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
To: 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
To: cabojoe
...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)
To: cabojoe
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
To: cabojoe
To: cabojoe
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.)
To: cabojoe
18 posted on
04/14/2006 11:55:38 PM PDT by
DB
(©)
To: cabojoe
"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)
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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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/)
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.
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
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.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson