Antimatter Propulsion: A Critical Look

by | Jun 3, 2009 | Antimatter | 38 comments

Antimatter’s allure for deep space propulsion is obvious. If matter is congealed energy, we need to find the best way to extract that energy, and our existing rockets are grossly inefficient. Even the best chemical rocket pulls only a billionth of the energy available in the atoms of its fuel, while a fission reaction, powerful as it seems, is tapping one part in a thousand of what is available. Fusion reactions like those in a hydrogen bomb use up something on the order of one percent of the total energy within matter. But antimatter can theoretically unlock all of it.

Freeing Trapped Energy

The numbers are startling. A kilogram of antimatter, annihilating with ordinary matter, can produce ten billion times the amount of energy released when a kilogram of TNT explodes. Heck, a single gram of antimatter, which is about 1/25th of an ounce, would get you as much energy as you could produce from the fuel tanks of two dozen Space Shuttles. This is the ultimate kick if we can figure out a way to harvest all this energy, but as particle physicist and author Frank Close (Oxford University) shows in his new book Antimatter (Oxford University Press, 2009), we’re a long way from knowing how to go about this.

close_antimatter

Close is a good, clear writer. Even the most abstruse parts of Antimatter — and that includes a thorny section on Paul Dirac’s use of the mathematical tools called ‘matrices’ to plumb the depths of antimatter’s role in the universe — are rendered forthrightly and understandably. And the conundrum of antimatter storage receives considerable attention. We can store the stuff in magnetic bottles but if we store positrons or antiprotons alone, we face the problem that like charges repel, which means we can’t put in large quantities (even if we had them) due to the repulsive forces that inevitably cause leakage. Neutral anti-hydrogen is also tricky because it is not responsive to the electric and magnetic fields we were hoping to use to keep matter and antimatter apart.

Current Storage and Proposed Options

You can see what this does to our thinking about antimatter in spacecraft. We’ve got to find ways to store antimatter in quantity that aren’t themselves so heavy that they become a huge factor in total mass. Of Gerald Smith’s work at Penn State and, later, Positronics Research, Close is skeptical. In one Smith paper, the authors outlined the basics of a trap that would carry a billion antiprotons for ten days. This was meant to be a prototype of a trap that would carry 1014 antiprotons for up to 120 days, sufficient for a round trip Mars mission. There is much more in the Smith proposal, but Close sees little to recommend it, at least so far:

This appears to have been more a management plan of how one would approach such a challenge rather than any tested proven route to a new technology. Ten years later, nothing like this has been achieved, nor was any of the work at CERN devoted to such endeavours. The maximum number of antiprotons ever stored in a trap is a million, and the focus of current research is on containing small numbers for precision measurements.

Antimatter in Quantity?

And we also have to reckon with ways to produce antimatter in sufficient quantity. Right now the energy inefficiency is enormous. Says Close:

…since the discovery of the antiproton in 1955, with LEAR at CERN and similar technology at Fermilab, the total amounts to less than a millionth of a gram. If we could collect together all that antimatter and then annihilate it with matter, we would only have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes. By contrast the energy expended in making it could have illuminated Times Square or Piccadilly Circus.

At the current rate (maybe a nanogram a year costing tens of millions of dollars), it would take hundreds of millions of years and over $1,000 trillion to produce one gram of antimatter. Or try this out:

To make a gram of antiprotons you will need 6 x 1023 of them, while a gram of positrons would require 1026. The most intense source of antiprotons is at Fermilab, USA. Their record production over a month in June 2007 produced 1014 antiprotons. Were they able to do this every month for a year they could produce about 1015, which equates to 1.5 billionths of a gram, or nanograms. Were we able to retain all of these antiprotons and annihilate them with 1.5 nanograms of matter, the total energy released would be about 270 Joules, which is like five seconds illumination by a feeble light bulb.

A Sail Concept Using Antimatter

No easy solutions in Close’s book. The antimatter rocket idea — annihilate antimatter with matter to produce gamma rays that heat a propellant before expelling it out the back of the rocket — sounds good until we reckon in the impracticality of storage and the current inability to produce antimatter in quantity. Antimatter is excellent at showing you the state of the art and where we may be heading in the near future, but it also reminds us of the need to modify our space concepts. Steve Howe’s fission-based ‘antimatter sail,’ for example, is built around the idea that we have huge constraints on antimatter production.

howe2edited

Think of a sail coated with a layer of uranium-235. A tiny amount of antimatter released from the spacecraft creates fission which kicks the payload to 116 kilometers per second, in Howe’s formulation of a mission to 250 AU. The key is the storage of antihydrogen, an antimatter atom consisting of an antiproton orbited by a positron, in the form of frozen pellets that evaporate as they drift toward the sail. We’re talking about a sail a mere fifteen feet in diameter, relying on antimatter for its punch.

Image: The Howe concept, a sail using antimatter to trigger a fission reaction. Credit: NIAC/Steve Howe.

Rather than thinking in terms of large storage tanks of the stuff, we’ll have to learn to work with what we’ve got or what we can harvest in the Solar System. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be future breakthroughs in production — at least, we can’t rule these out — but realistic antimatter work for the near term will have to involve ways to store tiny amounts in efficient containers and use them to catalyze other reactions. Steve Howe’s NIAC paper on the antimatter sail not only discusses a propulsion method but NIAC also has his report on ingenious storage options. Despite NIAC’s closure, we can still get the benefit of reports like Howe’s online.

