Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: cabojoe

"The most significant advantage is more safety,"

If they can ever figure this thing out, think of the earth-bound applications it could have. No more dependence on fossil fuels, for starters.


41 posted on 04/15/2006 7:51:10 AM PDT by George - the Other
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes

"("a milligram is about one-thousandth the weight of a piece of the original M&M candy")

"plain or peanut?"

Well, considering it says "original", I'd say 'Plain".


42 posted on 04/15/2006 9:19:01 AM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: burzum

> 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

It *would* be safer, in many ways. If you launch your antimatter rocket out in the middle of nowhere, like, say, off a floating platform in the ocean, if things go wrong theres a flash and that's the end of it. If the payload is a nuclear reactor, though, you have at least the potential for the uranium to be vaporized and create uranium oxide hazards downwind.

The antimatter system has good potential for use as a launch vehicle propulsion system, operating from the pad to orbit and beyond. Nukes don't really have that potential.

> 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.

Creating and storing cryogenic liquid hydrogen was once an issue.


43 posted on 04/15/2006 9:22:49 AM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wotan

35 milligrams are all that would be needed to put something the mass of the Space Shuttle into orbit.


44 posted on 04/15/2006 9:24:24 AM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Here's an interesting idea for a "cheap" way to get antimatter: scoop it out of space.

Sounds like there may be military applications, too. Scoop up antimatter from space, magnetically bottle it into bombs, and then drop them on enemy countries.

As they say, you're not doing real physics unless your work may lead to the destruction of all life on Earth.

45 posted on 04/15/2006 11:33:33 AM PDT by wotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
It *would* be safer, in many ways. If you launch your antimatter rocket out in the middle of nowhere, like, say, off a floating platform in the ocean, if things go wrong theres a flash and that's the end of it. If the payload is a nuclear reactor, though, you have at least the potential for the uranium to be vaporized and create uranium oxide hazards downwind.

I don't know if the astronauts would consider it safer! 10 milligrams is equivalent to 500 tons of TNT. And if that's not bad enough, the exposure from the gammas would unquestionably be fatal. At least with a chemical rocket you theoretically have a chance to get away from a dangerous rocket with an escape mechanism (like on the Apollo program).

I think you overestimate the danger with a nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors don't suddenly explode and vaporize everything (especially their fuel). And even if they did, you could apply your caveat of being in the middle of the ocean. Any way you look at it (unless you have accumulated significant radioactive material in the reactor core), the nuclear option is safer. The nuclear option will only be dangerous if you take active measures to make it that way (violate safeguards, etc). The antimatter option is only *safe* if you take active measures to make it that way (ensure confinement).

46 posted on 04/15/2006 12:11:55 PM PDT by burzum (A single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a hundred lashes for a fool.--Prov 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
...We can go to Mars? Can we send Cindy Sheehan there?

Funny, since Mars is the God of War.

Still, why would you want to polute Mars with that waste of space?

47 posted on 04/15/2006 2:33:38 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: burzum
The antimatter option is only *safe* if you take active measures to make it that way (ensure confinement).

Captain, we have a warp core breech - ejecting the core now!

48 posted on 04/15/2006 3:32:04 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
LOL! Watch the anti nuke/America nuts start yelling about how we should keep Space radioactive free!>>>>>>>>

The anti nuke nuts are now plotting a massive plan to launch an organic fermentation sphere 6 miles in diameter full of fermenting organic beans which promises to out perform the thrust of an anti matter motor. Not that it anti-matters. Just thought you might like to anti up in the natural organic space anti race.>>>>>>>>

Imagine, riding to Mars in a multi billion dollar fermentor reaching organic qwarp speed in front of a continuous sequance of farts.

Is it not any wonder that extra terrestrial aliens have avoided communicating with us?

49 posted on 04/15/2006 7:40:27 PM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal Flatulence Goes the Hope of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cabojoe

I think we have to start thinking about space exploration and space resource extraction not by biological humans. Instead robots, and computers far beyond what we have today. That are built to withstand the affects of space travel.

Eventually man may be able to travel too, but in a non-biological body.. an uploaded conciousness.. something we can only speculate on how it could be done today.


50 posted on 04/15/2006 7:43:25 PM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cabojoe

How much anti-money is this going to cost and how many limbs will the offsrping of the astronauts have?


51 posted on 04/16/2006 1:12:16 PM PDT by S0122017 (God created the aliens which guided evolution which produced the human race and that's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson