International Journal of Advance Foundation And Research In Science & Engineering (IJAFRSE)

Volume 1, Special Issue, March 2015. Impact Factor: 1.036, Science Central Value: 26.54

ANTIMATTER PROPULSION FOR SPACE CFAFT

Barpate Neha Vilas*
Government College Of Engineering And Research ,Avasari(Kd).
nehabarpate289@gmail.com*

ABSTRACT:-

Spacecraft propulsion is any method used to accelerate spacecraft and artificial satellites.
There are many different methods. Each method has drawbacks and advantages, and
spacecraft propulsion is an active area of research. However, most spacecraft today are
propelled by forcing a gas from the back/rear of the vehicle at very high speed through a
supersonic de Laval nozzle. Few other methods for s p a c e c r a f t propulsion are
Electromagnetic p r o p u l s i o n a n d nuclear f i s s i o n . Antimatter annihilation i s the
most effective alternative t o all above methods. NASA is giving a s e r i o u s consideration
t o antimatter propulsion to get around the solar system. A gram of antimatter would carry
as much potential energy as 1 0 0 0 space shuttle external tanks carry. Matter-
antimatter propulsion will be the most efficient propulsion ever developed, because 100
percent of the mass of the matter a n d antimatter is converted into energy. When matter and
antimatter collide, the energy released by their annihilation releases about 10 billion times
the energy that chemical energy such as hydrogen and oxygen combustion, the kind used
by the space shuttle, releases. Scientist believe that the speed of an Matter-
Antimatter powered spacecrafts would allow man to go where no man has gone before
in space. Antimatter- matter annihilation is one of the prime candidates to achieve the high
specific impulse i) desired for the challenging missions of exploring the various parts of
universe and ii) needed if we plan to attempt a rendezvous with the nearest star systems.

I. INTRODUCTION

Space travel has always been mankind's dream. The 1969 historic moon landing brought the hope that
soon we will be able to visit other planets in our solar system, but almost 40 years later this dream is still
just that. Reaching Mars will require huge investments in and development of many new technologies.
One of the biggest technological hurdles we shall need to surpass is the development of a cost-effective
and practical propulsion system for a Mars-bound spaceship. Use of conventional chemical rockets, like
the Saturn V that took the Apollo team to the Moon, is not practical since the new spaceship would have to
carry too much fuel, making it expensive and complicated to lift into orbit.

Many concepts have been devised. For years, scientists have suggested nuclear fission as an alternative
approach for sending a manned spacecraft to Mars. Although the specific impulse (Isp) is still too low for
interstellar missions, it does open new avenues near the vicinity of Earth. Unfortunately,
environmental issues "grounded" the use of nuclear fission as a propulsion source. Nuclear fusion is a more
exciting prospect with its higher energy density and specific impulse. Last, electric propulsion, as used for
Deep Space I, cannot accelerate a spacecraft fast enough for the tasks mentioned above due to its low
thrust-to-weight ratio. Nuclear propulsion systems for rockets have been studied by NASA since the early
1960's under the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) program, subsequently
cancelled in 1972.

1 | 2015, IJAFRSE and JCON 2015 All Rights Reserved www.ijafrse.org

 International Journal of Advance Foundation And Research In Science & Engineering (IJAFRSE)
Volume 1, Special Issue, March 2015. Impact Factor: 1.036, Science Central Value: 26.54

In 2003, the nuclear space propulsion idea was revived & still under development. Although the nuclear
propulsion option looks like a prime candidate for the future Mars mission, its disadvantages (mainly
extreme radioactivity) led people like Dr. Gerald A. Smith, founder of Positronics Research in Santa Fe,
New Mexico, to suggest a bold new alternative antimatter. First predicted by the British physicist Paul
Dirac in 1928 (and experimentally confirmed 4 years), antimatter is comprised of antiparticles that
annihilate when they come in contact with ordinary particles, producing a burst of energy in the
form of energetic photons. NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) recently funded Dr. Smith's
research to examine the potential applications of antimatter as a fuel for a manned mission to Mars.