Meteorites a Key to Habitability?

by | Jun 2, 2009 | Astrobiology and SETI | 5 comments

You wouldn’t think life on a planet being bombarded by debris in the early days of its solar system would have much chance for survival. Indeed, the prospect of being pummeled for millions of years in the Late Heavy Bombardment has led to scenarios in which life started, was extinguished, and re-started on this planet, the idea being that the massive cratering we see on objects like the moon was also being enacted here. But maybe we can make a virtue of necessity and consider what all those incoming objects might have done long-term to improve the atmospheres of the planets they landed on.

So goes the thinking in a new study that examines the composition of ancient meteorites to see what they would do when heated to temperatures like those caused by a fiery descent to Earth. Using a method called pyrolysis-FTIR, in which the meteorite fragments were quickly heated (at a remarkable 20,000 degrees Celsius per second), the team measured the carbon dioxide and water vapor released. It turns out that the average meteorite would release twelve percent of its mass as water vapor, and another six percent as carbon dioxide after entering the atmosphere.

That doesn’t add up to much from any single meteorite, but the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) some four billion years ago wasn’t an average time. The research team used models of meteoritic impact rates during the bombardment to calculate that billions of tons of carbon dioxide and water vapor would have been delivered to Earth’s atmosphere each year over the entire twenty million years that spanned the LHB. The same phenomenon would have occurred on Mars, making both planets warmer and wetter, at least for a time. Mark Sephton (Imperial College, London) and a co-author of the recent paper on this work, comments:

“For a long time, scientists have been trying to understand why Earth is so water rich compared to other planets in our solar system. The LHB may provide a clue. This may have been a pivotal moment in our early history where Earth’s gaseous envelope finally had enough of the right ingredients to nurture life on our planet.”

To be sure, the delivery of water from the outer system to the Earth has been a major issue in studying how planets form and evolve. What this work does is to put some numbers on the delivery of water and carbon dioxide by meteorites. And the comparison between Mars and our own world shows how different the outcomes could be, with Mars’ lack of a magnetic field contributing to the loss of its atmosphere (no protection from the solar wind). One world’s oceans dry up or turn to ice, while another’s become the staging area for complex life. We now speculate on which outcome is more common as we wait for further news from Kepler and CoRoT.

The paper is Court and Sephton, “Meteorite ablation products and their contribution to the atmospheres of terrestrial planets: An experimental study using pyrolysis-FTIR,” Geochemica et Cosmochima Acta Vol. 73, Issue 11 (1 June 2009), pp. 3512-3521 (abstract). More in this Imperial College London news release.

Millisecond Pulsars for Starship Navigation

by | Jun 1, 2009 | Communications and Navigation | 19 comments

If we can use GPS satellites to find out where we are on Earth, why not turn to the same principle for navigation in space? The idea has a certain currency — I remember running into it in John Mauldin’s mammoth (and hard to find) Prospects for Interstellar Travel (AIAA/Univelt, 1992) some years back. But it was only a note in Mauldin’s ‘astrogation’ chapter, which also discussed ‘marker’ stars like Rigel (Beta Orionis) and Antares (Alpha Scorpii) and detailed the problems deep space navigators would face.

The European Space Agency’s Ariadna initiative studied pulsar navigation relying on millisecond pulsars, rotating neutron stars that spin faster than 40 revolutions per second. The pitch here is that pulsars that fit this description are old and thus quite regular in their rotation. Their pulses, in other words, can be used as exquisitely accurate timing mechanisms. You can have a look at ESA’s “Feasibility study for a spacecraft navigation system relying on pulsar timing information” here (download at bottom of page).

Pulsars have huge advantages. A deep space satellite network to fix position is a costly option — it doesn’t scale well as we expand deeper into the Solar System and beyond it. Autonomous navigation is clearly preferable, tying the navigation system to a natural reference frame like pulsars. The down side: Pulsar signals are quite weak and thus put demands upon spacecraft constrained by mass and power consumption concerns. So there’s no easy solution to this.

But several readers (thanks especially to Frank Smith and Adam Crowl) have pointed out a recent paper by Bartolome Coll (Observatoire de Paris) and Albert Tarantola (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris) that speculates on a system based on four millisecond pulsars: 0751+1807 (3.5 ms), 2322+2057 (4.8 ms), 0711-6830 (5.5 ms) and 1518+0205B (7.9 ms). The origin of the space-time coordinates the authors use is defined as January 1, 2001 at the focal point of the Cambridge radiotelescope where pulsars were discovered in 1967. Thus, the paper continues:

…any other space-time event, on Earth, on the Moon, anywhere in the Solar system or in the solar systems in this part of the Galaxy, has its own coordinates attributed. With present-day technology, this locates any event with an accuracy of the order of 4 ns, i.e., of the order of one meter. This is not an extremely precise coordinate system, but it is extremely stable and has a great domain of validity.

If these numbers are correct, they represent quite a jump over the ESA study cited above, which worked out the minimal hardware requirements for a pulsar navigation system and arrived at a positioning accuracy of no better than 1000 kilometers. ESA is working within near-term hardware constraints and discusses ways of enhancing accuracy, but the report does point out the huge and perhaps prohibitive weight demands these solutions will make upon designers.

The paper is Coll and Tarantola, “Using pulsars to define space-time coordinates,” available online.