the most circuitous way I have ever seen someone admit that something is impossible. Fascinating."

      Sorry Mr. Spock, think you missed the point of what he was saying.

      "The real hub is the storage," Howe says. "There's a lot of technology between here and there."

      What he means is that it's not as simple as a gas tank.

    4. Re:Interesting by man_ls · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the basis for the "containment field" of Star Trek fame.

      In a DS9 novel, they talk about transferring antimatter between holding tanks by using tightly confined magnetic field beams and piping the antimatter through their magnetic pipes from one place to the other.

    5. Re:Interesting by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a lot of technology between here and there

      This is like saying that the only impediment to being rich is all the money you don't have yet.

    6. Re:Interesting by anzha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. It's like saying that an exoflop (or op) supercomputer is impossible.

      It is. Right now.

      However, give us 20 years, then easily you'll have it.

      After all, it's just technology between here and there.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    7. Re:Interesting by HeghmoH · · Score: 5, Funny

      By that definition, it is impossible for me to have a burrito. That's true, right now. However, in ten minutes, I can go to the burrito place, and I'll easily have it.

      When people say things are impossible, without qualifiers, they mean it's impossible forever.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:Interesting by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That is quite possibly the most circuitous way I have ever seen someone admit that something is impossible. Fascinating.
      No, that's not "admit[ting] that something is impossible" at all. That's saying that the barrier between what we have now and what we want to have is one of engineering, not science. We understand the scientific principles; we just haven't developed the technology. Yet.

      If the guys who built the foundations of the Net back in the Sixties and Seventies had said, "there's a lot of technology between here and there" -- which would have been a perfectly accurate statement at the time -- would you have told them that they were admitting that what they were trying to do was impossible?
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    9. Re:Interesting by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      I think a better example would be "it's impossible to build a space station capable for the average person to spend a month on." They know what they need to do to contain anti-matter just as well as they know how to make a livable space station, unforunately there are a lot of components to it that need to be well thought out and tested before faith can be put into it.

    10. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But I think you'll need to concede my basic point, which is that it is impossible for you to have an antimatter burrito. Especially with current technology.

    11. Re:Interesting by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Would eating an anti-burrito make you constipated? 'Cuz a regular burrito certainly coes the opposite....

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    12. Re:Interesting by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "In a DS9 novel, they talk about transferring antimatter between holding tanks by using tightly confined magnetic field beams and piping the antimatter through their magnetic pipes from one place to the other."

      Isn't that sort of how plasma is handled today?

      I think the holy grail technology will be a forcefieled that is powered by the anti-matter that it contains. As long as it's not powered by an external field, it should be safe. (That is provided the field itself is generated by components that don't wear down easily.)

      Okay, maybe that suggestion wasn't that helpful heh.

    13. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of geese are they then?

    14. Re:Interesting by sakeneko · · Score: 3, Interesting
      However, any advanced design like this is not without its hurdles. "The real hub is the storage," Howe says. "There's a lot of technology between here and there."
      That is quite possibly the most circuitous way I have ever seen someone admit that something is impossible. Fascinating.

      Nothing so interesting, IMHO -- it's just a garden case of someone not reading what someone else said very carefully, or possibly not understanding it well. <wry grin>

      A scientist or engineer who claims that there is a "lot of technology" between here and there is merely saying that we can't do it now, with today's technology. Given the rate of change in technology over the past hundred years, saying that something can't be done today is hardly the same as saying it can't be done at all.

      While no physicist expects Star Trek-like warp drive any time soon (or at all), we've known that anti-matter exists since the late 1920s, when Paul Dirac developed the equations that showed that it had to exist. We first "saw" real anti-matter in the mid-1930s, when Carl Anderson observed a positron, or anti-electron. Both of these men won Nobel prizes for their work -- this is not exactly news to anyone who keeps up with science and especially physics.

      Antimatter isn't the brainchild of some writer with lots of imagination and little grasp of science. It exists. It is real. Further, its properties are widely understood -- we know how it behaves.

      More to the point, we know that, to produce and keep large quantities of it, we must determine how to isolate it from regular matter. We know that, to use it in an engine, we must expose it to regular matter in a controlled fashion, and harness the energy released when it and the regular matter annhilate each other.

      In other words, we already have the basic science in hand. What we haven't figured out yet is how to do what needs to be done economically and reliably -- we don't have the technology in hand.

      This doesn't sound impossible to me. It sounds like it will take time and effort, probably quite a bit of time and effort, but as technology goes it isn't sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic. (Five mod points to anyone who identifies that reference.) ;>

    15. Re:Interesting by gabec · · Score: 1
      I read it as "slow news day on slashdot" ...

      "hey, i read that some scientist said something might be possible one day!" :P

    16. Re:Interesting by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Weirdly, I am actually having a burrito right now (surfing during a seriously late lunch). I feel very metaphysical right now.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    17. Re:Interesting by Dave_B93 · · Score: 1

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ~Arthur C. Clarke (his 3rd law)

    18. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops. Lost all my moderations by replying to this thread. oh well, that will teach me.

    19. Re:Interesting by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "But I think you'll need to concede my basic point, which is that it is impossible for you to have an antimatter burrito."

      The technology to do that cannot be that far off. Today it's possible for the human body to convert a burrito from one state of matter into another. If the human body can turn a solid into a gas, then it's possible to have an anti-matter burrito one day.

    20. Re:Interesting by Milk+and+Cookies · · Score: 0
      as technology goes it isn't sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic. (Five mod points to anyone who identifies that reference.) ;>
      IIRC, Arthur C. Clarke once said "technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
    21. Re:Interesting by joyoflinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You say that nothing is impossible--try slamming a revolving door. :)

    22. Re:Interesting by blighter · · Score: 1
      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
      - Arthur C. Clarke

      Truer words were never spake.

      And while the basic science may not seem like magic, the eventual implementation might. Imagine a featureless ball with anti-matter somewhere within that plugs into a fitted hollow and all other necessary steps for the transfer of the matter and the creation of energy take place without any visible activity. Magic. (At least from our limited point of view.)

    23. Re:Interesting by shogun · · Score: 2

      Howe says. "There's a lot of technology between here and there."

      An interesting way to paraphrase the Enterprise title song though.

    24. Re:Interesting by bazmonkey · · Score: 1

      it is impossible for me to have a burrito. That's true, right now.

      You could, it's conceiveable.

      I see you have never fallen victim to driveby burrito-ings. Vicious things.

    25. Re:Interesting by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The magnetic containment doesn't have to be electromagnetic. Natural permanent magnets have nearly 0 chance of failure. The little plastic fruits have been sticking to my grandmother's fridge for 50 years now.

      -B

    26. Re:Interesting by zrodney · · Score: 2

      hmm... maybe the two of you are alternate realities of a
      single ego/person? spooky

    27. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's too easy!

      With the door not in place to be locked -- simply put the key into the deadbolt and turn -- commence slamming.

    28. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you may want to give a little more time that 20 years, considering the problems with the exponential growth of computers comming to an end do to the limitations implied by physics. But that is just me being technical

    29. Re:Interesting by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Funny

      "No! Don't bang on that magne..." BOOOOOOMMM

    30. Re:Interesting by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Actually, at the point in which you typed that, I cannot observe you. So therefore at that point in time, you existed with a probability of having a burrito.
      It is only by telling me on /. that you don't have a burrito right now that our universes met, and made that true in my universe as well...

      Ah I love quantum physics

    31. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism at one point. Not in Nam, of course.

    32. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shut the fuck up, Donny.

    33. Re:Interesting by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Funny

      I consider anything from Taco Bell antimatter. Try to eat it and you will be anti Taco Bell no matter how hard you try!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    34. Re:Interesting by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      The little plastic fruits have been sticking to my grandmother's fridge for 50 years now.

      Good thing, too. If they were to all fall off at once the milk would spoil.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    35. Re:Interesting by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      leave it to a DS9 book to use the stupidest way possible to transfer something in a world with teleporters.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:Interesting by andfarm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But permanent magnets aren't strong enough. You need some very strong magnetic fields to confine antimatter, and permanent magnets just don't come anywhere close to what can be done with electromagnets.

      --

      TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.

    37. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Moore's Law, not Moore's Theory.

    38. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More to the point, we know that, to produce and keep large quantities of it, we must determine how to isolate it from regular matter. We know that, to use it in an engine, we must expose it to regular matter in a controlled fashion, and harness the energy released when it and the regular matter annhilate each other.
      Obviously, the best way to start is to carry huge tanks of water, and use the energy released from the matter-antimatter collisions to heat the water through saturation and convert it into a Superheated Vapour at which point we can force it through a pipe attached to a turbine that can be stored in batteries.

      Now we have a way to harness antimatter to create energy, but unlike the old days, instead of implementing this design (think I could get a patent?) and evaluating it, we can simulate it in computers and improve on it with minimal cost.

      What we really need now is a way to use matter-antimatter collisions for propulsion. The article mentioned a sail made out of U-235, but I'd be willing to toss this idea, because hey, radioactive sail.

      Explosions of this sort would be a problem, because you'd have to have the sail contained within whatever container you were using to contain the antimatter (you can't fire antimatter through space at a sail, because it'll collide with something else first), so the sail has to be on-board the ship. It'll function more like a rocket engine than a sail. This means that the collisions would have to be explosions, which means that we either have to have a way to contain the explosions or have to limit the force of the explosions--the energy source would need to be plentiful more than powerful.
    39. Re:Interesting by Superfreaker · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, most of the technologies listed in the star wars encyclopeida are not possible with the methods described therein.

      At least according to W.Shatner's latest book, "I'm working on that".

      Good read.

    40. Re:Interesting by man_ls · · Score: 2

      [[quote]]

      Antimatter containment:
      In Warp propulsion systems, antimatter containment refers to the use of magnetic confinement fields to prevent antimatter from physically touching the surface of the storage pod or any other part of the starship. Failure of antimatter containment is a serious malfunction; such a core breach or containment breach generally results in total destruction of the spacecraft. (snip descriptions of episodes of TNG where such activities were occuring.)

      [[/quote]]

      (From: The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future, (C) 1994 Paramount Pictures, All Rights Reserved)

      I happen to own that book...seems consistant with what people are talking about here: using strong magnetic fields to keep antimatter where it belongs.

      So, I agree with the poster somewhere above or below me, who said that most of the technology in Star Trek is based on a viable theory; even if their application of it isn't workable (Holywood has a tendancy to "make things work" for TV shows...)

    41. Re:Interesting by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      No, this doesn't work. To be confined in a magnetic bottle, the antimatter has to be in the form of a plasma. Now, the antiprotons in this plasma are constantly interacting, scattering electrostatically off each other. The effect of these interactions is to make the antiprotons do a random walk across the magnetic field lines. Eventually, they'll diffuse out of the plasma. Plasma turbulence makes the problem even worse.

      These are precisely the problems that prevent fusion reactors from confining plasmas for long periods. There would be a constant and intolerable leakage of antimatter into the walls of the storage vessel.

      Now, you can get rather stable storage of non-neutral plasmas in Penning traps. However, the energy of the stored antimatter is comparable to the magnetic energy of the trap's coils, which makes the devices unable to store substantial amounts of antimatter.

    42. Re:Interesting by groke · · Score: 1

      in the star trek next gen Technical Manual, a rather neat little paperback, antimatter was described in a footnote as being impossible to use transporters on, except in very very minute quantities (ie, femtograms). it was admitted this rule was made for dramatic effect :)

    43. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weirdly, I am actually having a burrito right now (surfing during a seriously late lunch). I feel very metaphysical right now.

      Look everybody! It's AntiHeghmoH!

    44. Re:Interesting by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

      You may be interested in reading "The mathematics of wan-ton burrito meals", by Prof. H. Farnsworth.

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    45. Re:Interesting by nzhavok · · Score: 3

      However in ST-TNG episode 2-21 "Peak Performance" Wesley uses the transporter to beam his antimatter experiment over to Riker's ship. Geordi is able to squeeze a couple of seconds of warp speed out of the ship using this.

      Oh God, much too much ST :-|

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    46. Re:Interesting by Gumshoe · · Score: 1
      However in ST-TNG episode 2-21 "Peak Performance" Wesley uses the transporter to beam his antimatter experiment over to Riker's ship.


      He beamed the device he was using in his anti-matter experiment, not the anti-matter itself.

      Oh God, much too much ST


      Indeed.
    47. Re:Interesting by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but you're going to have a hard time controlling the magnetic field if you use just natural magnets.. Whenever the craft accelerates, the containment field needs to be ajusted to compensate for the antimatter's inetia.

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    48. Re:Interesting by TonyMillion · · Score: 1

      I think I ate an antimatter burrito once, because it did the exact opposite of eating roughly 30 minutes after ingesting it.

    49. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any sufficiently advanced motor cycle is indistinguishable from magic !

    50. Re:Interesting by eclectus · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think that it is impossible to have your antimatter burrito and eat it to. At least, not without getting more gas than eating at Taco Bell.

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    51. Re:Interesting by merlin_jim · · Score: 3, Informative

      The magnetic containment doesn't have to be electromagnetic. Natural permanent magnets have nearly 0 chance of failure. The little plastic fruits have been sticking to my grandmother's fridge for 50 years now.

      Depends on how the magnetic containment works. Faraday proved that no static assemblage of magnetic, gravitic, and electric fields can be stable; in other words, a non-dynamic system that depends on only the above three fields will fall apart.

      Faraday did not know about two things, though, and that's diamagnetics and antimatter. All materials are either ferro-magnetic, meaning they can take and hold a magnetic field, paramagnetic, meaning they attract magnets, or diamagnetic, meaning they repel magnets. A google search will tell you more.

      Faraday's proof doesn't work for diamagnetic materials. However, most materials are only very slightly diamagnetic. Water, bismuth, and a certain kind of graphite are the most diamagnetic. I have succesfully levitated a very small slice of graphite using permanent magnets.

      Someone once levitated a frog. That magnet was a 10 Tesla magnet, though; there are no permanent magnet technologies that can get anywhere close to that magnetic strength.

      The only way you could do it with permanent magnets is if antimatter happens to be diamagnetic. This would be the case if, for instance, we find that antimatter's magnetic fields respond oppositely to that of normal matter; anti-steel, for instance, would not be paramagnetic but strongly diamagnetic.

      If that's not the case, then you HAVE to use big honking electromagnets.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    52. Re:Interesting by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      The most famous ST workaround is probably the Heisenberg compensators that allow teleporters to work. This deus ex machina lets them "compensate" for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that states that the more precicely you know the position of a particle, the less precisely you can know its velocity, and vice versa. Without knowing the position and velocity of a particle, teleportation would be impossible, so they cheated by "inventing" the compensators.

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    53. Re:Interesting by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      Hell, it should be possible for you to have an antimatter burrito someday. Why you would want to touch anything made of antimatter would be beyond me. The moment any matter came into contact with it, it would be obliterated and converted to energy. The resulting explosion caused by the sudden release of energy would rip the rest of you to shreds rather quickly. Only something also made of antimatter could successfully come into contact with an antimatter burrito. Most of this thread is completely ridiculous when you consider this.

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    54. Re:Interesting by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Nah, an anti-burrito would be deadly to the people in FRONT of the eater.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    55. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest visiting http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=sense+of+humor for more information.

    56. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U Sir, are prime Geek.

      Congradulation! You've been USDA approved.... ;)

    57. Re:Interesting by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      In 'Obsession' Kirk and a red shirt guy beamed down to a planet with a few Oz. of antimatter and a bunch of blood to blow up a gaseous cloud. I guess they forgot how to do that latter on.

    58. Re:Interesting by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      They broke TWO Trek rules. The red-shirted guy survived!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    59. Re:Interesting by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
      You say that nothing is impossible--try slamming a revolving door. :)

      It isn't impossible when there is someone inside it.

      *WHACK* "Ouch!"

    60. Re:Interesting by Superfreaker · · Score: 1

      That is not true if you read Shatner's own words. The writers of your book are very good at making things "sound" proper, but it is just not the case.

  2. Hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It isn't true Star Trek warp stuff, in fact it is a variation on an fusion based pellet design I saw in the late 70's, but interesting concept.

    Are you sure those aren't tracers from the bad acid you took back in the late 70's?

    1. Re:Hm by inteller · · Score: 1

      What are you saying? Most of the brilliant technology we have today came from acid trips! How do you think we got a man on the moon?

    2. Re:Hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think we got a man on the moon?

      Dude, come on. Everyone knows you filmed that shit in your garage, we've all seen the pictures where you fscked up the placement of the set lights and cast intersecting shadows.

  3. The cost of antimatter... by hpa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think anyone is arguing that antimatter would be just unbelievably useful to spacecraft, but the cost needs to be taken down by something like nine orders of magnitude -- the currently going rate for antiprotons is something like a million dollars per nanogram.

    The cooling ring only helps you once you have antiprotons to cool down to antihydrogen. Right now the production of antiprotons itself is just too expensive.

    1. Re:The cost of antimatter... by phud · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah but look how much vcr's have come down in the last few years!

    2. Re:The cost of antimatter... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...but the cost needs to be taken down by something like nine orders of magnitude"

      I know that's an issue, but I'm not convinced that's the biggest issue. The biggest issue is safety. Anti-matter is hard to contain. Imagine if gasoline violent explodeded when exposed to air. Nobody'd wanna put that into their cars.

      However, if Anti-matter were capable of powering ships capable of say... travelling to one of Mars or Jupiter's moons for the sake of bringing back large quantities of valuable minerals, then you'd find a great deal of effort going into anti-matter generation.

      When safety goes up and demand goes up, the price will magically fall as a bunch of places jump on board to start extracting it. (or converting a better word? I can't remember how anti-matter is generated.)

    3. Re:The cost of antimatter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old school jet fuel [WWII] basically did that. Killed a lot of pilots, too.

      But then, it killed a lot of enemy pilots, as well.

    4. Re:The cost of antimatter... by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Old school jet fuel [WWII] basically did that. Killed a lot of pilots, too.

      But then, it killed a lot of enemy pilots, as well.


      There weren't a lot of pilots who could have been killed by jet fuel in WWII, were there? Perhaps the more generic term 'aviation fuel' would have been more accurate?

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    5. Re:The cost of antimatter... by shogun · · Score: 2

      There weren't a lot of pilots who could have been killed by jet fuel in WWII, were there? Perhaps the more generic term 'aviation fuel' would have been more accurate?

      How about about Rocket Fuel then? The Messerschmitt 163 Komet ran on two very volatile substances that were explosive when mixed, with very predictable results for the life expectancy of pilots.

    6. Re:The cost of antimatter... by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      There weren't a lot of pilots who could have been killed by jet fuel in WWII, were there?

      You must not have heard of the Messerschmitt Me 262, or the Gloster Meteor. (There were some other jets in the works at the time, such as the Bell P-59, but the Me 262 and the Meteor are the ones I could find that actually flew in combat during WWII.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    7. Re:The cost of antimatter... by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Sure I'd heard of them, and the 163 which the other response to my post mentioned. To say "A lot of pilots were killed by jet fuel" as the original poster did, though, is simply not reasonable, considering the far greater number of pilots who were killed in "conventional" aircraft.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    8. Re:The cost of antimatter... by rweir · · Score: 2

      I don't think cost is going to be a long-term problem. Once we get a bit better at making it, we could just build a giant-ass accelerator in space, with a huge solar array pointing at the sun. It can sit up there for years, patiently using sunlight to amass anti-protons. It doesn't cost squat once it's up there, and the immense usefullness of it would repay any initial investment a thousand times over.

    9. Re:The cost of antimatter... by isorox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lets assume that in the next 1000 years we havent wiped ourself out.

      Let us also assume that the human race will continue to expand.

      With a population of 10billion+, we'll need to spread out from earth. Space colonies in orbit, on mars, the moon, and jupiter's moons should all be possible by 2500, no problem. Given my 2 assumptions it's inevitable.

      With that size civilisation, it's not a far strech to belive we could build as many orbiting solar satelites that we want. On board each station, convert solar energy into anyimatter. OK, you might get a 0.001% efficency rate, however with a large enough surface area, at a similar height of Mercury's orbit, you would produce 9E21W of energy, wirh 0.001% efficeny we could produce 1kg of antimatter a second. Thats a lot of antimatter.

      Of course what would we use antimatter for? Answer: Convert to energy.

      All antimatter is, in the long run, is an energy source. If we have a very effiecent battery, which can pack an enourmous punch for its mass, then theres no need for anti matter for general power production. For the times we specifically need antimatter, produce it in situ. Wont be as efficent (solar -> "battery" -> antimatter), however it will be a lot easier then hauling even a minute amount of antimatter arround the solar system.

    10. Re:The cost of antimatter... by ErikZ · · Score: 2

      Oh please. The answer is simple. Make the container out of antimatter. :-)

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    11. Re:The cost of antimatter... by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      nine orders of magnitude is a lot. But have you considered how much NASA spends on high grade fuel regardless, and how much more efficient antimatter is? I'm not sure what they'd need, but I'm betting that if they work out the technology to propel, the price of the propellant can *easily* be made economically viable.

    12. Re:The cost of antimatter... by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

      That depends on what antimatter we're using. Sure anti-gold could be expensive, but what about anti-lead?

      [/Humour]

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    13. Re:The cost of antimatter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the real hard part is that antimatter is not ever a *source* of energy. It's quite certainly the most efficient way of storing energy, but since you need that same amount of energy (at the very least) to produce the antimatter in the first place, you don't win anything on a global scale.

      Not even to mention that producing and controlling antimatter in serious amounts is hideously difficult, and expensive. Ask the people at Fermilab --- they've been learning that the hard way last year, when they tried to get the upgraded version of their accelerator, the Tevatron, going again. And those are among the world's leading experts in antimatter mass-production, mind you!

    14. Re:The cost of antimatter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The population of the earth will only continue to grow in such a way so long as inequities of economic development exist. Birth/Death ratios in the G8 developed nations are at or near 1:1 (zero growth). In fact, I believe france actually has NEGATIVE growth.

      It's a sad irony that poverty leads to higher birthrates... partially due to the in-grained attitude that if so many of your kids will die due to malnutrition, disease, wars or what-have-you, you need to have more kids to ensure your family's survival... and partially due to the fact that sex is about the only entertainment on the planet that can still be had free-of-charge. ;)

      Personally, I think the environment will get shot to hell before we overpopulate. All you terrorist-supporting SUV drivers out there making life happy for the fat cats and suicide bombers all while blackening our skies...

    15. Re:The cost of antimatter... by Monkelectric · · Score: 2

      and just when you get all the anti-protons you want they'll switch formats and try to sell them to you again.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  4. And in 20 years.... by cyberise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We'll see antimatter missles :(

    1. Re:And in 20 years.... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Funny

      " We'll see antimatter missles :(

      Sorry, I think you typed a '(' where you meant to type a ')' .

      " We'll see antimatter missles :)"

      I'm excited to! :P

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:And in 20 years.... by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Loki, I think you picked the wrong god to use for a nick. Judging by your excitement over the possible use of antimatter in weapons of mass destruction, perhaps Shiva would have been more appropriate.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    3. Re:And in 20 years.... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Loki, I think you picked the wrong god to use for a nick. Judging by your excitement over the possible use of antimatter in weapons of mass destruction, perhaps Shiva would have been more appropriate."

      Not at all true. ;)

      Loki would have loved to get his hands on something like this, if for no other reason than to scare the shit out of the other gods (explode a dozen simultaneously while the gods were asleep). Actually, getting more towards Ragnarok, he'd have gladly used these to blast his fellow gods into oblivion. I liked him more when he was a simple trickster.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    4. Re:And in 20 years.... by KnowledgeFreak · · Score: 1

      Actaully, i took some saterday morning physics classes in high school at Fermi Lab(particle accelerator in illinois). I remember talking to one of the physics dudes about what our next big bomb was going to be. Since we have the hydrogen bomb, where do you go from there?
      He told me that they had some anti-matter in storage that they were learning to use as weapons.

      This was in 1994.

      I wonder what Iraq is going to look like in 1 - 5 years.

    5. Re:And in 20 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your last name Rumsfeld, by any chance? :)

    6. Re:And in 20 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the real question is how to create antimatter by channeling. Earth might be used to create the magnetics needed to contain it, plus it could be tied off and surrounded by Air so that it could be carried around.

    7. Re:And in 20 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All technology developed over the next two centuries can be derived from the tech tree of the original Master of Orion game.

      This is, of course, because they used all the theoretical stuff, but we'll just ignore that for now.

    8. Re:And in 20 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm excited to! :P

      Sorry, I think you typed 'to' where you meant to type 'too'.

  5. _AN_ fusion? by rgoer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...in fact it is a variation on an fusion based pellet design... Hate to be one to make such a lame, editorially nit-picky comment, but for fuck's sake! Come on allready! AN FUSION? sheesh...

    1. Re:_AN_ fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hate to be one to make such a lame, editorially nit-picky comment ... Come on allready!

      but... allready? sheesh.

  6. Take about 20 years by 1155 · · Score: 1

    This'll take probably 20 years of hard research, government money, and chocolate donuts to put into effect

    1. Re:Take about 20 years by zentigger · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suspect a good source of brownian motion, like, say , a nice hot cup of tea might help...

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

  7. What are the mods thinking??? by glwtta · · Score: 5, Funny
    A story relating to religion and then a story with the word "antimatter" in it right after? Do you realize how many insane rantings by people who consider themselves to be experts in such matters (no pun intended) will be the result of this?

    I mean, come on - why not post Linux vx. MacOS X and Emacs vs. vi stories while you are at it.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:What are the mods thinking??? by Psiren · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd imagine someone is working on an antimatter producing lisp extension for emacs already ;-)

    2. Re:What are the mods thinking??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..with spock ears!

    3. Re:What are the mods thinking??? by Wayfarer · · Score: 2
      I'd imagine someone is working on an antimatter producing lisp extension for emacs already ;-)

      You're in luck! It's already been done.

      M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead for a conversation that's so devoid of substance, it contains anti-substance!

      --

      -W-

      Is it all journey, or is there landfall?
      --Ellison & van Vogt, 'The Human Operators'

    4. Re:What are the mods thinking??? by mcc · · Score: 2

      why not post Linux vx. MacOS X and Emacs vs. vi stories while you are at it

      oh, i'm sure not even slashdot is that stupid

    5. Re:What are the mods thinking??? by merlin_jim · · Score: 2

      I mean, come on - why not post Linux vx. MacOS X and Emacs vs. vi stories while you are at it.

      Will a J2EE vs. .NET story be good enough?

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  8. Grrr.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Later on it also mentions that we can't produce a lot of antimatter efficiently yet."

    We'd be able to produce tons of it by now if the frickin' Vulcans didn't hold us back!

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:Grrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but "Star Trek" isn't real. Now, please go kill yourself.

    2. Re:Grrr.. by unicron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the majority of the science in Star Trek is based heavily on actual theories and practices. For pretty much every piece of technology that has ever been the show save for things relating to dieties and fantasy, someone somewhere has a viable theory as to making something like that work.

      And the funny thing, I know all that while at the same time really not like the show at all.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    3. Re:Grrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the majority of the sex life of the average Slashdotter is based on nothing but theories. For pretty much every basic sexual experience save for things relating to hobbits and time-traveling robots, some slashdotter somewhere has a viable theory as to making something like that work.

    4. Re:Grrr.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      Actually, the anal-retentive attention to detail and religious adherence to science-theory is one of the reasons so many people were turned off by the previous Star Trek series. Enterprise appears a bit looser on these topics. As a matter of point, many things invented for Star Trek were adapted for use in the real world. Case in point, remember the hypospray used in The Next Generation? Well, someone (I think it was the World Health Organization) took the concept (and a stage prop) and created a vaccination tool. Now, instead of doctors using needles and vaccinating a few hundred people in a 3rd world country, virtually anyone can easily and quickly be trained to use the device, and thousands can be vaccinated in a single day by a small team.

      Star Trek is probably the closest thing to real that the Sci-Fi world has ever had even remote interest in.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    5. Re:Grrr.. by octal_flare · · Score: 1

      Bad troll, no cookie.

    6. Re:Grrr.. by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      For pretty much every piece of technology that has ever been the show [...] someone somewhere has a viable theory as to making something like that work.

      Huh? An obvious example would be Warp Drive (wormholes are not FTL travel). Unless I haven't seen it, I haven't seen any viable theories about usurping Einstein.

      Also as far as I know, there is no viable theory as to how to make a transporter work (quantum-level effects notwithstanding).

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    7. Re:Grrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I envy the average /.. They haven't reached the point where sex becomes routine and bland.

    8. Re:Grrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the Manhattan Project was started we had no way to produce a lot of fissionable U-235 either.

    9. Re:Grrr.. by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > Huh? An obvious example would be Warp Drive
      > (wormholes are not FTL travel). Unless I haven't
      > seen it, I haven't seen any viable theories about
      > usurping Einstein.

      http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relativity/papers /abstracts/miguel94a.html

      http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre+drive

      Miguel Alcubierre put together a very interesting hypothesis. It is said to be scientifically valid, save for the requirement of exotic matter and nigh impossible amounts of energy. But it seems to not conflict with existing theory.

      "...within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes, it is possible to modify a spacetime in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed. By a purely local expansion of spacetime behind the spaceship and an opposite contraction in front of it, motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region is possible. The resulting distortion is reminiscent of the ``warp drive'' of science fiction"

      > Also as far as I know, there is no viable
      > theory as to how to make a transporter work
      > (quantum-level effects notwithstanding).

      Yeah, I'll give you that one. I also agree with your general position, that the vast majority of science in Star Trek is not well thought out with relation to reality. It's too bad, since they started out with so much obvious effort, and now they simply don't care about even a semblance of realism.

      -JC
      http://www.jc-news.com/

    10. Re:Grrr.. by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Huh? An obvious example would be Warp Drive (wormholes are not FTL travel).

      Look up Miguel Alcubierre. Whether his idea would actually work is questionable, but he is at least a reasonably respected scientist and not a crackpot or Trek writer.

      Also as far as I know, there is no viable theory as to how to make a transporter work (quantum-level effects notwithstanding).

      There was a Scientific American (I think) article a couple years back discussing some theories about how quantum teleportation might be feasible. Again, maybe or maybe not really possible, but at least within the realm of theoretical discussion.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    11. Re:Grrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Married, huh?

    12. Re:Grrr.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      Huh? An obvious example would be Warp Drive (wormholes are not FTL travel). Unless I haven't seen it, I haven't seen any viable theories about usurping Einstein.

      Warp Drive doesn't. It's a bend in space-time, which would nicey get around that FTL barrier--instead they'd be limited by the speed at which they can bend space.

      Odditty: Since they're not "really" travelling at Xc, but rather 0.Xc inside a pseudo-wormhole, doesn't it seem likely that they could dispense iwth the "inertial compensators" and just rely simply on the folding of space?

      Anyway...

      Also as far as I know, there is no viable theory as to how to make a transporter work (quantum-level effects notwithstanding).

      Just because something's "quantum level" or "macro level" doesn't mean that it doesn't effect the other. If I pick up the glass next to me and move it, the set of molecules that could make up the glass are now somewhere else, even if I'm not at all sure which particular molecules there are.

      (In trek's defense, they originally didn't want the transporter to be a part of the show, but budget & time restraints made some shortcut necessary, unless they re-did the ship so it could land...)

      All that said... "viable theory" is probably the wrong word. "Scientficially plausible concept" is probably a better term.

    13. Re:Grrr.. by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      There was a Scientific American (I think) article a couple years back discussing some theories about how quantum teleportation might be feasible.

      Those are quantum-level effects on particles, not macro effects on large bodies. If we're going to talk about transporters, I want people-sized objects beaming hundreds of miles!

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    14. Re:Grrr.. by unicron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Damn skippy. It's pretty bad too. Crazy in love, just boring sex life. I knew I had hit rock bottom when I found myself eyeballing that fat, skanky LUG girl that ever LUG has(and you know you do). She's down for everything, but it's mostly because of that 'beggars can't be choosers' rule.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    15. Re:Grrr.. by unicron · · Score: 2

      Actually, there is a working teleporter. It can only teleport photons and such, but it does work. If you believe that energy and matter are interchangeable, which everyone does, then you've just convinced yourself that transporters are possible, more or less.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    16. Re:Grrr.. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Matter and Energy are not interchangeable, they are exactly the same thing.

      E=mc^2.... right?

      The c^2 is only there to provide a unit conversion in the event that your mass and energy units are not absolute.

      It really means energy is mass.

    17. Re:Grrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least there's someone you can fuck us the ass if your wife doesn't go for that.

    18. Re:Grrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too! Me too! No more airport security! No more customs! Woohoo! The end of the nation state! Yay!

      I am totally serious, here.

    19. Re:Grrr.. by SmokeSerpent · · Score: 1
      Odditty: Since they're not "really" travelling at Xc, but rather 0.Xc inside a pseudo-wormhole, doesn't it seem likely that they could dispense iwth the "inertial compensators" and just rely simply on the folding of space?


      Actually, without engaging the Warp drive, Star Trek ships are capable of accelerating to large fractions of c in exceedingly short times. Without her magical "inertial dampeners", the Enterprise could reduce her crew to messy smears under impulse power alone.
      --
      All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    20. Re:Grrr.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I know.

      It occurs to me as a plausibility that certain "warp field designs" would have a collapsing field where space moves internally at near-c velocities, thus prompting accelleration even within the warp...

      still, "inertial dampeners" aren't any harder to swallow than "Gravity fields." In fact, I think the "star trek technical mannuals" even list them as the same system...

  9. hmm .. hamster power = anti-matter? by hikeran · · Score: 2, Funny

    "It isn't true Star Trek warp stuff, in fact it is a variation on an fusion based pellet design I saw in the late 70's, but interesting concept."

    so are they feeding those hamsters special pellets to make them run faster on the little wheel pushing the craft or are the waste pellets used for powering and propelling the ship?

    1. Re:hmm .. hamster power = anti-matter? by Hamster+Of+Death · · Score: 1

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

  10. Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by Bonker · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...At least to provide thrust for a vessel of any kind since it costs more energy (incredibly more, with current technology) to produce than it actually stores. The only advantage to using an antimatter/matter reaction as a propellant is the sheer efficiency of the reaction. You get a lot more push out of a lot less 'fuel'. If you can get away with carrying less total mass, then you don't have to accellerate or decelerate as much.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Doesn't all fuel by definition cost more energy to create than to store?

      We just try to bypass this by using fuels that natural processes spent energy creating rather than us.

    2. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by lildogie · · Score: 2

      Agreed, and don't forget that the equipment that's used to store the antimatter, as well as the engine itself, have to be light enough to push around in space without burning up too much energy on the brakes.

    3. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by avandesande · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't forget what the cost of a pound of conventional fuel is when it is shot into space.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      All fuel by definition uses more engery to produce than it stores. Even in the Star Trek era (24th century), the Technical Manual says they only get around 20% efficiency when creating their antimatter. It is the compactness of it that makes it usefull, much like the compactness of energy in cars is more usefull than solar power.

    5. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      Well, look at it this way: it's far easier/more realistic to mass-produce a lot of energy stored in anti-matter on, say, a planet or space-station, and use this to propel a spacecraft than to use any other method or propulsion if you intend to travel far and fast.

      With the production of anti-matter becoming more efficient and cheaper, it might even become possible to generate the anti-matter on the spacecraft itself, by converting suitable 'ingredients' into the required anti-matter.

      Sure, anti-matter will probably always end up costing more energy to produce than can be retrieved from it, but it's like comparing batteries for a laptop: would you rather have a battery which is 60% efficient, but which only powers the laptop for an hour, or a battery which is 20% efficient yet keeps the laptop running for 20 hours?

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    6. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by gnuadam · · Score: 1

      Long live the laws of thermodynamics!

      --
      You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
    7. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by RickHunter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it costs more energy to produce than it actually stores

      I'd certainly hope so. Otherwise, we're going to have to reconsider quite a lot of modern physics!

    8. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by rweir · · Score: 2

      ...At least to provide thrust for a vessel of any kind since it costs more energy (incredibly more, with current technology) to produce than it actually stores.

      Hehe, I'd certainly hope so. The point of using anti-matter for propulsion is the enormous energy density, no energy efficency.

      Getting around in space is hard. It takes piles of energy to get to a reasonable speed (especially if you want to get anywhere outside the solar system). The problem isn't the lack of energy around. How many gazillions of joules do you think the sun pumps out each second? The problem is concentrating it and putting it to use. Say we set up an anti-matter factory in space. Nothing too fancy, just a huge solar array, an accelerator and the magnetic trapping stuff needed to stop the whole thing annihilating itself. Leave it there for a few years, patiently producing anti-protons from the sunlight and inter-planetary gas. Want to go visit Alpha Centauri? Cruise up and pick up a blob of anti-matter from the factory. You could instead build huge solar panels on your ship and use an ion drive or something, but the anti-matter route means that you just need to carry a small amount of fuel, instead of huge amounts of machinary to generate it.

      It's just like ecosystems: plants concentrate solar energy, animals eat them, then I eat the animals. It's not particularily efficent, but it concentrates the energy into easy to use packages (a.k.a. steaks) and lets me spend more time wiping out species for sport and less time hunting for food:/

    9. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. That would require converting angular momentum to linear.

      It would be much more efficent to just feed the hamsters pellets that make them produce thrust... just point them in the right direction.

    10. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by Idarubicin · · Score: 2
      The only advantage to using an antimatter/matter reaction as a propellant is the sheer efficiency of the reaction. You get a lot more push out of a lot less 'fuel'.

      The problem is that it will still be decades (if not centuries...if ever) before we will be able to produce the quantities of antimatter necessary to have antimatter as the sole fuel of a large spacecraft.

      One idea being considered (by NASA, among others) is to use small amounts of antimatter as a sort of igniter for conventional fusion reactions. Sure it's a smaller specific impulse than pure antimatter, but fusion still gets you way more bang for the buck than chemical rockets. And early calculations suggest that a vanishingly small amount of antimatter would be sufficient. (Still much more than the current annual production of the stuff, however.)

      Either way, for moving a really large craft, antimatter (or at least conventional nuclear) technology will be necessary. It's prohibitively expensive to loft a significant amount of reaction mass to space--antimatter becomes a lot less expensive when you factor in the hundred plus dollars per pound we pay to put something in low earth orbit.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    11. Re:Antimatter costs far more than it's worth... by efflux · · Score: 1

      no. You would accelerate and decelerate the same. It is the force required that would decrease. F=ma, remember?

      --
      Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
  11. Still a long way off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, this isn't rocket science! Oh, wait... never mind.

  12. Better than what? by shrikel · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article: Howe is laying the groundwork for a faster, better, cheaper antimatter drive.

    Faster, better, and cheaper than all the other antimatter drives we have already produced?

    --
    Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    1. Re:Better than what? by mntgomery · · Score: 1

      Faster, better, cheaper than the Romulans. . . if only it weren't for that infernal cloaking device!

      --

      This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
    2. Re:Better than what? by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      Yes, infinitely so in all cases. ;)

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    3. Re:Better than what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      From the article: Howe is laying the groundwork for a faster, better, cheaper antimatter drive.
      Faster, better, and cheaper than all the other antimatter drives we have already produced?

      Yes. This antimatter rocket engine is intended to replace the antimatter internal combustion engine. Besides being relatively useless in space (unless you use it to power a generator to run an ion drive) it also requires rebuilding more often than you'd care to think about.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks to movies and television series such as Star Trek and especially Star Wars, most people have no idea just exactly how far another star system is.

    The closest star is Tau Ceti, which is 4.7 Light years away, would still take a decade to reach and a decade to return even with a very, very, very advanced anti-matter engine -- a space shuttle with chemical engines, in comparsion, would take 100,000 years to reach there.

    Anti-matter still costs approximately 40 quadrillion dollars per gram to make, and storing it and dealing with the gamma rays is quite another thing.

    Sorry, sci-fi fans: we will never visit another star system in our lifetimes, and probably not even Mars with the amount of funding that goes to space.

    1. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, thanks for letting the air out of my balloon. And here I was hoping to put my lunar vacation on my new American Express "Blue" card.

    2. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      The closest star is Tau Ceti, which is 4.7 Light years away

      This is incorrect; the closest star is Proxima Centauri; 4.24 LY. Tau Ceti is 11.35 LY away (Source)

    3. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by PygmyTrojan · · Score: 1
      most people have no idea just exactly how far another star system is ... The closest star is Tau Ceti, which is 4.7 Light years away

      Looks like you have no idea either

      --

      Trying is the first step towards failure.

    4. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by avandesande · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So what would it have cost to make a pentium 4 30 years ago? (adding in the cost of all the R&D and capital costs) or for that matter 80 years ago?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by mntgomery · · Score: 1

      Yes, but everyone knows that antimatter research leads to warp drive research which leads to the study of quantum anomalies that will allow time travel. So, someone has to start the ball rolling so those future generations can bring the technology back during my lifetime!

      --

      This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
    6. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2
      This is incorrect; the closest star is Proxima Centauri; 4.24 LY.

      Alpha Centauri C (to use a more official designation) is indeed marginally closer to us than Alpha Centauri A and B. But at absolute magnitude 15 you would have to be just about standing on it to see it.

      I can't see much exitement in going all that way just to see a red dwarf...

      ...laura

    7. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Romothecus · · Score: 1

      "Thanks to movies and television series such as Star Trek" I wouldn't exactly blame Star Trek or TNG, since they both take place centuries in the future...

    8. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by sckeener · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually I asked a question similar to your statement a while back in a discussion about Voyager and I like the answer I got.

      Here's what he said so you don't have to click the links

      Voyager is not travelling all that fast, and we could go faster with sufficient time and engineering effort.

      First cab off the rank is probably the Orion drive. Build a really big plate, attach it with really big springs and dampers to a heavily radiation-shielded spacecraft, and detonate atom bombs behind the plate. The basic technology exists right now, all you need is a pile of cash and be prepared to violate the space weapons treaty. Maximum speed is about 1-2% of the speed of light, so you're still taking a couple of centuries to Proxima Centauri.

      Next option is a fusion engine. We can't generate power with controlled fusion yet, but ITER probably will if and when it gets built. ITER is, er, rather large and heavy, and doesn't really produce much net power, so a practical space fusion power plant is a fair bit of engineering development down the road. Anyway, the idea is quite simple. Release the "exhaust" of the reaction out the back of the engine, just like a normal rocket except the exhuast is a hell of a lot hotter and travelling a lot faster. Maximum speed maybe 10-12% of the speed of light.

