Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

Ian · 2003-08-31 19:58:04

I wonder if antimatter could be used for propulsion in much the same way as nuclear weapons could be used to accelerate spacecraft. The explosions that antimatter could make when it comes in contact with normal matter are probably greater than the explosions of nuclear weapons. Could the antimatter explosions be directed at the back of the spacecraft just like the orion starship would have it done? Please reply and tell me what you think of this idea.

Spider-Man · 2003-08-31 20:38:51

That's absolutely possible, Ian. Plenty of hypothesis has gone into this. Star Trek fantasized about a kind of antimatter propulsion that uses the unbelievable energy to warp spacetime itself. But there are more practicle applications extant, as you postulate:

Fusion and Antimatter Rocketry

I hope that site helps.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-01 04:42:22

Thanks Spider-Man!
That link was very informative and made me anxious for research to move quickly in that direction. Mars in 6 WEEKS ... YEAH !!
Now that's what I call travelling!

Spider-Man · 2003-09-01 13:28:17

Actually, I see using (read: wasting) money on such a project as wholly counterproductive. It puts the round trip at four months. Dr. Zubrin is very much correct; that's not nearly enough time to do proper research. Zubrin's Mars Direct plan is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt the best way to go to Mars, and to study it.

I highly, highly suggest either of Robert Zubrin's books, The Case For Mars and Entering Space. They're positively fantastic, and will give you more information than any websites could.

Nevertheless, you're very welcome; I'm glad you liked the site.

Algol · 2003-09-01 14:53:57

I wouldnt say it is wasted at all!

Just because this particular group advocates a short mission time doesnt mean that the anti-matter propulsion technology they show isnt a god send!

They probably only give such a short mission time in order to highlight the extremely short transit time made possible by the technology.

The truth is that such a short transit time (6 weeks) would solve all of NASAs problems with getting to mars - the only real technological problem we have is dealing with the trip there and back. Radiation and the health impact of zero-gravity would both be all but eliminated by eliminating much of the potentially hazardous time actually spent in space!

Bottom line - its a great technology that will very likely revolutionise space transportation when it is eventually realised.

Gennaro · 2003-09-01 17:58:50

The truth of the matter is that antimatter is extremely expensive to produce using current methods and presents almost insurmountable storage problems not to mention the magnetic fields needed to contain the reaction. Today's technology, using a so called penning trap for storage, can in no way carry the amount needed for meaningful propulsion use.
We need a number of technological breakthroughs in this area to make antimatter a practical option. Personally, I estimate it won't be around for a few hundred years, although certain hybrid systems like fusion-antimatter (ICAN) may be closer within reach.
When we get it no less, it's undoubtedly the most efficient rocket fuel imaginable within the limits of known physics, theorethically able to propel a starship up to significant increments of light speed. As such, consequently, it will be better employed for trips to Alpha Centauri, never mind Mars!
In fact, I believe antimatter will never prove economical for interplanetary travel. Various forms of fusion or even fission applications, such as Orion or fission fragment propulsion, will permanently keep the advantage of cost efficiency and design simplicity. The solar system is simply too small for antimatter to have any practical use around here. Personally though, I find antimatter propulsion for interstellar travel, especially the beam-core variant, hugely fascinating (check out my avatar! :;): ).
Another site on antimatter propulsion can be found here:

http://www.islandone.org/APC/Antimatter/00.html

Ian · 2003-09-02 07:50:20

Maybe someday in the future some device could be built that could continuously generate antimatter in small quantities and then store them for future use. They could be like batteries that could store antiparticles and then be used when the current supply runs out and when the current supply is used it could generate enough power in order to generate more electrons the energy that's wasted could be used to provide electricity for most of the ship's systems. Please reply

Spider-Man · 2003-09-02 08:08:52

Star Trek indeed has just such a device, Ian. As noted in the Next Generation Technical Manual, it is called called an "Onboard Antimatter Generator", and it doesn't have much luck creating antimatter than we do. It can "generate relatively small amounts of antimatter during potential emergency situations. The process is by all accounts incredibly power- and matter-intensive, and may not be advantageous under all operational conditions. ...the antimatter generator may provide critical fuel supplies when they are needed most."

So not even Star Trek predicts anything more than that on a starship, even three hundred years from now.

