NASA funding research into anti-matter rockets!

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
spikenigma
Village Idiot
Posts: 342
Joined: 2004-06-04 09:07am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

NASA funding research into anti-matter rockets!

Post by spikenigma »

nasa wrote: New and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for Mars Missions

04.14.06

Most self-respecting starships in science fiction stories use antimatter as fuel for a good reason – it’s the most potent fuel known. While tons of chemical fuel are needed to propel a human mission to Mars, just tens of milligrams of antimatter will do (a milligram is about one-thousandth the weight of a piece of the original M&M candy).

Image right: A spacecraft powered by a positron reactor would resemble this artist's concept of the Mars Reference Mission spacecraft. Credit: NASA

However, in reality this power comes with a price. Some antimatter reactions produce blasts of high energy gamma rays. Gamma rays are like X-rays on steroids. They penetrate matter and break apart molecules in cells, so they are not healthy to be around. High-energy gamma rays can also make the engines radioactive by fragmenting atoms of the engine material.

The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) is funding a team of researchers working on a new design for an antimatter-powered spaceship that avoids this nasty side effect by producing gamma rays with much lower energy.

Antimatter is sometimes called the mirror image of normal matter because while it looks just like ordinary matter, some properties are reversed. For example, normal electrons, the familiar particles that carry electric current in everything from cell phones to plasma TVs, have a negative electric charge. Anti-electrons have a positive charge, so scientists dubbed them "positrons".

When antimatter meets matter, both annihilate in a flash of energy. This complete conversion to energy is what makes antimatter so powerful. Even the nuclear reactions that power atomic bombs come in a distant second, with only about three percent of their mass converted to energy.

Previous antimatter-powered spaceship designs employed antiprotons, which produce high-energy gamma rays when they annihilate. The new design will use positrons, which make gamma rays with about 400 times less energy.

The NIAC research is a preliminary study to see if the idea is feasible. If it looks promising, and funds are available to successfully develop the technology, a positron-powered spaceship would have a couple advantages over the existing plans for a human mission to Mars, called the Mars Reference Mission.

Image left: A diagram of a rocket powered by a positron reactor. Positrons are directed from the storage unit to the attenuating matrix, where they interact with the material and release heat. Liquid hydrogen (H2) circulates through the attenuating matrix and picks up the heat. The hydrogen then flows to the nozzle exit (bell-shaped area in yellow and blue), where it expands into space, producing thrust. Print-resolution copy Credit: Positronics Research, LLC

"The most significant advantage is more safety," said Dr. Gerald Smith of Positronics Research, LLC, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The current Reference Mission calls for a nuclear reactor to propel the spaceship to Mars. This is desirable because nuclear propulsion reduces travel time to Mars, increasing safety for the crew by reducing their exposure to cosmic rays. Also, a chemically-powered spacecraft weighs much more and costs a lot more to launch. The reactor also provides ample power for the three-year mission. But nuclear reactors are complex, so more things could potentially go wrong during the mission. "However, the positron reactor offers the same advantages but is relatively simple," said Smith, lead researcher for the NIAC study.

Also, nuclear reactors are radioactive even after their fuel is used up. After the ship arrives at Mars, Reference Mission plans are to direct the reactor into an orbit that will not encounter Earth for at least a million years, when the residual radiation will be reduced to safe levels. However, there is no leftover radiation in a positron reactor after the fuel is used up, so there is no safety concern if the spent positron reactor should accidentally re-enter Earth's atmosphere, according to the team.

It will be safer to launch as well. If a rocket carrying a nuclear reactor explodes, it could release radioactive particles into the atmosphere. "Our positron spacecraft would release a flash of gamma-rays if it exploded, but the gamma rays would be gone in an instant. There would be no radioactive particles to drift on the wind. The flash would also be confined to a relatively small area. The danger zone would be about a kilometer (about a half-mile) around the spacecraft. An ordinary large chemically-powered rocket has a danger zone of about the same size, due to the big fireball that would result from its explosion," said Smith.