      Alternatively, use a light sail powered by a really big laser. All you need is to scale up laser and telescope technology a crapload (so, again, considerable engineering development required). Maximum speed? Somewhere between 10 and maybe 30% of the speed of light, depending on just how big you can make your mirror (and consequently how far you can keep accelerating).

      The other big issue with interstellar spacecraft is the question of how much debris is out there. If there's a lot, as you go faster you'll need one hell of a shield to protect you.

      Finally, there's there's also the possibility of using antimatter-matter reactions to power a ship. Antimatter is kinda powerful stuff to have around, and you could theoretically use it to power a ship to near the speed of light. However, there is no known natural source, and manufacturing it requires milllions of times more energy put in than you get back when you "burn" it. It, therefore, is a really long-term option from when humanity has such astounding energy generation capacity it can afford to use it to power antimatter-powered spaceships.

      All in all, there are some possibilities, but most are still a fair bit of technological development away. Let's get to the rest of the solar system first :)

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    9. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The closest star is Tau Ceti, which is 4.7 Light years away, would still take a decade to reach and a decade to return even with a very, very, very advanced anti-matter engine.

      And in that 20 year span on the ship, how much time would have passed on earth? 2000 years? 20,000 years?

    10. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by io333 · · Score: 2

      OK, ten years to get to something 5 light years away, so we are talking roughly half the speed of light here, yes?

      Are there any serious time effects at that speed? Five years for who? Do the astronauts come back and meet their great great great great grandchildren?

    11. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy your statement about Mars. When the economy gets better, together with other countries, a trip to Mars could certainly happen...

      As for other stars - who cares. I like the idea of being able to fly probes around THIS star system shitloads faster. It might make asteroid minning and other space-business ideas feasable.

    12. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did some comparison calculations a while ago, so this is mainly from memory.
      It should be good enough.

      Comparatively
      Sun to Mercury : 1 inch
      Venus: 2 inches
      Earth: 3 inches
      Mars: 6 inches
      Pluto: 54 feet
      Proxima Centauri (4.1LY): 60 miles

    13. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Dalcius · · Score: 2

      Now I could be wrong, but here goes...

      100 years ago we were still riding around behind horses.

      Now we can send objects dozens of times the speed of sound. Experiments have been done that send particles faster than the speed of light. We're *working* with anti-matter .

      Indications are that R&D is going to go even faster.

      1) The world is coming together under the rule of economics instead of the quest for power and land.

      2) Production and research goes through the roof with even more specialization than in our parent's generation. In addition, we've got countries working together on space projects and research. And not just the ISS.

      3) Corporations are moving in on the space market. etc. etc.

      I'm a little younger (circa college age) than many folks here, but I feel confident that we'll be traveling to other solar systems to the end of my lifetime. Barriers are meant to be broken and science is progressing past Einstein.

      Society is coming together. The old rates of technological evolution are irrelevant.

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    14. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, that means my schlong is 2 AU!

    15. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by dpilot · · Score: 2

      Always kind of annoyed me when Star Trek shows stars passing by the windows. Aside from any optic effects during Warp, (Niven/Pournelle Blind Spot, anyone?) let's allow 1 star every 4 LY to be "standard spacing." At C, it would take 4 years to see the second star, so at 365C it would take 4 days. At about 1500C we're finally up to a star a day.

      By the old Kirk formula, speed=Warp^3, so to see a star a day you'd have to be going Warp 11.4. STNG has a new Warp formula, but I don't think it's *that* much faster. We're still about a factor of 1e5 from passing a star a second.

      Even allowing stars to get much closer in other neighborhoods, you're still not going to see stars flying past the ship in seconds.

      Quoth Douglas Adams: "Space is BIG!"

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    16. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Araxen · · Score: 1

      All you need is to figure out how the Flux Compacitor works. Gettinh to 88mph with some plutonium is a cake walk. We can time travel to steal the future's inter-stellar travel secrets!!

    17. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      The time dilation formula is

      delta = 1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))

      At 50% of the speed of light, the time dilation factor is 1.145, i.e: 15%. The astronaut will look only a little younger than they could be when they come back.

      On the other hand, unless they have really good radiation shielding, they'll probably be dead (see recent /. story on travelling to mars).

    18. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Araxen · · Score: 1

      and yes my spelling sucks!!

    19. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Apaturia · · Score: 1
      OK, ten years to get to something 5 light years away, so we are talking roughly half the speed of light here, yes?

      Are there any serious time effects at that speed? Five years for who? Do the astronauts come back and meet their great great great great grandchildren? At 0.5c, time would pass about 1.3 times slower for the people on the ship (from our point of view). So for a a 10-year trip, they'll effectively be travelling about three years into the future (from their point of view).

      On a side note, this also means that, from our point of view, the space ship will appear to have contracted by a factor of about 1.3.

      See here.

    20. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Not only do we not have the technology to make it to Alpha Centauri, we can't even currently imagine a theory of physics that would allow us the propulsion to get there within a human lifetime.

      Nuclear fusion bombs against an ablation shield won't do it. Sustained nuclear fusion (not invented yet) won't do it. Ion drives won't do it. Laser powered solar sails won't do it. Antimatter drives won't do it either, although they are the fastest method.

      For some enlightenment, check out this explanation from a NASA scientist: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/scales.h tm The essential problem is that the distances are so great that any kind of propellant, even one with the energy density of antimatter will be used up too quickly. Also, you can definitely forget about the idea of stopping, turning around and coming back.

      The only interstellar propulsion research that I'm aware of is being done by NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program which is struggling just to survive. How can you expect exponential advances when no one is even doing any significant research. Hell, we can't even get the funds to go to the moon or mars. IMHO, your only chance is in medical research extending your lifetime to 500 or 1000 years, in which case you might live to see a real interstellar mission.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    21. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by sexecutioner · · Score: 1
      On a side note, this also means that, from our point of view, the space ship will appear to have contracted by a factor of about 1.3.


      Sorry, but I think you are incorrect. The space ship will only appear to be contracted while it is moving at relativistic speeds relative to us.

      Once it comes to rest in our reference frame it will resume it's original dimensions.
    22. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by feronti · · Score: 1

      Those aren't stars... they're particles of dust and other types of debris superheated by the shields outside the ship. If you look closely, you see a motionless starfield beyond the "stars" you see in the windows.

    23. Re:Insterstellar travel is still centuries away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. Physics theories allow for superluminal travel: get a wormhole from the quantum foam, put some negative mass in there to jack it open wide enough to be usable, tow one end around for a while at high speeds so you get a good time dilation differential, and Bob's your uncle.

  14. Antimatter by jukal · · Score: 2
    ...would make a great name for the Microsoft Insider, or what ever that publication is called. :) (required karma leecher)

    This work is important because it will enable us to understand why there is any matter at all in the Universe. This is one of the great mysteries.

    Yes indeed, the antimatter-matter is interesting also because - it makes use remember that a big part of our current understand of science is based on just assumptions. Rules, that exist because they have made sense (so far). One day, when we learn more, many of these rules might get obsolete.

  15. It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by rufusdufus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Accelerating this way, Howe's vessel could reach a speed of 260,000 mph
    Faster than light!

    1. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faster than light!

      However, not as fast as you appearing on my foes list.

    2. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. Light goes 186,000 miles per SECOND, so this is about 1/300th the speed of light.

    3. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by benwb · · Score: 2

      The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second, or 669,600,000 mph.

    4. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 2

      Light speed is 186,282 miles per second, or about 670 million miles per hour.

    5. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by SkywalkerOS8 · · Score: 1

      Light travels at 186,000 mile per second.

    6. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      From my understanding of physics (limited as it may be), you cannot accelerate matter in a linear fashion beyond C (speed of light in a vacuum).

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    7. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      " Light speed is 186,282 miles per second"

      (start anal-retentive nitpicking here)
      I thought it was 186,284 miles per second ;)
      I suppose I could be wrong.. hehe

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    8. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Innova · · Score: 1

      The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters/ second. To convert mph to meters/second we divide by 2.236. So 260,000 mph is "only" 116,230.5 meters/second. Less than half the speed of light.

      Still quite an impressive speed.

    9. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by cascino · · Score: 2

      260,000 mph [...] Faster than light!
      I don't think so.
      c = 300,000 km/sec, which converts to roughly 6.71*10^8 miles/hour.
      To the editors: I was thinking about modding this post, but I realized there's really no way to do so. Redundant? Troll? It's times like these that I wish there was a [-1: Incorrect] moderation option...

    10. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by grumwork · · Score: 1

      Accelerating this way, Howe's vessel could reach a speed of 260,000 mph
      Faster than light!


      What universe do you live in?
      Light speed is approximately 186 000 miles per second, or 669,600,000 miles per hour.

    11. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      Accelerating this way, Howe's vessel could reach a speed of 260,000 mph Faster than light!

      Probably redundant by now, but no. Go back to your physical science teacher or first grade teacher as it seems maybe you are confusing hours and seconds (there's a difference, trust me)

    12. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Accelerating this way, Howe's vessel could reach a speed of 260,000 mph Faster than light!

      As many people pointed out, that's not faster than light. But it IS faster than several /. readers correcting you (which is VERY fast.) :)

      Yes, I know this has been pointed out. MOD ME DOWN! I guess I'm with the department of redundancy department. :)

    13. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by bazmonkey · · Score: 1

      The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters/ second...

      So 260,000 mph is "only" 116,230.5 meters/second. Less than half the speed of light.

      ...Less than half!? Try less than a few ten thousandths.

      There's nothing funnier than an incorrect answer in response to another incorrect answer.

    14. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by gnuadam · · Score: 1

      The correct statement is that matter cannot acheive speed beyond c. You can still accelerate, it's just that the change in momentum results in changes in the particle's mass.

      --
      You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
    15. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by diorio · · Score: 1

      actually I believe it is 669,600,000 MPH

      --
      Ignored Since 1973
    16. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To the editors: I was thinking about modding this post, but I realized there's really no way to do so. Redundant? Troll?
      Overrated?
    17. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      No matter? Tachyons? (yes, I know they're theoretical, but how the hell would you detect them?)

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    18. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by gnuadam · · Score: 1

      AFIK particles without mass move at c. As for tachyons, I'm a chemist, not a physicist. I'm not familiar with any of the theories to know much about them. I'll refer you to what I found when googling, here.

      --
      You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
    19. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Apaturia · · Score: 1

      (start anal-retentive nitpicking here)
      I thought it was 186,284 miles per second ;)
      I suppose I could be wrong.. heh


      If you want to be anal-retentive, do it the right way. It's exactly 299,792,158 meters per second. :)

    20. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by kwan3217 · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see here...

      116230.5/299792458
      =3.877e-4
      <0.5

      Well whaddaya know? It is less than half!

      --
      Lots of technical and environmental problems are solved by the application of vast amounts of nuclear power
    21. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      "If you want to be anal-retentive, do it the right way. It's exactly 299,792,158 meters per second. :)"

      Hmm... Exactly? No decimal? :P

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    22. Re:It truly is sci-fi stuff.. by Olivier+Galibert · · Score: 1

      Yes, no decimal. That's how the meter is defined, using the second as a reference.

      OG.

  16. Space.com math by Rupert · · Score: 5, Interesting
    About 40 times about 5 equals about 250.

    Would it kill them to be a little more precise on:
    • the distance from the Sun to the Oort cloud (about 250AU)
    • the distance from the Sun to Pluto (about 40AU)
    • the ratio of those two distances (apparently about 5)
    ?
    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
    1. Re:Space.com math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, it depends on what part of Pluto's year you are measuring from and which portion of the Oort cloud you are measuring to.

    2. Re:Space.com math by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      At least it's not Slashdot math...

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    3. Re:Space.com math by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      "Would it kill them to be a little more precise"

      You're looking at average distances between objects moving faster than you (or I) can imagine, being pushed/pulled by 4 different forces eminating from an unimaginable number of masses.

      In other words, give them a break.

      (For those wondering - and this is off the top of my head... Nuclear strong, Nuclear weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational)

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    4. Re:Space.com math by JonnyElvis42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      About 40 times about 5 equals about 250.

      It comes out a little closer for extremely large values of 5.

    5. Re:Space.com math by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      You're looking at average distances between objects moving faster than you (or I) can imagine, being pushed/pulled by 4 different forces eminating from an unimaginable number of masses.

      Gravity is pretty much the only one you have to consider, and really only the gravity from the mass of the Sun is needed to figure the orbits of Pluto or the Oort cloud objects to a fuckload better precision than Space.com provided.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    6. Re:Space.com math by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      Fine. Eliptical, sometimes eratic orbits, spacial anomalies, momentum, velocity, and gravitational pull from the outter planets (which do, in fact, affect many things).

      You can simplify the equation and get high precision, but your accuracy will be horrible, and someone will complain about it. Space.com is taking the conservative approah here, and I don't blame them.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    7. Re:Space.com math by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      You can simplify the equation and get high precision, but your accuracy will be horrible, and someone will complain about it.

      By "a fuckload better than Space.com" I could simply mean three significant figures. But of course someone would complain - this is Slashdot!

      Space.com is taking the conservative approah here, and I don't blame them.

      Yes, but if they're going to be imprecise, they could at least fudge the numbers to where their multiplication works. If they had said the distance to the Oort cloud was 240AU, about 6 times further than the 40AU to Pluto, they would have been close enough on all counts, and wouldn't have looked like they failed third grade arithmetic.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    8. Re:Space.com math by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      "Yes, but if they're going to be imprecise, they could at least fudge the numbers to where their multiplication works."

      They were accurate, but imprecise, and one person complained. Now you're asking them to be inaccurate and imprecise, just to make the math look better. Do you work for a news agency or something? ;)

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    9. Re:Space.com math by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

      Fantastic! I love it.
      <br>
      <br>
      Thanks for the chuckle. :)

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    10. Re:Space.com math by merlin_jim · · Score: 2

      About 40 times about 5 equals about 250.

      It comes out a little closer for extremely large values of 5.


      Or extremely small values of 250.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  17. Mod me down! by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    Hehe, thats a mistake. Ignore it

    1. Re:Mod me down! by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2

      It's amazing how many people felt the need to correct you after you admitted it was a mistake - before they even started.

