/sci/ - Science & Math

antimatter is just a theory (a geuss)

>>3526776
>2011
>Antimatter a guess.
>I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
>Costanza.jpg

what's with this obsession with particle smashers!?

>>3526762
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIgA_UK-BnY

>>3526810

sounds interesting but expensive

also, i assume they mean a very small particle accelerator, and that this device would be one satellite instead of several.

in which case; mite b cool but it'll cost more than the ISS easy

>on /sci/ genuine, non-troll, scientifically interesting thread
>nothing but trolls and no replys
Stay classy /sci/, Stay classy

Containing even the tiniest amounts of antimatter already requires 0.0001 tesla (a Gauss)

>>3526870
Read it again, its about using the environment where antiprotons collect naturally as a location to generate them with an accelerator and collect them easier

>This level of antiproton generation is sufficient to enable the
first interstellar missions to nearby stars.

lolno. Nearest star is 4 light years away.. Given our current speed records it would take 94 million years to get there. Exponentially increasing that within a decent time frame of our life.. not happening.

>>3526884

This is anti-matter poopyhead. Current speed records don't mean shit.

>>3526882
In comparison, high energy galactic cosmic
rays (GCR) bombard the upper atmosphere of
planets and material in the interstellar medium to
naturally generate antiparticles through pair
production. The antimatter is created by
converting the kinetic energy of the incident
GCR particle into mass during a high energy
collision with another particle. Orbital and high
altitude balloon measurements have confirmed
the fractional existence of antiprotons in the
normal background of ionizing radiation

>(GCR) bombard the upper atmosphere of
>planets and material in the interstellar medium to
>naturally generate antiparticles through pair
>production.
[Page 5 of EXTRACTION OF ANTIPARTICLES
CONCENTRATED IN
PLANETARY MAGNETIC FIELDS]


High energy galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are pervasive through our galaxy and constantly
bombard the upper atmosphere of Earth with energies up to 1020 eV per nucleon. The exact nature
of the flux is uncertain, but the particles are believed to originate from events both in and out of our
galaxy. [15] Moskalenko et al. [16] provides an overview of GCR propagation in the context of
interstellar antiproton generation. The GCR flux can also interact with the Earth’s atmosphere to
locally produce antiparticles. [17] When a high energy proton strikes a particle in the interstellar
medium or in a planet’s atmosphere, its kinetic energy can be converted to matter when above the
energy threshold,

> The GCR flux can also interact with the Earth’s >atmosphere to locally produce antiparticles
[Page 13 of EXTRACTION OF ANTIPARTICLES
CONCENTRATED IN
PLANETARY MAGNETIC FIELDS]

• In contrast, high energy cosmic rays which originate from outside our solar system
constantly generate antiprotons when their kinetic energy is converted to mass during
high energy collisions with other particles.
o Interactions in the interstellar medium create a low flux source of antiprotons
that continuously impinges on planetary magnetospheres.
o The interaction of cosmic rays with the atmosphere of a planet, or other targets
such as rings, can create natural supplies of antiprotons that become trapped in
the radiation belts surrounding the planet.
• A large dipole magnetic field can be advantageously applied to collect the concentrated
antiprotons from their natural environment offering the potential for a nearly limitless
supply of antiprotons without the difficulties of Earth based production and storage.
o A spacecraft surrounded by a ring of superconducting wire can be used to
induce the required magnetic field for the scoop.
o The mini-magnetosphere generated around the spacecraft can also be used to
store the antiprotons for later use.
o The magnetic field also offers an intrinsic shield against space radiation and can
possibly be applied to assist in the propulsion system by directing the charged
particle sources and thrust.

>natural, unlimited, able to be captured, realistically cost effective, anti-matter.

>>3526884
>In particular, it has been suggested that tens of nanograms to micrograms of
antiprotons can be used to catalyze nuclear reactions and propel spacecraft to velocities up to
100 km/sec.

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1071Bickford.pdf

Are they just trying to copy Star Trek? I don't see how this can ever be viable.

>>3526884
matter/antimatter annihilation engines offer some pretty fucking serious speed. I think 50% the speed of light would be a reasonable "high end" speed. so a 4 light year journey would take about 10, i think?

>>3526912
so the satellite will basically just produce a very large magnetic field as a "net" to catch the naturally produced antimatter?
again, mite b cool

>>3526884
At 0,01c it would take approximately four hundred years.
At 0,1c it would take forty years and so on and so forth.

At those speeds the relativistic gains would still be too minuscule to help with endurance.

But if we build a larger, heavily armored ship capable of withstanding speeds closer to c, say 0,5 or 0,75, it could get there in eight or six years.

>>3526973
30 nanograms is all we need to go to mars in 45 days. According to Bickford it is completely possible we could collect this amount of antiparticles in the upper atmosphere. Of course how could it ever be possible,that electricity could ever exist, or how it would be possible that anything over 35 mph could be drivable by humans, and how could humans ever go to the moon, I just don't see how that was viable either.

i'm going to be "that guy" and suggest a small lftr reactor as a potential power source for this thing

Wouldn't cosmic+stellar radiation fuck up sensitive particle physics up there? We cannot even fully protect humans at the ISS.

You can't just get tonnes of lead for radioation protection up there. Not without a space elevator.

ITT: dreams

>>3526994
While the pic is from OA, this is basically what a working AM trap would look like.

>>3527010
that looks like a lot of heavy material constructed in a very specific way
i.e; expensiiiiiiiiiiiiiive

what's the dimensions on that thing anyway

>>3527005
Which thing? The ship or the AM production system?
If the former, then quite possibly. If the latter, why? Probably more economical to use solar power for any AM trap in the inner solar system.

>>3527022
It's a collection of electromagnets.

And it doesn't need to maintain position nor contain much more instrumentation beyond basic telemetry.

It could even be transported in a collapsed form.

The upper size limit depends on how strong you can make the electromagnets. I don't think there's any minimum size except on miniaturization of the electronics and powersupply.

Can someone sum up how anti particles can help us achieve magnificent velocities? This is completely new to me.

>>3527099
godly power-to-weight ratio, like, you cannot physically have a better fuel source

>>3527047
i was talking about the AM production. good luck getting a solid gigawatt hour from solar panels

>>3527099
Consider it like this, with fission or fusion you convert perhaps around one or two percent of the fuel mass to energy.

When a particle and it's anti-particle meet, both will be converted 100% into energy.

While using this reaction in an engine would certainly suffer a lot of losses from non-reacted particles and useless radiation, you can still get a lot more energy per fuel mass.

There have been other ways to use this that have been proposed, like using AM as a catalyst in a fusion reactor/engine.

>>3527126
>good luck getting a solid gigawatt hour from solar panels
Depends on how close to the sun you situate the system.

Actually, if you start to produce large amounts of AM, the safest way would be to build a huge solar statites over the poles of the sun where the production would happen, so if you get an accidental recombination, the accident would happen at a good distance from any planets.

Couldn't you store an equal amount of both anti-matter and matter and then annihilate them on demand, and then store the resulting energy with a battery for use? Wouldn't the enormous energy density of anti-matter allow you to power very power-hungry devices in a light package? Could this 'anti-matter reactor' be placed in a small vehicle?

>>3527099
Anti-Matter is a material which when annihilated can produce incredibly large amounts of energy a insanely tiny amount provide as much thrust as the detonation of a nuclear warhead. Its mass or anti-mass is easily turned into almost total energy and be converted very easily into energy. Therefore production/capture of anti-matter could fix energy barriers which restrict humans from freely exploring the cosmos.

>>3527006
According to research shown within the paper the upper atmosphere does deflect some anti-particles away from capture but the use of a refined anti-particle capturing system would still be able to contain large enough amounts of anti-particles to be used for a energy source.

>>3526962
>>3526979

Yeah, good luck accelerating an object with non-zero rest mass to those speeds... you still have to realize we're not going to get objects to travel that fast. At least not in our lifetime.