Another significant advantage is speed. The Reference Mission spacecraft would take astronauts to Mars in about 180 days. "Our advanced designs, like the gas core and the ablative engine concepts, could take astronauts to Mars in half that time, and perhaps even in as little as 45 days," said Kirby Meyer, an engineer with Positronics Research on the study.

Advanced engines do this by running hot, which increases their efficiency or "specific impulse" (Isp). Isp is the "miles per gallon" of rocketry: the higher the Isp, the faster you can go before you use up your fuel supply. The best chemical rockets, like NASA's Space Shuttle main engine, max out at around 450 seconds, which means a pound of fuel will produce a pound of thrust for 450 seconds. A nuclear or positron reactor can make over 900 seconds. The ablative engine, which slowly vaporizes itself to produce thrust, could go as high as 5,000 seconds.

Image right: This is an artist's concept of an advanced positron rocket engine, called an ablative engine. This engine produces thrust when material in the nozzle is vaporized (ablated). In the image, the engine emits blue-white exhaust as thin layers of material are vaporized by positrons in tiny capsules surrounded by lead. The capsules are shot into the nozzle compartment many times per second. Once in the nozzle compartment, the positrons are allowed to interact with the capsule, releasing gamma rays. The lead absorbs the gamma rays and radiates lower-energy X-rays, which vaporize the nozzle material. This complication is necessary because X-rays are more efficiently absorbed by the nozzle material than gamma rays would be. Credit: Positronics Research, LLC

One technical challenge to making a positron spacecraft a reality is the cost to produce the positrons. Because of its spectacular effect on normal matter, there is not a lot of antimatter sitting around. In space, it is created in collisions of high-speed particles called cosmic rays. On Earth, it has to be created in particle accelerators, immense machines that smash atoms together. The machines are normally used to discover how the universe works on a deep, fundamental level, but they can be harnessed as antimatter factories.

"A rough estimate to produce the 10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission is about 250 million dollars using technology that is currently under development," said Smith. This cost might seem high, but it has to be considered against the extra cost to launch a heavier chemical rocket (current launch costs are about $10,000 per pound) or the cost to fuel and make safe a nuclear reactor. "Based on the experience with nuclear technology, it seems reasonable to expect positron production cost to go down with more research," added Smith.

Another challenge is storing enough positrons in a small space. Because they annihilate normal matter, you can't just stuff them in a bottle. Instead, they have to be contained with electric and magnetic fields. "We feel confident that with a dedicated research and development program, these challenges can be overcome," said Smith.

If this is so, perhaps the first humans to reach Mars will arrive in spaceships powered by the same source that fired starships across the universes of our science fiction dreams.
interesting stuff

NASA.gov

as an aside: does anybody know specifically what new "anti matter producing technology under development" they refer to

thoughts on anti-matter rockets in general?
There is no knowledge that is not power...
User avatar
Zor
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5928
Joined: 2004-06-08 03:37am

Post by Zor »

It sounds good on paper but there are two big problems with it.

1-Production, creating antimatter takes a freakin' lot of energy and so far we have been only able to produce incredably minute quantities of it.
2-Storage, you need to keep antimatter contained at all times in a magnetic bottle, if that fails your dead. For an antimatter powered spaceship you need reliable antimatter containment or you are royally screwed.

These two problems must be adresessed for antimatter propelled spacecraft to become a reality, and they will take years to solve.

Zor
HAIL ZOR! WE'LL BLOW UP THE OCEAN!
Heros of Cybertron-HAB-Keeper of the Vicious pit of Allosauruses-King Leighton-I, United Kingdom of Zoria: SD.net World/Tsar Mikhail-I of the Red Tsardom: SD.net Kingdoms
WHEN ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ON EARTH, ALL EARTH BREAKS LOOSE ON HELL
Terran Sphere
The Art of Zor
User avatar
White Haven
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6360
Joined: 2004-05-17 03:14pm
Location: The North Remembers, When It Can Be Bothered

Post by White Haven »

Zor wrote:It sounds good on paper but there are two big problems with it.

