Antimatter Power and Propulsion for Interstellar Spaceflight!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 бер 2024
- Antimatter power and propulsion systems may finally be within out grasp!
Scientists have discovered a new much more efficient way to make positrons! Antihydrogen fuel would change everything!
Extracredit:
NASA Antimatter research!
ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/2...
MSNBC Antimatter article!
www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshirt.com/terran-s...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ neutronstarsys - Наука та технологія
62 yo and until just now it never occurred to me that the square of a negative and it's positive counterpart is the same... Crazy tnx.
You are most welcome! It's not something we ever encounter in everyday life :-)
Well 62 years of your life you have been correct. Sqrt(9) is a number, not an equation. While a quadratic *equation* has two or zero solutions, a square root in itself is just a number.
Here's the mathematical proof:
Suppose Sqrt(9) is both 3, and -3
therefore Sqrt(9) = Sqrt(3²)
therefore Sqrt((-3)²) = -3
⇒ 3 = -3 contradiction!
By definition only the principal root is the defined value of the square root, or put more formally: the concept of principal square root cannot be extended to real negative numbers since the two square roots of a negative number cannot be distinguished until one of the two is defined as the imaginary unit "i".
he said square not square root.@@totalermist
Ah so this is how the traps work in Ghostbusters, magnetic containment of spooky anti-particles :)
That's right! They are just quantum fluctuations in the matrix!
Interstellar mod for KSP has antimatter drives and antimatter can be captured using antimatter traps or accelerators.
It'll also annihilate everything around the spacecraft if antimatter storage runs out of power for whatever reason.
It would be decidedly uncomfortable... :-) High chance of gamma ray exposure! On the bright side. You'll become Hulk.
Keep up the good work, space industry news is so underrated right now. I think most people have no idea what kind of cool stuff humans are doing right now or why they are doing it. Most space news is about things that seem out of reach but your content brings it close. It reminds me of the CERN recruiting video which really makes you feel like the future is now and if you’re interested there is a place for you.
There is a lot happening and we will my friend!
I love your channel. As an engineer, I have two practical questions transcending theory and romance.
One. How many gigawatts of input energy are required for every watt of captured antimatter output energy?
Two. Do you make the stuff on the Earth's, or any other body's, surface where a loss of containment accident would be catastrophic beyond imagination?
That's a good question. Right now far too much but that is changing rapidly by orders of magnitude... second can we develop a safe storage system?
Funny this came up, my employer is building Hall thruster equipped small sats for ADR and RPOD missions. We have some contracts to develop our spacecraft for cislunar operations. Anyways, my boss was receptive to the idea of flying a sensor through the Van Allen belts and seeing if we can detect the theorized antimatter. This was laid out by the NASA P1 and P2 studies. The issue is finding funding for the mission. We have the plasma physics people and the engineers (who are all game) to do it but unless the mission can pay for itself, we can't put in the time. Too many other projects running currently that pay the bills. If there was any antimatter to be captured, we then have to work out the power source for our capture magnetic field, GNC for dealing with torque from the magnetic fields and a host of other issues.
But I do wonder what could be done with Fatima Ibrahimi's amagnetic reconnection thruster and some antimatter... if it all worked of course..
Put a gamma camera in orbit looking down and fly a satellite through the SAA with the camera watching (Slightly higher orbit to observe and be a little slower). There should be bursts of 511keV gamma rays as it goes through... then you can correlate density etc :-)
@@terranspaceacademyInteresting, but that calls for two spacecraft which is probably a tough ask. Distance, camera sensitivity at that distance, and pointing would have to be worked out. Did you have a camera in mind? I am wondering what kind of noise we would have to deal with from the imaging. Lots of things impacting any type of correlation.
Instead of two spacecraft it might be just as well to pay for radiation shielding on one and make passes through the Van Allen belts on equatorial orbits at 2500 km where the flux is estimated to be highest. Or just start off by following the PAMELA experiment's lead. I dunno though plenty of questions to find time for.