>>3527163
AM would be used like a very complicated, dangerous and energetic battery in itself. But the production process is very inefficient, so it's utility would be limited to areas where a lot of power has to be contained in a small, light package, ie. space exploration/travel and possibly military use.

It would be more economic to just beam power from solar energy satellites to groundside than to produce antimatter with the same power and ship it down.

>>3527227
All it takes is a lot of energy. AM/M annihilation provides that.

And so what if it can't be done with today's technology? You want to ban speculative discussion?

>>3527163

I'd prefer to use it for photon torpedoes.

Even if you could manage to accelerate a meaningful object (probe, ship otherwise), you're going to spend 10 years getting to Proxima Centauri... then what? Wait another 10 years for communication back from the probe?

Man is never going to leave the solar system. The sheer distances alone we are required to traverse exceed any one human's lifespan.

There's quite a bit of "nothing" out there for many, many light years.. As hopeful as I'd like to be that we can come up with technology to allow this, you have to understand the distances alone make it not very realistic.

>>3527240
>And so what if it can't be done with today's technology?
>You want to ban speculative discussion?

No, just being realistic.

>>3527270
>exceed any one human's lifespan
There's a scientific experiment that's been going on since 1927 to measure the viscosity of pitch.

Granted that the experiment is very cheap, it also isn't imperative for long-term survival of the species.

Thinking only in terms of
>one human's lifespan
might be the one thing that kills us in the end. Pic related.

>>3527270

It's not hard to colonize our own galaxy.We just need an artificial uterus.Our best scientists are already working on it.

>>3527300

I think I'm just mad that the universe is way too fucking huge and this stuff will easily span multiple centuries of observation and exploration.

>>3527270
You would be the same person in 14th century who would have told Columbus the world was flat and he would fall of the edge if he tried to sail far into the ocean.

>>3527381
That's where fiction comes in. Knowing that c is the absolute speed limit of any real spacecraft, that idiots will always be with us and that technology can't solve all our problems in an eyeblink shouldn't stop you from dreaming and enjoying some well-made sci-fi.

Holy shit, these are some great news.

>inb4 chinese antimatter-stealing satellites

>>3527399
I love this trope. Completely fantasy. "HURR AN OCEAN IS NO BIGGER THAN 20 LIGHTYEARS"

Ever heard of a problem called 'orders of magnitude' when trying to compare objects of completely different sizes?

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The proposed collection system does not require the development of any fundamentally new
technology to make it work. However, significant improvements in several key areas are essential to
ensure the system is both economically and technically feasible. Of particular importance is
technology development in the area of high temperature, low specific mass superconductors. Relying
on state of the art superconductors that are available commercially now will yield systems that are not
competitive from a mass perspective.
The following list summarizes the technology gaps and their relative development priorities.
Most of the technologies are also relevant to other NASA programs (e.g. Project Prometheus) with
related development likely to progress independent of this program.
Technology Gap: Low mass, high strength, long strand, ultra-high current loops
– Requirement: High temperature superconductors with Je > ~1010 A/m2 at 90K and
L>100m.
– Priority: Essential for collecting from natural low flux antiproton background, highly
desirable for systems with artificial augmentation.
• Technology Gap : In-orbit power
– Requirement : Space qualified nuclear reactor with P >= 100 kWe
– Priority: Highly valuable though solar power is potentially another option.
• Technology Gap : High efficiency, orbital antiproton generator
– Requirement: Orbital particle accelerator with beam power = 200 GeV.
– Priority: Essential for artificial augmentation, not needed if natural antiproton
sources are used.
• Technology Gap : Passive cooling systems
– Requirement: Reduced mass multi-layer thermal blankets for passive temperature
control of large structures with Tmax < 90K at 1 AU.
– Priority: Improvements in reducing mass or operating temperature valuable; reduces
requirements on HTS.
• Technology Gap : Affordable Lift
– Requirement: Reduced cost to orbit. ($/kg)
– Priority: Not required, but helpful.

>>3527446
Sorry /sci/ but we still have a lot of technology to produce to make this feasible but still its not entirely impossible.

>>3527399

Not really anything like that at all.

4 light years is a trivial distance in the grand scheme of things, and considering we are governed by the limit of c ALONG with the high improbability of discovering anything remotely hospitable within 50 light years of us... it's going to take an extraordinary amount of time to even reach that point.

Also taking into account how destructive humans are, I'd be honestly surprised if we didn't annihilate ourselves before coming close to making those great strides.

>>3527462
>considering we are governed by the limit of c

c can change, it was different in the very young universe, also c wasn't c before the big bang.

c is not the bogey man people make it out to be, it is not the ultimate obstacle

>>3527270
>2200
>still believes in genetic determinism
>laughing jovians.jpg

>>3527445
God I love this trope, the ocean was far to large back then too. Order of magnitude can be overcome by technological achievement and some risk. I bet it's easy to sit back in your armchair and reach conclusions about the future because you don't have the mental capacity or will to overcome large problems which humanity faces. I laugh at people like you because your the same type of person who reads a history book and laughs at those who were too ignorant to conceptualize scientific thought of scientists in the past. Bottom line is if it's not possible today the dreamers of tomorrow will certainly consider ways of making it possible in the future.

>>3527485

Yeah, but it's the best we know right now. Anything beyond that is speculative theory.

The really frustrating thing is trying to think outside of the box, but not getting too overly sci-fi with it. Until we can discover a way to allow matter to traverse insanely large gaps of space, we're stuck with what we have... and what we have right now is extremely fucking limiting until we get another Einstein that comes along and just shatters all barriers.

I mean.. we haven't even put a man on Mars yet, so it's really hard to be hopeful that within our lifetime that we'd be able to successfully send a probe or something to the next closest thing to us at 4 light years away.

Oh you guys.
no one tells you to get that antimatter and fly to mars tomorrow.
Technology will have to advance a bit more before we do anything useful, but at least this discovery points us in a viable direction.
Now, instead of speculating and crying that we don't produce enough antimatter, we have enough to do something serious.

i don't mind waiting. i will be happy knowing that humanity won't be doomed by staying on this planet forever. even settling on mars dramatically improves our chance of survival in face of cosmic disasters.

>>3527513

...yeah, except you're comparing an ocean to light years of distance. If you can truly comprehend how large that gap is GIVEN our current physical laws as we know them... it's not at all unreasonable to say, "Until we reform and discover laws beyond what we have now, travelling that gap is just not possible."

Given your current knowledge of physics, and I'm assuming you have one... what are the effects of accelerating objects with non-zero rest mass even 50% the speed of light?

And yes, it would take something fucking profound to ditch the concept that c is the ultimate barrier. I'm not saying it's impossible in the sense that we've discovered all there is to know, but I'm sure you CAN agree that if "c" is indeed the barrier, it severely impedes the potential of exploration.

Ideally, say we sent a probe to Proxima Centauri.. it's not like the distance traversed is so large that we'd be able to actually observe much different from our current position. It's like discovering how to walk across the street in order to get a bigger sense of your surroundings.

>>3527446
Wasn't there some breakthrough in superconductors earlier this year?

>>3527513
So your logical response is "YA BUT IF WE HAD A MAGIC AL WAND, IT IS POSSIBLE".

Right. Let me work on this magic wand technology.

is the warp drive star trek uses based on any scientific theory or is it total fantasy

>>3526776

I hope you're fucking kidding, because we have observed anti matter in the universe and experiments.

>>3526839

WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT MONEY? THIS IS PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF SPACE AND YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY CIRCULAR COINS IT WILL COST?

FUCK. YOU.

>>3527623
>im new to 4chan how does i /sci/

>>3527597
>>3527608
I am currently studying physics at university so yes I am surely up to date with the laws of physics and limitations of the physical universe also if it's hard for you guys to put faith in technological achievement then I don't really think this is the right board for you. Fuck you guys I am outta here.

