Slashdot Mirror
NASA to Research Antimatter Rocket
Fraser Cain writes "One of the dozen technologies selected by NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) this year is Positronics Research's ideas for an antimatter rocket engine. Instead of 3100 kg of propellant on board Cassini, the spacecraft could get by with just 310 micrograms of electrons and positrons. Of course, making the antimatter can be expensive."
But seriously folks...
Many of our upcoming challenges both earthbound and space bound relate to the safe, efficient, portable, and inexpensive generation of HUGE amounts of power. Whether it's antimatter, zero-point energy, fusion, whatever, let's get something off the drawing board and into service.
My laptop is more powerful than a 1975 supercomputer that filled a room, but a D cell battery hasn't changed its size in 30 years and today's best D cell lasts what 2, 3 times as long as one from 1975? We're still running coal-based and oil-based power plants that were built in the '70s. Is everything shooting along while power generation creeps?
Start a happiness pandemic
If they could make this work it would cut down the size of the object to be launched drastically. That would be a great thing, which in itself would make spaceflight more profitable. No more 3T fuel, fuel tanks, etc.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
One of the major problems with antimatter is that you need to be able to contain it very very securely. The actualy weight of the antimatter may be substantially less, but the whole infrastructure to create it and contain it is going to be considerably more complex and expensive.
see a Text Widget
Captain! If we can't stabilize that containment field in the next thirty seconds, we're going to have a core breech. Wait... what if we reverse the polarity? Brilliant!
It's going to take insane amounts of energy to generate and store that much antimatter. Hopefully this leads to increased funding for particle accelerators though.
According to the Wikipedia producing antimatter is quite expensive. They mention something of $25 billion per gram.
That's around $7'750'000 for these 310 micrograms...
Work out the chemistry on it. The simple truth is that unless there is a fundamental change in energy density of chemical reactions, there just isn't a lot more to ask of chemical storage. That's why there is the shift towards "power generation." This is really just a fancy term for changing from where there is a chemo-eletrical differential (i.e. positive/negative sides) to actively causing a chemical reaction that provides electricity; however, there are two problems with this approach. First, it is usually easier to ask the device to use less power. Second, power generation at a minimum produces heat, sometimes violently and excessively. Batteries are nice because they are generally quite safe, reliable, and (most importantly) currently mass-produced.
On a side note, super atoms seem to be a possibility on "rewriting" our understanding on chemical reactions.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
How much antimatter would it take to wipe out all human life on earth? My guess is in the 20g - 5000g range, depending on how it is "deployed". Anyone else have a better clue?
Why do I ask? Think about nuclear power. We are now worried about radioactive material falling into the wrong hands. Fortunately, we have some detection methods to make it a little harder to deploy. Now if antimatter becomes a common battery source (say SUV's have 1 millionth of a gram to make it run for the week), how hard would it be to make the ULTIMATE terrorist act?
Granted, the availability of antimatter on this scale won't happen for a few decades, if not centuries. But when it does... it will be interesting...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Without so much more technological breakthroughts (who will of course make that whole project pointless, because totally new options would arise), building a antimatter rocket will be impossible.
First: containment-> Its hard getting long livetimes in a nice good storage ring that doesnt suffer massive accelerations and other nasty stuff launching from earth brings with itself.
Second: containment part two: To power it, you would need a energy source of such capacity that could feed an ion drive or equivalent just fine without the need for antimatter.
Third: containment part three: if it fails it will give the a real nice flash. ok, with such a small one this doesnt matter (a normal rocked exploding is also devastating, but a bigger one would be like a nuke on steroids).
Fourth: Production of anitmatter: current efficiency of antimatter creation is somewhere around absolute zero... dont know the the exact numbers (the article was a few years old), but with current technology it could very well take the energy production of the whole USA to create that much anitmatter... for a year or so...
All those points dont mean that it wont be possible (or even desirable) to build an antimatter engine, but the needed advancements are THAT far away, that every kind of basic studies now are pointless.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
ZPE is what they think is forcing the galaxies apart.
seems like lots of power to me.
BTW, purely empty space is not empty. there are constant creations of particles and their anti particles (thus servicing thermodynamics) popping in and out of existence in empty space. this causes a pressure to form and this pressure causes a force which can be used to extract energy.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I like the idea of trying to push along basic research with incentives.
I think they're called 'grants'.
In terms of destructive power, it's actually a lot less dangerous than you'd think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon
Speaking as someone who uses antimatter every day, I have to point out that at least now, antimatter is very difficult to make. We expend 100,000 protons (ones that have been accelerated to very high speeds) to make one anti-proton. They get "stored" in a large accelrator complex underground (much bigger and bulkier than a spacecraft). After about half a day of this, we produce about a hundred thousandth of a microgram of antiprotons (which we then smash the hell out of).
Humans like to find new territory and conquer it. We currently have exhausted the Earth's surface, except for the submerged and frozen parts. So we have to go somewhere.