I absolutely love the "can do" perspective on this channel. I share it.
We appreciate that!
📝 Summary of Key Points:
📌 The video discusses the feasibility of using antimatter as a propulsion system for interstellar travel, highlighting its potential for achieving high speeds and reducing travel time significantly.
🧐 Antimatter, specifically antihydrogen, is created and trapped using advanced technology, allowing for detailed studies and measurements of antimatter atoms, which is a significant step forward in antimatter research.
🚀 Scientists are working on improving antimatter production methods to make it more accessible and affordable for potential space applications, such as spacecraft propulsion systems.
💡 Additional Insights and Observations:
💬 "Mathematics is a universal language that guides scientific discoveries, and the existence of antimatter was initially predicted through mathematical equations."
📊 The potential energy conversion rate of antimatter is highlighted, with 100% of its mass being converted into energy, making it a highly efficient fuel source for space travel.
🌐 References to historical experiments and recent advancements in antimatter research showcase the progress made in understanding and utilizing antimatter for practical applications.
📣 Concluding Remarks:
The video sheds light on the promising prospects of antimatter as a propulsion system for future space missions, emphasizing the ongoing research efforts to harness its power effectively. With advancements in antimatter production and containment, the possibility of interstellar travel and exploration becomes more tangible, paving the way for exciting developments in space technology.
Generated using TalkBud
Thank you!
Always something on this channel that is both interesting and thought provoking, backed up by maths and science, and presented in a clear and concise manner. Keep up the good work. Ad astra, pro terra
Wow, thank you!
Can't wait anymore 😅
Good to see you here!
Dr Robert Forward considered antimatter engines. For a discussion see his book "Indistinguishable From Magic".
An Asimov quote! I love him already!
@@terranspaceacademyaaakshually, that's an Arthur C. Clarke reference
I read a sci-fi novel recently (Blindsight) that presented an interesting way to get around the need to carry so much fuel.
If I remember correctly, they had power generators orbiting the sun, converting solar energy into anti-protons that they would then beam at relativistic speeds through space to a spacecraft with a magnetic scoop. The spacecraft could then collect antimatter and use it as needed rather than carrying tons of it around. The same could be done with protons to use as annihilation mass.
This would be great around the solar system, but electrostatic repulsion will make a beam of charged particles spread out over distances.
They would indeed... it would be better to just focus the photons with a self lensing wakefield effect I think...
Antimatter has always been my favorite! I had a sci-fi story in my head when I was a kid (never completed) that revolved around using a gluon ray to increase the strong force in a proton or neutron to cause some of the quarks to flip to antiquarks (a proposed explanation for proton/neutron decay I read about back then) which caused the proton or neutron to annihilate itself. Always fascinating!
I remember about 10 years ago Positron Dynamics had proposed using a radioisotope source of positrons to catalyze fusion reaction to provide thrust. Cool concept, that got some NASA funding. Haven't heard anything more on it since 2019. Their website doesn't have anything newer than that.
Oh that would be so cool! Resonate the beam to cause efficient flipping!
I think bussard fusion rockets might work, plasma injection might require A LOT of energy, but the exhaust is suplemented with fusion reactions.
Beautiful thank you please expand!!
We will! This is exciting technology.
Underated channel
Thank you!
What an excellent video. Thank you
You are most welcome Graham!
Very cool!
Antimatter is always cool :-) Unless someone directs an antimatter particle beam at you in space, then it's uncool!
Which donation method is more “efficient”? (i.e. Do you get a larger portion of the income donated via Patreon or UA-cam membership?
Patreon by far. UA-cam doesn't do much until you get hundreds of thousands of subscribers sadly.
An antimatter scoop! Or series of them.Will we need dilithium crystals?
You never issue yourself a challenge, but a series of them ..a fer-instance..I wanted to see if I could "ride my age" in a bike ( lightly modified clearance pile Walmart one)...for me, that's 62 miles...in a day. I did...and kept going.
Many interests lead to other interests, because few subjects are "stand alone".