>>3527717
It's also hard for us to put faith in jesus' second coming. Where should we go?

>>3527717
>implying technological achievement will break the speed limits of "c"

HURR. C student detected.

>>3527631
thank you!

>>3527717

I think you're getting technology confused with sorcery... technology still has to follow laws of physics.

Unless you're referring to theoretical quantum laws that really can't be verified one way or another in its current state and our current technological limitations.

>>3527307
Except gene expression is completely different in organisms when they are exposed to microgravity in their developmental stages. In fact, being away from the Earth's environment as a whole could potentially have unforeseen effects on gene expression.

There are still A LOT of unknowns about whether a human baby can properly develop in space. In any case you would need to develop a proper and consistent artifical gravity source.

>not disassembling mercury and using it to make antimatter

>>3527935
>>3527935
>implying that kid was talking about breaking the c barrier and you are making shit up cause I have not seen one post on here which stated anti-matter technology could break the c barrier.

>>3527978
>Quantum Laws
>sorcery
>2011
>Please don't do this

>>3528130
It can't but c doesn't need to be broken to make interstellar travel possible.

>>3528198
Explain that please.

>>3528205
Um... at about .5c (expensive but possible, especially possible with high-efficiency stuff like antimatter) it would take about 8 years to travel to Alpha Centauri.

>>3528226
Ok, so when you say expensive..where do you expect these resources to come from to move an object up to .5c?

>>3528226
>expensive but possible

Care to address the concern of what happens to mass at even .5c?

>>3528245
...that's sort of the point of this thread. The antimatter trapped in the Earth's magnetic field would be a perfect catalyst for high-efficiency, low-fallout Orion craft. It would take a hell of a long time to build up the speed but you could do it, especially since you already need a several-thousand ton spacecraft for Orion to work and could carry plenty of the small nukes you need.

>>3528169

His response made no sense. It implied that technological inventions will somehow allow physical laws to be bypassed.

I'm going based off reality, not sorcery. If people want to start splitting hairs over theoretical physics, that's fine, but don't expect technology to mysteriously pave the way for intergalactic travel taking into consideration currently verified limitations.

I've seen a lot posted on this forum about matter and anti matter as a source of unlimited energy, the only reason we need spaceships is because we can't live in space, however earth is the perfect biosphere for us and the only reason earth has to stay here is because we need energy from the sun, when matter antimatter energy comes on stream in a big way will this even be the case anymore, could we not build a huge matter anti matter energy plant in orbit to provide the planets energy needs, if thats the case we wouldn't need to be chained to the sun any more, we could build huge antimatter matter pwerplants to power us out of orbit, we could turn earth into a giant spaceship and tour the galaxy, this would obviously be a long time in the future, but it's an amazing idea isnt it

>>3528257
What are you referring to exactly?

>>3528268
Building an artificial sun in orbit is way, way more inefficient than just building spacecraft.

Serious question guys:

How do you stop the ship once it's going 0.5 C because of earth local anti proton delivery?

How will this thing slow down, as in what power source would it use to slow itself down when it got to a destination, or would it just keep going at 0.5 c indefinitely long past the lifetimes of its astronauts, with no method to break?

It sounds like we found a way to shoot things really far/fast into the space, but the method requires a planet, and it'd be extremely difficult to approach a planet and do whatever they do while moving at 0.5 c relative to a given planet.

>>3528270

You aren't going to accelerate an object with non-zero rest mass to c, let alone half of c...

>>3528290
What the fuck are you saying? It is impossible to accelerate an object of any mass to lightspeed, because you need infinite energy. It is difficult but possible to accelerate an object to one-half lightspeed.

>>3528266
lolol
>but don't expect technology to mysteriously pave the way for intergalactic travel taking into consideration currently verified limitations.

Are you people mentally incapable to figure out what any of us our saying. We all know the physical and economic and social or whatever fucking reason you want to pull out of your ass reason for why its improbable for interstellar travel to occur. We also all know that the speed of light is the speed is the current speed limit as we know it. The post encouraged you to think outside the box and take a little risk. Technology can make interstellar travel possible by producing a highly effective fuel source to do the job as posted in OP's article and paper (which I have fully read) So, you have a realistic view of the capabilities of humans but that view is making you increasingly ignorant to possible solutions which could affect the outcome of the problem. Technology is advancing and he was implying that problems of interstellar travel are not impossible to overcome. OP has also mentioned this. So I don't get it what are you trying to prove but its just making you look increasingly ignorant.

I can see why that kid left your people are incredibly ignorant. Technology is the only way to pave the way for interstellar travel everyone knows the physical limits and were all clear about them but nobody said you couldn't travel to other stars. Just because your not

>>3528288
I'm using 0.5c as a placeholder. You're sort of limited (as a maximum, ignoring fuel or acceleration) to your speed half-way through your trip, assuming you want to brake to 0.

>>3528290
>implying this hasn't been done in LHC

>>3528266
lolol
>but don't expect technology to mysteriously pave the way for intergalactic travel taking into consideration currently verified limitations.

Are you people mentally incapable to figure out what any of us our saying. We all know the physical and economic and social or whatever fucking reason you want to pull out of your ass reason for why its improbable for interstellar travel to occur. We also all know that the speed of light is the speed is the current speed limit as we know it. The post encouraged you to think outside the box and take a little risk. Technology can make interstellar travel possible by producing a highly effective fuel source to do the job as posted in OP's article and paper (which I have fully read) So, you have a realistic view of the capabilities of humans but that view is making you increasingly ignorant to possible solutions which could affect the outcome of the problem. Technology is advancing and he was implying that problems of interstellar travel are not impossible to overcome. OP has also mentioned this. So I don't get it what are you trying to prove but its just making you look increasingly ignorant.

>>3528319
>implying he doesnt understand orders of magnitude.

ITT: Michio Kaku

>>3528337
What the fuck are you two dicksmacks saying? Of course it is going to take more energy (a lot more energy) to accelerate a heavier thing than a lighter thing. What this thread is about getting that energy. I understand you need a lot more energy to increase speed at 0.5c than at 0.01c, but, again, you just need more energy, not some kind of magic.

>>3528130
relating to these convos and the whole human life span thing. I was wondering why we feel that the ship will be guided manually? It will more than likely be pre programmed to fly on it's own, collect data, and then return for data analysis. Who gives a shit if it's in 1 generations life time?

>>3528361
That would probably be what the first missions would be. But eventually people are going to want to send people.

>>3528361
cause the monkies want to go to space.

>>3528386
>>3528384
then shouldn't this be an irrelevant problem for now lol?

>>3528395
Yeah, the actual problem is that some emo morons are trying to tell me it's impossible to go at relativistic speeds.

>>3528395
Why do you think /sci/ is discussing this?

If not religion vs atheism, if not transhumanism, than it is FTL.

/sci/ threads can only exist when there is some fantasy involved that leads to controversy. Inevitably, 4chan is based around abstract discussions, because mutually agreeable realities are boring to discuss.

This, this my friends is our reality.

>>3528409
No, we're tellin gyou that if you weren't white, rich and male, you'd be a religious fag.

>Advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Ok so this antimatter stuff is supposed to generate way more power than nuclear energy, but how are we supposed to harness the power of something hundreds of times more powerful than Nuclear energy or even make an engine out of it? The whole idea of the reaction between matter and anti matter seems more like a world ending weapon than a controllable energy source.

>>3528425
What. The. Fuck.

It is impossible to attain lightspeed, because a non-zero-mass object requires infinite energy, which is, of course, impossible.

It is possible to attain one-half lightspeed. If I grabbed a Saturn V rocket right now and somehow gave it enough (several million tons of hydrogen, but not an infinite amount) fuel, it would reach 1/2 lightspeed. This thread is about developing energy-generation methods efficient enough to make relativistic speeds (such as 0.5c) economical enough to accelerate a spacecraft to.

Nothing I am saying is magic. Nothing I am saying even requires new laws of physics. You are a moron.

>>3528433
Please at pretend you read the paper before you post.

>>3528441
But would that be useful?

>Jesus died for your sins.

How is this useful?

>>3528441
we can also waste our time sending a piece of rock at 0.5c.

What good does that do us?

>>3528433
The paper doesn't propose matter-antimatter annhiliation as energy-generation (which would be fairly controllable, actually) but rather using antimatter as a catalyst for nuclear reactions.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ANTI-MATTER ENGINES KILL PEOPLE DEAD YOU GUISE

"how could relativistic travel be useful?"

GEE I DUNNO. Maybe we could travel to other stars, as is mentioned in this thread.

one problem with .5c speeds is if you hit anything your are fucked, even a spec of dust would go through the ship like shit through a goose, you would need some sort of shield

>ITT some kids who actually see the possibility in this technology.
>Also some fags who have absolutely no ability to leave there conceptualized shell of existence.

>>3528465
Eh. As it's been stated, it's an order of magnitude difference is getting to mars than getting to alpha centauri.

It's an order of magnitude different getting a random object to 0.5c than getting a probe of useful data collection to 0.5c

The problem you are encountering is that you, like any good religious freak, insist on waving a magic wand, and telling us "TECHNOLOGY WILL SOLVE THAT PROBLEM."

It's the same response you get from religious folk when you ask them why god didn't do this or that.

So, to sum it up:

Your belief system is indistinguishable from religion.

>>3528409
>emo morons are trying to tell me it's impossible to go at relativistic speeds.

You fucking dipshits need to stop watching made-for-TV physics documentaries and start learning what's fucking real.

YOU CAN'T GO THE SPEED OF THE LIGHT. Just fucking stop thinking you can.

>>3528486
Yes, this is also an issue. Apart from heavy-as-fuck armor, some sort of repurposed Bussard scoop type deal could at least decelerate (or rather, accelerate to a comparable speed) small particles, limiting their impact.

>>3528487
ITT: children who'll do nothing productive because they spend all their time fantasizing instead of taking the millions of incremental steps to even potentially realize their conceptualization.

>>3528486
>>3528503
Whipple shield

THEORETICAL SITUATION
>YOU'RE CRUISING ALONG AT 0.5C, GOING TO ALPHAPLHA CENTURY, WHEN A TINY METEORITE WEIGHING 1 G HITS THE SHIP
>SAID METEORITE HITS THE SHIP WITH 149 896 NEWTONS OF FORCE, INSTANTLY TEARING THE SHIP IN TWO
>EXPLOSIVE DECOMPRESSION, EXPLOSIVE DECOMPRESSION EVERYWHERE

>>3528499
I'm not saying you can. I am saying you can go to a fairly hefty percentage of light-speed, such as 50%. This is possible.

>>3528498
I am not waving a magic wand. I am telling you what is needed:
- high-efficiency energy generation (antimatter-catalyzed nuclear reactions, for example)
- a way to convert this energy into acceleration
(Project Orion, detonation of above antimatter-catalyzed reactions behind a heavy spacecraft, using the blastwave to accelerate)
- a way to deflect small particles from totally destroying the craft (this is less definite. Possibly some form of electromagnetic field, but obviously this has never been tested.)

>>3528526

More realistic situation: the ship rips apart because no man-made material will withstand those velocities of .5c.

Dat length contraction.

>>3528526
fag

>>3528535
>I am saying you can go to a fairly hefty percentage of light-speed, such as 50%

No, you can't. Unless you've mysteriously found the material that can withstand what the equations contradict.

>>3528526

a meteor in interstellar space..EXACTLY in our flight path..... how about we calculate the ODDS of that happening...

>>3528552
What equations?

>>3528498
Considering that he said that relativistic travel would be useful and not mentioning anything about what it would take, you exploding with righteous fury about the difficulty seems a bit excessive.

>>3528555

Mass-velocity relationship, ya heard?

Please stop getting your education from the history channel...

>>3528552

I'm pretty sure relativistic length contraction is not experienced as sheer/strain.....

>>3528552

herp derp contractions are relative, it has zero impact on the structural integrity of the ship, it's only noticed by observers, we are travelling at close to light speed relative to distant galaxies and you don't see everything falling apart around you

ITT: Michio Kaku
ITT: Michio Kaku
ITT: Michio Kaku
ITT: Michio Kaku
ITT: Michio Kaku
ITT: Michio Kaku

>>3527010
Giant hoola hoops in space

>>3528580

Oh, okay. Yeah, fuck that Einstein. I guess we can accelerate objects with non-zero rest mass to half the speed of light!

IT'S THE GLORY OF JESUS!!

>>3528562
If you had followed the references instead of being a tard, things might make sense.

>failed scientist.

>>3528563
Yes. It is more difficult to accelerate at 0.5c than at 1 km/h. I have said this before. This does not mean it is impossible to accelerate at 0.5c. It simply means you need much more energy.

If this energy conversion is not enough to accelerate at 0.5c, that does not mean that it is NOT hypothetically possible to accelerate at 0.5c.

>>3528594
At this point using commonplace technology, the human race cannot accelerate an object to 1/2 the speed of light.

This does not mean it is impossible for an object to be accelerated to 1/2 the speed of light. It means we require higher-efficiency power generation and propulsion methods.

You are assuming that things we cannot do at this point are impossible.

>>3528603
Its hypothetically possible that god created dinosaurs to test our faith.

I can just imagine this conversation taking place in the 1800's about walking on the moon

ITT Pseudoscience
next up: perpetual motion machines

>>3528630

you have to break laws to create in a godly way, you don't have to break laws to accelerate to .5c

l2differentiate

Well I'm glad I went to sleep at the early part of this thread, since it seems to have devolved into a playground shoutmatch. And back to sleep. Good day.

>>3527163
>Couldn't you store an equal amount of both anti-matter and matter and then annihilate them on demand,
Yes, indeed you could.

>and then store the resulting energy with a battery for use?
No. Well... you *could*, but let me paint you a picture: 0.5 grams of matter coming into contact with 0.5 grams of anti-matter would produce an explosion with an approximate yield of 15 kilotons. We're talking, nuclear bombs here.

Needless to say, this isn't something easily stored. Sure, you could scale down to something manageable (micrograms, nanograms), but there are other issues, not least of which that just storing the matter/anti-matter is lighter and more efficient than whatever battery and energy extractor you might want to use instead.

>Wouldn't the enormous energy density of anti-matter allow you to power very power-hungry devices in a light package? Could this 'anti-matter reactor' be placed in a small vehicle?

Yes. This is one of the big things about matter-antimatter that makes it so attractive, especially for spaceflight. You can do some very crazy things with anti-matter drives that are simply not practical with other engine systems.

>>3528646

...except general relativity didn't exist in the 1800's to quell people's harebrained fucking ideas that man will travel speeds nearing light to allow for actual intergalactic travel.

Also, star wars didn't exist to instigate idiots into thinking this will actually be possible.

Also, ITT: Michio Kaku

>>3528646
Indeed, and you would also have the same conversation about the existence of aliens, or god, or you know all other abstract extrapolations which have no real goal but to waste time.

The problem, my child, is you're discussing and comparing things which are orders of magnitude difference and trying to use historical rates of technology to extrapolate on different levels.

It's pretty much like you're using newtonian physics to try to predict things happening on plancks scale.

>>3528630
I am not talking about stupid shit zealots talk about. I am talking about something that is totally possible using established laws and observations. For your quote to be possible, there would have to be:
- a way to travel through time, or at the very least, see the future and foresee the need for a test
- a way to modify carbon decay in such a way to indicate incorrect dating results
- an omnipresent being that leaves no evidence of it's existence.
These things are not possible using our established natural laws. Therefore, what you have said is only possible if nearly all of our current natural laws were totally wrong.

