Jump to content

Thread discussion on antimatter (realistic engines NOT MAGIC technology).


Recommended Posts

I didn't even see a topic about it so I created one.

As much as antimatter sounds magical due to movies, realistic antimatter engines can be a good option for travel beyond Jool in ksp 2.

But I would say that they would be a final technology in the game due to its big difficulty being produced on a large scale.

Before I want to clarify something I'm talking about realistic engines not Star Trek .

Spoiler

For moderators: I'm new to the forums if I do something wrong corrected me. If English gets weird, it's because I don't speak English, speak Portuguese.  :wink:

Useful Links http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist3.php / http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#id--Nuclear_Thermal--Fission_Fragment_Type--Antimatter-Driven_Sail / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_rocket / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Resultado de imagem para antimatter rocket 

Credits: NASA

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kerminator K-100 said:

I think the biggest problem would be trying to get enough antimatter for it to actually be feasible.

So basically endgame technology. There's at least one other technology I am not going to name for the sake of keeping this conversation as far from it as possible, that's also incredibly hard to obtain and contain, and it's going to be in the game as fuel, so antimatter (don't confuse with dark matter) technically could also appear.

Though I really doubt it, what kind of antimatter would it be? Antihydrogen? Antiquarks? Anticarbon? I'm just picking random elements because the antimatter itself is a very generic term.

Plus, prove me wrong, but I think it has to be produced on the run, because of annihilation side effect. So the ship would have to have a container full of one element and engine made of particle collider (so, really big) and exhaust. Wow.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

So basically endgame technology. There's at least one other technology I am not going to name for the sake of keeping this conversation as far from it as possible, that's also incredibly hard to obtain and contain, and it's going to be in the game as fuel, so antimatter (don't confuse with dark matter) technically could also appear.

Though I really doubt it, what kind of antimatter would it be? Antihydrogen? Antiquarks? Anticarbon? I'm just picking random elements because the antimatter itself is a very generic term.

Plus, prove me wrong, but I think it has to be produced on the run, because of annihilation side effect. So the ship would have to have a container full of one element and engine made of particle collider (so, really big) and exhaust. Wow.

Penning traps combined with room temp superconductors would allow you to bank your antimatter basically indefinitely.

Also you could make smaller colliders specifically optimized for AM production. So your first ships would probably be basically a powerplant bolted to a massive array of colliders. But later ones would be much, much smaller. 

And it's almost certainly going to be antihydrogen, anything heavier is basically out of the question with current technology. Heat and the hard gamma radiation from the reaction are actually the primary obstacles.

And those might be the most difficult to solve, getting the fuel is really just a matter of scale and time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Penning traps combined with room temp superconductors would allow you to bank your antimatter basically indefinitely.

Also you could make smaller colliders specifically optimized for AM production. So your first ships would probably be basically a powerplant bolted to a massive array of colliders. But later ones would be much, much smaller. 

And it's almost certainly going to be antihydrogen, anything heavier is basically out of the question with current technology. Heat and the hard gamma radiation from the reaction are actually the primary obstacles.

And those might be the most difficult to solve, getting the fuel is really just a matter of scale and time.

I wonder if an Orion style antimatter engine would be more feasible, using antimatter bombs instead of nuclear explosives. Nuclear bombs are technically just super inefficient antimatter bombs since the energy comes from e=mc^2 matter to energy conversion, same as antimatter, with only a tiny % of the bomb's mass undergoing conversion. An antimatter explosive would greatly reduce the mass of the fuel, and the same shielding techniques proposed for Orion would likely address the heat and radiation concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I wonder if an Orion style antimatter engine would be more feasible, using antimatter bombs instead of nuclear explosives.

Until one bomb losses containment and the whole thing is vaporized due to multiple antimatter explosions. At that point, nuclear explosives are actually safer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I wonder if an Orion style antimatter engine would be more feasible, using antimatter bombs instead of nuclear explosives. Nuclear bombs are technically just super inefficient antimatter bombs since the energy comes from e=mc^2 matter to energy conversion, same as antimatter, with only a tiny % of the bomb's mass undergoing conversion. An antimatter explosive would greatly reduce the mass of the fuel, and the same shielding techniques proposed for Orion would likely address the heat and radiation concerns.

Advanced conceptual designs for pulse units were looking at antimatter initiated fusion, which would increase the mass efficiency and reduce the size of each markedly.

But as these would be essentially pure fusion devices, you now have a massive neutron flux which would require changing the shielding solution and likely the pusher plate. 

