- #1
plum
- 136
- 0
How could the explosion (re: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410511 ) be contained/ funneled out (without blowing up the actual spacecraft )?
russ_watters said:Well, I'm not exactly sure what a matter-antimatter explosion looks like - an extremely high energy black-body? Just plain gamma rays?
Basically, you just make the explosion happen outside the ship and use a shield to reflect the energy away from the ship, driving it forward.
The energy release rate (power) depends on the rate of antimatter-matter annihilations. By controlling the release (current or flow rate) of anti-protons from whatever trap (storage system) which contains the Bose-Einstein Condensate (which is discussed in the paper), the reaction rate is controlled. Afterall, the title of the paper is "Controlled Antihydrogen Propulsion . . . ".plum said:How could the explosion (re: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410511 ) be contained/ funneled out (without blowing up the actual spacecraft )?
That's what some fusion experts said about fusion.We estimate that, starting with the present level of knowledge and multi-agency support, the goal of using antihydrogen for propulsion purposes may be accomplished in ~50 years.
It's pretty much the only practical means of interstellar travel if you want any significant thrust. (Ion propulsion is far more efficient, but gives a very low impetus. It's still a better bet in the long-run, though.)plum said:barring miraculous technological breakthroughs for creating and then storing tons of antimatter, using it for manned interstellar travel will be impractical for the foreseeable future.
Danger said:As for the amount of antimatter needed, do you really have any concept of how powerful this stuff is?
Nothing in my arsenal can read the link that you posted, but I would certainly suggest that you study up on 'Ion Compressed Antimatter Nuclear' propulsion as is being developed at the Pennsylvania State University Center for Space Propulsion Engineering in association with the Marshall Space Flight Center. You'll see that the proposed mission requires less than 10mg of antiprotons for a trip to Barnard's Star.plum said:Do some more research before you disagree.
An anti-hydrogen spacecraft is a theoretical spacecraft that would use anti-matter, specifically anti-hydrogen, as a fuel source. Anti-hydrogen is the antimatter counterpart to regular hydrogen, and when combined with regular hydrogen, it produces a tremendous amount of energy.
An anti-hydrogen spacecraft would work by using a powerful magnetic field to contain and control the anti-matter fuel. The anti-hydrogen and regular hydrogen would be combined in a matter-antimatter reaction, producing high-energy particles that can be harnessed as thrust for propulsion.
The potential benefits of an anti-hydrogen spacecraft include extremely high speeds and efficiency, as well as the ability to travel long distances without needing to refuel. It could also open up the possibility of interstellar travel and exploration.
One of the main challenges is the production and containment of anti-matter, which currently requires large amounts of energy and specialized equipment. There is also a risk of catastrophic explosions if the anti-matter fuel is not properly controlled and contained.
While there have been some proposals and research on anti-matter propulsion, there are currently no active projects or plans for an anti-hydrogen spacecraft. The technology and resources needed to develop and operate such a spacecraft are still in the early stages of development.