Skip to comments.
New and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for Mars Missions
NASA/GODDARD ^
| 04.14.06
| Bill Steigerwald
Posted on 04/14/2006 10:51:10 PM PDT by cabojoe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
To: cabojoe
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. This was a neat way for the engineer to downplay the energy of a nuclear bomb being released. I can't believe he actually thinks it would be safer to launch a rocket which if it has an issue will explode with the energy of a nuclear weapon as compared to one with a nuclear reactor which will crash and spread a small amount of radioactive material (the high level radioactive material is only created during operation--not prior to operation).
But I am more suprised that NASA would put an article like this on their website. Sure, they discuss all the advantages to using a 'magic' energy source, but they seem to have left out some minor details. How do you confine these anti-matter particles in large numbers and how do you create them economically. Reading the article, it would seem like it this a minor issue.
21
posted on
04/15/2006 1:26:25 AM PDT
by
burzum
(A single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a hundred lashes for a fool.--Prov 17:10)
To: Don Joe
I don't see any "revolutionary propulsion" technology here. This looks like a "conventional" design for an "atomic rocket", except instead of using a "conventional" reactor for the heat to whoosh the superheated hydrogen out the backside, they propose to use antimatter to produce the heat.
Big *yawn*. This is nothing more IMO than a long-term money-sink. Can you imagine how many decades they can drag this out, trying to "iron out that one last kink in the design" -- the antimatter containment vessel? LOL! They might as well propose an "antigravity drive", showing "artist conception" drawing of "what the antigravity starship might look like", and a crude diagram of how the "antigravity waves" would be used to propel the ship.
The only "kink in the design" would be the little detail about HOW to "create the antigravity waves". For that, they can take this drawing, and relable the "bleeds off the right edge of the page" section that is currently labeled "STORAGE UNIT". All they'd need to do is write in "ANTIGRAVITY GENERATOR"!
LOL!
Here, look for yourselves:
22
posted on
04/15/2006 1:26:37 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: burzum
But I am more suprised that NASA would put an article like this on their website. Sure, they discuss all the advantages to using a 'magic' energy source, but they seem to have left out some minor details. How do you confine these anti-matter particles in large numbers and how do you create them economically. Reading the article, it would seem like it this a minor issue. Oh, but it is! All you need to do is budget tons of money to keep throwing at it year after year, decade after decade, building up a huge research enterprise that just keeps on growing like Topsy. Of course, you'll need to periodically release pep talk white papers explaining how you're really making progress, and expect a "breakthrough" any year now.
23
posted on
04/15/2006 1:31:21 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Don Joe
PS:
Oh, but it is! All you need to do is budget tons of money to keep throwing at it year after year, decade after decade, building up a huge research enterprise that just keeps on growing like Topsy. Of course, you'll need to periodically release pep talk white papers explaining how you're really making progress, and expect a "breakthrough" any year now.
The beauty part of this scam is that after you've managed to drag it out for a few years, you can scream bloody murder about how "irresponsible" it would be to "throw away all the years of investment in this technology" any time Congress makes noise about pulling the plug on the program.
24
posted on
04/15/2006 1:37:02 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: cabojoe
Wow, another case of 'Science Fiction' becoming a reality.
25
posted on
04/15/2006 1:39:51 AM PDT
by
Dustbunny
(The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist)
To: WestVirginiaRebel
From:
A Star Trek ChristmasTh' control panel's shootin' sparks like lightnin'!
An' th' dilythium crystals look frightenin'!
Cap'n! Jus' thought ya'd like ta know
She's goin' ta blow!
She's goin' ta blow!
She's goin' ta blow!
26
posted on
04/15/2006 1:48:35 AM PDT
by
uglybiker
(Don't blame me. I didn't make you stupid.)
To: KevinDavis
27
posted on
04/15/2006 1:50:27 AM PDT
by
Las Vegas Dave
("Liberals out of power are comical-Liberals in power are dangerous!"-Rush Limbaugh.)
To: cabojoe
Doesn't antimatter cost about $27B per ounce?
28
posted on
04/15/2006 1:55:25 AM PDT
by
wotan
To: wotan
"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.
29
posted on
04/15/2006 1:59:54 AM PDT
by
cabojoe
To: Don Joe
Yeah, it is a little ironic that they have the
expectmore.gov link at the bottom of this page.
30
posted on
04/15/2006 2:04:22 AM PDT
by
burzum
(A single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a hundred lashes for a fool.--Prov 17:10)
To: cabojoe
NASA posted this?
You gotta be kidding! There's no place for duct tape in an antimatter engine.
31
posted on
04/15/2006 3:49:32 AM PDT
by
manwiththehands
("'Rule of law'? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!")
To: cabojoe
If this is true, doesn't it mean that we will soon have the ability to blow up our entire planet through the creation of enough "cheap" anti-matter?
32
posted on
04/15/2006 3:55:38 AM PDT
by
wotan
To: manwiththehands
"NASA posted this? You gotta be kidding!"
- No, as a matter of fact it's been out there for some time. Since April 1st. I think.
33
posted on
04/15/2006 3:59:51 AM PDT
by
finnigan2
(OUS)
To: wotan
Doesn't antimatter cost about $27B per ounce? Does it matter?
To: Larry Lucido
Doesn't antimatter cost about $27B per ounce?
Since when does the Gov't care about cost?
35
posted on
04/15/2006 4:21:01 AM PDT
by
Mr. C
To: cabojoe
So do antimatter particles just get disillusioned with being matter, then go off and set up anti-matter web sites and talk bad about matter?
To: cabojoe
(
"a milligram is about one-thousandth the weight of a piece of the original M&M candy")
plain or peanut?
To: RightWhale; Brett66; xrp; gdc314; anymouse; NonZeroSum; jimkress; discostu; The_Victor; ...
38
posted on
04/15/2006 5:34:14 AM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(http://www.cafepress.com/spacefuture)
To: philetus; All
Would you really want to use Microsoft to control spaceships??? Just think in a middle of a launch the OS shows a blue screen of death???
39
posted on
04/15/2006 5:37:04 AM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(http://www.cafepress.com/spacefuture)
To: Berosus
I'd rather see more work on quadrotriticale.
40
posted on
04/15/2006 5:57:06 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson