Antimatter Propulsion Engine Redesigned Using CERN's Particle Physics Simulation Toolkit

reply to post by chr0naut


One Hundred years ago if someone announced that by 2012 we would have the ability to survive 18,000 C, that would probably have been a reason to consider a person insane. What potentially could occur over the next hundred years.

Clearly CME's are not occuring all the time in every place, of the suns surface. 60,000K is 100,000 F so perhaps we are discussing a matter of navigation.

At some time in the future when we have developed enough, where 80% more heat can be tolerated, by our current standards.


And then there is this...

The space agency will be launching its Solar Ultraviolet Magnetograph Investigation (SUMI) on Thursday to study the magnetic fields on the sun.SUMI will set out to study the constantly changing magnetic fields in an area of the sun’s low atmosphere called the chromosphere.These magnetic fields lie at the heart of how the sun can create huge explosions of light, like solar flares and eruptions of particles like coronal mass ejections (CMEs).

NASA Launching New Sun Observing Spacecraft Thursday

Further Reading

And then there is also this....

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


My apologies, but seeing that you were from the US, I had already taken the liberty and converted all units to imperial measures.

The 60,000 degrees was already in Fahrenheit, not Kelvin (an easy mistake, even the NASA engineers lost a Mars probe due to mistaken units, a few years ago).

reply to post by chr0naut


Actually, I did review a link that presented the 60,000k reference as accurate, for the life of me i cannot remember the exact link..

Again I look forward to your responses.

Actually the hottest part of the suns atmosphere is the corona, at over 1,000,000 ' F .

Also there seems to be a basic non understanding of physics in this thread. People forget that there such things as acceleration and inertia, basics of dynamics.
Reaching mars in twenty minutes would not be possible in any fashion. Here's why
Mars is 34 000 000 miles away, or 183 744 000 000 ft
To cover that distance in 20 min you would have to accelerate at 5 104 000 ft/ sec or
159 000 g's for ten minutes then decellerate at the same rate for ten minutes.
That's one hundred fiftynine thousand time the force of gravity.
That's why sci fi writers invented such mythical devices as inertial dampers and mass negation fields.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Actually the hottest part of the suns atmosphere is the corona, at over 1,000,000 ' F .

Also there seems to be a basic non understanding of physics in this thread. People forget that there such things as acceleration and inertia, basics of dynamics.
Reaching mars in twenty minutes would not be possible in any fashion. Here's why
Mars is 34 000 000 miles away, or 183 744 000 000 ft
To cover that distance in 20 min you would have to accelerate at 5 104 000 ft/ sec or
159 000 g's for ten minutes then decellerate at the same rate for ten minutes.
That's one hundred fiftynine thousand time the force of gravity.
That's why sci fi writers invented such mythical devices as inertial dampers and mass negation fields.

Antimatter engines are also in the realm of science fiction.

The mobile 'phone, going to the Moon and the World Wide Web were also once sci-fi.

I don't think that these being "MacGuffins" means that we cannot seriously discuss them.

This is not the issue. The issue is money. We could build an object with todays technology that would be propelled by anti-matter. And could for awhile. Who knows if it would be practical. But its possible.

Some in this thread have mistaken acceleration for speed. If you stop and slow down gradually enough then there is no issue with inertia. Why have to make it in 20 minutes? Effects of gravity are the same for acceleration not speed.

But I do agree there are still other fundamental problems, too many to list. So yea, there are other things we gotta worry about first.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
This is not the issue. The issue is money. We could build an object with todays technology that would be propelled by anti-matter. And could for awhile. Who knows if it would be practical. But its possible.

Some in this thread have mistaken acceleration for speed. If you stop and slow down gradually enough then there is no issue with inertia. Why have to make it in 20 minutes? Effects of gravity are the same for acceleration not speed.

But I do agree there are still other fundamental problems, too many to list. So yea, there are other things we gotta worry about first.

edit on 20-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

No amount of money with today's technology could build a star-ship propelled by antimatter.