1-Production, creating antimatter takes a freakin' lot of energy and so far we have been only able to produce incredably minute quantities of it.
2-Storage, you need to keep antimatter contained at all times in a magnetic bottle, if that fails your dead. For an antimatter powered spaceship you need reliable antimatter containment or you are royally screwed.

These two problems must be adresessed for antimatter propelled spacecraft to become a reality, and they will take years to solve.

Zor
On the plus side, if it DOES fail, some part of you will make it to Mars in record time.
Image
Image
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.

Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'

Fiction!: The Final War (Bolo/Lovecraft) (Ch 7 9/15/11), Living (D&D, Complete)Image
User avatar
Qwerty 42
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2008
Joined: 2005-06-01 05:05pm

Post by Qwerty 42 »

just tens of milligrams of antimatter will do (a milligram is about one-thousandth the weight of a piece of the original M&M candy).
This is absolutely mind-boggling to me.
Image Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
User avatar
SWPIGWANG
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1693
Joined: 2002-09-24 05:00pm
Location: Commence Primary Ignorance

Post by SWPIGWANG »

meh antimatter is no big deal. The sci-fi boards are tossing around energy densities that make even antimatter seem weak as hell.

.....okay, I should stop using wanky VS debates as point of reference.....
User avatar
Seggybop
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 2002-07-20 07:09pm
Location: USA

Post by Seggybop »

I've visited the antimatter research facility at Marshall Space Flight Center before. Superultracool. I'll see if I can find photos of it to post.
my heart is a shell of depleted uranium
User avatar
drachefly
Jedi Master
Posts: 1323
Joined: 2004-10-13 12:24pm

Post by drachefly »

Okay, suppose their system takes 10 milligrams of positrons. How are they going to store a charge of 1.7 million coulombs without letting said charge sit in a conductor?

You need to cancel that charge somehow; and furthermore, you need the electrons you're using to cancel it (remember, they aren't bringing any antiprotons) not to leap out of the metal they're in and annihilate. So you need the electric field to stay below the breakdown field of the metal you're working with. And if a speck of dust gets on it, then it'll spark much more easily, and wham you just blew up the space ship.

Positronics Research's main claim is to have figured out means of storing anti-ATOMS at high density. This is however an entirely different problem from storing enormous numbers of positrons only. Perhaps their strategy is to put in antiprotons as well, but throw them overboard and not use their energy?

In that case, they would need to make a gram of antiprotons for every milligram of positrons. That drops the efficiency by a factor of 1000. Then you might as well use fission.
User avatar
Count Dooku
Jedi Knight
Posts: 577
Joined: 2006-01-18 11:37pm
Location: California

Post by Count Dooku »

There are lots of obstacles before this ever happens, and I'd guess it will be at least another 50 years (probably more like 100 years) before we ever see an anti-matter powered space-craft. NASA has some damned intelligent people working for them, and given enough time, they'll figure it out.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD)
User avatar
Aeolus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1497
Joined: 2003-04-12 03:09am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Post by Aeolus »

Count Dooku wrote:There are lots of obstacles before this ever happens, and I'd guess it will be at least another 50 years (probably more like 100 years) before we ever see an anti-matter powered space-craft. NASA has some damned intelligent people working for them, and given enough time, they'll figure it out.
Thats a pretty conservative estimate. They seem to think it's doable in time for a mars mission. that would put it in the next 20 or 30 years.
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;
User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6787
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn »

Aeolus wrote:
Count Dooku wrote:There are lots of obstacles before this ever happens, and I'd guess it will be at least another 50 years (probably more like 100 years) before we ever see an anti-matter powered space-craft. NASA has some damned intelligent people working for them, and given enough time, they'll figure it out.
Thats a pretty conservative estimate. They seem to think it's doable in time for a mars mission. that would put it in the next 20 or 30 years.
They also always seem think that fusion reactors are a few decades off. Using the current progress of fusion technology (which doesn't have quite the hurdles to overcome,) an antimatter rocket in 20 to 30 years would be wildly, wanktastically optimistic. I would go so far as to suggest that it would be, perhaps, another century before we'd have an antimatter rocket suitable for a small, experimental robotic payload.
Post Reply