      There are 8 replies right now telling you how fast light really is. I think you should reply to them all personally, just to thank them. They certainly deserve it.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    2. Re:Mod me down! by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Apparently, one moderator must have thought you were joking, and so did I, until I saw this post. It did sound as though you were being sarcastic, poking fun (and rightfully so) at this slow, not-even-close-to-relativistic speed.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  18. No... No... No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    42!!!

    That is all.

    1. Re:No... No... No... by SunPin · · Score: 1
      The mod squad has shown their cultural ignorance by giving this guy a zero for his hilarious and appropriate statement of simply "42!!"

      Go educate yourselves and read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.

      As far as the article is concerned, it is poorly written. The author turned a decent speculative subject into a stupid fest.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    2. Re:No... No... No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um ACs post at zero by default. See. Look at my post. Zero. Uh no wait, now its -1. Damn mods.

  19. won't work by tps12 · · Score: 0

    While it generates headlines (especially on Slashdot!) to talk about an "antimatter" drive, anyone who's been through a high school physics course can see the problem with a drive that works like this, and identify the whole concept as utter nonsense.

    We all know how rockets work: propellant is shot out the back of the rocket engine, and as it pushes off surrounding matter, the reactive force propels the vehicle forward according to Newton's third law. However, in the case of antimatter propellant, instead of a reactive force, the propellant will just annhilate the surrounding matter, and nothing will happen to the vehicle. In fact, an antimatter rocket would only work in an antimatter universe, and in that case it would be no more powerful or efficient than our current rockets.

    I can't believe that people are being pulled into this one. Just remember that you can't judge the validity of these kinds of things based on the presence of buzzwords like "antimatter." Remember what you learned in school, be skeptical, and you won't get duped.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read somewhere (in a real science book, not Star Trek) that there is a way to redirect the Pi Mesons that are emitted from an matter/antimatter reaction, and that would be used to channel the reaction into thrust.

    2. Re:won't work by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      Warp Drive works by pushing space against itself through the use of warp fields, has nothing to do with matter.

      Didn't you take warp field theory 1000 at Starfleet Academy?

    3. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesnt annhilation generate Pions or something like that? Wouldn't the Pions press against the solar sail in the same way that solar wind would?

    4. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it? Really?

    5. Re:won't work by Dasein · · Score: 1

      Uh. I learned in high school physics that rockets work through that whole equal and oposite reaction thing not by pushing off something. That's why they work in space where there's nothing to push off of.

      The big problem is that I can't figure out if you're joking or not.

      --
      You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
    6. Re:won't work by Flamerule · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'll be charitable and assume you're just ignorant, and not a troll.
      We all know how rockets work: propellant is shot out the back of the rocket engine, and as it pushes off surrounding matter, the reactive force propels the vehicle forward according to Newton's third law.
      LOL. "pushes off surrounding matter"? There's no matter in space to push off of... Rockets work in space because of conservation of momentum.

      Example: a dude sitting on a sled on a frozen pond, with a sackful of bricks. When he throws a brick off the sled in one direction, the sled moves in the other direction. Because there is very little friction between the sled and the ice, the sled keeps moving. Throw more bricks, and the sled will go faster.

      To make everything clear: the sled is like a rocket, the bricks are like fuel, and space has even less friction than a frozen pond. Because the total momentum of the system must be conserved, as fuel is burned and exhaust is generated, the rocket moves forward.

    7. Re:won't work by Frank+Grimes · · Score: 2, Interesting
      However, in the case of antimatter propellant, instead of a reactive force, the propellant will just annhilate the surrounding matter, and nothing will happen to the vehicle.

      No.

      The protons and antiprotons would react, producing two photons. Figure out how to reflect the gamma rays in one direction, and the ship will be accelerated in the other direction. Light has momentum (E=pc).

      This is why they are using a sail on this design. Spread the reaction out over a large surface and the the radiation intensity won't be as bad.

      --
      CfkRAp1041vYQVbFY1aIwA== RV/hBCLKKcSTP5UFK3kqsg==
    8. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad I did not go to your school... Just kidding, that method works for birds and fish but not rockets.

      http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blr oc ketpriciples.htm

    9. Re:won't work by f97tosc · · Score: 2

      We all know how rockets work: propellant is shot out the back of the rocket engine, and as it pushes off surrounding matter, the reactive force propels the vehicle forward according to Newton's third law. However, in the case of antimatter propellant, instead of a reactive force, the propellant will just annhilate the surrounding matter, and nothing will happen to the vehicle. In fact, an antimatter rocket would only work in an antimatter universe, and in that case it would be no more powerful or efficient than our current rockets.

      While I have not read the details of this idea, it is not theoretically impossible with an antimatter drive.

      There is no higher law of nature that says that antimatter must be anihilated in our world - it is just the likely outcome if it comes within the proximity of normal matter. It the antimatter is handled with enough sophistication (for example, kept at bay by EM forces) it could be eventually be thrown out of the spacecraft (thus propelling it by Newton's 3rd).

      Even if the antimatter was anihiilated the resulting energy could be harnessed to throw away something else (for example ions in an ion propulsion system).

      Tor

    10. Re:won't work by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 5, Funny

      Example: a dude sitting on a sled on a frozen pond, with a sackful of bricks. When he throws a brick off the sled

      Te ice breaks and he sinks....thus, never posting about his high school physics class again.

    11. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When matter and anti-matter react, they release a whole bunch of Gamma radiation. Said radiation can be used to propel a spacecraft rather easily, but it will take quite a bit of accelleration time. I personaly prefer Charles Pellegrino's design to this one. For more info, but the book Flying to Valhalla.

    12. Re:won't work by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2
      However, in the case of antimatter propellant, instead of a reactive force, the propellant will just annhilate the surrounding matter, and nothing will happen to the vehicle. In fact, an antimatter rocket would only work in an antimatter universe, and in that case it would be no more powerful or efficient than our current rockets.

      Reading the article might be helpful. The concept doesn't use the reactive force of propellant leaving the vehicle. Instead, the vehicle is driven by lobbing antimatter toward a "sail" extended from the front of the vehicle. The sail is propelled by two forces: that from the reaction of the antimatter with the matter in the sail, and a secondary fission reaction with fissionable material impregnated into the sail. In effect, the sail just drags the rest of the vehicle along with it.

      However, one thing I would be concerned about is the fact the space is not really a perfect vacuum. There *is* matter out there. What happens when the antimatter stream encounters other matter in space? I presume the rest of the vehicle would have to be built to withstand a nearby "misfire" in that case.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    13. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first thought but if you read closer neither force one or two refer to the momentum of the particals. The momentum of the particals ejected from the craft and striking the sail are negligible in the equations.

    14. Re:won't work by grytpype · · Score: 2

      >as it pushes off surrounding matter

      My high school physics teacher actually thought rockets worked that way. She couldn't figure out how they can work in space where there's nothing to push off of.

      We had a good football team, though.

      --

      - Have a picture

    15. Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I be charitable and assume you're just ingorant and not an asshole. "surrounding matter" is a bit ambiguous, and you just might have misread the post. Let us not forget that a rocket is, indeed, matter. Example: two dudes sit on two sleds on a frozen pond. One is an asshole and pushes the other guy's sled. The both move in opposite directions and sink in the thin ice.

  20. Re:closest star by Bill+Currie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, it's Alpha Centauri at about 4.2 light years.

    --

    Bill - aka taniwha
    --
    Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

  21. If light were 186,000 miles per HOUR, maybe by Chairboy · · Score: 2

    The poster is a little confused about the speed of light. 186,000 miles per SECOND is the correct figure, 3600 times faster then the 186,000 miles per HOUR that the poster assumes is light speed.

    Again, please note, the max speed was 260,000 mph, an acronym for miles per HOUR.

  22. With all due respect, you appear to be a fag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You only said that 'cause you're fag. 'Course it's possible. They just gotta put it in the 'fridge. You can also contain antimatter in aluminum foil or Saran Wrap for several weeks in any common lunchbox. All of these technologies have been tested extensively at the Anti-Gravity Institute in Moscow and proven to be absolutely, irreproducibly viable, beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Please, Dr. Hairsten -- if that is your real name -- don't try to discuss matters beyond your (obviously limited) competence. My extensive experience as a J2EE Web Solutions Development Engineer (specializing in multi-tiered, enterprise-grade Juro-Triassic monoliths and epicratonic stromatolites on WANs and intranational multinets) uniquely qualifies me to evaluate such schemes; your tin badge from a Cracker Jack box qualifies you only to drink Ripple wine in the park.

  23. Sure it will! by neurostar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    in the case of antimatter propellant, instead of a reactive force, the propellant will just annhilate the surrounding matter

    While this reasoning is completely valid. They are not proposing simply injecting antimatter into a combustion chamber. The point is that they will use antimatter in combination with matter (similar to the way they use both oxygen and nitrogen in today's spacecraft). That way the inject matter and the inject antimatter ahihilate each other, causing a large release of energy which propels the spacecraft forward.

    neurostar
  24. The White House Halloween Drag Ball #@ +1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Fund-Raising Event was great!

    You can read about it here

    Be Patriotic: Smoke Amerikan Grown Marijuana!

  25. Maybe I'm way off but... by sharkey · · Score: 2

    Doesn't the Enterprise use Dilithium crystals for it's warp drive, not anti-matter?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2

      the dilithium crystals stabalize the warp matrix, the whole rig is powered by a reaction of deuterium and antideuterium that takes place in the warp core and that power is then sent to the warp coils through the em relays, thats at least close to how it 'works', someone wanna tell me if thas SB or not, man, i'm a nerd

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    2. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna sound a freakin' huge geek for responding to this, but the dilithium crystals are just a regulating medium for the antimatter/matter reactions. They control how much antimatter and matter the reactions use to achieve different warp speeds. I believe they said something like warp 1 is a 1:1 ratio of antimatter to matter.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      There's some BS about an anti-matter containment field around the warp reactor (containing dilithium crystals) there are also magnetic contsrictors as well.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    4. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was my understanding that dilithium crystals guided the antimatter flow for usage as an energy source. It's nice to see that the trekkie writers may have something going with that as that cures the storage problem.

    5. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      I believe the dilithium crystals are used for controlling the matter/antimatter reaction somehow, since they don't react to antimatter (something like that, but doesn't make much sense because I don't think anything can be "anti-matter agnostic", and Star Trek doesn't have much to do with the Real World anyway, heh).

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    6. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      hmm... I think a 1:1 matter/antimatter ratio would destroy the ship (or at least burn out the warp core). With a 1:1 ratio, you'd get the most energy possible from such a reaction. With a 2:1 ratio, for example, all the antimatter would react and form energy, and 1/2 the regular matter would be left over... but maybe i'm wrong...

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    7. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by Ill_Omen · · Score: 1

      You obviously missed the 'Wesley Crusher applies to Starfleet Academy' ST:TNG episode, where we learn that the only useful matter/antimatter ratio is 1:1. Don't feel bad, none of the other applicants got it right either.

    8. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... by Ramjet350 · · Score: 1

      They use Dilithium to focus the antimatter stream - that's how they can go so fast!

  26. "Big Bang" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems odd to me that the BBC story mentions the "Big Bang" as though it were fact, then says that it shouldn't work like that.

    equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been created in the Big Bang at the beginning of time - and then annihilated each other in a flash of energy.

    Looks to me like that's saying it can't be true since there would be no matter left. I'm not trying to start a creationism v. big bang argument here, I just think it's strange that a reputible source like the BBC would state a theory as if it were fact.

    1. Re:"Big Bang" by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      You are correct, assuming even distribution. However we all know that whatever hits the fan is never evenely distributed...
      So we can wind up with matter and anti-matter at the same time, just different places.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:"Big Bang" by RatBastard · · Score: 2
      Equal amounts should have been created, not were created. Our current undrstanding says that there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created, yet, the evidence says that is not true as there is a hell of a lot of matter and very little antimatter.

      That observation is causing quite a bit of consternation in the world of physics. There are some interesting theories about this, but no one is really sure just yet.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  27. Re:closest star by scotch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, you're both wrong. The closest star is the Sun. But that's just me being pedantic.

    --
    XML causes global warming.
  28. Bonus! by paulfwilliams · · Score: 2, Funny

    One side-effect of anti-matter drives is making self-destruct much, much easier.

  29. Social justice would reduce the cost considerably. by theonomist · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a just society, where the wants of the underprivileged are not left unattended-to, in a truly accepting and broad-minded multicultural community where spiritual values and emotional resonance are cherished and rewarded, it's clear that the hierarchically-constrained "male physics" which enforces today's high antimatter prices would cease to obtain.

    I invite you all to contemplate the joys and rewards of a non-judgemental, people-centered physics, which takes emotional and spiritual considerations are factored into every equation. With such a "physics of the heart" taught as a scientifically acceptable and morally rewarding alternate truth -- for there are always many mutually exclusive and identically valid truths, especially in matters of radiation -- adequate supplies of antimatter would be within the reach of all! Imagine every child having enough antimatter to dream and to grow, to achieve his or her full creative potential as an individual, regardless of his or her astrological sign!

    Is it truly so radical, to contemplate making science the servant of humanistic values, rather than their enemy? Is it really necessary for antimatter, like the so-called "Western literary canon", to be the exclusive province of dead white males? I think not.

    --
    "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
  30. This is for REAL! by NutMan · · Score: 4, Funny
    Just a coincidence I am sure, but over on anti-slashdot.org they have an article about some guy who actually built one of these babies...

    It topped out at 3,492,901 MPH, and then the impact of space dust turned their little umbrella thingy inside out. Now they're trying to figure out how to stop the damn thing, by firing a cold fusion cannon out the front...

    1. Re:This is for REAL! by Chiggy_Von_Richtoffe · · Score: 1

      Link Please

      ~To-FU? no thanks.

    2. Re:This is for REAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't visit that link! If you try to /. anti-/. we'll both be annihilated!!! :)

  31. Re:closest star by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 1

    Actually, Alpha Centauri is a star system, not a star. The closest star (other than the Sun of course) is Alpha Centauri C (aka Proxima Centauri). But then again, maybe NASA just doesn't know what they're talking about...

    --
    Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
  32. Production?? by olethrosdc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any physicists out there? Why is antimatter so hard to produce? What I know about the matter is limited to the following - (please correct me if you have the appropriate knowledge)

    1. The amount of antimatter currently visible in the known universe is negligible compared to the amount of matter.

    2. However, in the big bang, antimatter and matter are supposed to have been created in equal amounts. So where did antimatter go?

