Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

Ian · 2003-09-13 15:15:42

Can antimatter bombs be exploded behind a ship much like the proposed orion a bomb starship? The force coming from the energy behind the ship could in theory propell it to incredibly fast speeds, speeds that would be faster if nuclear fusion or fission was used to make a whole lot of kinetic energy. Could someone design such a ship that would make a whole lot of energy come out of the back of the ship or be exploded against the side of the back of the ship in order for it to accelerate to an extremely fast speed?

Pat Galea · 2003-09-14 00:57:22

Can antimatter bombs be exploded behind a ship much like the proposed orion a bomb starship? The force coming from the energy behind the ship could in theory propell it to incredibly fast speeds, speeds that would be faster if nuclear fusion or fission was used to make a whole lot of kinetic energy. Could someone design such a ship that would make a whole lot of energy come out of the back of the ship or be exploded against the side of the back of the ship in order for it to accelerate to an extremely fast speed?

No theoretical reason why not. But the engineering would be pretty nasty, principally because antimatter is such a damn dangerous thing to handle. You need some really clever storage tanks to ensure it doesn't touch any normal matter. I think at present most people are considering some form of electromagnetic container; the worry with that is that the ship goes to hell in a radiation basket if the power fails for even a tiny fraction of a second.

Having said that, some bright spark will probably come up with an idea for storage that is fiendishly simple, and will leave everyone 200 years hence scratching their heads wondering "How on earth did the early 21st century folk not think of that?"

The other big problem is generation of antimatter. At present, it's still hideously expensive to produce (in energy and cost terms).

Something for the Phobos Research Company to investigate maybe.

Ian · 2003-09-14 11:18:31

Well once we have a good enough material to withstand the explosiveness of the antimatter, then we could focus the energy of the antimatter explosions toward the back and the ship will accelerate forward. It is probably possible to construct a material that won't explode when the antimatter explodes against that material. Then when we focus the antimatter explosions in a certain direction it will produce a thrust much like how a rocket produces thrust but much faster. The material that focuses it must be strong enough to resist antimatter explosions.

Algol · 2003-09-16 13:47:11

An anti-matter driven starship wouldnt use the orion-ship configuration.

The engine would resemble a normal rocket but with a magnetic nozel and tanks, basically the last step in the line after ion, plasma/fission and then fusion(maybe with anti-matter ignition). Itll be the best 'rocketry' could do for us, and will represent the ultimate means by which we can tool round the solar system, but we will need something else (i.e a fuel-less engine) to take us to the stars.

Tyr · 2003-09-16 17:22:24

Instead of a pusher plate, us a mag-sail to catch the high speed plasma from the explosion and away you go. Storing the anti-matter is also tough and producing the antimatter is also tough. We have quite a ways to go before antimatter propulsion is used.

Ian · 2003-09-16 21:00:04

Instead of a pusher plate, us a mag-sail to catch the high speed plasma from the explosion and away you go. Storing the anti-matter is also tough and producing the antimatter is also tough. We have quite a ways to go before antimatter propulsion is used.

Yes. But is it a good idea?

Algol · 2003-09-16 21:14:25

Yes, its the very best we can do with our current knowledge of physics.

Ian · 2003-09-17 12:46:30

When do you think anybody will actually build this stuff?

Algol · 2003-09-17 15:11:40

At the moment, we can't produce much antimatter or store it very well although we theoretically know how to do both. Initially i would imagine that antimatter would be used as an ignition source for fusion or maybe even plasma engines, only once we can properly produce and store large ammounts of the stuff can it be used for propulsion.

For a pure anti-matter powered space craft? If we have something of a reneissance in space travel and fast expansion out into the solar system, you might see governments showing off their new bad-boys in about 100 years.

alokmohan · 2003-10-04 04:15:51

Antimatter is in primive stage of research so we may wait or contact CERN.

alokmohan · 2003-10-13 04:46:45

At the moment, we can't produce much antimatter or store it very well although we theoretically know how to do both. Initially i would imagine that antimatter would be used as an ignition source for fusion or maybe even plasma engines, only once we can properly produce and store large ammounts of the stuff can it be used for propulsion.
For a pure anti-matter powered space craft? If we have something of a reneissance in space travel and fast expansion out into the solar system, you might see governments showing off their new bad-boys in about 100 years.