Knowing something can be done is a fair part of the battle...
Could 1824 predict what 2024 is like? Maybe by 2224, interstellar flight will be common....as well as a lot of things we haven't even thought of yet.
Another outstanding video!
Very true... I already designed Dilithium hexaboride crystals for aneutronic fusion so I could be the greatest Treckie of all time!!!! :-)
Maybe you could do a similar presentation on "Neutron (Neutronium) Decay Drive Propulsion". And then compare this to antimatter drive propulsion. Obviously both are theoretical at this time, but both offer potential for attaining the speed required for human interstellar travel. Thanks for considering, and your excellent presentations
You are most welcome and thank you. Will do.
If you can find it, there's an old niac study on antimatter trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. As I recall, it also found that Saturn should theoretically have a vastly larger collection of antiprotons trapped in its magnetic field. There's more than one planetary magnetosphere around here. If you've mastered antimatter propulsion, it's not a big deal to get out to the gas giants to fuel up.
Oh that's cool... What about Jupiter! Refueling stations! Of course Saturn won't fry you as fast.
@@terranspaceacademy I can't remember exactly why, but if I recall correctly the study came to the conclusion that Saturn was better than Jupiter as an antimatter trap.
Ouch! Brain cramp! Thank you!
Amazing such a small amount of anti-matter would get ship to Mars so much faster.
One of the things I don't remember them talking about in ST was anti-matter generation.
And the big challenge remains plentiful, inexpensive energy generation for various things.
The three main issues are generation, storage, and conversion from gamma photonic to usefull energy...
Right now generation is inefficient but that's tolerable if you have a surplus of energy, and worthwhile it it saves you so much time etc. Storage has been proven but safety will be a big issue. On demand production would be best if the energy levels can be brought down. Finally, using a small metal asteroid as your "ship" would allow the reaction to occur on one side shielding the crew while any impacts occur on the far side.
Thank you for the new information. I always assumed that the cost would be prohibitive. But you suggest that it might not be. This would in effect be our Epstein Drive to open up the solar system. Robert Heinlein also postulated pretty much the same thing in his book "Farmer in the Sky" where "Torch" Drives could blast large colony ships to the outer planets at 1g. The idea is exciting but also incredibly scary. You know that the military will want to create an antimatter bomb, and with complete conversion of energy it will be relatively clean and tempting to use.
Quite true... and gamma rays can go through meters of lead if they have the right frequency.
2:01 epileptic warning for glitchy f'd up video😂
Where? I watched it all the way through before posting and didn't see anything. It may have been your download.
Literally like 1 or 2 seconds after the timestamp. Its not an encoding or video error, it's how it was made.
The thumbnails on the bottom start glitching and flashing in and out while the background continues to progress, glitching out a bit itself but async from the thumbnails (which is how I know its not an encoding or corruption issue)
Except the hadron cyclotron/collider doesnt account for propulsive thrust or conversion to propulsive thrust.
It seems to reason that you will need a combination of an atomic generator (not bomb), thermalhydromagnetics to create the magnetic containment bottle, and some twist on the hadron collider to create thrust without overpressuizing the magnetic bottle.
So,
what is the strength, temperature, and duration of the particle annihilation?
How many particles would be needed to get the desired thrust, and how would you adjust it according to need?
How would you focus the particles into a ventura such that the particles can't miss each other?
How do you shape the magnetic field to create the thrust?
I would postulate that to build such a propulsion unit would necessitate building it in space at a point where it would not be affected by gravity and well outside any debris field. It would also have to be protected from micrometeorites. So the gantry would need a magnetic deflection field.
Thats going to take awhile along with a wholesale revamp of our degraded education system. Possibly a specialty school.
The new particle accelerators using the laser wakefield effect fit on a chip...
I think Anti matter spacescraft will become reality faster then i thought, But its far for now.
Maybe not... Carbon 14 batteries can last thousands of years... antimatter production on demand would resolve the storage problem. Now you've got power and propulsion.
Forget lithium batteries, antimatter is the ultimate energy storage.
