Anti-Matter Engines

[Space_Goose]

I found on the internet where NASA has a hired a private company to build them an Anti-Matter Engine. The website didn't really give any specificies on the technology or how it would work so I have some questions about anti matter engines and how they would work. I assume the engine works off of the principle that matter and anti-matter destory each other creating a lot of energy in the process.

So my question is.... If Anti-matter and matter destory each other, how will it be possible to store the anti-matter on the ship? Will the storage tank or device not be made out of matter and there for be destroyed? Also I was wondering, what form will the anti-matter take. For instance, if I were flying my space ship powered by an Anti-matter Engine and noticed I was running low on fuel, so I swung by the first space station to refill, what would I refill with?

Thanks

 

[1of6Billion]

All I know is that Anti matter can be stored in some kind of magnetic flask. A strong magnetic field can prevent the antimatter from touching the matter.

I would be very curious "how" to achieve propulsion with a lot of energy, but nothing to propell away... :?:

 

[origin]

I found on the internet where NASA has a hired a private company to build them an Anti-Matter Engine. The website didn't really give any specificies on the technology or how it would work so I have some questions about anti matter engines and how they would work. I assume the engine works off of the principle that matter and anti-matter destory each other creating a lot of energy in the process.

So my question is.... If Anti-matter and matter destory each other, how will it be possible to store the anti-matter on the ship? Will the storage tank or device not be made out of matter and there for be destroyed? Also I was wondering, what form will the anti-matter take. For instance, if I were flying my space ship powered by an Anti-matter Engine and noticed I was running low on fuel, so I swung by the first space station to refill, what would I refill with?

Thanks

Well the LHC uses anti-proton so that is a candidate. Probably that or positrons would be the anit-matter of choice.

Do you have a link to this story, because this sounds a little hard to believe. I would understand if there was a company or a university hired to do some research into how to make a large quantity of anit-matter or maybe a concept of how a matter anti-matter engine could use the energy produced in a useful way, but actually making an engine is a bit surprising to say the least!

 

[Space_Goose]

Well, i saw this article over a month ago and I was unable to find the one I had before but I did find this one, which says a group of scientists not a company and also says that the engine will be using positrons. The article says that it will only take a few milligrams of positrons to send a vessel to mars. Anyway this article is here, not sure where I saw the first one.

http://thefutureofthings.com/articles.php?itemId=33/64/

So, if they use positrons, what form would the positrons be in, liquid, gas, ect.?

 

[origin]

Well, i saw this article over a month ago and I was unable to find the one I had before but I did find this one, which says a group of scientists not a company and also says that the engine will be using positrons. The article says that it will only take a few milligrams of positrons to send a vessel to mars. Anyway this article is here, not sure where I saw the first one.

http://thefutureofthings.com/articles.php?itemId=33/64/

So, if they use positrons, what form would the positrons be in, liquid, gas, ect.?

From the article: recently funded Dr. Smith's research to examine the potential applications of antimatter as a fuel for a manned mission to Mars.

This makes sense to do some fundemental research into the concept, but we are no where near building an engine.

I would imagine any antimater would have to be in a gas type state (not really gas because the positrons are not atoms) so that it could be contained in a 'magnetic bottle'. I don't know of any other way to contain it.

 

[Shpaget]

At CERN they can produce 10^7 antiprotons per second. In one gram of antihydrogen there are 6x10^23. That means that it would take CERN 2 million years of nonstop production to make one milligram of antiprotons.
edit to add:
Of course they can't contain anywhere near that much, only 10^12 antiparticles of the same charge.

 

[Space_Goose]

So I have been trying to look at this with the perspective based on our current technology, if we were to develope an Anti-matter Engine. I assume the principle behind it would be combining matter with Anti-matter in a chamber where they would destroy each other and the resulting release of energy would be used to power the engine just like our current internal combustion engines that we all use everyday. So if you did have a space ship with an Anti-Matter Engine, wouldn't you have to refuel with ordinary matter along with ant-matter? Wouldn't have to have both on your ship so you could combine them?

