Mid 20th century interplanetary cruiser.

I always thought the original idea was fascinating. If I remember correctly, there have even been similar type concepts used in kerbal space program.

I have always felt that exploration is a deep part of our species, though we have sidetracked such efforts in favor of finding better ways to kill each other.

Given that, my largest concern with any technology that solves our current issues, exploratory or otherwise, is said technology being weaponized. There may be a point in our technological growth that such weaponization would result in mass casualities, even just in testing. Perhaps worldwide..

Maybe that's the litmus test of sorts.. the same technology that brings us to the stars could, if weaponized, turn us into star dust. Poetic, in its way, if that is the case.

What would ATS members do if they came up with such technology?

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
What about ANTIMATTER?

The first antimatter related space propulsion systems are likely to be along the lines of AIMSTAR and ICAN and ICAN II. this is because those designs require just a tiny tiny tiny amount of antimatter to go as far as the Oort cloud and back.

How much anti-matter are we talking here? a few micrograms?

for one its nanograms. for the other it's a few micrograms.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
ICAN II 140 nanograms for a mars trip

source: ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu...

We must do this! Seriously.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Phage

Recently I talked to an Air Force officer and he told me this project maybe brought back.

With a suitable shock absorber, why not.
Oh, politics. That's why. A whole bunch of nuclear explosions overhead will not be an easy sell.

NASA has been quietly re-examining ORION, under the new name of "External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion". As George Dyson observed, the new name removes most references to "Nuclear", and all references to "Bombs."

www.projectrho.com...

I suspect that it would only be a matter of time before those words entered the picture again though. I heard that environmentalists tried to block the launch of Cassini because it was using "nuclear" RTGs and would "ignite Saturn" or some other nonsense?

Is that true?

If so, why didn't they try to block New Horizon's launch?

the primary real concern though is proliferation. it's hard to justify making 100s of thousands or millions of mini nukes.

but if your nuke is just a fuel pellet that cannot explode on its own or by means of accident even catastrophic launch failure...

Orion does not need bombs to work. it just needs lasers, exquisite aim and timing. no proliferation hazard. no crash hazard. very little environmental hazard even if used in atmosphere.

a nuke needs to detonate where it can either vacuum up dirt and stuff in order to make a long duration radiation and fallout hazard. and it has to be big.

propulsion "nukes" are tiny.

the thermal effect and radiation effect disperse quickly as distance from the explosion occur. and these are thousands or millions of times less powerful than a real tactical or strategic nuke.

with the detonations occurring in the air there is little material to create induced radioisotopes for fall out.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
ICAN II 140 nanograms for a mars trip

source: ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu...

We must do this!

Seriously.

the production and confinement times for antiprotons is expanding ...and for positrons? well they can be made at the burn rate already in desktop machines.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I always thought the original idea was fascinating. If I remember correctly, there have even been similar type concepts used in kerbal space program.

I have always felt that exploration is a deep part of our species, though we have sidetracked such efforts in favor of finding better ways to kill each other.

Given that, my largest concern with any technology that solves our current issues, exploratory or otherwise, is said technology being weaponized. There may be a point in our technological growth that such weaponization would result in mass casualities, even just in testing. Perhaps worldwide..

Maybe that's the litmus test of sorts.. the same technology that brings us to the stars could, if weaponized, turn us into star dust. Poetic, in its way, if that is the case.

What would ATS members do if they came up with such technology?

It is true. Anything which can be used to power a spacecraft for exploration can be made into a weapon.

The questions of whether we will explore outward or turn inward and use our ever increasingly powerful technology to instead destroy each other are ones likely to be resolved in this century.

I hope for the former, I fear the latter.

I shudder to think about the horror of anti-matter becoming weaponized. That would be the closest thing to a super villianish doomsday device/planet killer.

Perhaps that is the "Great Filter" of the Fermi Paradox. By the time a species has the technology to explore the galaxy they also have the technology to destroy themselves many times over.

Will we escape that fate? I have hope.

i made a post about a laser sail that could send a 1 gram payload to alpha centauri in 16 years travel time but i was too sleepy to stick around and flesh it out and when i woke up the mods had deleted it. anyway... yeah alpha centauri microprobe in 16 years.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Phage

Recently I talked to an Air Force officer and he told me this project maybe brought back.