It would be indeed.
The one thing no one seems to mention about accelerating a space vehicle to relativistic speeds, say 40-80% of the speed of light, is the following.
What do you do about interstellar dust and rocks.
In low earth orbit, say 5km/sec, a small 1gram nut will KO a satellite if it hits the main bus.
At 120,000km/sec that 1gram nut would have roughly 1.7billion times more kinetic energy. Like a small nuclear weapon.
And even if you can build a ship that can withstand the impact, you still have to deal with the impact slowing you down instantly.
Humans are soft, saggy bags of goo, and this only becomes worse if you suddenly lose 50 or 100km/sec of velocity. I shudder to think of the g-forces involved.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.
You would need a laser system to target and ablate debris with a magnetic field clearing the path and a physical shield for whatever gets through... The dust is very sparse out there but still.
@terranspaceacademy Thank you for your reply.
My other thought was to use a 100-500m diameter iron/nickel asteroid as a nose cone.
This would obviously make good ablative armour. But it would also increase the kinetic energy difference between you and what impacts you, essentially becoming a shock absorber.
I was wondering about that too... also, accelerating iron is a lot better than argon for mass if you can get it going fast enough :-)
Interesting ideas, but taking relativistic effects into account, people on the interstellar ship would experience time much more slowly. I did a simulation once, for a star 20 LY away if your target velocity is 0.95c, the passengers on the ship will experience about 7 years of time passing (>20 years will still pass on Earth). Relativistic time dilation will allow humans to visit star system much further away than people realize. Antimatter rockets are not really needed for interstellar travel. I think nuclear salt water rockets would be more practical.
Good point. Antimatter would get the job done more efficiently... at least until we can tap into... Zero Point! :-)
Didn't Robert A Heinlein pen Antihydrogen Power and Propulsion in his Novels?
He did indeed. Torch ships weren't they?
7:00 See 1955
I can't... it's too long ago :-)
History is filled with cantdoers who are regularly forgotten when the can doers do. A famous case is that of the New York Times who, in a 1920 editorial, lectured Dr Robert Goddard that rockets could never fly in space and that he, a learned professor, lacked the basic understanding 'ladled out in high schools'.
I cast my lot soley with the crazy dreamers. Even their failures produce more than those who don't even try. Innovation sometimes requires elimination of things that are not the solution in order to arrive at the solution. Such was that case for the incandesent light bulb and airplanes. We'd still be shivering in cold damp caves if we'd listened to the naysayers.
Indeed. Their "apology" was not front page like their criticism had been...
Antimatter propulsion will almost certainly never be possible. The good news is that it is not needed. Most people don't know about the one realistic method for interstellar travel.
If a ship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would get to Alpha Centauri in 3.6 years (7.3 years would pass on Earth) this includes turning the ship around halfway to decelerate. It would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year. A 10 ton ship would require a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust. This is by far the fastest way we can get to other worlds and the ship would have gravity the whole way.
All that is needed for this is a fission rocket that can put out thrust for long periods and does not consume hydrogen. A true fission rocket should consume uranium or plutonium only. They are both jittery atoms that are on the verge of fissioning all by themselves. There should be a way to get them to fission in a linear fashion. What's needed is a controlled, time released nuclear explosion.
In an atomic bomb fission occurs when neutrons hit uranium or plutonium nuclei. This is because they will not tolerate an increase in mass. Due to the equivalence of mass and energy, the same should be true if you infuse them with energy. This might be as simple as having negatively charged uranium or plutonium atoms coming into contact with positively charged uranium or plutonium atoms. Or perhaps with laser or electromagnetic forces.
With the constant acceleration method a ship can span the entire diameter of our galaxy in 24 ship/113,000 Earth years. Systems with stars similar to our sun can be reached in under 10 ship years.
Antimatter propulsion will absolutely be possible. It's just a question of who and when.
