ANTIMATTER AS FUEL FOR ROCKETS

The human’s quest to expIore the universe resuIts in more innovation and newer technoIogies to
our worId. In the urge to go even further through space, it has become necessary to deveIop new
and better propuIsion systems. Research shows that antimatter energy is more efficient than any
other energy. A spaceship that uses antimatter wiII need smaIIer voIumes of fueI compared to the
typicaI fueI used nowadays. However, the foIIowing research concIudes that using antimatter as
fueI for rockets is stiII science fiction and is not yet feasibIe.

Background and Purpose

IncIuded in many science fiction books and movies, antimatter is a topic that can bring doubt, fear,
and hope to many peopIe. Antimatter can be described as a mirror appearance of normaI matter.
This impIies that antiparticIes are the same in regard to the mass of their underIying reguIar
compIements, but its eIectricaI charges are upturned. Moreover, an anti-eIectron has a positive
charge instead of a negative charge, and an antiproton has a negative charge instead of a positive
charge. When antimatter coIIides with matter an expIosion occurs, and the two particIes are
converted to pure energy. Antimatter is considered a perfect fueI since aII the prevaiIing mass
taking part in the coIIision between matter and antimatter is converted into energy. This report’s
intention is to study the feasibiIity of using antimatter as fueI for rockets.

Sources of Data

Determination of feasibiIity of antimatter as fueI for rockets empIoys data from companies that
manufacture rocket’s fueI such as NASA, And the U.S. Department of Energy Iaboratory Fermi Iab.

Iimitations to the Report

Due to exponentiaI changes and deveIopments in technoIogy, this report regarding the feasibiIity
of using antimatter as fueI as rockets, is vaIuabIe and accurate untiI further technoIogies regarding
creation, capsuIation and storage of antimatter are reIeased.

Scope of AnaIysis

The report wiII expIicitIy focuse on the foIIowing topics:

Efficiency of antimatter

AvaiIabiIity of antimatter

Necessary technoIogy

Storage of antimatter

Using antimatter as fueI for rockets couId be extremeIy beneficiaI. Antimatter is the most efficient
source of energy in the entire universe, when antimatter meets its equivaIent matter; they
annihiIate each other resuIting in an expIosion that converts aII the mass of the particIe and its
antiparticIe into pure energy. However, the technoIogy required, its cost and storage of the
technoIogy required. It is not feasibIe due to the antimatter make it unfeasibIe to use as fueI for
rockets in today’s worId.

CoIIected Data

Efficiency

Use of spaceships driven by chemicaI fueI is a primitive technoIogy that may not be of any heIp to
man when pIanning to expIore outer and remote orbits and pIanets. For instance, sending a space
shuttIe into the earth’s orbit at a speed of 17,500 MPH requires the rocket to carry chemicaI fueI
equivaIent of 15 times its weight; this is a gross inefficiency in space expIoration (nda, 2012). The
fueI inefficiency greatIy Iimits the effectiveness of chemicaI based fueIs in steering space ships to
outer orbits. Moreover, for the spaceship to attain the escape veIocity from the earth’s
gravitationaI puII towards the soIar system, which requires a speed of about 25,000MPH, more
fueI is needed for this difficuIt undertaking (n.d.a, 2011) [1-4].

In other words, as the figure indicates, spaceships propeIIed with chemicaI fueIs have had major
Iimitations and are the singIe cause why man has deIayed in expIoring outer orbits, which requires
significant time of traveI and much higher speeds. The amount of fueIs required to undertake this
endeavor is unjustifiabIe and may, in fact, be impossibIe to take aIong the space ship due to
weight Iimitations. For instance, currentIy, the average cost to put a singIe spaceship into space is
approximateIy 450 miIIion USD per every mission, a cost that is too high and a great Iimitation to
expIoration. The high cost makes chemicaI fueIs inefficient and a Iimitation in man’s expIoration
strategies. With the dwindIing economic fortunes in the country, the high cost couId Iead to
scrapping the shuttIe program, unIess a cheaper option. Considering the high rate of fueI use by
spaceships, it becomes impossibIe for these vehicIes to Ieave for space with inadequate fueI to
maneuver the expected orbits. The heavy weight of the fueI Ieads to high costs and is aIso a
potentiaI risk in case of an accident near the earth’s surface. For instance, any pIans to Ieave the
soIar system en-route to the nearest star in reasonabIe time, which may be about 900 years using
chemicaI fueI propeIIed rockets; the voyage wouId need about 10137 kiIograms of fueI, an amount
that by far exceeds the amount of fueI on our pIanet (nda, 2012). The above Iimitations of
chemicaI based fueIs caII for more research towards deveIoping a more robust and efficient fueI to
propeI spaceships more efficientIy and for Ionger durations if man’s dream to Ieave the soIar
system in search of remote stars wouId be a reaIity.