It is a good idea.

JoshNH4H · 2007-07-15 18:06:35

As previously stated, there are two main problems with antimatter. Storage and synthesys in large numbers. To overcome the storage problem, there are two things you can do: Super strong natural magnets, and creation of the Antimatter on the ship. To create antimatter on a ship, just zap it with 26 GeV of X-ray lasers. For extremely strong natural magnets, ionized carbon might do. However, the A-matter has to be made somewhere, and the xray lasers are the best available way. Just 1 question: Would they work? (the lasers, not turning matter into a-matter with lasers.)

publiusr · 2007-11-09 11:48:05

Helios concept:

http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/index.htm
http://www.up-ship.com/

Terraformer · 2007-11-10 06:57:49

Anti-matter gets produced naturally when cosmic rays smash into the atmosphere of a planet. Something like either a high altitude blimp or a space station in an elliptical orbit that skims the atmosphere with a Penning trap for catching and storing antiparticles would do. Then use those antiparticles to get a facility in Jupiters orbit (much more particles there) and Saturn, and we can start collecting antimatter for all our travelling to other planets and stars. It would be used to intiate fusion to start with (using hydrogen from Neptune) but when we have enough just straight matter-antimatter annihalatian.

cIclops · 2007-11-10 08:01:05

How would such a collector detect the antimatter other than when it annhilates during a collision with the surrounding normal matter?

Terraformer · 2007-11-10 08:03:52

We already know it's there so we don't have to detect it. As the tanks start to fill up we will know it's there.

cIclops · 2007-11-10 08:16:56

The antimatter produced will only be a few particles among a vast number of normal matter particles and it will annihilate extremely quickly. The collector will need to catch an enormous volume of the atmosphere to be sure of getting one particle of antimatter and then it has to separate this particle before it disappears, how?

Terraformer · 2007-11-10 12:25:54

Alternitively we could just expose a load of gas to the cosmic rays to make it eisir to catch the antiparticles.

Dayton Kitchens · 2007-11-15 18:48:00

From what I've read, such as in Robert L. Forwards book "Mirror Matter" an antimatter bomb really isn't that useful.

matter/antimatter explosions would be alot more "poof!" than "boom!".

The explosion would never interact with the matter around it to be any stronger than a nuclear explosion.

Antius · 2007-11-16 06:52:37

From what I've read, such as in Robert L. Forwards book "Mirror Matter" an antimatter bomb really isn't that useful.
matter/antimatter explosions would be alot more "poof!" than "boom!".
The explosion would never interact with the matter around it to be any stronger than a nuclear explosion.

Interesting. I suppose what matters in terms of rocket performance is how much momentum change you get from each pound of propellant. With a pure antimatter rocket, the exhaust is pure (massless) photons (gamma rays).

The difficulty of making antimatter with any reasonable efficiency would appear to be the biggest difficulty in using it as a fuel.

If memory serves, the maximum theoretical velocity change for a rocket carrying all of its fuel is twice exhaust velocity. On this basis, fusion rockets should ultimately be capable of getting up to 0.2c. this is a technology that we understand in principle at least and could presumably construct right now with enough funding.

Terraformer · 2007-11-16 06:56:14

0.2c, hmm? Asumming it took Twenty years to develop the tech, I'd be 54 when I reached Alpha Centauri.

John_Frazer · 2008-01-15 20:45:28

It seems doubtful that this would be any help.
If you could get antimatter to go "BOOM!" any better than a typical old fashioned fission bomb, and if it's more compact and cheaper than an a-bomb (extremely doubtful) it might make sense for an Orion ship.

Important note: the way this would work is not far away from the original Orion: the bomb's prompt explosion doesn't reach the ship. It's just a trigger to energize a plasma made from some ordinary matter. An antimatter bomb, if feasible, would only replace the fission bomb

For the material to be flashed into plasma, tungsten or plastics were some of the things looked at, depending on the velocity/mass you want in the resulting plasma. Some sort of plastic is handy, because it can be made in-situ from planetary/asteroid ices (or even the crew's own biological wastes...) In the original 1950s Orion, the propellant to be flashed by the bomb is up to 2/3 of the mass of the "thrust bombs" carried and ejected aft by the ship.
.