@@terranspaceacademy It requires an astronomical quantity of energy to produce antimatter. This means it would have to be produced in a facility then transferred to a ship. Through the transfer and throughout the theoretical journey it would have to be contained with electromagnetic forces. Any electrical disturbance would mean catastrophe. To make a theoretical antimatter rocket would necessitate manipulating the antimatter. It would annihilate any mechanism to do this. Physicists who are also engineers such as Michio Kaku have written about this.
@@shawns0762 You can't "just accelerate at 1g" like it's nothing. Your top speed is limited by your exhaust velocity, and fission can only get you so far. Especially if you're going to do it without H2 as reaction mass. H2 works so well bc it can get very high exhaust velocities. For example, an Orion drive ship is likely limited to 10% the speed of light. Sure, you can try to go faster, but then you have to carry more fuel, and then you have to carry fuel to accelerate that additional fuel.... the tyranny of the rocket equation.
@@mbmurphy777 Hydrogen has nothing to do with fission. The Orion project called for uranium or plutonium based fission explosions. Hydrogen is called for in "nuclear thermal" rockets. The process heats hydrogen with uranium or plutonium to expel it out a nozzle.
Theoretically there is enough energy in 1 pound of plutonium to get a 10 ton ship to the Centauri system. This doesn't include the uranium or plutonium needed to generate the electricity to drive the process.
@@shawns0762 The problems you are missing in "10 ton rocket only needs 10 tons of thrust to accelerate at 1g" is that you need reaction mass to generate the thrust, AND more importantly... to reach a high top speed, the *exhaust velo* of the 10-ton thrust has to be super super high. To change the momentum of your spacecraft depends on the momentum or (mass) x (velocity) of the exhaust. So you need both high mass flow and (very) high velocities in your exhaust to have both high thrust and high top speed. And you need a LOT of both to reach the kinetic energies of a spacecraft traveling at relativistic speeds. It's easy for chemical rockets to generat 1g of thrust, but the best can only do that for ~460 seconds (the ISP of hydrolox in vacuum). Nuclear rockets (NERV) might be able to do that for 1000-1500 seconds.
Antimatter in any significant quantity (even nanograms), if we can make that much, is pure nightmare fuel. There's no failsafe containment for it.
That's a recipe for extreme (and well justified) NIMBYism that would make anti-nuke sentiment look like a joke. Except in addition, depending on the quantity, it'll now be more like, "Not on My Continent" or even "Not Near My Planet", instead of just "Not in My Backyard"...
We need a new particle that doesn't react with antimatter.
1.Rather we build antimatter bomb 1st than antimatter propulsion. 2.There are also a lot of deadly problems occuring when traveling at relativistic velocities. 3.Theoreticaly antimatter powered ships possible, but practically will never happen from technical and economical perspective. "Cheaper" and more practical will be to build O'Neil cylinders or terraforming planets than traveling to nearest stars.
Reather defeatist isn't it?
Using antimatter is possible, we just have to figure out the containment and
Micron injection.
I wouldn't say it is impossibe just far FAR away into the future.
All true but not unsolvable. :-) And it will happen. It's just a question of who and when. Antimatter on demand solves the containment problem and putting your ship on the leeward side of an asteroid would mitigate the rest. Also a forward facing laser to ionize incoming matter and a powerful EM shield to redirect it would work.
"Theoretically possible, but practically will never happen.... Really? So what are you doing today to make antimatter rocket into practical reality during our lifetime?
As for O'Neil cylinders or terraforming it is a false analogy. We'll do them, but they will not make us into interstellar species, and if we, humans, do not become interstellar species then we are a total and utter failure as a civilization and as a specie.
Just remember kiddies, you have been doing equations since the first grade Example 1+1=2
Except with antimatter where one electron plus one positron equals zero particles :-)
@@terranspaceacademy when a positron and an electron collide, it is annihilation.
Watch out for space dust.
Ker-SMACK! Indeed... Forward firing laser to ionize debris with a magnetic field to deflect?
If you really want to teach the world about space and make a profit then I hope you make as many subscribers as possible Preferably millions ;) I'm waiting for the next vide🎉
Thank you!