Are you confusing '0.5c' with '5 times the speed of light'?

>>3528680
Of course, *your* religion is the right one.

>>3528672

.5 is not nearing c, it is fast enough to make interstellar travel possible, the nearest stars oare single digit light years away

>>3528701
Are you saying my 'religion' is science? It is not my religion. It differs in several major ways to religion:
- It is observable. If I drop a rock, it accelerates at 9.81 m/s. If I were to pray to Jesus to make that rock fall at 1 m/s, it would not happen.
- It does not contain internal errors. One law does not state something in conflict with another law. Eve is either the second or third person to live, according to the Bible.
- It does not let errors persist. There are observable problems with estimates of mass on a galactic scale. Scientists do not say "god did it"; scientists hypothesize that there is a previously-unobservable quantity in mass and attempt to find ways to detect this. If dark matter is disproven, scientists will attempt to find other explanations.
- Science persists with or without 'believers'. If the entire population of the Earth were to suddenly believe that the planet's gravity was 0.75g as opposed to 1g, the aforementioned rock would fall at 9.81m/s.

>>3528701
...actually I have no idea what the hell you are accusing me of. Please elaborate.

Could we get this discussion back on to civilized tracks?

For example, instead of blaming others for believing in magic or that someone is a 14th century peasant, you could show some evidence to why something isn't impossible or vice versa.

Personally, the Valkyrie design seems a well though-out
design from all points.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/slowerlight.php#id--Valkyrie_Antimatter_Starship

http://www.charlespellegrino.com/propulsion.htm

If you have objections, quote the parts you have problems with and post what the problem is.

>>3528827
100 tons of antimatter is a hell of a lot. It would require 100,000,000 times the 1-gigawatt satellite's production.

>>3528885
So we upgrade and build several.

>>3528827

Oh my God I'm not the only one. Please tell me you've read Flying to Valhalla? ;_;

I like the design, I really like it, though I'm starting to doubt its feasibility, especially considering how Charles Pellegrino turned out to be a talentless hack and all that. Bummer.

>>3528885

The guy talks about building an array of solar panels around the Moon to provide free energy and pump it into relativistic particle colliders.

Now, since the time I first read that I stopped being so optimistic about people being totally cool with having microwave beams shot towards the planet, sending 30 trillion watts of power every hour; and also the guy's idea about nanobots. Kinematic self-replicating factories, for the Moon, have been studied, but actual implementation of kinematic self-replicators has eluded engineers for decades and decades. It gets worse, not better, when you scale the problem down to the nanoscale and realize the Moon has little to no Carbon, but maybe Silicon will do.

>>3529201
I don't think it's economical to simply build thousands or millions of these satellites. We probably need a better way of generating antimatter, because even if we built the equivelant of a million of these satellites, it would still take a century to generate enough fuel for a single two-man mission to Alpha Centauri. I also don't think shooting ground-up metal at high percentages of light speed at our destination is going to be a good thing.

>>3529240

See above.

>>3529240
http://youtu.be/McAeQiLmEYU

>>3529222

>little to no carbon
>send our decomposed dead to the moon?

So no one in this thread knows anything about physics?

proton/antiproton annihilation releases neutrinos and gamma rays

neutrinos interact with nothing, gamma rays barely interact with anything

you cannot harness energy from antimatter annihilation, idiots

>>3529262

>gamma rays barely interact with anything

The idea behind an antimatter solid-core is to use the antiprotons to heat a core of Tungsten, which will in turn act as a heat exchanger with flowing Hydrogen. This, at least, is possible.

Plasma-core uses the gamma rays to trigger fusion reactions a chamber of Hydrogen plasma. This may have varying degrees of success.

>>3529257

If we make the solar cells real thin, we might be able to cover several square kilometers with a single dead guy!

>Dad, where is grandpa?
>Heaven, son.

>>3529275
hmm, alright, I suppose that may work

but I don't believe this would be efficient considering the energy requirements necessary to produce antiprotons

>>3529337
We know.

Since you didn't read the thread, let me give you a synopsis: we would either gather naturally occurring AM or produce it in bulk in large solar-powered production plants.

And the reason we would produce AM is the energy density, which is one of the few technologies enabling relativistic travel.

>>3529337

Well, it's like oil and other such things: It's not meant to be an energy source, but rather, a way to store large amounts of energy in a very energy-dense manner so they can be exploited. This is crucial for relativistic flight because the mass ratios involved in any kind of flight, even to a speed as low as 0.1c, are gigantic. I mean, you're going to have to stick your astronaut dude in an Alcor dewar and strap him to a Hydrogen tank the size of the Burj Khalifa, and that might get the poor guy to a tenth of the speed of light. With antimatter-driven rockets, though, you could achieve something like 0.75c (!!) or even 0.92c (!!!) though as stated before I'm starting to doubt Dr. Pellegrino. I should contact Jim Powell and see if he [Charles] also lied about working with him :(

>>3529356
Clearly you don't know jack about this subject.

>>3529380

Damn you guys stop impersonating me

>>3529283
i lol'd

>>3529389
Clearly I have a multiple personality disorder atm.

I want to join the illuminati.

>>3529222
Barring nanotechnology, we could still launch clanking replicators to the moon. And even if they couldn't be made totally autonomous, supervision could be effected by telepresence.

>>3529380
Oh? What did I get wrong?

>>3529405
Well let's be honest with ourselves shall we? There is antimatter currently trapped in our orbit. This would make a much finer energy source I feel. What do you think?

>>3529405

>Barring nanotechnology, we could still launch clanking replicators to the moon. And even if they couldn't be made totally autonomous, supervision could be effected by telepresence.

Yes, of course, but I worry about the initial size of the factory. Without nanotechnology, and even /with/ some degree of nanotechnology, you're going to need mining machines for many kind of terrain and regolith, transportation, a power supply (The Moon takes too long to rotate -- Land on the Peaks of Eternal Light?), a refinery to sort the materials (Which would require a foundry, and a way to separate what comes out of it. Centrifuges?), and then you get to the actual manufacturing system, which might be limited to a very small array of products -- And if the only thing the factories can produce is more of themselves, then there isn't really a point to Von Neumanning the Moon.

>Oh? What did I get wrong?

Disregard that guy.

>>3529416
Yes, like I said
>we would... gather naturally occurring AM

I consider that antimatter up there to be naturally-occurring.

>>3529426
>>3529393
Disregard this obvious impostor

>>3529431

[He's impersonating me. I'm the guy with the lengthy posts and the impossible nanotech pictures. My tripcode is a dictionary word, herp derp]

>>3526762
Wait....so like Star Trek....? This is fucking awesome.

>>3529431
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/08/07/antimatter-belt-detected-orbiting-the-earth/ Of course this is most wonderful news. I wonder what type of collection method could be used for this new found energy source near us. I bet cern has the perfect collection and containment methods for this energy type.

>>3529426
that picture would be cooler if it was in animated Graphics Interchange Format.

>>3529443
Star Trek is for neckbeards. Now Star Wars is the stuff. Much much better tech in Star Wars. Star Trek uses Mickey Mouse science scheme.

>>3529426
here is a html version of a NASA report that is considered seminal on the subject:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

>>3529456

It doesn't spin anyways.

Have a nanoscale planetary gear.

So what I'm taking from this is:

build engine in space
let it gather anti-protons
anti-protons act as fuel
explore galaxy
recharge anti-protons at each planet

We now have a necessary means of exploring the galaxy?

>>3529426
Why would they only reproduce themselves?
The way a system like this is thought to work is that you ship in several autonomous or semi-autonomous systems.
These then are able to produce parts and assemble those parts into more of themselves.

But they can all also produce other parts.