What is Antimatter?

Antimatter is exactly what you might think it is the opposite of normal matter, of which the majority of
our universe is made. Until just recently, the presence of antimatter in our universe was considered to be
only theoretical. In 1928, British physicist Paul A.M. Dirac revised Einstein's famous equation E=mc2.
Dirac said that Einstein didn't consider that the "m" in the equation -- mass -- could have negative
properties as well as positive. Dirac's equation (E = + or - mc2) allowed for the existence of anti-particles in
our universe. Scientists have since proven that several anti-particles exist. These anti-particles are, literally,
mirror images of normal matter. Each anti-particle has the same mass as its corresponding particle, but the
electrical charges are reversed. Here are some antimatter discoveries of the
20th century:

Positrons - Electrons with a positive instead of negative charge. Discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932,
positrons were the first evidence that antimatter existed.
Anti-protons - Protons that have a negative instead of the usual positive charge. In 1955, researchers at
the
Berkeley Bevatron produced an antiproton.
Anti-atoms - Pairing together positrons and antiprotons, scientists at CERN, the European Organization for
Nuclear Research, created the first anti-atom. Nine anti-hydrogen atoms were created, each lasting only 40
nanoseconds. As of 1998, CERN researchers were pushing the production of anti-hydrogen atoms to 2,000
per hour.

Annihilation

When antimatter comes into contact with normal matter, these equal but particles collide to produce an
explosion emitting pure radiation, which travels out of the point of the explosion at the speed of light. Both
particles that created the explosion are completely annihilated, leaving behind other subatomic particles.
The explosion that occurs when antimatter and matter interact transfers the entire mass of both objects
into energy. Scientists believe that this energy is more powerful than any that can be generated by other
propulsion methods.

So, why haven't we built a matter-antimatter reaction engine? The problem with developing antimatter
propulsion is that there is a lack of antimatter existing in the universe. If there were equal amounts of
matter and antimatter, we would likely see these reactions around us. Since antimatter doesn't exist
around us, we don't see the light that would result from it colliding with matter.

II. PRODUCTION OF ANTIMATTER

There is technology available to create antimatter through the use of high-energy particle colliders, also

2 | 2015, IJAFRSE and JCON 2015 All Rights Reserved www.ijafrse.org

 International Journal of Advance Foundation And Research In Science & Engineering (IJAFRSE)
Volume 1, Special Issue, March 2015. Impact Factor: 1.036, Science Central Value: 26.54

called "atom smashers." Atom smashers, like CERN, are large tunnels lined with powerful super magnets
that circle around to propel atoms at near-light speeds. When an atom is sent through this accelerator, it
slams into a target, creating particles. Some of these particles are antiparticles that are separated out by the
magnetic field. These high-energy particle accelerators only produce one or two picograms of antiprotons
each year. A picogram is a trillionth of a gram. All of the antiprotons produced at CERN in one year would
be enough to light a 100-watt electric light bulb for three seconds.

Antimatter Storage:

In a recent experiment, a team of scientists took the low energy antiprotons in one of these rings, slowed
them down to almost zero velocity, and captured a few hundred antiprotons in a small electromagnetic ion
trap. Other experiments planned for late 1987 will attempt to capture many millions of antiprotons in a
trap no bigger than a thermos bottle. The electromagnetic trap will be made portable so the antiprotons
can be transported to other laboratories for experiments.