In the last few years, we've only produced a few micrograms of the stuff. Even less has been captured for any length of time. We'd need tons to make an efficient drive.

There's some things money can't buy.

Originally posted by chr0naut
No amount of money with today's technology could build a star-ship propelled by antimatter.

In the last few years, we've only produced a few micrograms of the stuff. Even less has been captured for any length of time. We'd need tons to make an efficient drive.

There's some things money can't buy.

Money could buy enough anti-matter. And you don't need a lot.
And what is your definition of a 'starship'?. Thats the case im making. A 'starship' in general is not plausible right now. Is a small satellite powered by anti-matter possible with today's technology? Were is the huge lapse in technology? Your making a lot of assumptions

reply to post by chr0naut


The amount of mineral wealth in our solar system alone would be well worth the efforts.

Such an influx would change our economic situation completely.

The amount of mineral wealth in our solar system alone would be well worth the efforts.

Such an influx would change our economic situation completely.

As with any vehicle ever created slowing down to a stop has always been integral to its operation. In the case of Project Daedalus that problem was resolved, at least on paper.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by ubeenhad


The thread is not about the present and had you read the thread you would know that.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

The thread is not about the present and had you read the thread you would know that.

Your point?

reply to post by ubeenhad


"And what is your definition of a 'starship'?. Thats the case im making. A 'starship' in general is not plausible right now. Is a small satellite powered by anti-matter possible with today's technology? Were is the huge lapse in technology? Your making a lot of assumptions "

Actually the title sites GEANT4 this being the Simulation Tool Kit.


Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai

You've lost me. I thought you were complaining that I mentioned current technology. Were you going with this?

Any logical thoughts?

reply to post by ubeenhad


LOL, no I cited in quotes that you were presenting that star ships were not possible now. We are discussing what simulators programed with everything we know say is plausible in the future. Though at least on paper the technology is feasible today as has been since the 70"s.

You see CERN's Particle Physics Simulator Toolkit, redesigned an antimatter propulsion engine we had been working on.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by chr0naut
No amount of money with today's technology could build a star-ship propelled by antimatter.

In the last few years, we've only produced a few micrograms of the stuff. Even less has been captured for any length of time. We'd need tons to make an efficient drive.

There's some things money can't buy.

Money could buy enough anti-matter. And you don't need a lot.
And what is your definition of a 'starship'?. Thats the case im making. A 'starship' in general is not plausible right now. Is a small satellite powered by anti-matter possible with today's technology? Were is the huge lapse in technology? Your making a lot of assumptions

I assure you, at today's production rate, and with today's best containment technology, we could not retain enough antimatter to provide an engine capable of delivering the smallest of engineering packages (MEMS sized).

We would require technology that we do not yet have.

reply to post by chr0naut


Exactly, even the original post/link presents clearly. Though when considering how much we have advanced in the last 100 years? Considering this technology feasible in the next 100 to 200 years is not far fetched.

Altogether this thread is all in good fun and there have been some interesting insights presented

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai

Latest simulation shows that the magnetic nozzles required for antimatter propulsion could be vastly more efficient than previously thought--and built with today's technologies.

So these guys focus on the exhaust velocity--the speed of the particles produced in matter-antimatter annihilations as they leave the rocket engine.

Any thoughts?

This sounds like an anti-matter version of NASA's VSMPD Thruster.
That stands for Varied-SPecific MagnetoPlasmaDynamic Thrust.
It's an engine that uses a magnetic field to accelerate ionized particles through a chamber, and of course they are going pretty fast on the way out.

To this point the hazard has been, the ionized trail of crap. They have been working to reduce the waste.
However this new breakthrough from CERN could change everything. I am so happy they are working now toward helping humans off the rock.

For a long time I was very sure CERN was just there to police the internet and track paranormal, and to take our money while promising breakthroughs on immovable theories from Einstein's dusty tomes.

This is super exciting news, thanks a lot for posting this, made my day actually.

how often do we get to say anything NICE about CERN lol?