The system could then produce more specialized designs with some meant for harvesting resources from the surface regolith and some doing open-pit mining.

Like the traditional nano-dream, the system would both expand and produce.

In the beginning the system would probably be powered from lunar orbit by a constellation of reflectors and/or power beamers.

After a while, the system could construct a belt of solar powerstations around the equator, ensuring plentiful power throughout the lunar day.

I recall something about splitting atoms and both halves responding the same way regardless of distance. Sadly I remember because I played mass effect recently and they referenced it.

Basically if it can turn on and off, it can send binary and it can therefore function as some sort of galactic router.

Not sure how much of that story was true, I.m drunk and can't be bothered to check.

moar pseudoscience!

>>3529515
quantum entanglement

>>3529510

>After a while, the system could construct a belt of solar powerstations around the equator, ensuring plentiful power throughout the lunar day.

Yes, of course... But there's still people to think about. I mean, I know it's all cratered wasteland, and I don't mind Von Neumanning it, but people are going to complain about how the precious sight they grew up with has been ravaged by science or whatever. God, I hate this.

My point was that factories and nanofactories are both not universal, and it's already hard enough to get a factory to manufacture all of its composing parts. Even RepRap can't reproduce fully since it can't manufacture chips, it does not have a photolithography addon!

Also the extruder clogs all the time.

>>3529497
Not really, you would need large numbers of collectors to get enough antimatter for interstellar travel.

Then again, if you have the capacity to produce new collectors, you could send a few ships out to do just that and then send out lighter ships without the capacity and just charge their reservoirs at stars that already have a fleet ofd collectors.

>>3529497
I guess you can do that but what the thread is now discussing are the really huge amounts of antimatter you need to fuel an interstellar spacecraft. You could possibly bring along some self-replicating machines.

Speaking of this, do all planets have this belt or is it unique to the Earth?

>>3529536

Planets with large gas giants do sometimes have belts of varying [orbital] diameter.

>>3529522
>people are going to complain
I'd like to think people would admire the sight of a moon with slowly spreading web of reflecting pinpricks.

>not universal
That's why it's a whole system, like I said.
Instead of building one hugely complex vN, you build ten or twenty, all of which contribute to the whole.

>>3529541
I understand what you meant, and thank you, but
>Planets with large gas giants
lol'd

>>3529580

Yeah, bit of a derp there.

>>3529560
>I'd like to think people would admire the sight of a moon with slowly spreading web of reflecting pinpricks.

I'd like to think so, too. But someone's going to RKKV it.

>>3529593
>luddite aesthets getting ahold of an KKV
...
>and knowing how to use it
...uh.

In the extremely unlikely occasion that happens, pic related.

>>3529646

Hehe. The Unabomber knew how to manufacture bombs. They may hate technology, but they live in a technological civilization, and if they have the slightest bit of intelligence, as corrupt by ideologies as it may be, they will employ it.

You can't underestimate the enemy. Ever.

>>3529664
Okay but bombs are relatively simple, as opposed to a theoretical weapon.

>>3529668

Orbital mechanics isn't particularly difficult. Actually handling the control panel of the RKKV, though, that might be. But if they can even get the engines running at a constant acceleration, and vernier the machine on its course, then it's a matter of straightforward, Newtonian principles that will send the machine screeching down the lightseconds towards its target.

Okay, so I think we've established that the OP's satellite is good enough for interplanetary travel but not enough for interstellar travel. How much antimatter could a lunar VNM-type-deal produce? About the Valkyrie: it's great as a concept but there just isn't much two people could do that a probe couldn't. If we want to get serious about colonization or intensive exploration we either need to develop a bigger model or find a more effiecent concept.

>>3529676
I'd like you to drop R from that KKV, because at the point we get RKKV's, the moon will be redundant as a production plant.

Granted that KKV's aren't terribly complex, to wreck havoc on a large distributed system like the one I described would require several strikes.

Also granted they could just fill a shuttlecraft with 10x10x10cm metalcubes and blow it up on approach, at the point when trans-lunar shuttlecrafts were ubiquitous enough for the disappearance and later aberrant behavior of one to go unnoticed the lunar production complex would already occupy huge areas.

But to make it even more difficult, the complex would from the start spread in a branching-star formation, with several hundred kilometers between nodes to facilitate later expansion.

>>3529676
But an engine that can do one-tenth lightspeed and a several-ton mass is not something one can toss together in a garage. To even build the thing itself would require a large organization trained in various engineering and astronautical professions building a fairly-obvious device using advanced, highly expensive technology.

>>3528781
No, your religion is useless futurism. Technological masturbation. When sex bots are invented, you'll be the first one to remove your genes from the pool.

It's quite simple if you actually paid attention to the gibberish you speak.

>>3529715
I don't think it's technological masturbation to imagine uses for a new technology. I'm not proposing things that require wild new technologies or breakthroughs, like wormholes or Alcubierre Drives or tachyon engines. I am extrapolating what an emerging technology could be used for, and what the advantages and drawbacks of this could be.

>>3529688
Most of the time when we or anyone else discusses these things, everyone always concentrates into the usage of ONE technology to solve a problem.

Which is kind of dumb, considering.

Even current spacectraft utilize two or three different propulsion systems to do what they're supposed to, solid fuel, liquid fuel and ion.

An interstellar probe/ship could conceivably be boosted on it's way with a mass-stream accelerator and then dump the needed stream-diversion equipment after that phase was over. Then it could get mid-course boost from a light-sail pumped by several lasers in the inner solar system. Then it could use the main engine to increase speed and do the end-course braking with the engine and the light-sail.

I've said this before, if one tech doesn't get you there, combine several.

>>3529748
eh? well i'll just step back and let you fantasize that you'll be do anything useful in the future.

>>3527010
where does the anti-matter come from

>>3529715
Welcome back to the thread.

I would like to point you to my post here >>3528827
And especially the first line, which goes
>Could we get this discussion back on to civilized tracks?

Name-calling is counter-productive as it only makes you seem more juvenile than others that keep the discussion more civil.

>>3529783
What is with you? You consistently make stupid assumptions, such as "you cannot travel 1/2 of lightspeed" and you attempt to insult me personally. Don't try to contribute to physics-based threads if you don't have a basic understanding of physics. Better yet, don't come to /sci/ if you can't handle speculation on technology.

>>3529786
As the article says, it's trapped in the planet's magnetic field. Some early hypotheses think this might be because of cosmic rays bombarding hydrogen or something, but no-one really knows yet, seeing as this is fairly new (a couple of days old).

that's cool but we have no idea 1. how much antimatter is there and 2. if it's a regenerating source

>>3529805
Well, see, you don't appear to have much of a conception about what the future will be like.

Instead of worrying about space travel, how bout you conquer some more realistic problems.

Psychologically, you're replacing the idea of god, with some fantastic and useless futurism.

To me, theres no difference between the uselessness of religion and the uselessness of futurism.

Sure yours appears correct, but will it be anything more than mental masturbation?

I'm just playing the odds here, given that you're on 4chan. You know, playing the skeptical.

>>3529757
What do you mean by "mass-stream accelerator"? I haven't heard the term before, are you talking about a mass driver?

>>3529825
what do you think the future will be, death and destruction everywhere?

>>3529859
If you stop masturbating about technology solving your problems, no.

If you continue, 50% chance.

>>3529824
It is regenerating.

Antiparticles are lost all the time through interaction with solar wind and tenuous wisps of upper atmosphere.

If it weren't regenerating, it would have been depleted billions of years ago.

>>3529829
Mass-stream technology is a theoretical system in which a stream of particles are accelerated electromagnetically and directed toward something that needs pushing. This object then has a decelerating system of electromagnets which is usually depicted as directing the stream bakc towards the source to be re-used.

As the electromagnets in the object decelerate and direct the particles back, it gain momentum.