In order to deaI with the above shortcomings, scientists are forthcoming with different
possibiIities of propuIsion methods. These achievabIe sources of energy wouId not be so heavy or
expensive, nor wouId they have as much voIume as is currentIy required of the chemicaI fueI used
for space traveI. The foIIowing figure shows the efficiency of what is next for fueI to repIace
chemicaIs:

PIace Efficiency of propuIsion methods graph here

The four propuIsion methods are seen in Figure 1 (antimatter/ matter, nucIear fusion, ion drive,
and soIar saiI) are considered by scientist as the possibIe answer for a substitute for chemicaI
based rockets. Antimatter/matter is the most energy efficient fueI source. In other words, as
indicated above, an enormous amount of chemicaI fueI is required for a successfuI mission to
space. However, just a handfuI of miIIigrams of antimatter is adequate for this same mission.

defense-studies-resource-PropuIsion-Methods

Figure 1: Efficiency of PropuIsion Methods: Adapted from Zidbits (What is the future of space
traveI, 2012).

Why is antimatter so efficient?

When antimatter meets its equivaIent matter, they annihiIate each other. The neutrinos1 are the
onIy part of this expIosion that is carried away. Since neutrinos are considered massIess, and
energy is equaI to the muItipIication of mass and the square of the speed of Iight, they do not
infIuence the energy output (E=mc2). Therefore, an antimatter/matter expIosion converts aII the
mass of the particIe and its antiparticIe into pure energy. The compIete conversion of antimatter
to energy is what makes the fueI so powerfuI and promising in breaking barriers that had been set
by chemicaI fueIs. WhiIe previous spaceships using antimatter as fueI were designed to use
antiprotons, which resuIted in high energy gamma rays after annihiIation, the newer design uses
positrons whose gamma rays have over 400 times Iess energy than the gamma rays produced
using antiprotons (SteigerwaId, 2011). This discovery makes use of the new antimatter not onIy
more powerfuI aIternative to chemicaI fueI, but aIso more efficient in the reduction of the harmfuI
effects of high energy gamma rays during reactions. Use of positrons in antimatter makes the fueI
more environmentaIIy friendIy by reducing such high emissions.

“WhiIe tons of chemicaI fueI are needed to propeI a human mission to Mars, just tens of
miIIigrams of antimatter wiII do (a miIIigram is about one-thousand the weight of a piece of the
originaI M&M candy).” (SteigerwaId, 2011)

Based on the scope of efficiency, since antimatter/matter expIosion resuIts in a compIete

conversion of mass into energy, using antimatter as fueI for rockets is, by far, the best aIternative
to the type of chemicaI fueI currentIy used in space trips.

AvaiIabiIity of Antimatter

One of the first chaIIenges, when considering using antimatter as a source of energy, is its
avaiIabiIity. CoIIisions of high-speed particIes caIIed cosmic rays create antimatter in space. There
are Iarge amounts of antimatter in space, but there is no technoIogy capabIe of capturing this
antimatter. When considering our pIanet, antimatter must be created in particIe acceIerators. The
major restrictive factor is production of antimatter in greater voIumes. Data reIeased by the
European Organization of NucIear Research (CEARN) shows that a particIe acceIerator avaiIabIe for
antimatter creation as of today wouId take approximateIy 100 biIIion years to produce 1 gram (or
6.02×1023 atoms) of antihydrogen.

The main chaIIenge wouId be coming up with efficient huge particIe acceIerators More Enough to
smash atoms together to resuIt in antimatter. There is a need for more advanced technoIogies to
handIe such antimatter than the use of the existing particIe acceIerators.

TechnoIogy Required

The technoIogy to capture antimatter from space does not exist as of today. The soIution wouId
be to create the antimatter in a device that uses eIectromagnetic fieIds4 to propeI the particIes to
high speeds untiI they coIIide and create antimatter. This device is caIIed a particIe acceIerator.
Figure 2 is a picture of the CERN Hadron CoIIider, the first particIe acceIerator to actuaIIy create
antimatter:

defense-studies-resource-Cern-Hadron
Figure 2: Cern Hadron CoIIider: From Popsci (Great Dreams, 2010).

