headborg 1 Posted March 21, 2004 Saw a report the other day that anti-matter engines will be a more practical engine than the nuclear ones like the Orion, Dadeaulas project, and that they are favored over the nuclear pulse idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted March 21, 2004 I do not agree.... We do not know how to contain antimatter/matter reactions... Anyways, antimatter is hard to come by... We only have a few million atoms of the stuff in storage.... Then you have to figure out how to facilitate the mix so it doesn't destroy the vessel... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xeroc 0 Posted March 21, 2004 Anti-matter engines show some promise as a short term quick acceleration engine or one for a long journey where the hydrogen fuel might take up too much space. I think for any thing else like solar-system travel especially, fission or fusion rockets would be more effecient. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vold 0 Posted March 21, 2004 (edited) All I know is, antimatter engines in real life is around 60% of light-speed. Â best speed & efficient type engine idea according to scientists themselves. I'm not talking about Trek's "antimatter warp engines". Â I forgot what was the problem. maybe its to do with getting the right stuff, I don't know. :) Â anyway I agree with Xeroc. antimatter engines are better for long journeys while the other 2 are better for shorter ones. Edited March 21, 2004 by vold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Bolivar 0 Posted March 21, 2004 All I know is, antimatter engines in real life is around 60% of light-speed. An anti-matter engine is around the speed of light? What does that mean? As with any engine, the more mass you have to move with the engine, the slower the resulting acceleration and velocity. So, in order for that statement to have any meaning whatsoever, you have to tell us what it is that it would be pushing. If it were an atom, or maybe a molecule, I could believe that it could get the atom up the 60% of light speed ©. Also important is the duration of the acceleration. An anti-matter engine that accelerates a particle for only one second will not acheive the same results for one that pushes a particle for 10 seconds. So again, I ask you, what is it that you're pushing (mass) and for how long? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vold 0 Posted March 21, 2004 Dunno, but judging from what I saw in that picture, its longer then our normal rockets. & its cylinder type shape i think. Â Its atleast 6 months ago since i saw it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xeroc 0 Posted March 22, 2004 I believe what vold is talking about is something I read in either Discover or Scientific American about what the potential speed of antimatter, fusion and fission rockets could be. Â A principle states that on average, for the fuel weight and capacity of a rocket, it can only generally get up to about twice the velocity of its exhaust (of course for something like a ramscoop with a theoretically infinite fuel supply should be able to acccellerate to almost the speed of light) Â I'm pretty sure anti-matter reactions produce particles moving off with a velocity of 1/3 the speed of light (3.33 sublight) and so the average antimatter rocket should be able to accelerate to 2/3 the speed of light (6.66 sublight) effeciently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stoned_vulcan 0 Posted March 22, 2004 i think that its a good idea to make the engines.. lol a plain and simple answer... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Bolivar 0 Posted March 23, 2004 (edited) I'm pretty sure anti-matter reactions produce particles moving off with a velocity of 1/3 the speed of light (3.33 sublight) and so the average antimatter rocket should be able to accelerate to 2/3 the speed of light (6.66 sublight) effeciently. The exhaust particles might travel at 1/3rd the speed of light, but a rocked itself is much more massive... but after prolonged acceleration I suppose it could get up to 2/3's the speed of light. From there, however, the variable gamma will start getting large, thus, making it very hard from the rocket to accelerate much more. Edited March 23, 2004 by Captain Bolivar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ussacclaim 0 Posted March 24, 2004 Although anti-matter engines are cool, (let's use them someday I say!) the velocities from Star Trek were attained by condensing space right? I can't recall the techno-stuff (I'm not Geordi! ) but that's a part of it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
digifan 0 Posted March 31, 2004 Some advancements had already happened. NASA's experimental deep space probe, Deep Space One, use nuclear generated power to push the probe to ten percent of the speed of light. Its advanced ion propulsion drive exceeded many expectations. Wouldn't it be great if NASA launch another probe with a second generation ion drive and call it impulse, one step closer to the Trekiverse anti-matter powered warp drive? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander32 0 Posted April 1, 2004 Yeah! Closer to trek! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted April 3, 2004 Some advancements had already happened. NASA's experimental deep space probe, Deep Space One, use nuclear generated power to push the probe to ten percent of the speed of light. Its advanced ion propulsion drive exceeded many expectations. Wouldn't it be great if NASA launch another probe with a second generation ion drive and call it impulse, one step closer to the Trekiverse anti-matter powered warp drive? We wish.... We couldn't generate a stable warp field. The possibilited of bending space time are great but could cause permanent damage to the continuum and result in dimensional implosions or distortion where time may intesect space in a very dangerous and unstable way. We may never know the effects on our bending the timespace continuum. folding space time would obviously cause permanent damage where strings would become unstable. Anti matter engines aren't going to happern for another 100 years at least... We haven't even achieved travel out side of the solar system. We first have to experiment on the possiblity of the graviton. We must harness the strange and wonderful powers of the guage bosons. These forces that they use are unknown to us. fusion must be achieved to understand these particles fully. There i evidence that extremely large or gravitaionally strong celestial objects may be the driving force of the bending of space time. It is comepletely possible that the elusive graviton is a facsimile of the chronaton or tachyon. W must find the tachyon before light speed is achieved. That may be the key to the gravitational constant in the universe. It may also be the key to breaking the barrier of relativistic speeds we face. As we all know, objects get heavier as they approach the speed of light. Theoretically according to Einstein's theory of realtivity, energy must be manipulated in order of the speed of the object to increase. You would also have to decrease the mass. However according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics we are not able to do that as entropy must be kept. And Newton's law of energy conservation is linked to relativity in that matter is energy. In order for relativistic speeds to be achieved, we must first break these barriers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scaleman 0 Posted April 4, 2004 As far as space travel goes, i think we'd be wise not to attempt any speed beyond 1/2 lightspeed, although even going that speed there could be considerable relativistic effects, and i think that craft that was mentioned goes 1% the speed of light, not 10%. Also, for anyone who has heard of Alcubierre, they know that the supposed "warp field" would, if it was shown on a 2-dimensional surface, look like a starship with a "hill" above and behind the vessel providing the "pushing" effect, and there'd be yet another "hill" directly opposite the first which creates a "pulling" effect. Thought a bit of visual description might help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scaleman 0 Posted April 4, 2004 For even further visual aid here is a drawing (with a starship from enterprise as the "guest vehicle") that shows said warp field: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander32 0 Posted April 5, 2004 Very interesting........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted April 5, 2004 but I doubt that the warp field would be used as time space would be bent... fracture=dimensional implosion... Entropy will cease to exist and the lasw of physics will ve under chaos... Speaking of entropy.... sorry bad joke... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