Also, if you can make enough antimatter to produce thousands of these...why bother with orion or anything else but just direct antimatter reactions.

I love orion as a concept, I'd love to see it realized (far, far away from any settlements).

But it's not where you want to throw technology like that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Plus, prove me wrong, but I think it has to be produced on the run, because of annihilation side effect. So the ship would have to have a container full of one element and engine made of particle collider (so, really big) and exhaust. Wow.

You are wrong, if you produce it on the run, you are just making a really heavy and inefficient powerplant. If you use fusion to power the collider, then just have a direct fusion engine. You don't get more energy by converting to AM, you lise a lot through inefficiency. AM would allow you to store a lot of usable energy, but then you need to store pre-produced AM

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:
On 1/11/2021 at 3:43 PM, Lo.M said:

How do I request a comment?:/

 

Do what? 

The excuse is a problem with my translator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 12:42 AM, kerbiloid said:

The entire point of Orion is to be cheap and dirty essentially, I'm aware there's multiple pathways to fusion that wouldn't produce neutrons.

But now you're using materials for the bomblets that likely would be much more valued in Terrestrial/Shipborne reactors that already would be fairly difficult and expensive to obtain en masse. (Deuterium has to be processed from massive quantities of seawater, Lithium isn't very concentrated except one place on earth, Boron might be usable in a pure fusion device, and He-3 has to be scavenged from hilariously dilute sources).

So of these Deuterium is likely the only one to be of significant abundance, due to it's use in 1st generation Fusion reactors and despite the scale of facilities needed to obtain the required amount it's nothing insurmountable (Heavy water was being produced in large amounts as early as the 30's...). Boron I'm unsure about due to the Antimatter initation, i haven't seen anything regarding how a proton-antiproton reaction could initiate a proton (Hydrogen)-boron bomb.

Again it just seems like throwing technology that would have a much better bang for the buck elsewhere for little reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

The entire point of Orion is to be cheap and dirty essentially,

The entire point of orion is to use mass-produced directed-blast nukes for propulsion.

The cheapness just follows from the mass propulsion, the dirtiness is not essential at all.

2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But now you're using materials for the bomblets that likely would be much more valued in Terrestrial/Shipborne reactors that already would be fairly difficult and expensive to obtain en masse.

The Orion of any kind is the shipborne reactor with a remote active zone.

That's its main advantage. You don't need to cool the walls, but still get significant part of its energy.
This makes the engine much simpler and cheaper.

2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Boron might be usable in a pure fusion device

This is the pure fusion device if heat the pellets with beams.

Also there is nitrogen and other options.
Boron is just the best one, and people use it to poison cockroaches. So, the extraction of its 11th isotope for fusion needs will not leave us without cheap insecticides.

2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

So of these Deuterium is likely the only one to be of significant abundance,

Deuterium is perfect for monstruous terrestrial installation but is not an option for the shipborne reactors. Too many neutrons.

2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Boron I'm unsure about due to the Antimatter initation

Everything can be warmed by antimatter.
Just in Orion it makes less sense, because you can/should use thermally stable non-cryogenic fusion fuel and push dense inert material towards the ship.
So, the best application of the annihilation is probably a quick heating of the pellet with positronic beams, rather than rotating the whole mass of pellets in a huge magnetic torus or holding it at absolute zero.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The entire point of orion is to use mass-produced directed-blast nukes for propulsion.

The cheapness just follows from the mass propulsion, the dirtiness is not essential at all.

The Orion of any kind is the shipborne reactor with a remote active zone.

That's its main advantage. You don't need to cool the walls, but still get significant part of its energy.
This makes the engine much simpler and cheaper.

This is the pure fusion device if heat the pellets with beams.

Also there is nitrogen and other options.
Boron is just the best one, and people use it to poison cockroaches. So, the extraction of its 11th isotope for fusion needs will not leave us without cheap insecticides.

Deuterium is perfect for monstruous terrestrial installation but is not an option for the shipborne reactors. Too many neutrons.

Everything can be warmed by antimatter.
Just in Orion it makes less sense, because you can/should use thermally stable non-cryogenic fusion fuel and push dense inert material towards the ship.
So, the best application of the annihilation is probably a quick heating of the pellet with positronic beams, rather than rotating the whole mass of pellets in a huge magnetic torus or holding it at absolute zero.

I do like Boron for another reason

It's a well known Neutron poison, making bombs with it strikes me as hilariously ironic xD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of antimatter. It feels like the holy grail of engines. You can't get much better (realistically,) than antimatter engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...