In order to use antiprotons as a propulsion fuel, it will be necessary to find a more compact method of
storage than an ion trap, which is limited to relatively low ion densities. Another Air Force sponsored
research program is looking into adding positrons to the antiprotons in the ion traps and slowly building
up "cluster ions" of antihydrogen. These cluster ions are large collection into a mass of neutral
antihydrogen atoms clustered around a single antiproton ion. The net negative electric charge of the cluster
ion allows it to be kept in the ion trap, yet the mass of each ion can be increased until we have an ice crystal
with enough charge that it can be electrostatically raised and floated without touching the walls of the
cryogenically cooled trap

Antimatter does not exist in nature - or at least certainly nowhere near us, which is just as well. If it did it
would immediately annihilate with matter and explode with more force than we have ever
experienced.This means we have to manufacture it and then very carefully store it; it is only produced at
certain high- energy laboratories around the world (probably most famously at CERN in Geneva).The
actual manufacturing is achieved in a particle accelerator creating extremely high-energy collisions, which
results in the kinetic energy being converted to matter (subatomic particles), some of which is antimatter.
Storage is possible because it may be controlled in magnetic fields, thereby avoiding the obvious problem
of trying to store it in structural containers.

The Penning Trap-a super cold, evacuated electromagnetic bottle in which charged Particles of antimatter
can be suspended, has been developed. Anti-electrons, or positrons, are difficult to store in this way, so
antiprotons are stored instead. It is capable of storing 1010 (10^10) antiprotons for one week using
electric and magnetic fields. A schematic of the heart of a Penning trap where a cloud of antiprotons (the
fuzzy bluish spot) is kept cold and quiet by liquid nitrogen and helium and a stable magnetic field. For
complete antimatter propulsion it is thought that 1020 (10^20) anti-protons will need to be stored.
Storage is possible because it may be controlled in magnetic fields, thereby avoiding the obvious problem
of trying to store it in structural containers.

III. MATTER-ANTIMATTER ENGINE:

Scientists announced early designs for an antimatter engine that could generate enormous thrust with only
small amounts of antimatter fueling it. The amount of antimatter needed to supply the engine for a one-
year trip to Mars could be as little as a millionth of a gram. Matter-antimatter propulsion will be the most
efficient propulsion ever developed, because 100 percent of the mass of the matter and antimatter is

3 | 2015, IJAFRSE and JCON 2015 All Rights Reserved www.ijafrse.org

 International Journal of Advance Foundation And Research In Science & Engineering (IJAFRSE)
Volume 1, Special Issue, March 2015. Impact Factor: 1.036, Science Central Value: 26.54

converted into energy. When matter and antimatter collide, the energy released by their annihilation
releases about 10 billion times the energy that chemical energy such as hydrogen and oxygen combustion,
the kind used by the space shuttle, releases. Matter-antimatter reactions are 1,000 times more powerful
than the nuclear fission produced in nuclear power plants and 300 times more powerful than nuclear
fusion energy. So, matter- antimatter engines have the potential to take us farther with less fuel. There are
three main components to a matter-antimatter engine:

IV. MAGNETIC STORAGE RINGS:

Antimatter must be separated from normal matter so storage rings with magnetic fields can move the
antimatter around the ring until it is needed to create energy.

Feed system:

When the spacecraft needs more power, the antimatter will be released to collide with a target of matter,
which releases energy.

Magnetic rocket nozzle thruster:

Like a particle collided on Earth, a long magnetic nozzle will move the energy created by the matter-
antimatter through a thruster. The storage rings on the spacecraft will hold the antimatter. The popular
belief is that an antimatter particle coming in contact with its matter counterpart yields energy. That's true
for electrons and positrons (anti-electrons). They'll produce gamma rays at 511,000 electron volts. But
heavier particles like protons and anti-protons are somewhat messier, making gamma rays and leaving a
spray of secondary particles that eventually decay into neutrinos and low-energy gamma rays. And that is
what required in an antimatter engine. The gamma rays from a perfect reaction would escape immediately,
unless the ship had thick shielding, and serve no purpose. But the charged debris from a proton/anti-
proton annihilation can push a ship.

Radiation Shield:

The radiation from engine would be intercepted by a 4 meter radius silicon carbide shell. Additionally, 1.2
meters of lithium hydride will shield the fuel rings from high-energy neutrons that are ejected from the
nuclear explosions, and 2.2 meters of shielding will protect the crew modules. The spacecraft would have a
total mass of 625 metric tons, with 82 additional metric tons available for payload. This is more than
sufficient to carry a Mars Lander and exploration vehicles.