Ian · 2003-09-02 11:36:52

Why are you imagining large amounts of time for these things to be built and designed and actually used? Do you think that the devices that I talked about are just fantisies? You keep saying that they imagine them in star trek and I should mention that the International Space Station's construction was inspired by science-fiction. They built it anyway. Maybe shows such as Star Trek will inspire future people who do physics and engineering to do this. We don't know exactly when humans will go to mars but they will go there. They will eventually have to go out into interstellar space once the sun explodes in a supernova. What are people doing about that?

Spider-Man · 2003-09-02 18:14:48

Star Trek is notoriously optimistic with regard to the future and the progress of humanity, especially technologically. As for something that can "continuously generate antimatter in large quantities", yes, such a device is a fantasy.

As for science fiction predicting science, of course that's the case, and the International Space Station is one, though terrible, example. (A better one would be Arthur C. Clarks veritable invention of the communications satellite.)

We don't know exactly when humans will go to mars but they will go there. They will eventually have to go out into interstellar space once the sun explodes in a supernova. What are people doing about that?

People will be longsince extinct or evolved into an utterly different species, one so broad and advanced that the death of any star would not only be preventable and reversible by their technology, but they wouldn't even care anyway; Earth would be little more than a nostalgic bit of rock in an obscure little system in the outer arm of a midsize galaxy no one goes to anymore.

Ian · 2003-09-04 08:21:02

"As for science fiction predicting science, of course that's the case, and the International Space Station is one, though terrible, example. (A better one would be Arthur C. Clarks veritable invention of the communications satellite.)"

Why would the International Space Station be a bad example of science-fiction predicting science-fact? Anyway are you trying to start a flame war by saying that anything I suggest is somehow fantasy or is impossible?

Spider-Man · 2003-09-04 23:35:26

Anyway are you trying to start a flame war by saying that anything I suggest is somehow fantasy or is impossible?

Of course not, Ian; please, I apologize for my terseness. You needn't be so touchy; I meant nothing by it.

And the International Space Station is a bad example period, unless you're trying to demonstrate how to drain as much money as possible with as little public notice as possible. The Space Station hangs over our heads as a testament to the horrors of bureaucracy, whilst the public is more oblivious to it than what their favorite celebrity likes to eat for breakfast.

We live in a world where astronauts are no longer revered as heroes, but dismissed as common antiheroes, "routine" crewmen as parts of "routine" missions that nobody gives a darn about until a whole spaceship suddenly explodes, and the flight not being a success suddenly becomes more interesting than if the flight had ever been a success at all.

And this is the stagnation of modern concern and interest with space. It's not because space is uninteresting (the multitude of long-running, highly popular sci-fi franchises like Star Trek, Star Wars, and a plethora of fantastic movies proves rather otherwise); quite the contrary. It is because NASA no longer has its heart, no longer possess the drive to explore, but only to stagnate and idle, if it has any zeal left whatsoever.

Imagine if this had been the Spanish Navy's reaction to Columbus after his first voyages to the New World.

JoshNH4H · 2007-07-15 17:57:16

I wonder if antimatter could be used for propulsion in much the same way as nuclear weapons could be used to accelerate spacecraft. The explosions that antimatter could make when it comes in contact with normal matter are probably greater than the explosions of nuclear weapons. Could the antimatter explosions be directed at the back of the spacecraft just like the orion starship would have it done? Please reply and tell me what you think of this idea.

There is a way to do this. You turn a Proton into an antiproton WITH LASERS in a way that can be done on your average interstellar/interplanetary craft. The Antiprotons are accellerated into water, creating fast moving NH2, a few pions, and a few gamma rays.

cIclops · 2007-07-16 04:26:20

Protons can not be converted directly into antiprotons. A fast moving proton can release its kinetic energy during a collision and under the right conditions this energy can produce an antiproton, the original proton does not change. Antiprotons are created artificially in huge particle accelerators and the process is extremely inefficient, under 1% of the energy produces the mass of the antiproton.

AFAIK no one has used a laser to do this, but if it is possible the amount of energy needed to accelerate the proton would be enormous. If a spacecraft had this much energy available it could use it far more efficiently to power an ion drive or even a proton drive.

(this discussion would be better in the Interplanetary transportation forum, it may move later)

Austin Stanley · 2007-07-17 12:01:23

There is a way to do this. You turn a Proton into an antiproton WITH LASERS in a way that can be done on your average interstellar/interplanetary craft. The Antiprotons are accellerated into water, creating fast moving NH2, a few pions, and a few gamma rays.