    3. QED equations for antiparticles are exactly the same as those for normal ones if you reverse the direction of time.

    The only conclusion that *I* can draw from this is that there is no antimatter left nowadays because it is travelling in the opposite direction in time, whatever that means.

    That in turn gives a simplistic explanation of why it is hard to create antimatter - there is no causal relationship normally. According to my weird intuition, you can only create antimatter in a material universe by violating 'normal' causality.

    PS. I am *not* a physicist.

    --

    I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)

    1. Re:Production?? by olethrosdc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, I just thought that possibly you can't get a lot of output in a collider because antimatter tends to re-combine with matter and gets lost again. Hm.
      Silly me.

      --

      I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)

    2. Re:Production?? by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think I read that matter and antimatter, while being equal, are not. In our universe, it takes more animatter to destroy matter. See the other atricle titled "One of Many"

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:Production?? by chenzhen · · Score: 4, Informative

      My focus isn't particle physics, but maybe I can offer a correction for your approach. In #2 you presuppose that antimatter and matter are produced in equal amounts; actually, nature seems to favor production of matter over the anti counterpart. Look up CP violation for more on this. So at the Big Bang, all the antimatter annihilated with much of the matter, but since there was an imbalance in the initial production, there was still some matter left over. This is the stuff you and I are made of.

      As far as difficulty in production, it happens that most of the particle-pair interactions that decay into antimatter particles only occur at very high energies compared to what our accelerators can achieve, and even then at low probabilities. Then there is the matter of containment. Current methods involve redirection with magnetic fields or trapping with lasers, both of which are extremely difficult and therefore expensive.

      As usual, the big problem with this bit of physics is the funding. Going out on a limb, particularly in longterm scientifics, is not promoted as a safe or particularly clever business strategy. This leads to what is not exactly the most logical method of pursuing progress, but I digress in my bias.

    4. Re:Production?? by olethrosdc · · Score: 1

      "it happens that most of the particle-pair interactions that decay into antimatter particles only occur at very high energies compared to what our accelerators can achieve, and even then at low probabilities."

      So, there are some particular, well-defined interactions that can decay into antimatter particles? Is there a specific mechanism related to this, also explaining the low probability? (Some reference on arxiv.org would be helpful, if you have any).

      --

      I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)

    5. Re:Production?? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1


      Because people are going about it the wrong way. You don't have some bit of matter that collides into anti-matter, and anihilate each other. Don't you think its strange they have some properties that are the exact opposite, but others are the same ?

      What happens is a bit matter travels along, then explodes in a cloud of energy, throwing the matter backwards in time (and appearing to us to be anti-matter). It would, to us, appear to have opposite attributes since it is actually going backwards in time.

    6. Re:Production?? by chenzhen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Absolutely. Interactions and decays are governed by probabilities, where the only constraints on the results are conservation laws such as charge and angular momentum. I can't support anything on just how probable any decay is, so consider that an extrapolation, but I can give an example of a specific decay. The W boson decays into (or is produced by collision of) an antilepton and a neutrino, or an antineutrino and a lepton (total net charge must be plus or minus 1). I checked lanl for something moderately understandable and didn't find much ("Schwinger-Dyson Analysis of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking on a Brane with Bulk Yang-Mills Theory", "Charmless Exclusive Baryonic B Decays"); however, this is more common and semi-popularized physics so you might try just general googling for particle decay and collision production charts.

    7. Re:Production?? by Linknoid · · Score: 1
      I'm not really a physicist, but I was a physics major in college and read a lot of books on the subject, hopefully my memory isn't too rusty. You seem to be asking two different questions. The first one: why is there more matter in the known universe than antimatter? As physics is currently understood, it is because during the big bang, matter was created in equal quantities as antimatter...almost. Symmetry between matter and antimatter is only true under 3 conditions: time, "handedness" (or spacial orientation, I don't recall the proper term for it), and whether it's matter or antimatter. The primary place where this asymetry can be observed today is in beta decay. Anyway, supposedly there was a slightly larger amount of matter than antimatter created, on the order of 1/1,000,000th more. Then supposedly all the antimatter and matter annihilated with each other, leaving the microwave background radiation, which has been cooling ever since as the universe continues to expand (via the Doppler effect). During beta decay, a neutron is converted into a proton when an neutrino travels back in time (making it an anti-neutrino from our perspective), interacts with the quarks inside the neutron via the weak force, and gets converted into an electron, which now travels forward in time. This makes it look like the neutron emitted both an anti-neutrino and an electron (preserving the lepton number in the process).

      As far as anti-matter being hard to produce: it's not currently any harder to produce than normal matter. :-) But you don't see too many people producing normal matter in quantities either. e=mc^2 means that since c^2 is so big (~90000000000000000 m^2/s^2), it takes a lot of energy to produce a small amount of matter (or anti-matter). During fusion, for so much energy being given off, only about 2% of the matter is converted in the process. So basically producing antimatter in quantity would take massive amounts of energy (particle accelerators), and then managing to seperate the resulting matter from the resulting antimatter before they reconnect and turn back into energy. So you need two things: the ability to concentrate a large amount of energy into a small area, and the ability to capture the product before it destroys itself. A very, very challenging combination, especially to do on a large scale.

    8. Re:Production?? by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Why is antimatter so hard to produce?

      E = mc^2

      It takes a LOT of energy to create matter or antimatter. With matter you can cheat and just use the existing stuff.

      (BTW, I think both 2 and 3 are questionable, but no doubt one of these extremely wordy people have shredded them apart already.)

  33. Alright, geekdom time! by Flamerule · · Score: 2
    No. This site has some relevant technobabble.

    Basically, warp drives are run off antimatter -- but dilithium is the only known substance that doesn't react to antimatter, when subjected to an EM field. So the dilithium just processes the antimatter.

  34. Come in, Capt'n Kirk, please respond ... by mustangdavis · · Score: 2
    It isn't true Star Trek warp stuff


    (in voice that gets more and more mouse like as we keep speeding up towards the speed of light)

    Capt'n Kirk, she's flying appart ... I do'not know how much longer I can hold her together ... She's com'in appart ...

    -- Scotty

    That is what we'd be saying once this thing was traveling faster than the speed of light!

    C'mon people, some simple physics here!! We can not travel that fast! Also, consider that with the nuclear blasts they are talking about, which would blow the sail right off of our little space craft!

    Damn kids and their buzz words!

    1. Re:Come in, Capt'n Kirk, please respond ... by Milk+and+Cookies · · Score: 1, Informative
      That is what we'd be saying once this thing was traveling faster than the speed of light!
      You must have missed it, but the article said 260,000 miles/hour or 116 kilometers per second--slightly greater than one third the speed of light.
    2. Re:Come in, Capt'n Kirk, please respond ... by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      Um, isn't the speed of light about 186282 miles/second? In which case, 260000 miles per hour is nowhere near a third the speed of light
      3*260000 mi/hr = 780000 mi/hr
      780000 mi/hr = 13000 mi/min
      13000 mi/min = 216.67 mi/sec (a lot less than 186282)

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  35. Parent: +1 Insightful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is that the "Doctor" above is a medical doctor rather than somebody with an education. He displays absolutely typical symptoms: Vast arrogance combined with a total inability to grasp anything outside his own specialty.

    All that, plus the insistence on telling everybody he's a "doctor". Well, I guess if you can't earn respect, you have to go around shoving your credentials in people's faces... Whatever.

    1. Re:Parent: +1 Insightful. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      :)

      Out of curiousity, I checked the link in his .sig -- apparently he's the superintendant of a community college. Which is a perfectly respectable thing to be, but I suspect that he's a marginal Ph.D. in a non-technical field who has a bug up his ass about not having climbed further up the academic ladder.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Parent: +1 Insightful. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2
      And who the hell are you??? The guy posts one post, mildy funny, but obviously a joke. You use your elite point and click skills to do some sleuthing, and then deliver judgment. Why would you turn this into something personal ?? I've visited your site, I have my own opinions about what I think you might be. And I didn't see a PhD in your C.V.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  36. The ultimate plan to gain on antimatter by 21mhz · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Accumulate a large amount of antimatter in some place
    2. ...
    3. Profit!
    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    1. Re:The ultimate plan to gain on antimatter by Cyno01 · · Score: 2

      actually i think accumulating a large amount of antimater would result in step 2, BOOM

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    2. Re:The ultimate plan to gain on antimatter by hangingonwords · · Score: 1

      1. Accumulate a large amount of antimatter in some place
      2. Microsoft...
      3. Profit!

      --
      fact: microsoft > linux
  37. Who cares about an antimatter drive.... by kinshadow · · Score: 1, Funny

    I want my infinite improbability drive! Come on Zaphod, hook us up!

    --
    Sigpilot : I'm in the pipe, 5 by 5.
    1. Re:Who cares about an antimatter drive.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This poster is right, man. Why settle for fractions of c when you can just quantum tunnel to wherever the hell you want to go!

  38. Ultra-sexy fantasy technology vs. close to real by 0x69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last time i checked, it took megawatt-hours of electricity and an expensive atom-smasher to make one microwatt-hour worth of antimatter. Without a fantastic advance in antimatter production technology, talking about *any* use for non-microscopic quantities of antimatter is just blowin' smoke.

    It would be workable to pump the megawatts into a bank of lasers and let the lasers push on the probe's small light sail. (And you could tap the military budget for a good hunk of the cost of those space-based laser batteries.)

    --
    It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
  39. Wait a minute ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There's a lot of technology between here and there

    So you're basically saying that your invention won't work until someone invents a way to make it work? Call me crazy, but I don't think it's much of an invention if you need someone to fix the technology gap for you...

  40. Storage tank is easy by avoisin · · Score: 1, Troll

    Clearly, to store anti-hydrogen, anti-protons and other anti-matter, you need an anti-storage tank. Since that sounds more like the vacuum of space than anything else I can think of, I think we're all set.

    1. Re:Storage tank is easy by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Animatter containment fields exist today. They are electro-magnetic bubbles. Nothing fancy. You keep the animatter in the middle of a vacuume magnetically to keep it from reacting with matter.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:Storage tank is easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wat about Quantum Mechanical effects like virtual particles popping into and out of existance? Surely this could cause some nasty problems?

      PS: I assume virtual particles are the matter style and not anti-matter ones...???

  41. Re:closest star by Bill+Currie · · Score: 2

    That's only currently. Give it time and C will be further than A and B and then the debate will really heat up (A no B no... hang on, what year is it?:)

    Actually, that's one thing I've been wondering for a long time: what are the orbital periods for the Alpha Centauri system?

    --

    Bill - aka taniwha
    --
    Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

  42. Political difficulties by f97tosc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are already numerous propulsion ideas that are not only feasible but much better than anything that is used today.

    The issue is that anything inolving nuclear power is a political impossibility, at least for another generation. Antimatter drives have exactly the same issues (hum... or maybe this is not widely understood... 'antimatter' sounds much better than 'nuclear'...)

    Tor

    1. Re:Political difficulties by rweir · · Score: 2

      Firstly, you are aware of the difference between nuclear rockets and anti-matter propulsion, right? Nuclear rockets are basically nuclear reactors with their outputs attached to rocket engines instead of turbines.

      Anti-matter drives are not going to be used inside the atmosphere. Using any sort of nuclear rocket inside the atmosphere is retarded. How safe do you want it to be? What are the consequences of a rocket full of uranium exploding over a populated area? Anyhow, chemical boosters work fine (and could work even better if people put their mind to it) for getting stuff into orbit. Getting stuff into orbit is a political problem these days, not so much a technical one.

      Moving things around in inter-planetary space is another story. There's all sorts of cool methods: ion rockets, nuclear rockets and laser/solar sails.

      Anti-matter propulsion canes all of these tho for energy density; you're getting down into the guts of physics here. No more `let's make this hydrogen and oxygen go boom!' engines, nor `let's use this decaying uranium to heat up some water! w00t!' engines, you're getting matter to convert directly and completely into energy.

      So, yeah, no one's going to use nuclear rockets, nor anti-matter rockets inside the atmosphere. Long term, anti-matter looks to be the way to go; it's got the energy density we need and it ain't going to be expensive forever.

  43. antimatter HARDdrive.. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    .. gee.. i started to go all WTF after seeing the title. and then the word storage..

    i guess one shouldn't be staying up too long after donating blood.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  44. Sorry for yet another Star Trek reference, but... by arkain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...it would seem to me that they have the right idea. They used a crystal of sorts(dilithium) to regulate the matter/antimatter reaction. Here's the reality check:

    Since matter/antimatter reactions cause 2 gamma-frequency photons to be thrown off at right predictable angles to the impact vectors of the original matter and antimatter particles, an engine could be designed that ensured that one of the 2 photons always exited from the engine exhaust port to propel the ship. What of the other one? Position a crystal in the appropriate location to catch the second photon. Depending on the structure of the crystal, the result would either be mechanical (heat or vibration) or electrical energy which could be converted and/or stored as needed.

  45. Re:closest star by JonnyElvis42 · · Score: 1

    The closest star is the Sun.

    Sol! It's name is Sol! It didn't spend 6 years in... ahh, never mind.

  46. What about teleportation and quantum entagglement? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
    What about teleportation? The technology is fairly new.

    I remember reading about it several times here on slashdot and it sounds very star trekish. Could someone with a physics background tell me if its possible to have one anti-proton and a regular proton that can change to an anti-proton through quantum entagglement?



    Perhaps we could replicate anti-protons and anti-electrons using this technology on standard particles.



    I believe this was already demonstrated in 2000.

  47. Nice article, but not gonna happen... by airrage · · Score: 1

    Talking about antimatter sails when we don't even have a permanent base on the Moon (haven't been there in 30 years) or Mars is like my Labrador talking about the day he becomes President. Somethings got to evolve. You know the old addage, no bucks no Buck Rogers.

    --
    "This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
    1. Re:Nice article, but not gonna happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the current president, your labrador doesn't have too far to go.

    2. Re:Nice article, but not gonna happen... by FarmerBob · · Score: 1

      The two are completely unrelated. There's a lot more interest in antimatter propulsion then there is in moon bases, so its advancement has gone much further than that permanent moon bases. Consider what we would do with a permanent moon base compared to what we would do with an antimatter rocket capable of traveling to other star systems within our lifetime.