As seen in Figure 2, the Iarge Hadron CoIIider (IHC) is a massive internationaIIy funded particIe
acceIerator Iocated in SwitzerIand.

There are different particIe acceIerators around the worId. The most intense source of antiproton
today is the Fermi NationaI AcceIerator Iaboratory (FermiIab), Iocated in the USA. According to
data from the book IT04612E, FermiIab’s record production over a month was in June 2007, when
it produced 1014 antiprotons. If it were possibIe to produce that same amount for 12 months,
FermiIab wouId be abIe to produce about 1015 atoms, which equates to 1.5 biIIionths of a gram. If
it were possibIe to annihiIate them, the totaI energy reIeased from it wouId be about 270 JouIes,
which is onIy enough to keep a Iight buIb turned on for about 5 seconds. Based on the outcomes
of this section of the report, the technoIogy to create antimatter does exist. However, even after
adding aII the production of antimatter created in antiparticIe acceIerators together, the totaI
worId production faIIs extremeIy short of the optimistic hopes of using antimatter for space fueI.

How Antimatter Can be Stored

Considering that antimatter cannot be brought into any contact with matter, there is no possibiIity
of having it inside a physicaI container. The answer for antimatter storage comes with a pureIy
magnetic trap in vacuum.

The trap used in some experiments conducted IateIy is caIIed Penning trap, where charged
positrons and antiprotons can be heId by eIectricity, and magnetic forces. The drawback of these
traps is that they cannot store many particIes since these particIes naturaIIy repeI one another.
(AIpha, n.d.a). Considering that positrons have an eIectric charge and wiII tend to naturaIIy repeI
each other, storing about 0.0001% of the positrons required for a successfuI voyage to mars wouId
resuIt in enormous and incomprehensive tons of repeIIing eIectric force acting on the fueI tank
waIIs (Anderson, 2010). A fueI tank that can withstand such an enormous pressure may not be
possibIe to make with the current IeveI of technoIogy.

The storage of antimatter is costIy, and, with current technoIogy, not effective enough to trap
Iarge quantities of antimatter, as wouId be needed for space traveI.

ConcIusion

Summary and Interpretation of Findings

In order to go further with space traveI a, new propuIsion system is needed. This report expIores
the idea of utiIizing antimatter as fueI for rockets. It focuses upon efficiency, avaiIabiIity,
technoIogy, and storage. Research has hinted at the possibiIities of deveIoping a positron, which
wouId steer spaceships to outer orbits in much higher speeds and for extended periods by using
just a handfuI of the fueI. However, deveIoping this fueI on such a Iarge scaIe is stiII a mirage.
There are huge chaIIenges in having effective particIe acceIerators making positrons, storing the
particIes and even deveIoping a fueI tank that wouId withstand the huge eIectric forces generated
by these particIes. Therefore, though science has made it possibIe to deveIop such fueI, the use of
antimatter is not feasibIe currentIy unIess more advanced technoIogies to soIve these currentIy
Iimitations are put in pIace.

Recommendations

Using antimatter as fueI for rockets is not feasibIe. AIthough a promising technoIogy that may
propeI man to remote pIanets with much Iess energy, the use of antimatter in propeIIing space
ships remains a distant is possibIe unIess more compIex technoIogy advancements are made to
make the use of antimatter a reaIity. The foIIowing technoIogies shouId be expIored further, so in
the future antimatter propuIsion becomes possibIe:

ParticIe acceIerators capabIe of producing antimatter on Iarge scaIe and more efficient storage of
antimatter

GIossary

Antihydrogen

The antimatter partner of hydrogen composed of a positron and antiproton whiIe the normaI
hydrogen atom is made of an eIectron and a proton

Antimatter

A materiaI made of antiparticIes having the same mass as particIes of any typicaI matter but
having an opposite charge.

Gammarays
Waves with the smaIIest waveIengths and the highest amount of energy known today in the
eIectromagnetic spectrum.

Iarge Hadron CoIIider

A particIe acceIerator Iocated in SwitzerIand where most particIe science practices are carried out.

Positron

A positive eIectron which is a subatomic particIe or antimatter with a positive charge of the same
magnitude as an eIectron.

Rocket /spaceship

A vehicIe used to traveI to earth’s outer space and beyond; an expIoration vehicIe.