That said,
Space propulsion may end up being a two-fold operation, with a rocket or rail gun used to break free of the earth or moon's gravity well and a deep-space propulsion unit used for the long haul.
Something like a solar sail or ion drive might fill the bill. An ion drive is relatively inexpensive, but doesn't give much push. If a chemical rocket or magnetic accelerator gets you started, an ion drive could work nicely.
You still need "HUGE" amounts of power for a rail gun or rocket, though.
Feel free to ignore the above. I'm just waiting for an rsync to finish so I can shut down the old server and go home.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
The upper end of your scale, 5 kg, amounts to E = m * c^2 = 5 * 9e+16 = 4e+17 Joules.
The Russian Tsar Bomba ---the World's largest nuclear weapon ever detonated on Earth--- yielded 50 Megatons of energy, or about 50e6 * 4e9 = 2e+17 Joules.
That bomb didn't kill us, so 5 kg of antimatter won't kill us all.
To put things in perspective, the Hiroshima bomb (15 kton) destroyed about 1.5 grams of matter. The Tsuami quake on the Pacific, last year, yielded about 30 Gigaton, or 6.4e+19 Joules. That amounts to about 600 to 700 kg of destroyed matter.
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
Hold your horses...
You dont seem to know your physics THAT well..
First: 5g antimatter wont destroy the earth. In fact, it would be more like a medium sized hydrogen bomb-> it doesnt even make dent in any bigger mountain.
Second: Antimatter is a storage only device. Every bit of energy created by a detonation has to be produced by other means, first (in fact, 1000 times or more, because of abysmal efficiencies). So to even have the _possibility_ of creating planet_buster or armageddon-device amount of antimatter, you need energy sources that could do it anyway...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
The posters here missed the mark.
Making positrons is actually much easier than making antiprotons. Pair production on photons produced in accelerators should give efficiencies of 5 to 10% -- and the positrons are much easier to cool.
The big problem with positrons is storing them. Unless these people have a major new idea to get around the Brillouin limit on Penning Traps, the energy stored per mass of equipment will be too small to be interesting (even worse than the energy/mass of chemical propellants.)
Antimatter isn't as dangerous as you seem to think it is. Even 5 kg of the stuff would only produce a 100-megaton blast. And would cost $125 trillion. Nukes are still more dangerous.
If you want some kind of doomsday device to worry over, consider strangelets and particle accelerators instead.
what are the odds of that?
I wouldn't worry too much, because it seems such a bomb would cost around a quadrillion dollars. (I'm assuming Moore's Law doesn't apply here.)
-- Terrorism may have turned the United States into a nation of fear and aggression, but it won't succeed in Europe.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Also, energy released from antimatter annihilation doesn't come out in a very usable form. From this article it looks like most of the energy comes out as neutrinos. Space is full of neutrinos zipping around, but they're pretty useless for energy because they don't interact with matter to any significant degree.
It sounds wonderful to have some bit of matter that can be fully converted to energy but I think we'll have commercial fusion power sooner than this can happen.
Maybe they could figure out how to make smaller, safer fission reactors for these types of missions? Maybe they could focus on fuel efficiency, perhaps even making small breeder reactors for space use?
Uh-oh: "Positronics Research, headed up by Dr. Smith" Good Heavens! Next it will be "MIT, headed up by Dr. Otto Octavius" or "NASA, headed up by Dr. Victor Von Doom" or "Scientology, headed up by L. Ron Hubbard". Oh the pain...
>Third: containment part three: if it fails it will give the a real nice flash.
No matter what kind of rocket it is, it has enough stored energy to put its payload into orbit.
For any given amount of payload, an antimatter rocket is actually going to be lighter than a chemical rocket. It doesn't have to carry the weight of chemical reactants. It doesn't have to lift that weight. Same payload, less total energy.
Best of all, gamma rays don't travel very far in air, so as long as you maintain the same range safety distances as you would for a chemical rocket, there's no extra hazard.
nope - you're using grams, not kg, making you 1000x out. its 5*c^2, not 5000*c^2
As someone else on this thread has pointed out, you actually have do double that, because 5kg of normal matter is destroyed as well.
But from the link that someone else provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon) 60% of the yeild of an antimatter explosion escapes as neutrinos, and most of the rest as gamma rays so its not nearly as dangerous (or practical, if desctruction is your goal...) as a regular H-Bomb.
Nope, the gram isn't correct unit in this case; the kilogram is. grams*(m/s)^2 equals millijoules.
& q=5000+g+*+c%5E2
If you don't believe, ask google: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en
[ Antti Rasinen ]
If you think Microsoft is hard on it's competitors (or percieved future competitors), just imagine an industry thousands of times larger that is run by people thousands of times meaner... That's the energy industry.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Its based on body odor.
You see our galaxy is really smelly and all the other ones want to get away from it.
Okay, so you've got all the energy you can use. You still need to throw something out the nozzle at high speed in order to move -- the rocket equation will not be denied. I'm skeptical about the "10% of conventional propellant" figure, and even more so about scooping propellant out of raw space.
After years of thinking I knew rocket propulsion -- via SF novels and popular works and, well, building small ones -- I took a policy course on space travel at CMU. Professor Morel (sp?) insisted that we learn the science first. I got all sorts of good stuff, and started poking around the engineering library for more.
I found, while researching my term project, a great book on advanced propulsion topics. This wasn't some popular work, but a collection of hard-core equation-filled research papers. There was stuff on what could be the next generation of fission drives, various fusion drive concepts, and antimatter propulsion.
Beyond the obvious containment issues, there is a BIG problem with antimatter propulsion:
The problem of opacity.
Antimatter / matter reactions produce gamma rays. These are extremely energetic and readily penetrate many materials.
This means that they are very inefficient when it comes to heating up a working fluid. The detail -short linked-to article glibly talks about shooting gamma rays into propellant. They will heat up the hydrogen or water or whatever you are using for a working fluid, but a lot of the energy will simply keep on going, and whiz right through the outside wall of the "combustion" chamber.
The one research paper which described a "pure" antimatter rocket heated the propellant indirectly. The positrons would be shot into a block of tungsten alloy dense enough to intercept an appreciable amount of the energy produced by the matter / antimatter reaction. Working fluid passed through channels in the block would heat up, turn to gas, and produce thrust.
The rated Isp was, as I recall, about 5,000 seconds. This is way more than conventional fluid / chemical rockets (500 seconds) and fission rockets (1,000 seconds) but only a little higher than existing ion thrusters (3,100 seconds for that solar-powered testbed that ran a few years back).
The one advantage this rocket would have over ion thrusters would be the amount of thrust. Ion rockets produce just a trickle of thrust. The antimatter thermal rocket would probably produce a fair amount of thrust, although probably not enough for a ground-to-orbit booster.
Stefan
Second: containment part two: To power it, you would need a energy source of such capacity that could feed an ion drive or equivalent just fine without the need for antimatter.
But antimatter would do it and you've already got that. It just means factoring in an extra bit for its own containment.
Who ordered that?
Look, physicists have this notion of a vacuum state. It's the lowest energy state a system can occupy. You can't extract energy from a vacuum state because then it would be left in a lower state contradicting the fact that it's a vacuum state. So it doesn't matter if a vacuum state has cocktail sipping blue-tongued skinks materializing out of nothing. You can't extract energy from it.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
An antimatter rocket has to lift the weight of the unit built to contain the anti-matter. Since at present that unit would weigh far more than the weight of the fuel saved the anti-matter unit would have to be more powerful than a chemical rocket.
theoretical predictions based on that are off by 1E120. Which is no small number I'm sure you'll agree.
I dunno.... only 5 characters... seems pretty small to me. Certainly a lot shorter than my phone number.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Ow, ow, the pain. The grandparent, and the parent, and you, everone in this thread is butchering the science.
the way I got it is that in our universe there is a center (with galaxies and stuff) that is not completely vacuum and outside of that there is (still, perhaps) vacuum, and just like air is sucked into a room with a vacuum in it our universe is sucked apart
No, our universe has no center and no outside. It's a very common misconception, but the big bang was *not* an explosion like a handgrenade.
The universe is more like the skin of a ballon, and galaxies are dots on the skin of that balloon. The big bang and the expansion of the universe is more like that balloon being inflated. Except there is no "inside" or "outside" of the ballooon. The universe is *just* the skin, and that skin stretching. It's not stretching into anything or into anywhere, just stretching into the future.
The closest thing you can say to being the "center" of the universe is the point in the past, the big bang. Every point in the universe right now is equally close... and equally far... from the center.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I wonder if these "grants" can be harnessed to directly push along space craft.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You made a minor mistake in your E=mc^2 math. The mass you use should take both the antimatter and the matter into account because any given matter-antimatter reaction involves the conversion of matter and antimatter into pure energy. This results in 10 kg being converted into energy, or about 10^18 Joules or 125 megatons.
And in case you were wondering if the other poster that claimed bad math was right or not, he's wrong. The correct units are J=kg*(m/s)^2 like parent used.
The antimatter must be one a hell of a job to handle safely. I don't see the future of antimatter fuel in a little light spaceships. Because of all the risks, only the large and heavy space vessels can be include all the necessary technology.
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
Humor intolerance unfortunately is not as easy to treat as lactose intolerance. The GP obviously got the joke but feels that anyone with a different sense of humor is not funny. Let's hope that the GP thinks that most people are not funny!
This reminds me of something a faculty member told me once about a chair in another department (after I had complained - confidentially - that that department seemed to be remarkably unremarkable). He said that the chair did not believe in hiring anyone more intelligent than himself - and that didn't leave many people to choose from.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
ZPE is what they think is forcing the galaxies apart.
No, it isn't. Zero point energy is inherently useless as a power source. It is an equal and isotropic pressure across all space. It would be just the same as trying to use ambient temperature as an energy source. Just can't happen by thermodynamics.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.