A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Antimatter propulsion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 22nd 03, 01:19 PM
Dr. O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Antimatter propulsion

**I'm posting this in this NG as this post was rejected by the moderator in
sci.space.tech.**

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._031217-1.html

I'm personally not a fan of antimatter propulsion at this time as there's no
safeguarding technology for when the launch or a component during flight
fails. The only way to encapsulate antimatter at this time is through
magnetic containment, which needs power and a complex control system. If
these fail during launch or at any time during the flight the result will be
an explosion which dwarfs that of a hydrogen bomb.





Ads
  #2  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:26 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Antimatter propulsion

I'm personally not a fan of antimatter propulsion at this time as there's no
safeguarding technology for when the launch or a component during flight
fails. The only way to encapsulate antimatter at this time is through
magnetic containment, which needs power and a complex control system. If
these fail during launch or at any time during the flight the result will be
an explosion which dwarfs that of a hydrogen bomb.



30 milligrams of antimatter won't make that big of an explosion. Certainly not
enough to dwarf a hydrogen bomb. What it can do is produce high energy
densities that could be used to initiate hydrogen fusion on a small scale. Most
of the energy that propells the ship would come from hydrogen fusion.
Antimatter will never be completely safe.

Tom
  #3  
Old December 22nd 03, 06:59 PM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Antimatter propulsion

In article , Dr. O [email protected] wrote:
**I'm posting this in this NG as this post was rejected by the moderator in
sci.space.tech.**



Not intentionally. Your message arrived in my inbox in the
middle of a batch of about 40 spams someone sent me
(Free HGH penis extension mortgages now!) to the moderation
mailbox, and I just didn't notice it at the time.

I cleaned out the backlog of cruft, found a bunch of messages
from Thursday onwards that were valid messages lost in the
morass of spam, and have approved them all.


-george william herbert


  #4  
Old December 23rd 03, 04:20 AM
Mike Rhino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Antimatter propulsion

"Dr. O" [email protected] wrote in message
...
**I'm posting this in this NG as this post was rejected by the moderator

in
sci.space.tech.**


http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._031217-1.html

I'm personally not a fan of antimatter propulsion at this time as there's

no
safeguarding technology for when the launch or a component during flight
fails. The only way to encapsulate antimatter at this time is through
magnetic containment, which needs power and a complex control system. If
these fail during launch or at any time during the flight the result will

be
an explosion which dwarfs that of a hydrogen bomb.


It sounds like antimatter production would have to be done in space,
possibly on an asteroid, for safety reasons. We may have our first O'Neil
colony before we can do that.


  #5  
Old December 23rd 03, 06:16 AM
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Antimatter propulsion



Mike Rhino wrote:
"Dr. O" [email protected] wrote in message
...

**I'm posting this in this NG as this post was rejected by the moderator


in

sci.space.tech.**



http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._031217-1.html

I'm personally not a fan of antimatter propulsion at this time as there's


no

safeguarding technology for when the launch or a component during flight
fails. The only way to encapsulate antimatter at this time is through
magnetic containment, which needs power and a complex control system. If
these fail during launch or at any time during the flight the result will


be

an explosion which dwarfs that of a hydrogen bomb.



It sounds like antimatter production would have to be done in space,
possibly on an asteroid, for safety reasons. We may have our first O'Neil
colony before we can do that.




ISTR several science fiction stories where antimatter is manufactured on
Mercury
because of the abundant solar energy.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

  #6  
Old December 23rd 03, 07:04 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Antimatter propulsion

Antimatter can be produced on the ground. A small amount of antimatter can
replace the fuel in the space shuttle. If fact it would take less energy worth
of antimatter to lift the shuttle into orbit, that it would in chemical fuel.

Tom
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Antimatter propulsion Jorge R. Frank Technology 21 January 27th 04 05:58 AM
A revolutionary propulsion system asps Space Shuttle 49 December 21st 03 10:25 PM
A revolutionary propulsion system Franz Heymann Policy 8 December 13th 03 07:29 PM
A revolutionary propulsion system Harry Conover Policy 0 December 11th 03 09:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.