With a suitable shock absorber, why not.
Oh, politics. That's why. A whole bunch of nuclear explosions overhead will not be an easy sell.

NASA has been quietly re-examining ORION, under the new name of "External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion". As George Dyson observed, the new name removes most references to "Nuclear", and all references to "Bombs."

www.projectrho.com...

I suspect that it would only be a matter of time before those words entered the picture again though. I heard that environmentalists tried to block the launch of Cassini because it was using "nuclear" RTGs and would "ignite Saturn" or some other nonsense?

Is that true?

If so, why didn't they try to block New Horizon's launch?

the primary real concern though is proliferation. it's hard to justify making 100s of thousands on mini nukes.

but if your nuke is just a fuel pellet that cannot explode on its own or by means of accident even catastrophic launch failure...

Orion does not need bombs to work. it just needs lasers, exquisite aim and timing. no proliferation hazard. no crash hazard. very little environmental hazard even if used in atmosphere.

a nuke needs to detonate where it can either vacuum up dirt and stuff in order to make a long duration radiation and fallout hazard. and it has to be big.

propulsion "nukes" are tiny.

the thermal effect and radiation effect disperse quickly as distance from the explosion occur. and these are thousands or millions of times less powerful than a real tactical or strategic nuke.

with the detonations occurring in the air there is little material to create induced radioisotopes for fall out.

I have no problem with such a spacecraft operating in the vacuum of space.

I have real problems with any detonations in our atmosphere. Not necessarily due to fallout but due to EMP and other secondary effects.

As for proliferation, I suspect the big concern would be would be terrorists simply taking over the shipment of the pellets to the launch site or something of that nature.

While as you said they could not detonate on their own they could be held for ransom or put into a crude radiologic device to terrorize a community.

I honestly do not think we will ever see nuclear propulsion until such ships are constructed in space. fueled from pellets made from materials mined in space.

Humanity would have to do a lot of growing up before anything else was politically feasable.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i made a post about a laser sale that could send a 1 gram payload to alpha centauri in 16 years travel time but i was too sleepy to stick around and flesh it out and when i woke up the mods had deleted it. anyway... yeah alpha centauri microprobe in 16 years.

Post it. That deserves its own thread! I will S+F it too!

originally posted by: JadeStar

I shudder to think about the horror of anti-matter becoming weaponized. That would be the closest thing to a super villianish doomsday device/planet killer.



Will we escape that fate? I have hope.

actually while an antimatter weapon would be horrible just as atomic bombs are they are not doomsday weapons. a true dooms day weapon would annihilate the crust, ocean and atmosphere of the planet. and the only thing capable of that is a high end relativistic impact weapon. such a weapon could in fact pulverize the planet and if that wasn't enough fling all the debris out of orbit and even out of the galaxy. and that is why Marty McFly must never get his hover board because for all they good it could do; billions of us are not evolved enough to not turn it into a weapon or have an accident with it. Marty's toy could level another World Trade tower and a hover super tanker could destroy the world.

The boom table include relativistic weapons and antimatter weapons:

www.projectrho.com...

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar

I shudder to think about the horror of anti-matter becoming weaponized. That would be the closest thing to a super villianish doomsday device/planet killer.



Will we escape that fate? I have hope.

actually while an antimatter weapon would be horrible just as atomic bombs are they are not doomsday weapons. a true dooms day weapon would annihilate the crust, ocean and atmosphere of the planet.

I just look at the energy density of anti-matter/matter annihilation vs a fission or fusion bomb and shudder though.

Imagine if we started producing GRAMS or even Kilograms of the stuff…..

This thing..ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu...

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar

I shudder to think about the horror of anti-matter becoming weaponized. That would be the closest thing to a super villianish doomsday device/planet killer.



Will we escape that fate? I have hope.

actually while an antimatter weapon would be horrible just as atomic bombs are they are not doomsday weapons. a true dooms day weapon would annihilate the crust, ocean and atmosphere of the planet.

I just look at the energy density of anti-matter/matter annihilation vs a fission or fusion bomb and shudder though.

