WARP reactor and industrial antimatter production, does it become reality?

[Pawelk198604]

Perhaps this question was asked many times here, but I'll ask again.

Does the engine Warp, commonly known as motor WARP is possible to build by man.

I know that this engine will be powered by antimatter, I know that the laboratory at CERN, produce antimatter in tiny amounts, I am aware that there are problems with the storage. I wonder when humanity begins to produce antimatter in industrial quantity , yet it has many interesting applications, even military might to replace conventional nukes, bombs of anti-matter would be much more powerful and above all, do not lead to the fallout.

But most would be the use of peaceful, to power the warp reactor, so that we could get there where no man has gone before

[Nibb31]

You're confusing Star Trek, where technology replaces magic in the storytelling, and real physics. They kind of sometimes use the same words, but they usually don't mean the same thing.

[Themohawkninja]

Warp drive in the Star Trek sense is not currently possible. However, the possibility of a radical FTL drive is physically possible in the form of an Alcubierre Drive, however the technology is currently unknown.

[Bunsen]

Warp drive in the Star Trek sense is not currently possible. However, the possibility of a radical FTL drive is physically possible in the form of an Alcubierre Drive, however the technology is currently unknown.

Only if you use a very strange definition of "possible." The Alcubierre drive requires craptons of stuff with negative mass, and that doesn't exist (you'll find a few authors who downplay this by calling it "exotic matter" instead of "negative-mass magical unicorn farts," but it's still pure fantasy). Creating fundamental particles that don't exist, nor have even been plausibly hypothesized, is more than a technological problem.

[Themohawkninja]

Only if you use a very strange definition of "possible." The Alcubierre drive requires craptons of stuff with negative mass, and that doesn't exist (you'll find a few authors who downplay this by calling it "exotic matter" instead of "negative-mass magical unicorn farts," but it's still pure fantasy). Creating fundamental particles that don't exist, nor have even been plausibly hypothesized, is more than a technological problem.

Oh? I've heard that the drive fits within our knowledge of physics. Dark energy might solve that though.

[Pawelk198604]

Oh? I've heard that the drive fits within our knowledge of physics. Dark energy might solve that though.

Or so called "Mass Effect Field" i joking of course, but i dream that some day interstellar travel become realty, that my great-great-great-grandchild if i will have kids or my distant relative from the future become Starfleet captain or even Admiral:)

But it's only my dream, that maybe one day come true, at least I hope so

[jwenting]

Oh? I've heard that the drive fits within our knowledge of physics. Dark energy might solve that though.

"within our knowledge of physics" in this context means we have no reason to believe it is theoretically impossible. It certainly does not mean we have reason to believe it is realistically possible, let alone have all the theory proven and are just waiting for someone to donate enough money to start building the darn thing.

Nucvlear rocket engines in various guises of course we can do, in a way. In fact nuclear rocket engines were first fired in the 1960s when the USAF was considering using them to power supersonic, intercontinental, cruise missiles (yes, they were considering driving a big nuclear reactor spewing radioactive waste at Mach 3+ out the rear end over the earth at the time). Other variants that used nuclear reactors to heat regular fuel to exhaust velocity were considered for the Apollo program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto reads like part science, part horror story, and a lot of "let's see what we can do, consequences be darned". Of course this was the age where everything was possible, and the idea was that if a nuclear war started anyway, the problem of nuclear waste spewing all over the landscape was the least of our worries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0410 and yes, the Soviets had similar ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA NERVA stems from the same era, and was abandoned at pretty much the same time. Tidbit: that page actually mentions KSP, but incorrectly lists it as "fiction".

NASA tried again later, but again ran into project cancellation (which seems to happen with most all their good ideas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus

I've deliberately not touched on nuclear pulse propulsion, AKA project Orion, which falls into a category of its own.