V. MATTER-ANTIMATTER VS. CONVENTIONAL PROPULSION:

Antimatter can be used very efficiently in propulsion activities. Proton-antiproton annihilation is a much
better means of propulsion than that of anti-electron annihilation. Proton-antiproton particles are charged
and confined to a certain area magnetically to produce thrust. Anti-electron annihilation is very
inconsistent and inefficient compared to that of antimatter propulsion. Anti-electron annihilation produces
only high- energy gamma rays, which cannot produce thrust and would require the space vessel to be
completely shielded.

Numerous propulsion systems exist where chemical propulsion is the most common and used in space
exploration. Chemical propulsion systems are beneficial because cost savings are existent through smaller

4 | 2015, IJAFRSE and JCON 2015 All Rights Reserved www.ijafrse.org

 International Journal of Advance Foundation And Research In Science & Engineering (IJAFRSE)
Volume 1, Special Issue, March 2015. Impact Factor: 1.036, Science Central Value: 26.54

launch vehicles. However, small percentage changes in chemical propulsion can drastically change the
vehicle size and cost. Research of chemical propulsion can be hard to understand because the technology is
complex. It is also hard to simplify the mechanical and thermodynamic cycles. Ionizing a gas is another
form of propulsion. With this system, there are advantages and disadvantages to be considered. First, for
the advantages, there exist a wide range of thrust capability and the development cost is relatively small.
In addition, the specific impulse for an ion propulsion system has a wide range and there are a variety of
propellants that are available. Second, for the disadvantages, there is a lack of availability of power systems
to meet thruster capabilities. Furthermore, there also exists a political issue involving the use of nuclear
power sources to power the ionization. Nuclear fission and fusion can also be used as a propellant and are
ideal for deep space exploration. For fission, propulsion will reduce mission times and technical risks.
However, problems exist because nuclear reactors and shielding are heavy, which causes payload to be cut.
It is difficult to reduce the size and weight of the nuclear reactor for space applications. Fusion propulsion
systems give advantages on trip times. The size of fusion systems can be a disadvantage because they are
so big.

On the other hand, Antimatter propulsion systems could give smaller and lighter vehicles and the storage
area is relatively small. There is a small thrust to weight ratio and a high specific impulse in antimatter
propulsion systems. Table below shows the specific impulse and the thrust-to-weight ratio of the various
propulsion systems.

VI.ADVANTAGES:

1. Antimatter is hundred percent efficient. When Antimatter comes in contact with Matter it annihilates and
the whole is converted into Energy.
2. For propulsion of spacecraft the amount of Antimatter required will be very less. A ten-gram of
Antimatter would be enough to send manned spacecraft to Mars.
3. Specific impulse of Antimatter is very high. The specific impulse could be greater than 10,000,000secs.
4. Speed of Antimatter particles is about 94% that of speed of light. The spacecrafts with fuel as
Antimatter will almost travel at the speed of light.

VII.DISADVANTAGES:

1. Problem with developing Antimatter is that it does not exists naturally.

2. Production of Antimatter is a problem .A few gram of Antimatter will take many years. Large-scale
production techniques are not yet developed.
3. Problems in Storage
4. Time of existence of Antimatter is very less. When scientist made Anti-atoms, each of which lasted for
about 40 billionths of second.
5. Antimatter is the most expensive substance on Earth about $62.5 trillion a gram.

VIII.CONCLUSION:

After analyzing the whole topic, it can be concluded that the Antimatter propulsion even though it is under
development and has enormous scientific and technical barriers, it will certainly bring revolutionary
change in conventional propulsion systems. Now mankind can think about the journey beyond the Galaxy.
Scientist believe that the speed of an Matter-Antimatter powered spacecrafts would allow man to go where
no man has gone before in space.

5 | 2015, IJAFRSE and JCON 2015 All Rights Reserved www.ijafrse.org