Replies

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

1 posted on 04/14/2006 10:51:13 PM PDT by cabojoe

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

2 posted on 04/14/2006 10:55:43 PM PDT by Dallas59

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

4 posted on 04/14/2006 11:03:47 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)

Warp drive is so last millenium...

7 posted on 04/14/2006 11:13:01 PM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)

To: cabojoe; KevinDavis

8 posted on 04/14/2006 11:13:55 PM PDT by demlosers

14 posted on 04/14/2006 11:29:40 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)

Will they be using Microsoft,Linux, or Mac to control this antimatter?

17 posted on 04/14/2006 11:48:56 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)

18 posted on 04/14/2006 11:55:38 PM PDT by DB (©)

"I canna do it, Cap'n! She'll blow apart!"

20 posted on 04/15/2006 1:18:39 AM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)

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)

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)

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.)

Doesn't antimatter cost about $27B per ounce?

28 posted on 04/15/2006 1:55:25 AM PDT by wotan

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!")

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?

36 posted on 04/15/2006 4:26:32 AM PDT by Larry Lucido

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

plain or peanut?

37 posted on 04/15/2006 4:31:32 AM PDT by patriot_wes

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)

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/)

"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

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

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.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794