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
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
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
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?
I like the idea of trying to push along basic research with incentives.
I think they're called 'grants'.
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).
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?