    3. Re:Nice article, but not gonna happen... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1
      Consider what we would do with a permanent moon base compared to what we would do with an antimatter rocket capable of traveling to other star systems within our lifetime.

      I'm considering it. The same people who oppose spending money on going to the moon or mars, will also be against going to Alpha Centauri, regardless of how cool the idea is to geeks and scientists. Think about how cool it would be to send an unmanned probe or manned mission to explore some of Jupiters moons like Io and Europa with more than just flyby photos, but people don't want to spend that kind of money on space exploration.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:Nice article, but not gonna happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a talking labrador? Cool!

  48. how do you stop the damn thing... by ianjk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    wouldn't it take just as much force to bring one of these babies to a stop? At the type of speeds they are talking about, wouldn't deceleration be a couple of month process?

    1. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by gelfling · · Score: 2

      Yeah don't you need the square of the kinetic energy of a moving body to change its inertia?

    2. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by xagon7 · · Score: 1

      Gravational forces and atmospheric braking could also serve to break.

    3. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Yes. However given that most of your destinations are probably suns or black holes, you could just aero-brake on them.

    4. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by rweir · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the idea is this: for short journeys, you accelerate until you're half way there, then you turn the ship around and decelerate. This has the added advantage of providing you with some sort of gravity (how much depends on your acceleration) for the duration of trip (aside from when you're flipping over). For longer trips, you'll accelerate until you're cruising along nicely, then turn the engines off. You'll have to flip over and decelerate for the same amount of time you spent accelerating tho...

      You very quickly pile up speed too. If you accelerate at 1g for a year, you get rather close to c. If you ever want to return home tho, you'll have to be careful: at 0.99999999996c, you can cross the galaxy in 12 years of your own time, but 113 000 years will pass for us back here.

    5. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative
      Don't bother decelerating. You want to stop a probe? Put a planet in the way. Just make sure you gather (and transmit) lots of data--really fast--on the way down. Or do a flyby. Or aim really carefully and put yourself into an orbit about some object of interest.

      Some of the Russian Venera and Luna probes took the first approach--deliberately crashing into Venus or the Moon, respectively. NASA's Voyager craft did a tremendous amount of good science with just flybys. Galileo (the spacecraft, not the Italian scientist) dropped a probe into Jupiter's atmosphere and then settled into two years of orbiting the planet.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    6. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by ryanvm · · Score: 2

      at 0.99999999996c, you can cross the galaxy in 12 years of your own time

      Umm - the Milky Way galaxy is 150,000 light years across. [Pause] Oh shit! You are from the Milky Way, right?

    7. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Now if we could just come up with a propulsion system that could propel a ship at 1g for a year :).

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    8. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by rweir · · Score: 2

      > > at 0.99999999996c, you can cross the galaxy in > > 12 years of your own time

      > Umm - the Milky Way galaxy is 150,000 light years > across. [Pause] Oh shit! You are from the Milky
      > Way, right?

      Uh, time dilation.

    9. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2
      Some of the Russian Venera and Luna probes took the first approach--deliberately crashing into Venus or the Moon, respectively.
      Yeah! And it's fucking annoying walking around in your garden when all of a sudden some mother fucking hoomaan researcher decides that YOUR garden is the perfect spot to CRASH their junk into!

      Lost me a perfectly good Rover that way, and they STILL haven't returned my calls on that one!
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    10. Re:how do you stop the damn thing... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      Don't bother decelerating. You want to stop a probe? Put a planet in the way. Just make sure you gather (and transmit) lots of data--really fast--on the way down. Or do a flyby. Or aim really carefully and put yourself into an orbit about some object of interest.

      Unfortunately, planets or even stars won't help you much if you're going for a capture orbit. As a useful interstellar probe's velocity would be much higher than either's escape velocity, even a star would only cause a shallow deflection even if you were grazing the surface on flyby.

      Flybys would still be neat, though. You'd have a few seconds to perform a close-up survey of an Earth-sized world, and not much more for a gas giant.

      For major course corrections, we'd just need a handy neutron star...

  49. You forgot your Monty Python... by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

    Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
    In all of the directions it can whiz;
    As fast as it can go, that's the speed of light you know,
    Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.


    Actually eleven million miles a minute is closer, but it wouldn't have fit the meter of the song as well.

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  50. No, not 2000 years by ucblockhead · · Score: 2
    About twenty years.


    (Given that the ship must not be reaching relativistic speeds for most of the journey if it is taking 10 years to go 4.7 light years.)

    --
    The cake is a pie
  51. Re:Sorry for yet another Star Trek reference, but. by Dunark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think there's any avoiding a mechanical effect, because momentum must be preserved. In fact, in your scheme it's the photon you catch that propels the ship. The one that goes out the "exhaust" carries away the useless wrong-way momentum. Now the problem is: What can absorb those photons without quickly becoming hot enough to vaporize?

  52. Still Not Fast enough by jhsewell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to the article, a vessel using this antimatter engine could reach a speed of 260,000 mph in four months. This converts to an acceleration of roughly 0.0112 meters per second^2.

    I think the goal should be for the interstellar starship to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second^2. This would allow to craft to simulate Earth's gravity for its occupants. Once the ship reached the halfway point, they could turn around and accelerated at 9.8 meters per second^2 in the other direction, thus coming to a complete stop upon reaching the destination.

    -Jason

    1. Re:Still Not Fast enough by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2

      Screw that, have the starship accelerate/decelerate at 2Gs for the trip. By the time the ship gets there, all the colonists will have evolved into immensely strong dwarves :)

  53. Dear God! by infinite9 · · Score: 2

    I hope slashdot.org isn't moving onto the same server as anti-slashdot.org! They'll annihilate each other!

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  54. Not enough data to make that assumption by SnoooBob2k · · Score: 2, Informative

    1. The problem is, there just simply isn't a large enough sample size at different frequencies of gamma radiation to make any sort of determination about the distribution of antimatter. The number of particles detected varies based on solar activity levels, etc...

    2. I believe the most popular theory now is that the distribution of antimatter galaxies is in other galactic clusters... therefore, we don't see much evidence in our immediate neighborhood.

    3. There are actually many different ways of decaying matter to produce antiparticles... the problem is most of these take place in the nucleus, where they are quickly annihilated, and most of these are at higher energies than is common today.

    --

    Romeo & Juliet for 1337 hax0rz! http://www.redcoat.net/pics/romjul.swf

  55. Master of Orion by haggar · · Score: 2

    In Master of Orion, the antimatter drive counted as a serious technological advantage. I could colonize stars that were 7 parsecs away ;o) Plus increased mobility in combat.

    I think better than that was singularity drive. Something with a black hole formed in the proximity of your spaceship (a la "Event Horizon").

    BTW, I'm talking about MOO 1. The first and still the best.

    --
    Sigged!
    1. Re:Master of Orion by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      1.retro
      2.nuclear
      3.ion
      4.fusion
      5.impulse
      6. ???
      7.anti-matter
      8.???
      9.Hyper Drives (best)

      Those are all the engines i remember

      The fuel cells are the ones that let you travel further. Thorium being the unlimited fuel. Black Hole generator was a special weapon for destroying a LOT of ships.

      MOO 1 is the best!

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    2. Re:Master of Orion by haggar · · Score: 2

      You are right. I wasn't remembering correctly. I did remember, though, that the Balck Hole Generator was a real killer. The Mauler Device was even better, but by the time you invented it (if you had time to invent it) the opponents were somewhat prepared for it.

      If not, you could at least go and bust the Guardian on Orion. The Mauler Device was about right for the task.

      --
      Sigged!
    3. Re:Master of Orion by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      By the time I invented the Mauler Device, I was usually pretty much on mop-up detail of the enemies. I picked up MOO 1 on CD 2 years ago at a super computer sale at the state fair grounds just for the hell of it. I played thru the whole game once at a LAN party recently after everyone went to sleep.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  56. Re:Social justice would reduce the cost considerab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you please explain to me what you mean by imagine every child having enough anti-matter to dream and grow. I think that giving antimatter to children (Or to anyone for that matter) would likely result in their death, that or they would keep it in a safe place in a container that they never touch.

  57. Re:closest star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sol! It's name is Sol! It didn't spend 6 years in... ahh, never mind.

    In sun... I mean... you mean in sol? You spend 6 years in su... so... ahh, never mind.

  58. LMAO by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

    I can't believe no one modded this +1, Funny. The poster is obviously joking. Has no one here ever read the old NY Times editorial which stated that space flight is impossible because there's "nothing to push against" and said that Robert Goddard "seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high school"?

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  59. And THIS is how they will test gravity! by cybercomm · · Score: 2

    I found ths in the previous article and I just couldn't go on without posting this...too darn funny:

    ....Upon reaching orbit mission commander Sergei Zalyotin, flight engineer Yuri Lonchakov and European Space Agency astronaut Frank DeWinne were thrown forward into their seat straps as their spacecraft separated from its booster.

    A toy mouse connected to the end of a string could be seen suddenly floating as Russia's traditional cockpit "gravity sensor" again worked well.

    With Zalyotin at the controls, the Soyuz-TMA spacecraft -- the capsule and rocket share a similar name.....


    So why not just use HAMTARO?...those crazy Russians.

    --
    Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
  60. A really big downside! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    I have some concerns about a matter-antimatter propulsion system.

    What happens if the matter/antimatter mix is not correct? Will we end up with something akin to that Martian from the Warner Brothers cartoons describes as a big ka-boom?

    Such an explosion could make the most powerful thermonuclear device tested on Earth seem like a minor incident in comparison.

    1. Re:A really big downside! by peter · · Score: 2

      > What happens if the matter/antimatter mix is not correct?

      Matter/antimatter mix? Watching to much Star Trek and not enough physics lectures? Whichever there was more of will have leftovers. Hopefully, this is the ship, and not the fuel :) You are correct that putting enough antimatter to do something useful is dangerous. It is even more dangerous when the ship's sail is made of U235, since then you have radioactive material to get scattered around. Given what they said about fission being important to making this work, they probably need a lot less antimatter than they would otherwise.

      The nature of an antimatter explosion would be different from a hydrogen or uranium/plutonium explosion. In a fusion or fission reaction, there are fast moving massive particles, including atomic nuclei and neutrons. In an antimatter annihilation, there is _no_ matter left over, only energy. You get two gamma rays for each annihilation event. (There are always two, not one, because the total momentum of the system is constant.) The gamma rays would heat up surrounding matter, but I'm not sure it would make any of it radioactive (it would have to knock particles out of atomic nuclei to do that). The penetration depth of gamma rays in air is around 400m. This means that the energy of the reaction is distributed over a very large area, unlike in a fusion or fission reaction. This large distribution of enegy would not make for explosive expansion unless there was a very large amount of energy released. You might end up with some plasma close the the explosion. Of course, ionizing radiation is bad for living creatures, so anyone too close to the reaction could end up dead or with radiation poisoning. There wouldn't be any lingering radiation, though, because all the antimatter would react right away and produce only photons.

      If the same thing happened near something that absorbed gamma rays pretty well, like the ground, or a building, that matter would be heated very hot in a much smaller area. It would expand explosively. Of course, there wouldn't be fallout. There would be lots of dust thrown into the air, which could create a nuclear winter effect, setting back global warming by several decades :)

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  61. Just change the problem. by TechnoInfidel · · Score: 2, Funny
    Let's face it: anti-matter is anti-matter simply by definition. Let's call the normal stuff we have all around us anti-matter, and the fuel production problem will be solved. Then, all we need to do is create a ship out of matter which won't annihilate...

    Oh. Never mind.

  62. Tea? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    You are definitely thinking of coffee.

    "A mathematician is a machine that turns coffee into theorems." --Paul Erdos

    (of course, he also said "Computer scientists turn coffee into urine.")

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    1. Re:Tea? by Kaemaril+The+Magus · · Score: 1

      Nope, tea. Infinity Improbability Drive reference :)

      --
      "I think there is a world market for about five computers" - Thomas John Watson (President of IBM), 1943
    2. Re:Tea? by Kaemaril+The+Magus · · Score: 1

      Or Infinite, even. Chances of typo on slashdot: nowhere near 145,987,638,231,943 to 1 :(

      --
      "I think there is a world market for about five computers" - Thomas John Watson (President of IBM), 1943
    3. Re:Tea? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      We have normality, I repeat we have normality. Anything you can not handle from this point on is your own problem.

      --
      Why not fork?
    4. Re:Tea? by Kong+the+Medium · · Score: 1

      Why is there a Penguin under my table?

      --
      ... whenever a text is transmitted, variation occurs. This is because human beings are careless, fallible, and occasiona
  63. Re:Social justice would reduce the cost considerab by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

    In my english class the teacher once picked on a girl and asked her to give her opinion on one of the characters of a book (atticus iirc from to kill a mockingbird) and she answered that her mum had taught her never to judge ppl - and refused to make any 'judgement' about any of the characters.

    It was kinda cute :)

  64. The real problem is not the storage by vlad_petric · · Score: 2
    ... but the production of antimatter. If I remember correctly, the energy used to produce antimatter atoms was more than a million times the energy resulting out of it.

    So antimatter is a very compact storage of energy, but we just can't produce it efficiently.

    The Raven

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:The real problem is not the storage by FarmerBob · · Score: 1

      It's not that we can't produce it more efficiently, but that we don't. Fermilab and CERN produce the antimatter in order to study its properties, not to store mass quantities for some potential use. Right now, the use is simply not there, so not much work has been done in increasing production efficiency. There are several technologies already in existence now (recycling rings and so on) that could boost efficiency by an order of magnitude at least, there's just no reason to produce that much antimatter yet, so we don't.

  65. How Fast? by sparkmanC · · Score: 2, Funny

    The article mentions that the speed of the antimatter/fission rocket will reach 260,000 mph in 4 months.

    That's .039% of c.

    I guess there's a lot of room at the top, too.

  66. Re:closest star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, and it's only 8 light minutes away. Put me on the next flight!

    Now the hard part. Should I pack warm clothes, or will the weather be warm there?

  67. Re:Social justice would reduce the cost considerab by isorox · · Score: 1

    The laws of physics are on my side. YOU LOSE.