 

[Shpaget]

wouldn't you have to refuel with ordinary matter along with ant-matter? Wouldn't have to have both on your ship so you could combine them?

Yes you would, but what's the problem?
There is no shortage of matter.

I assume the principle behind it would be combining matter with Anti-matter in a chamber where they would destroy each other and the resulting release of energy would be used to power the engine just like our current internal combustion engines that we all use everyday.

There would be no use of it. You can't propel a spacecraft with an internal combustion engine or any other engine that produces rotational movement as it's primary output (electric motors, turboshaft, steam turbines...).

 

[reimk4526]

I assume the principle behind it would be combining matter with Anti-matter in a chamber where they would destroy each other and the resulting release of energy would be used to power the engine just like our current internal combustion engines that we all use everyday.

The matter-antimatter engine would likely have a closer resemblance to conventional chemical rocket engines. The antimatter could have to be contained in a strong magnetic field. The antimatter and matter would then be combined in a reaction chamber also lined with a strong magnetic field. The energy released likely could be then be directed through a constriction point to further accelerate it further (if needed) and then out of the engine to provide a massive amount of thrust. All containment and energy direction would have to utilize magnetic fields.

The most difficult hurtles against building a matter-antimatter engine at this point is funding, reliably maintaining the magnetic fields and producing the antimatter.

 

[Flatland]

Wouldn't it be much better to create a mechanism that produces the antimatter on the spot from normal matter? Seems a lot safer than storing antimatter in a magnetic bottle.

 

[MeteorWayne]

AND supplying the enormous energy required to contain your teaspoon of antimatter (more than will be produced and contained on earth in the next century), since the price of having a momentary power failure is a very large boom, and a flash of 511 kEV radiation....

 

[MeteorWayne]

Wouldn't it be much better to create a mechanism that produces the antimatter on the spot from normal matter? Seems a lot safer than storing antimatter in a magnetic bottle.

And how do you propose to do that? It requires kilometer wide or long colliders to do that now, also requiring enormous amounts of energy (in fact, more than you would gain from anihillating the antimatter produced)

If you have that much energy available, an ion engine seems far more efficient.

 

[reimk4526]

New and far more efficient methods of producing antimatter would have to be produced along with fail-safes to prevent power failures. However, correct me if I'm wrong, the energy produced could propel a ship close to the speed of light, something that ion engines could never achieve.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Again, if you use more enrgy to create the antimatter than you gain out of using it, what's the point?
No matter how efficient, it will never have more energy stored than that required to create it (that's basic physics), and the energy required to store it is a constant loss.

And if you have enough energy to spare, an ion engine, given enough time, can get as close to the speed of light as any other unlimited energy method.

It's the unalterable question... where does all that energy come from?

 

[origin]

The most difficult hurtles against building a matter-antimatter engine at this point is funding, reliably maintaining the magnetic fields and producing the antimatter.

And building an engine that can convert the gama radiation into thrust but gee, those are the only difficulties!

Reminds me of the terribly inappropriate quip, "Well, other that Mrs. Kennedy, how was your trip to Dallas?"

 

[reimk4526]

And building an engine that can convert the gama radiation into thrust but gee, those are the only difficulties!

I could be mistaken, but the reaction of matter and antimatter would create a physical energy burst as well as radiation, its this physical energy that would be used as propulsion.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Not really; although it depends on what type of imaginary quantities of what kind of antimatter that you can create, store and transport to the craft...

 

[lovespace123]

It is surprising to hear about NASA's hiring of a company to produce anti-matter engine. In the first place are they refering the very anti-matter that every one read about? If then, it makes nonsens, because to my knowldge anti-matter is one of the unsolved puzzeles of nature, and almost nothing is known about it, according to science literatures. The secret of anti-matter doesnt merely involve the concept of energy alone , it is much more beyond that. For instance discovering the nature of anti-matter would lead us to know the secret of death, life after death, the infinite scope of the univers, among others. Leaving aside NASA's hiring of a company to that end, comments given here should also gear to wards the points I have mentioned above.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry, You are completely out to lunch here. Antimatter is well known, and is created in lightning strikes, cosmic ray collisions in our atmosphere, in the cores of galaxies and stars, and in various colliders on earth, where it has been extensively studied and understood.

It is merely regular matter except the charges are reversed; the antiproton has a negative charge, and the antielectron (called a positron) has a positive charge. It is a well known subject, and we have created and studied a few micrograms of it in our experiments. You must have it confused with something else.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "the secret of death, life after death, the infinite scope of the univers, among others" :roll:

MW

this thread is drifting more and more out of the realm of SS&A.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

A Sumerian Grist Miller using a water wheel probably couldn't imagine the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station that would one day be one of the largest power generating plants in the World.
Saying that we will never be able to do something is just silly.

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

 

[neilsox]

A long manned flight would produce some trash not practical to recycle. If we put a pound of trash in the rocket chamber and spray it with a nanogram of anti protons, enough gamma rays are produced to heat the trash to 5000 degrees c = 9032 degrees f which converts the trash to plasma which leaves the rocket nozzle at perhaps 100 kilometers per second. So the pound of trash is the ejection mass. We can repeat the process several times per hour producing thrust for several minutes (seconds?) each time. The main problem is perhaps half of the gamma rays will escape the rocket, without adding to the thrust, but being a radiation hazard to the crew. That is my guess. I have not read any motor details. Likely there are other ways to convert gamma rays to ejection mass. Neil

 

[Space_Goose]

Wow, thank guys. I didn't mean for the topic to get so carried away but in away I am glad it did As usual every post I make is due to research of the story I am writing. I have never considered ion engins for reason, Star Wars. For one, I have seen a small bit on the internet about Anti-matter and using it to power a rocket or space ship where as I have seen no science on how you could use ions to power an engine. Also as said above, Ion Engines is what powered all the ships in Star Wars example: TIE Fighters = Twin Ion Engine Fighters. So I was afriad I was be accused of snatching ideas from Star Wars.

My story takes place thousands of years in the future so there is quit probably better ways developed to do Everything. Do you guys think Ion Engines would be a more realistic way to go than Anti-Matter?

 

[Shpaget]

Guess what?
Ion engines exist! They are used on many missions as we speak.
Take a look at this wiki article.
Just to make a long story short, they are exceptionally fuel efficient compared to conventional chemical rockets, but unfortunately produce very small thrusts.


Slightly offtopic...
No matter what engines you install on your spaceship, you won't be able to go faster than light, so you'll have to figure out another way of getting to distant stars since actually traveling all that distance conventionally will take too long, no matter how fast you go (remember, you can't go FTL).
Wormholes, subspace, warp, jump-drive... come to mind when I consider FTL for a SF story.

 

[bdewoody]

It all boils down to being able to harness and focus vast amounts of energy without killing yourself. Also we have to remember, whatever amount of energy you consume accelerating you will have to consume a like amount stopping.

 

[emudude]

Interesting that you bring up ion engines, Ad Astra is a company which has been working with ion thruster technology since 2005; they claim that one of their current projects could cut transit times to mars by about 2/3 of what is presently possible - see this article from the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/10/27/science/space/27scillo_graphic.html?ref=science .

Anti-matter engines (aka "annihilation engines", love using that term ) are actually much more so limited by its current production capacities than in the complexity of annihilation engine design; the required size of an anti-matter engine compared to a modern chemically-propelled rocket is staggering due to the difference in efficiencies (~98% inefficient use of energy in chemical rockets vs 50-99% efficient use of energy in annihilation rockets depending on design concept). As an engineer with experience designing control systems, I can also promise you that such a system will require computers on par with the safety levels of nuclear reactor systems, because just like a nuclear reactor, the containment fields (analogous to the cooling controls) must NOT fail during a power failure, and I would say that it would need to be redundant in triplicate in order to be considered safe. Current fusion research ventures should fill this requirement though, as they have a vested interest in containing their sun-surface-temperature fusion plasmas which would surely "annihilate" the structure of the reactor itself, although not in the physical sense that antimatter would annihilate its engine, should it breach containment.