Imagine if we started producing GRAMS or even Kilograms of the stuff…..

i understand the sentiment but an antimatter weapon has its own set of problems; some quantum and some just classical physics.

i will cite figures for one ounce of antimatter and 1 KG of antimatter. these are idealized reactions where all of the antimatter annihilates all at once. that is not what would really happen though:

1 gram of antimatter plus one gram of matter is equivalent to a 43 KT atomic bomb or over 3 Hiroshima bombs.

I KG of Antimatter and 1 KG of matter is the equivalent of 43 megatons. equivalent to 2881 Hiroshima bombs.

however that is still under a quarter of the power of the biggest atomic bomb ever designed. the Tsar Bomb as originally designed.

and in reality when the first bit of matter and antimatter annihilates it will blow the rest of it apart. it will still annihilate but smeared out over time and distance. but for quantum reasons the actual annihilation rate could be as little as 1/3 of the total reaction mass available.

But with a relativistic weapon there is no such anntenuation and the power is exponentially related to velocity.

1 kilogram travelling at 99.9 c releases the equivalent energy of a 132 megaton atomic bomb. but a tanker sized ship would be tens or hundreds of thousands of tons. not one KG.

77 Petatons Energy required blow off Terra's atmosphere into space

158 Pt Energy required to heat all the oceans of Terra to boiling

1 exaton Energy required to vaporize all the oceans of Terra into the atmosphere

2 exatons Energy required to vaporize all the oceans of Terra and dehydrate the crust

7 eta tons Energy required to melt the (dry) crust of Terra

24 etatons Energy required blow off Terra's oceans into space

359 etatons Energy required blow off Terra's crust into space

7 zettatons Energy required to blow up Terra (reduce to gravel orbiting the sun)

14 zettatons Energy required to blow up Terra (reduce to gravel flying out of former orbit)

69 zettatons Energy required to blow up Terra (reduce to gravel and move pieces to infinity)

Stormbringer! You are a STAR! Seriously. Thank you for doing those calculations. I admit, anti-matter and high energy physics are not my specialty so I've learned some new things here (i tend to always learn new things from your posts, keep it up )

originally posted by: JadeStar
Stormbringer! You are a STAR! Seriously. Thank you for doing those calculations. I admit, anti-matter and high energy physics are not my specialty so I've learned some new things here (i tend to always learn new things from your posts, keep it up

)

I Din't! I swiped them from the infamous boom table at project Rho

www.projectrho.com...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
This thing..ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu...

Thats one of them yes.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar
Stormbringer! You are a STAR! Seriously. Thank you for doing those calculations. I admit, anti-matter and high energy physics are not my specialty so I've learned some new things here (i tend to always learn new things from your posts, keep it up

)

I Din't! I swiped them from the infamous boom table at project Rho

www.projectrho.com...

Shhhhh… I'd probably have never known

Still, good find.

So if I see that table right one would need something like the mass of a city in antimatter to do any serious damage to the Earth?

That's a lot safer than I thought.

this one gets ten percent c: nextbigfuture.com...

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar
Stormbringer! You are a STAR! Seriously. Thank you for doing those calculations. I admit, anti-matter and high energy physics are not my specialty so I've learned some new things here (i tend to always learn new things from your posts, keep it up

)

I Din't! I swiped them from the infamous boom table at project Rho

www.projectrho.com...

Shhhhh… I'd probably have never known

Still, good find.

So if I see that table right one would need something like the mass of a city in antimatter to do any serious damage to the Earth?

That's a lot safer than I thought.

well yes. to the earth. we'd survive an all out nuclear war. it would not be pretty but we could. and for practical reasons antimatter bombs won't be much bigger than big atomic bombs and there would be less radioactive fall out. gamma activation is short lived compared to neutron activation.

if the tsar bomb was to be dropped on manhattan (there is an app for that) some effects would go fairly far but well:

here is an app you can select the bomb or input the tonnage and select the target on the map and nuke it to see the results.

nuclearsecrecy.com...

ADDENDUM: the record for containment for an anti proton is currently 57 days. CERN TRAP experiment to verify or determine properties of antiprotons.