    I break the law every day, bite me :p

  68. Re:Maybe I'm way off but... (very OT) by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

    heh, I remember that now. So much for my Starfleet Academy dreams.

    btw, never mix Milwaukee's "Beast" Light (don't even ask) with Star Trek... hmm.. I wonder if the replicators know about the Beast in the 24th century, or if the computer just says "don't be a moron!" and gives you Sam Adams instead...

    maybe I should have posted this AC... oh well

    --
    sudo eat my shorts
  69. Antimatter rockets by acgetchell · · Score: 2, Informative
    Another subject of great interest that the late Robert L. Forward wrote at length about in his book Mirror Matter.


    First, antimatter "explosions" are actually fizzles, because P-barP reactions at rest tend generate neutral and charged pions and kaons, and neutrinos.


    Neutrinos don't interact significantly with matter, so that energy is effectively lost. The neutral pions and kaons interact with the weak force only, and hence carry energy away for quite a distance (kilometers for pions) before they decay into something that does interact with matter. 50% of the time for every charge particle you get m neutral particles, where m>2 (see references


    That means that most of your energy is carried kilometers or more away (for the relativistic ones) before decaying into energetic particles that DO cause things to go boom. The energy of the antimatter tends to be dispersed through a rather large volume.


    Antimatter is, however, extremely valuable for rockets, due to a unique advantage. The general Hohman-transfer equation, which governs interplanetary flight, has a term exp{V/V0}, where V is the exhaust velocity and V0 is the "mission velocity", defined to be the delta v necessary to achieve a particular orbit.


    For example, V0=11.2km/sec for orbit, and ~29km/sec for Saturn. Note that getting into Earth orbit gets you almost halfway to anywhere.


    The propellant/load ratio, which is how much propellant per unit of mass you need to get somewhere, therefore depends (exponentially) upon the ratio of V/V0. Now, V is limited in chemical rockets to be at best 7.4 km/s for O1/LH2, so you have a built-in, exponentially growing ratio of rocket fuel you must carry per kilogram of payload. This makes manned flights to Saturn impractical with chemical rockets.


    However, an antimatter rocket has no built-in limit on exhaust velocity. Solving the equations, that means that you can get to anywhere on an antimatter rocket with a fuel/payload ratio of 5:1. That doesn't sound great, but it's much better than 100:1 for orbit or 300:1 for interplanetary flights.


    And, in fact, with antimatter rockets you can start *thinking* about not using Hohman transfers (which minimize the necessary energy) to get someplace, and can consider minimizing your time instead. You'll need the same fuel ratio, just more antimatter to increase your exhaust velocity V. Forward has a design for a basic antimatter rocket he did research on for the USAF.


    Finally, there are ways to store antimatter for weeks at a time, using Pfenning traps and other magnetic facilities.


    Antimatter, however, makes a lousy energy source, as it must be fabricated, you get less out of it than you put into it (we're currently .0000001% efficient, according to R.L. Forward's estimates) -- it's essentially an inefficient battery. For the same reason, antimatter is not a particularly good weapon. If you had an "antiproton" particle beam, 99.9% of the energy is coming from kinetic energy, and the inefficiency in handling/storing antiprotons isn't worth the measly 0.1% energy you get out.


    But it's a wonderful rocket fuel.

    --Adam

    --
    "Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
  70. Re:Sorry for yet another Star Trek reference, but. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    and by crystal, you mean magic little rock.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  71. hi there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm composed of anti-matter therefore i am an expert in this matter... errr, slashdot mod this mofo up!

  72. Pandora's Box by hoytt · · Score: 1

    I assume you all know what happened after einstein published E=mc^2 and the Germans found out about splitting the Uranium nucleus ± 1938. It opened a box we couldn't close anymore. With a result that was bigger than anyone had ever expected.
    Imagine the effect of 100g matter and 100g anti-matter. From a scientific point of view I'm very interested in this and would contribute to it if I could, but looking at humanity it also worries me when this would be a real thing.
    Perhaps we're technically ready for it, but as human beings with our petty quarrels I think we should stay away from it before we do something we'll regret forever.

    1. Re:Pandora's Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if we do something with "it"... we won't have to regret it cause we won't be here, and so won't the forever. :P ....zzzzzz p0w! bloops!

  73. Pellet design by YuppieScum · · Score: 2

    ...was named Orion, and featured in the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle novel "Footfall".

    I could list a whole load of links, but

    a) You can find them yourself if you're interested; and
    b) I can't be arsed

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  74. Arthur C. Clarke, Science and Magic.... by sakeneko · · Score: 1
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    - Arthur C. Clarke
    Truer words were never spake.

    You win the prize. As do a couple of others, technically, but you actually said something interesting in addition to answering the question. ;>

    And while the basic science may not seem like magic, the eventual implementation might. Imagine a featureless ball with anti-matter somewhere within that plugs into a fitted hollow and all other necessary steps for the transfer of the matter and the creation of energy take place without any visible activity. Magic. (At least from our limited point of view.)

    Well, that will look like magic to people who don't live with the realities of physics, at any rate. Those who do are positively immersed in realities that they can never see.

    Which (in my opinion, anyway) doesn't make it a bit less apparently magical. ;)

    If the eventual starship driven by the anti-matter engine is built out of nano-built materials, it might look even more magical, or so I'm told by a friend with a background in physics and engineering who follows MNT and nanotechnology in general . The reason? Among the strongest and lightest structural forms in the world are crystals. The lighter your starship is, the more it can carry without sacrificing speed. My friend and others in the MNT community think that nano-built structures, especially those used on spaceships, are likely to make considerable use of crystal forms.

    At this point, my often prosaic scientist/engineer friend gets poetic, describing a spacship that looks like something out of Aladdin's cave -- a cluster of gemlike structures that capture, fracture, and throw back light....

    Of course, the first example of this type of ship will probably cost considerably more than a ship built out of diamonds and rubies would. <wry grin> But it would be a sight worth seeing in so many ways.... <sigh>

  75. Easy: Ask our Iraqi friends!!! by johnty · · Score: 1

    Problem with storage?? It is well known that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction stored away...

    --
    I am unique, just like you, and you, and you...
  76. More Info by sckienle · · Score: 1

    Well, I was worried a little bit, since I don't remember the acid in the first place,.. but I did find the reference I remember.

    It was in a popularized science book named The Road to teh Stars by Iain Nicolson (Copyright 1978, Morrow). It references the Daedalus Project pursued by the British Interplanetary Society.

    As I remembered, the idea was to use small pellets of deuterium which would be exploded via bombardment of electron beams. See the link for more details about the project. As YuppieScum mentioned, there was also a similar design called Project Orion from the early 1960's, I think.

    Now if I could only remember those acid trips everyone is positive I took.....

    --
    I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
    1. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if I could only remember those acid trips everyone is positive I took.....

      Think back to those two and a half years you lived in a commune.

  77. What about the bussard ramjet? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Once you get up goign fast enough, you use a huge magnetic field to suck up interstellar hydrogen and compress it to the point of fuel... like a ramjet in earth's atmosphere, but on a grand scale. Then you get up to fractional c.

  78. "Spoken", not "spake". But anyhow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen up, SPOCK-O!

    All this shit is criminally irrelevant while poor kids don't have enough to eat. As long as injustice exists in this world, our overriding moral obligation is to correct those injustices by instituting a fair division of wealth, based on what people deserve rather than what they can grab (claiming to equate the two is a pathetically childish red herring, with which I trust you won't waste our time).

    It is self-evidently wrong to run around squandering wealth -- stolen wealth, taxed from the wealthy and the middle class who by definition stole it, since they have more than their share -- squandering wealth that belongs legally and morally to the poor on ridiculous, useless toy science "experiments" which feed nobody and serve no interests but those of the wealthy elite and fat, right-wing so-called "scientists" who have no moral authority whatsoever.

    Every year we have "better" technology, but still the poor remain with us. The technology is therefore worthless, because it is criminally indifferent to (and irrelevant to) all sane human values. Your sick robber-baron society is a criminal catastrophe, the greatest evil in human history by a wide margin.

    1. Re:"Spoken", not "spake". But anyhow... by JimFromJersey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Shut the fuck up you goddamn bed-wetting liberal. Don't like it when kids don't have enough to eat? Why aren't you doing something about it other then whining about it on Slashdot? Here is some advice, go to the places where kids are hungry and ... shoot the fucking parents. It's their fucking fault that the kids are hungry. How fucking stupid is it to have children, which you'll have fo feed, when you don't have enough food to begin with. You talk about giving to people what they deserve. What the fuck has some little parasite in some shit hole third world country deserve? Why the fuck do they deserve it? What the fuck have they done? The upper and middle class stole their wealth? Hey fuck-knob, the do you realize that the lower class living in your whitebread suburb live like kings compared to the 3rd world? Why don't they figure into the equation? Scientists ... wealthy? fat? elite? right-wing? hardy har har har ... you ignorant shit. Who the fuck do you think you are to determine which experiments are useless? Couldn't hack it through the math, could you? Didn't have the drive or dedication it requires to burn your life out in search of answers? Shut the fuck up. Technology is worthless?!?! hmmm it was good enough for you to use to post on slashdot! You goddamn fucking hypocrite! Don't like our robber-baron society? Let me give you a clue fuck-tard, our society feeds the world. Our scientists and engineers bring them clean water, electricity, and medicine. Tell you what fuck stick, buy a one way ticket to the third world country of your choice, get off the airplane and start walking. When you get to someplace where there is no one around, build yourself a nice mud hut and live happily ever after. Shit bag.

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
  79. Faster than light? by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    Which experiment has been done that moves particles faster than the speed of light? That would be rather big news...

  80. I love this stuff by sbillard · · Score: 0

    I wish I went to school for this sorta thang. i get a kick outta basement atom smashers and big-scale small-scale bubble chamber bloopers. Everything vibrates. Everything oscilates. Evreything, at once, goes around, and is the center, of something else. This can be represented in binary terms - duh. I wish I went to school for this sorta thang.

  81. Re:Social justice would reduce the cost considerab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was she from the deep south, or something?

  82. It won't be too warm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if you remember to go at night.

  83. Re:Interesting, another BILLION DOLLARS WASTED ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nasa has lost the formula and are

    LOST IN SPACE

  84. test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    <ecode>http://bpp.org</ecode>

  85. The modding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of antimatter engines!

    *Mod this message up to 5:Funny like 75% of this headline's MB*

  86. In the spirit of Star Trek (Re:Interesting) by keller · · Score: 1
    QOTD: "Things are only impossible until they're not!"

    Jean-Luc Picard

    --

    Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!

  87. OR by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2

    We could just use some of the anti-matter to get rid of some of the population AND get energy from it as well!

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  88. Re:closest star by Doctor+Sbaitso · · Score: 1

    Actually, Alpha Centauri is a star system, not a star
    Actually, Alpha Centauri is a computer game.

    --

    ---
    Hello, Slashdot user. My name is Dr. Sbaitso. I am here to help you.
  89. Problems with the BBC article... by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 2
    This is why I hate journalists.

    European scientists have carried out the first experiments on antimatter.
    Wrong. They've been experimenting with antimatter for years. I think Carl Anderson's 1930s work was the first. This isn't even the first experiment with antihydrogen, or cold antihydrogen, for that matter.

    Researchers in Geneva, Switzerland, have been able to trap and control anti-hydrogen atoms in a chamber at a sufficiently low temperature to begin studying their physics in detail.
    Wrong. They haven't trapped it. Nor can they study the physics in detail yet.

    Now they say they can store these fragile objects for study as well, allowing them to conduct simple experiments.
    Wrong. They can't trap them, much less store them for any length of time.

    By measuring the strength of the electric field, they hope to tell how tightly an anti-atom is held together and shed light on the differences between normal matter and antimatter that might explain why the Universe exists in its present form.
    Not quite. They are able to tell how tightly these particular positrons are bound to their antiprotons, which reveals what quantum state the antihydrogens are in; this doesn't tell you anything about the properties of antihydrogen.

    Cern physicist Jerry Gabrielse...
    And, um, it's Gerry Gabrielse.

    Much better articles available here, here, and here.

  90. Steve Howe researching interstellar travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they use the ship on the cover of "Fragile"?
    "Starhip Trooper", indeed!

  91. Re:closest star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Proxima Centauri the third and smallest of the the Alpha Centauri grouping.

  92. You, sir, are a fucking genius. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, that was a fine rant! Great momentum, good rhythm, lots of detail and imagery, well-spiced with profanity. It builds well; it accelerates; it reads like it all came out in a rush, but it doesn't repeat itself.

    Thank you. That was the best reply I could've hoped for. People who can give you both barrels like that without losing the plot are few and far between.

    (I am not joking; I love rants. That's why I wrote so many, from so many differetn political perspectives. Yeah, maybe I trolled you (though I do have a sneaking suspicion that you may have seen through it), and if that causes offense I apologize, but I submit that anything which triggers a high-caliber, near-Denis-Leary-grade rant like yours is justifiable for that alone.)

  93. Fractional-c kinetic-kill weapons by Valdrax · · Score: 2

    All I'm saying is that at the speeds their talking about, smashing a probe into a planet is likely to destroy a good chunk of what you're looking at. Do the math for a 2-ton object hitting something at .9c.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  94. Antimatter annihilation. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    I think I read that matter and antimatter, while being equal, are not. In our universe, it takes more animatter to destroy matter.

    This is incorrect. Matter and antimatter annihilate 1:1. This is due to conservation rules - most of the quantum numbers have to sum to zero for annihilation to occur (positive and negative charge cancel, positive and negative lepton or baryon numbers have to cancel, etc.).

    What you're probably thinking of is the asymmetry in matter and antimatter _production_. Certain reactions tend to produce matter more often than antimatter (which is why there's any matter in the universe at all).

  95. Re:Sorry for yet another Star Trek reference, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your supposition is based on these particles being in specific locations every time. by my understanding of particle acceleration, each collision creates a massive number of stray muons, quarks, neutrinos, etc that disperse in completely random directions. it takes banks and banks and banks of complex detectors and server farms to track marginal amounts of collsion data. the Cern lab collects data at a half meg a second with over a quarter of a million readout channels alone. Cern does many observations by extrapolation of imbalances of incoming and outgoing energy and momentum. plus the whole collider is 27 Km wide! this just isn't feasable for a propulsion system until quantum computers help us track all data possible and engineers design a much smaller deployment system.

  96. Re:closest star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its acutally closer to 1 AU