This could be used from propulsion to propping up very tall structures on earth, with the mass-streams traveling inside evacuated tubes.

>>3529825
- What do you consider to be realistic problems?
- How the hell do you know how the future will be like?
- How is discussing current technology "useless futurism"?

>>3529871
Are you complaining about solving problems with technology?
Are you a humanities major?

>>3529898
You're not discussing current technology.

If you were, you'd be talking about the aries rocket (not .5c machine) and MIR and ISS or another sattelite.

None of what you've blabbered about is current technology.

The OP itself has nothing to do with technology.

Please. Stop. You're hurting our future.

>>3529925
No, i'm complaining about people viewing technology with the same ignorant optimism and Jesus' second coming.

I see no difference between magic and magic.

>>3529925
Holy shit I totally missed that. Have fun trying to solve world hunger without technology, Mr. Humanities. I could propose genetic modification and hydroponics - or would that be unrealistic technology masturbation?

>>3529926
Did you even read the article. It proposes a low-cost antimatter generator that can create around 8 milligrams of antimatter per year *with* current technology. Words like 'antimatter' and 'space travel' probably scare you, so just continue to write them off as unrealistic masturbation.

>>3529931
any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

>>3529946
Apparently our Humanities friend is dense enough that technology we've spelled out for him several times is sufficiently advanced.

just ignore this faggot, 10 years ago he would have been saying that stem cells are masturbatory futurism and we'd never see anything done with them. now we've grown an entire esophagus for someone out of their own stem cells and replaced their old cancer ridden one.

>>3529935
How bout you propose a method for people in power to be willing to aid their fellow man?

>no ideas? none? Oh why not just give them nuclear weapons, i'm sure they'll figure something out.

>oh? did they just kill africa? wow. Never saw that coming.

seriously, technology isn't your savior. It is indifferent to your reality, it's use will be towards whoever wants to do whatever and has the power and will to do it.

This ain't about stopping technology, but its about idealism into uncharted waters and how you may want to learn more than just science to survive.

Anyways, i'm pretty sure none of you will contribute to technology in a meaningful way, but you'll champion it until it kills you arbitrarily, of course.

>>3529957
>fellow man
>aid
confirmed for full retard humanities major liberal who thinks you can "fix" africa by giving them more money or food they'll invaraibly trade for guns

>>3529956
so uh, what have we don esuccessfully with stem cells?

>>3529954
Uh, please name current manufacturers of sed technology. otherwise, stfu.

>>3529957
Why would anyone give people nuclear weapons to stop famine? That's beyond a strawman argument, I think that descends into 'non sequitur'. It's not every object has a certain amount of "technology" in it, and I'm saying the way to fix everything is to throw objects with a higher "technology rating" at it. Obviously, you use what you've learned through science to devise means to solve problems you have. In this thread, I am applying it to the problem of interstellar travel. If this was a thread about world hunger, I would personally suggest using low-cost irrigation systems coupled with education programs in order to extract the most food from historically non-fertile environments. Or hardier, genetically-modified strains of plants. Or massive algae farming. Or...

But alas, the ability to do something and the willingness to do something are two separate things. I could design a method to extract several hundred tons of food from a single square meter, but if people in power had no will to fund it, I'm shit out of luck.

>>3529977
Nope, but you can start by giving a fuck what your products are in society.

>bioethics anyone..bueller...bueller.

>>3529957
That's why it's important to disseminate knowledge of new technologies and how to use them.

It's ignorance that lets powerplayers do what they will.
Letting the public be ignorant about new technology lets them fumble along without a clue.

So arguing against discussion about emerging technology you are actually promoting what you hate.

Also, since we can't change those in power except through revolution or time, all we can do is try to improve the technology so when better people are in power, the technology to do good is ready. That or we will have distributed enough information about how to build and demolish things that a revolution is easier.

>>3529986
Antimatter. If you understood the thread, you would see the massive amounts of energy that could be extracted by using it as a catalyst for nuclear reactions. It's a relatively simple concept for such an advanced technology, but it's probably just technological masturbation, right?

>>3529986
Wait "manufacturers"? What the fuck are you talking about? Is anything not being used right now too advanced for you to understand?

>>3529995
Why would anyone create terminator seeds to feed third world nations?

>yfw antimatter has been used in PET scans for decades

>>3530012
Good luck with that. I'm sure that goes over well at your futurism gatherings:

>Hurr, those luddites are just creating what they're trying to stop!

>Oh, lets just work on these anti-matter bombs for the DOD, they promised us they'd give us new particle accelerators

>>3530013
Name a current technology that uses antimatter, or stfu.

>>3530017
Oh look more strawman 'technology is just for the rich people, man' arguments. Several thousand tons of genetically-modified, *non terminator* wheat has been offered to Africa, but they rejected it due to misconceptions. I'm fairly certain that if the average African citizen could have voted on that, they would have permitted it because they are currently starving.

>>3530016
Obviously you have a loose definition of what technology means.

I'm not surprised, given the level of futuristic masturbation in this thread

>>3530020
source?

>>3530020
>>yfw antimatter has been used in PET scans for decades

>>3530020
see
>>3530033

also time travel has been used to post on /sci/ for years.

>>3530033
You are almost too stupid to live. Just because something is not being used right now does not mean it is "unrealistic". Look at a LFTR reactor - developed completely but un-used. Would you say that is unrealistic? Search the name and you will get a complete description of the method used. Just because you cannot fathom what half of it means doesn't mean it doesn't check out.

>>3530045
i'm not really sure how to source something so blatantly true. It's like saying "Magnetic Resonance Imagers use magnetic fields".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography

PET scans work by attaching a radioactive nuclide that is chemically identical to glucose (typically, others can be used). this decays into a positrion (antimatter) which almost instantly ahhilates with a nearby electron. this happens like a billion billion times and release as a bunch of 511KeV photons which are detected by a circular scanner. the computer i then able to recreate a 3d image by percising timing of photon reception

>>3530040
You have an incorrect definition of technology. Technology is the knowledge of a system and the ability to construct it, not necessarily the existence of said system. Take a look at the Constellation launch system. This was never built, yet is it unrealistic futurism masturbation fodder?

>Go 0.5c
>Everything suddenly weighs a fucktonne
>Unimaginable strain on materials holding the ship together
>A speck of dust weighing one gram would produce over 100,000 newtons of force if it colided with the ship
>Containing and channeling antimatter explosion into thrust
>Slowing down afterwards without tearing everything apart
>Funding
>Research

>Calmly ignore these situations


Never change, /sci/.

>>3530053
No, I'm pretty sure I'm smart enough to live.

You on the other hand, keep back peddling away every time something you say has no backing in our current mode of understanding.

Hopefully, you'll soon realize your cognitive dissonance with regards to science and technology is a barrier to your actual production of either and find reality to be worth doing and not fantasizing.

But either way, u mad bro.

>>3530064
>cannot into relativity

>>3530064
all non-accelerating reference frames are equivalent. there are no extra forces or weight once the ship is at a cruising speed, that's basically the core of relativity. the only concern is debris in space and determine the rates of acceleration.

>>3530028
What the fuck, man?
Are you saying ignorance is good?

And again with
>HURR DURR
Ćould you please give me a legitimate argument instead of insults?

Honestly, if you can't keep a civil tone, I'm just going to assume you're in elementary school and that none of your comments have any value.

I'm trying to keep it up, but as far as I've seen, half your posts have been insulting and you have presented no evidence or good arguments. I have a lot of patience but I'm not going to keep the discussion up if you're not willing to make a real contribution.

>>3530064
I haven't backed down once. Everything I have said in this thread I still back. If I was mad, I could do much worse than I am now.
>>3530064
You have 0 understanding of physics. The things you have hit on during your blind flailing that happen to be true we have already discussed the difficulties of, namely shielding and deceleration.

>>3530059
so how does this help us interstellar travel at 0.5 c?