Terraformer · 2008-01-17 04:07:30

And, if you keep a goat handy, milk.

So antimatter will only be useful to initiate fusion?

John_Frazer · 2008-01-17 21:16:14

So antimatter will only be useful to initiate fusion?

to provide the initial prompt "Spark" of the nuclear detonation, which excites and projects the plasma from the "thrust bomb" unit to the aft end of the ship.

I might mention that fusion probably isn't in it, at all. In the old "Orion" designs, the largest "advanced interplanetary" ship, starting mass ~10,000+ tons, the very largest "bomb" used was .35 kilotones.
Two-stage fission/fusion boombs are completely out of the picture.
It could be speculated, that if containment and handling issues of antimatter could be resolved so that it's easier and cheaper using antimatter than making "bombs" of refined expensive fissionable metals, then antimatter "bombs" would be the only explosive there is.
I only wonder if such bombs could be made "clean" at least to the point of making no long-lasting radioactive or extremely toxic residues -or at least, making only little toxic residues, which would decay and become completely harmless before it has a chance to affect people or the biosphere.
If so, and if it's economical, R&D into this sort of thing for dangerous "clean" nuclear weapons could bring about a chance for a ground launch of a big Orion. I doubt it, because there are still some technical issues that make space-only use far more attractive.

Antius · 2008-01-18 01:49:10

So antimatter will only be useful to initiate fusion?
to provide the initial prompt "Spark" of the nuclear detonation, which excites and projects the plasma from the "thrust bomb" unit to the aft end of the ship.
I might mention that fusion probably isn't in it, at all. In the old "Orion" designs, the largest "advanced interplanetary" ship, starting mass ~10,000+ tons, the very largest "bomb" used was .35 kilotones.
Two-stage fission/fusion boombs are completely out of the picture.
It could be speculated, that if containment and handling issues of antimatter could be resolved so that it's easier and cheaper using antimatter than making "bombs" of refined expensive fissionable metals, then antimatter "bombs" would be the only explosive there is.
I only wonder if such bombs could be made "clean" at least to the point of making no long-lasting radioactive or extremely toxic residues -or at least, making only little toxic residues, which would decay and become completely harmless before it has a chance to affect people or the biosphere.
If so, and if it's economical, R&D into this sort of thing for dangerous "clean" nuclear weapons could bring about a chance for a ground launch of a big Orion. I doubt it, because there are still some technical issues that make space-only use far more attractive.

The original design included a range of bomb configurations - low yield subkiloton devices for take off, exploding many times per second, culminating in larger 20 kilotonne devices exploding every ten seconds as greater heights were reached.

Totally clean bombs are not neccesary for ground launch. We are all prepared to accept certain risks in exchange for mobility provided by motor cars. We also have to accept risks from other people's cars. We accept these risks because the benefitsprovided by motorcars are enormous. They provide us with unprecidented mobility. Orion provides us with unique capabilities in the access of space. Why is Orion different to a motor car in the sense that we will accept risk from one but not the other? Why is radiation different to any other form of pollution or hazard that we face?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-13 15:15:42

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#2 2003-09-14 00:57:22

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#3 2003-09-14 11:18:31

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#4 2003-09-16 13:47:11

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#5 2003-09-16 17:22:24

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#6 2003-09-16 21:00:04

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#7 2003-09-16 21:14:25

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#8 2003-09-17 12:46:30

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#9 2003-09-17 15:11:40

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#10 2003-10-04 04:15:51

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#11 2003-10-13 04:46:45

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#12 2007-07-15 18:06:35

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#13 2007-11-09 11:48:05

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#14 2007-11-10 06:57:49

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#15 2007-11-10 08:01:05

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#16 2007-11-10 08:03:52

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#17 2007-11-10 08:16:56

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#18 2007-11-10 12:25:54

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#19 2007-11-15 18:48:00

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#20 2007-11-16 06:52:37

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#21 2007-11-16 06:56:14

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#22 2008-01-15 20:45:28

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#23 2008-01-17 04:07:30

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#24 2008-01-17 21:16:14

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

#25 2008-01-18 01:49:10

Re: Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

Board footer