While there may end up being quite a few ways to generate anti-matter (I haven't heard of using lasers, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it imposible), some hard and fast rules make proton conversion impossible, or at least impractical. In particular the number of baryons and leptons must be concerved in any reaction. This dictates for every anti-partical (having a negative baryon number) you create a corsponding normal partical. This means that even in a best case senario you have to but at least twice as much energy into the creation of an anti-partical as you will get from it's annilation. (Well energy is concerved if you consider the creation of the normal partical but those are worthless as we have plenty of matter already). Of course currently our inefficencies at this operation are currently huge, it currently takes like a couple million times more energy to create anti-mater then it nets. There is some hope to drop this to a few thousand times more in the future (or at least there was, not sure how this work is progressing, CERN's new accelerator may do a better job). But still the current prospect for economicaly creating vast quantites of anti-mater are not that impressive.

An interesting related question is if concervation of baryons and leptons (and all the other CPT symmetry we observe in physics) is true, then why doesn't an equal amount of anti-matter exist in our universe? Answer that one, and a Nobel prize is sure to be yours.

JoshNH4H · 2007-07-19 17:58:15

OK. The proton is zapped with the 26 GeV of x-ray lasers (are these possible, if not I'm scrapping the idea), then magnetically brought into contact with :!: Mercury :!: instead of water. When it comes into contact with the Mercury, the spew of particles comes out. The antiproton finds some Mercury and annihilates with one of its protons. The Mercury becomes GOLD(possibilities), which is promptly blasted out of the back of the spacecraft.

it might be the most dangerous ship ever, though. Just think, Antimatter, Gamma Rays, X-Ray lasers, Mercury, lead, some stable, and some radioactive (possibly spontaneously fissioning) gold. Lots of shielding will be needed(that's where the lead comes in.)

noosfractal · 2007-07-19 19:47:44

As cIclops pointed out, the issue is not the particular antimatter production mechanism, but the efficiency.

Say you have a fission reactor generating electricity to power the laser to make the antimatter to turn cold mercury into hot gold. The efficiency is ...

20% (fission thermal to electricity) *
20% (electricity to x-ray laser) *
1% (x-ray laser to antimatter) *
50% (antimatter annihilation accelerates gold out the back)
= 0.02% efficiency

So it would be 5000 times more efficient just to heat gold with the fission reactor to produce thrust.

However, if you can find a reasonable way to store antimatter, then you can make it at your leisure and use it as fuel.

Here is the best idea I've seen for antimatter propulsion ...

Antimatter-Driven Sail, H-bar Technologies
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=28

JoshNH4H · 2007-07-21 18:44:36

This seems correct as far as I can tell. But what about alternate energy sources, such as solar energy, solar wind energy, and others. Also, energy (some, if not a lot) could be harvested from the reaction itself. The mercury wont be that cold. I plan as using that for the radiators, as well as for the fuel.
On another note- does anyone know how much mercury would be needed for a to-and-back trip to Mars?
Finally, would there be any way of using some of the high energy gamma rays to give the protons 26 GeV of energy?
For my last question (really the last), I am thinking of changing the fuel from antiprotons to antielectrons. The only problem is that I can't find any sources to find out a way to prodouce antielectrons without radioactive decay. How can they be made?
Sorry for all of the questions.

-jif

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-09-09 06:11:01

Space provides a vacuum for antimatter storage.

I think a good place for antimatter production might be the far side of the Moon. The rocks would provide shielding, and the vacuum of space is natural. One simply needs the framework for magnetic fields to guide the proton beams. A tunnel doesn't need to be dug. I think the inside of a crater would do just fine.

Terraformer · 2007-09-09 07:56:08

NewScientist did an article on this.

http://space.newscientist.com/channel/s … 526201.900

Would it be energy wasteful to accelerate particles in an accelerator to near the speed of light and fire them out the end.