So whoever built the pyramids could offer us help😂
I wish! If they had steel they could have made rectangles :-)
@@terranspaceacademy are we sure who they were or what other building methods and material they had? I’m no scholar , however looking back could possibly propel us forward. Your work here is incredible
There’s a couple of problems. First of all antimatter annihilation just creates gamma rays. Currently we don’t have ways to reflect or focus gamma rays in a single direction, and therefore translating that energy release into forward motion is not trivial. Additionally, I think there has to be something wrong with the calculations. Last time I saw somebody do calculations like "this the amount of antimatter needed" for say a trip to Alpha Centauri or Mars the amount was much much greater. For example, just calculating the peak kinetic energy of a small 10 ton spaceship at 95% the speed of light IIRC required something like 90% of the mass of the ship to be antimatter and fuel.
Maybe there’s something wrong with those other calculations, but even with 100% conversion of matter and antimatter into energy, capturing all that energy and converting it into kinetic energy is definitely not gonna happen at 100%
I'll recheck the numbers but they were worked by a physicist
Idea is to generate thrust in the nozzle/annihilation chamber by the Compton Effect.
@@JohnboyCollins Yes. But what materials do we have that can reliably absorb Gamma rays (without being super thick and heavy)? If we use H2 as fuel, and have enough of it in the chamber , then some Gamma will be c=scattered y the H and re-radiated, just like in the core of the sun. It works in the sun b/c of the density of the plasma. But how many meters of hot H plasma (not dense at all) are needed to absorb gamma rays from AM annihilation? To get the benefits of an AM drive you need an awesome ISP which means you need ridiculous temperatures. Sure, H plasma can be contained magnetically, but the gamma rays will go right through most of that and be lost (heating up the chamber walls and damaging them). Maybe there's so much energy it doesn't matter that most would be lost?
@@mbmurphy777 I'm not really an expert here, but I would think the scaling laws are in your favor whether you're super-heating a working fluid or doing direct Compton reflection of gamma rays. In both cases you can leverage the square/cubed law of shielding to propellent mass. However, I would think a thermal AM engine is never going to get you to relativistic speeds.
really like your variant of Ad Astra Per Aspera, To the Stars Through Jihad ❤ ( through strife )
lmfao wut
@@afghanistandaily9175 the old saying ad astra, to the stars through strife, the meaning was always jihad and nobody but me seems to have picked up on that. I say its time to spread the news buddy 😃
Actually it just means ""difficulties" :-)
If the math you need does not yet exist your statements about absolute solutions does not exist either.I'm just saying that each time we think we have all the answers there's another rude awakening. Forgive me if I'm remembering this experiment incorrectly but wasn't one of the side effects of slowing light down to a stop an excess of antimatter of one kind ?
The solutions are there... It's only our math waiting to be discovered that limits us. :-) to get there and slow down will require about equal masses of antimatter, a little less on arrival as you can use the planets gravity and atmosphere to bleed off a little velocity but not much by 0.95c standards...
One problem of that type of the spaceship is usability of annihilation of matter and antimatter so I personally wouldn't like to be on a spaceship like that if its not designed well enough and have good enough escape ships that can have a long time beacons in case of ship breakage. Its small amount of matter being used to generate large amount of energy. Also not just positrons antiprotons and protons release great amount of energy. Can you explain what would be a problem of the "annahilation" to energy conversion of actual gluonic particles like antiproton and proton or antineutron and neutron? Thanks.
Generation at use time would be optimal but we are a ways from that yet.
Is there somewhere a anti-neutron estimation that is measured in space that can confirm actual amount of free anti-neutron that would fly as a space wind so that if we are outside of the 50000km and over 100000km away from earth and far more being able to catch the free anti-neutrons from the space.
Sadly, neutrons and antineutrons decay into a proton/antiproton and electron/positron within only about ten minutes outside of a nucleus. At relativistic velocities the time can dilate and they can last longer but it's hard to accelerate neutral particles as fast as would be necessary.