>>3530082
You asked for an example of a fully explained technology. I gave you antimatter. You asked for a current product using it, showing a total lack of knowledge about what technology is. He gave you a current commercial product using the principles of antimatter. You fail to understand, as you have done for the entire thread. For explanations of interstellar travel, see rest of thread minus your inane ramblings about masturbation and uselessness.

>>3530064
>Go 0.5c
>Everything suddenly weighs a fucktonne

Speed isn't acceleration.
Everything in the ship would be weightless when it's coasting.
Even when it's under 1g acceleration, one kilogram mass would weigh just one kilogram.

I can't believe even random people visiting here still make this error

>>3530078
err. You really suck an context, reference and other useful science things.

Well, no wonder you're on /sci/

>enjoy the veal

>>3530080
Thats what i'm saying. You're so fucking deluded its not every funny anymore.

The level of cognitive dissonance in this conversation is over 9000.

>>3530090
err. sure. you get one point for producing a valid technology that uses antimatter indirectly.

Now, 5 points for using antimatter to do whatever mental masturbation you're doing.

>>3530100
>no argument
>more insults
That seems to be all your comments amount to.

There's just no point in discussing with you anymore.

>>3530100
He originally pointed out how ignorance of technology allows powerbrokers to control populace by limited release of technology, and how this should be prevented with dissemination of technology and knowledge to prevent ignorance. You said something about how he shouldn't do that with a beyond-stupid statement about 'futurist gatherings' and the Department of Defense. By deriding what he said about dissemination of information to counter ignorance, you are, in fact, saying you support ignorance. That or you are just using stock replies because you can't conceive that you are wrong.

>>3530123
Because at this point, expecting you guys to follow any sort of logic is pointless.

I fail to see how this discussion revolves around any current technology for space travel.

Feel free to link to someone, somewhere doing something useful for your ideal 0.5c machine.

I'll wait while you produce even a semblence of a technology that could take advantage of this.

also, where can i read up on current positron collectors?

>>3530103
'Cognitive Dissonance" is the uncomfortable feeling of holding conflicting views simultaneously. Please point out where my views conflicted.

>>3530140
>view 1: we can make a vehicle go 0.5c
>view 2: we have current technology to do this

>>3530150
Before I say anything please tell me what you think of as 'technology', because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

>>3530138
>I fail to see how this discussion revolves around any current technology for space travel
Then maybe you should stop fingering your anus and instead read the topic, where it states that the discussion is about emerging technology of using antimatter in space propulsion.

>Feel free to link to someone, somewhere doing something useful for your ideal 0.5c machine.
CERN.
Pennsylvania University Department of Physics.
MIT
JPL

>more sarcasm
>more insults
You are hell-bent on confirming your worthlessness.

>>3530150
That's not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance would be
>we can make a spaceship go 10c
>nothing can go faster than the speed of light

I think my views are dissonant with yours.

So what would the antimatter do? Would it start destroying matter and create a sort of shorter distance in space? What is this I don't even

Wouldn't the bit of hydrogen in space be enough to destroy any anti-matter floating around?

>>3530897
No, it's just a conveniently compact and powerful powersource. It makes interstellar travel a lot easier.

>>3531107
Yes, eventually. But the antimatter belt around earth is constantly replenished by cosmic radiation interacting with upper atmosphere.

>>3531349
So the energy produced by anti matter creates propulsion? Wow ingenious.

>Inb4 resonance cascade shit goes black mesa on us.

>>3531356
Using antimatter as a power source in space travel would be just like using any other power source.

You use it to heat up a propellant which then produces thrust.

In chemical rockets the burning of the fuel creates a heated exhaust.
In a nuclear rocket the reactor heats up propellant to provide exhaust.
In some plasma rockets an electric arc or some other system heats up the propellant to provide thrust.

So the annihilation of the antimatter provides the energy for the propulsion? So what's stopping us just producing energy, converting it into an easily transportable form (electrolysing hydrogen, for instance) and sending that form to earth, using the energy to generate electricity and also to provide the energy to send some more water, in this case, back up to the antimatter generator? Or am I missing something?

>>3531426
*Electrolysing water to create hydrogen
Sorry about that.

>>3531426
Because producing antimatter is extremely inefficient.
Though it packs a lot of power in a small volume, the process of gathering or producing it is incredibly energy intensive with an extremely low output.

Using antimatter anywhere else than where it's absolutely needed would be on the order of not only cutting down a tree to make a tissue any time you sneeze, but cutting down an entire forest AND building the whole plant to make that tissue.

On the other hand there haven't really been too much research into systems that would primarily produce antimatter. The current systems that can do it were made for primarily for science, not for AM production.

>>3527270

Also accident or injury will ruin a mission. Imagine a tiny piece of debris the size of a pebble getting in the way of a 100kms craft. Imagine not going utterly insane in a tiny space vehicle over a span of decades. If was big enough for some kind of decent non insanity non prison lifestyle then it would have to be titanic, which would cause even more difficulty with maintenance. We would need mechanic and docter robots before this shit goes down, some kind of nourishment out of energy device, basically star wars level bullshit.

>>3531459
>implying we haven't already discussed ways to protect a relativistic ship from impacts
>implying your other arguments have any more relevance than that

>>3531469

>decades in cramped 0G environment with no decent exercise or change of company
>cabin fever not relevant
>murder not relevant
>steering ship into oblivion because the voices told you to not relevant
>not being mentally or physcially fit enough to continue project not relevant
>eating not relevant
>levels of technology for automatic surgery performing robots not relevant
>carrying maintenace materials on board not relevant
>discussing shield = shield invented and ready to go

>>3531511
>implying I'd want to get into another useless argument with someone who isn't up to speed on the topic
>implying you're not arguing just for the sake of being ornery
>implying it would even be a discussion with you denying everything
>me implying I'm going to bed now instead of boring myself with your comments
>me implying good night

>>3529426
>a power supply (The Moon takes too long to rotate -- Land on the Peaks of Eternal Light?),

Not a terribly difficult issue, actually. Solarsats in orbit would be good enough, just beam energy down to the surface of the moon at a rectenna. Don't even have to worry about any atmospheric losses or cooked birds.

Bump.

Good lord this thread has really taken its fair share of trolling since I left.

>>3526776

Antimatter is legit, we are just unable to produce enough of it cheaply. See the article below. It goes through all the exotic forms of space travel and tells us why we aren't using them yet and when we may begin to start using them:

"Why Aren't We Exploring The Galaxy Yet"?


http://zidbits.com/2011/02/why-arent-we-exploring-the-galaxy-yet/

>>3534942

The warp drive one is interesting... good luck harnessing that amount of power though

>>3535015
To do that, you could harness the output of a small black hole.

>>3535029

According the article, you need to harness the power of Jupiter.

>>3535080

Negative energy densities are a bitch.

>>3534942
So if we can't produce enough of it, how can we have technology to harness it?

>HURR STOP FATAL IMPACT WITH SHIELDING
>Shielding
>How 2
>Even then, how 2 power? I'd imagine powering shields through a 8+ year trip all the time, even with the generous asumption that significant impacts don't drain even more energy from the shields then normal, would require alot of energy. Yes, I know were discussing the use of dark matter, but that's as FUEL, not a battery source

>>3535696
don't ruin their futuristic masturbation. It is not nice. BAD REALIST, BAD.

>A 100 kWe generator would produce approximately
>10 micrograms per year. Scaling this to a 1 GWe power >source would enable nearly 100 milligrams
>of antiprotons to be produced per year.

Lets start sending solar panels up to the moon and try this out.

>>3535713
first we need to collect the energy...I know, lets collect it from solar panels on the moon.

>>3527631
well, everyone says that until they start having to pay for it
>hey! that costs too much! it's taking away parts of my livelihood!

also because requesting unlimited funding will get you all kinds of nowhere