Finally, being at the speed of light is supposedly the same as being near a singularity. The laws of physics break down near singularities. The laws of physics are the only thing stopping you going faster than the speed of light.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-09-11 13:38:34

Antimatter is more compact than fusion. Fusion is hard to react, antimatter is easy. The trick with antimatter is getting it not to react, as such it has more in common with fission than fusion. I think that since antimatter is compact it maybe more applicable for spaceflight. Fusion reactors would only be used for the largest of spaceships. I think antimatter might even be used in getting off the surface of a planet. I heard of something called a plasma window, basically it keeps the air out of a vacuum chamber by ionizing the air and directing it away from the vacuum chamber with magnetic fields. With that you may be able to store antimatter and direct a small part of that store towards a controlled annhilination reaction with matter without having an explosion that blows up the ship. There is plenty of energy in antimatter to ionize lots of air, so with antimatter we can have a small all-purpose space vehicle that can travel anywhere in the solar system and land on any solid planet with just grams of antimatter and alot of reaction mass. Fusion engines couldn't even get off the ground, they'd be too huge for the purposes of sustaining sufficient thrust to fight Earth's gravity, though once in space, they'd be fairly economical for large spacecraft.

Terraformer · 2007-09-15 10:44:46

Did you read the article? The thing about fusion is it only needs a fraction of the antimatter, which, oh, happens to be hard to collect. I say we turn jupiter into an antimatter collection place, get enough to go to a star system with a planet much bigger, and use that system for antimatter production.

tahanson43206 · 2019-07-17 10:38:20

For JoshNH4H

I went back to look at your previous posts, and discovered that you started out with a nice note of whimsy in 2007.

JoshNH4H wrote:

I wonder if antimatter could be used for propulsion in much the same way as nuclear weapons could be used to accelerate spacecraft. The explosions that antimatter could make when it comes in contact with normal matter are probably greater than the explosions of nuclear weapons. Could the antimatter explosions be directed at the back of the spacecraft just like the orion starship would have it done? Please reply and tell me what you think of this idea.
There is a way to do this. You turn a Proton into an antiproton WITH LASERS in a way that can be done on your average interstellar/interplanetary craft. The Antiprotons are accellerated into water, creating fast moving NH2, a few pions, and a few gamma rays.

However, this entire topic might lend itself to the related topic of dynamic radiation protection, if you were willing.

That ten year history of posts is daunting to contemplate reading, but someone out there in the forum readership may have done it as it occurred (other than the author, of course).

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-07-17 17:05:34

Topic all cleaned up and here is a list of topics that we have here that relates:

New anti-matter engine ideas,

Antimatter & matter - chemical reaction ?!

600 seconds

Fullerine antimatter containment for rocket fuel

Magmatter: Does it exist?

Negative Matter - key to Warp Drive

New and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for Mars Missions

ION Drive a fast transit to Mars

Ion Neutralization Propulsion

oldest topic which has a title that would if not for the artifacts in it
E=mcÂ²

Exploding Antimatter Bombs against the back of an orion

Orion Starship - Orion Starship

matter and anti-matter - Bringing back the old idea

Anti-matter - as a method of propulsion.

Antimatter - More viable than fusion?

Anti-Matter & CERN Laboratory

Antimatter: Galactic Cloud

As you can see with this many topics of which the choice is to talk antimatter for propulsion there does not need to be one create every time some new news comes by....

What we know about antimatter is: we can create, destroyed and even contain in a magnetic bottle with a huge amount of power required making the need for fussion power generation something that would also be needed.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-04 12:56:51

Are Telescopes the Only Way to Find Dark Matter?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … rk-matter/

NASA Image Shows Tiny Star Unleashing Furious Beam of Antimatter

https://futurism.com/the-byte/nasa-antimatter-image

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-08-31 19:58:04

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#2 2003-08-31 20:38:51

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#3 2003-09-01 04:42:22

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#4 2003-09-01 13:28:17

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#5 2003-09-01 14:53:57

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#6 2003-09-01 17:58:50

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#7 2003-09-02 07:50:20

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#8 2003-09-02 08:08:52

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#9 2003-09-02 11:36:52

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#10 2003-09-02 18:14:48

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#11 2003-09-04 08:21:02

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#12 2003-09-04 23:35:26

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#13 2007-07-15 17:57:16

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#14 2007-07-16 04:26:20

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#15 2007-07-17 12:01:23

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#16 2007-07-19 17:58:15

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#17 2007-07-19 19:47:44

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#18 2007-07-21 18:44:36

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#19 2007-09-09 06:11:01

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#20 2007-09-09 07:56:08

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#21 2007-09-11 13:38:34

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#22 2007-09-15 10:44:46

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#23 2019-07-17 10:38:20

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#24 2019-07-17 17:05:34

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

#25 2022-04-04 12:56:51

Re: Antimatter Propulsion - Could Antimatter be used for propulsion?

Board footer