[Themohawkninja]

"within our knowledge of physics" in this context means we have no reason to believe it is theoretically impossible. It certainly does not mean we have reason to believe it is realistically possible, let alone have all the theory proven and are just waiting for someone to donate enough money to start building the darn thing.

Nucvlear rocket engines in various guises of course we can do, in a way. In fact nuclear rocket engines were first fired in the 1960s when the USAF was considering using them to power supersonic, intercontinental, cruise missiles (yes, they were considering driving a big nuclear reactor spewing radioactive waste at Mach 3+ out the rear end over the earth at the time). Other variants that used nuclear reactors to heat regular fuel to exhaust velocity were considered for the Apollo program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto reads like part science, part horror story, and a lot of "let's see what we can do, consequences be darned". Of course this was the age where everything was possible, and the idea was that if a nuclear war started anyway, the problem of nuclear waste spewing all over the landscape was the least of our worries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0410 and yes, the Soviets had similar ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA NERVA stems from the same era, and was abandoned at pretty much the same time. Tidbit: that page actually mentions KSP, but incorrectly lists it as "fiction".

NASA tried again later, but again ran into project cancellation (which seems to happen with most all their good ideas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus

I've deliberately not touched on nuclear pulse propulsion, AKA project Orion, which falls into a category of its own.

Oh, I am fully aware that IF (and that is a very big if) we figure out the technology to make the drive that it will be many centuries from now, but it's nice to dream. I've read the pages on all of those types of propulsion systems, and more (e.g. VASIMR).

Oh, the Orion Project... I saw a documentary on that once. A person told me that it could never really be all that useful, because you can only go as fast, as the nuclear shockwave travels (which now that I think about it, wouldn't the shockwave's velocity be the velocity of your craft plus the velocity of a nuclear blast wave at rest?)

[SpaceGremlin]

(yes, they were considering driving a big nuclear reactor spewing radioactive waste at Mach 3+ out the rear end over the earth at the time)

Nuclear Thermal Rockets don't spew radioactive waste. The nuclear fuel is only used to generate heat. That heat is transferred to a propellant which is then ejected out the back. The radioactive materials stay in the rocket, unless there is a containment breach.

[Themohawkninja]

Nuclear Thermal Rockets don't spew radioactive waste. The nuclear fuel is only used to generate heat. That heat is transferred to a propellant which is then ejected out the back. The radioactive materials stay in the rocket, unless there is a containment breach.

It depends what type of rocket. Some directly contact the propellant. Project Pluto was going to exploit the fact that nuclear waste would be ejected to irradiate the area near it's target.

[jwenting]

Nuclear Thermal Rockets don't spew radioactive waste. The nuclear fuel is only used to generate heat. That heat is transferred to a propellant which is then ejected out the back. The radioactive materials stay in the rocket, unless there is a containment breach.

Pluto would use the nuclear fuel as (part of) the propellant...

And the reactor would be largely unshielded, irradiating not just the fuel but the surrounding air as well.

And of course they'd crash the thing into the target area, using the reactor as a very dirty bomb at the end of the mission.

Really nasty weapon, eventually cancelled because they could not figure out a way to test fly the thing without effectively setting off a nuclear bomb somewhere (this was after the ban on atmospheric testing went into effect). Initially it was thought to test them over the ocean and just ditch the spent missile into a few miles of water, but in the end they just abandoned the idea.

[Quickfire]

Those who say Alcuibierre drive is impossible: I disagree with you. It is more of a very localized regenerating wormhole where it is generated in front of and behind you. Unless you have looked at the general theory of relativity yourself, then you will realize that there is as much ground for thinking it is possible as there are for thinking it isn't possible. at this stage its all point of view. 400 years ago they thought that it was impossible that humans could be killed by microbes.

[Jokurr]

That's because 400 years ago we didn't know microbes even existed. Today we don't know what technology will need to exist in order to build an Alcubierre drive. Saying it is mathematically possible is nice and all, but since we don't have a clue on how to actually build one it doesn't mean much.