Antimatter rocket v. black hole starship

In summary, the conversation discusses the design of an antimatter rocket by Robert Frisbee and the potential of a black hole starship by Crane and Westmoreland. The constraints of Frisbee's design, including a long and narrow craft with a radiation shield and refrigerator, could potentially carry over to a black hole starship powered by Hawking radiation. However, the design for a black hole starship is still in its infancy and may require a dense plasma of uranium 238 to thermalize the gamma-rays. Unlike antimatter starships, the existence and creation of mini-black holes is still uncertain, making it a more challenging engineering problem.
  • #1
Rasalhague
1,387
2
In http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1" , 2003, Robert Frisbee offers some ideas on the design of an antimatter rocket. Crane and Westmoreland concentrate more on the possibility of a black hole starship, rather than the size or shape of the craft. I'm wondering, how many of the constraints that influence Frisbee's design would carry over to a black hole starship? In particular, Frisbee's design calls for a long, needle-like craft, much of its length being taken up with a radiation shield (5.15*105 metres) and refrigerator (7.6*104 metres), p. 27. Would a ship powered by Hawking radiation from a subatomic black hole be likely to have have similar requirements?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Rasalhague said:
In http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1" , 2003, Robert Frisbee offers some ideas on the design of an antimatter rocket. Crane and Westmoreland concentrate more on the possibility of a black hole starship, rather than the size or shape of the craft. I'm wondering, how many of the constraints that influence Frisbee's design would carry over to a black hole starship? In particular, Frisbee's design calls for a long, needle-like craft, much of its length being taken up with a radiation shield (5.15*105 metres) and refrigerator (7.6*104 metres), p. 27. Would a ship powered by Hawking radiation from a subatomic black hole be likely to have have similar requirements?

The radiation from a decaying black-hole is likely to be very high energy gamma-rays in the temperature range suggested for the black-hole starship. Thus long and thin is not a bad idea for a starship powered by such an extreme energy source. Crane & Westmoreland's design isn't as developed as Frisbee's (sketchy) antimatter starship designs, but I can make a rough sketch of what it would need. For example a 200,000 ton black hole radiates 9E+15 W - which is an incredible amount of energy to radiate. Oddly enough it's not as impossible as it sounds, just very hard. My best guess is to surround the black hole in a dense plasma of uranium 238, to thermalise the gamma-rays. We want an equilibrium temperature of about 25,000 K, thus a plasma sphere around ~180 metres in radius surrounded by a very high efficiency reflector to direct the resulting UV output. That power output is mind-boggling, but that's "photon rockets" for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Also one big difference between black hole starships and anti-matter ones is that anti-matter star ships are merely an "engineering problem." We know all of the pieces for an anti-matter starship exist, it's just a matter of putting them together. The trouble with mini-black holes is that we don't know if they exist at all, nor do we know how to make them if they don't exist.
 

1. What is an antimatter rocket and how does it work?

An antimatter rocket is a theoretical type of propulsion system that uses the energy released from the annihilation of matter and antimatter to generate thrust. When matter and antimatter particles collide, they release a tremendous amount of energy in the form of gamma rays, which can be harnessed to propel a rocket forward.

2. How does an antimatter rocket compare to a traditional rocket in terms of speed?

An antimatter rocket has the potential to reach much higher speeds than a traditional chemical rocket. This is because the energy released from matter-antimatter annihilation is about 10 billion times greater than the energy released from the chemical reactions used in traditional rockets.

3. What is a black hole starship and how does it differ from an antimatter rocket?

A black hole starship is another theoretical concept that involves using the energy from a black hole to propel a spacecraft. Instead of using matter-antimatter annihilation, a black hole starship would harness the immense gravitational pull of a black hole to generate thrust. This is different from an antimatter rocket, which relies on the annihilation of matter and antimatter particles.

4. Which of these propulsion systems is more feasible for interstellar travel?

Currently, neither an antimatter rocket nor a black hole starship is feasible for interstellar travel. Both concepts require advanced technology and resources that are beyond our current capabilities. However, some experts suggest that an antimatter rocket may be more feasible in the distant future, as we continue to develop and understand antimatter technology.

5. What are the potential risks and challenges associated with using antimatter or black holes for propulsion?

One of the major challenges with using antimatter for propulsion is the production and storage of antimatter. Antimatter particles are highly unstable and difficult to produce in large quantities. Additionally, the energy released from matter-antimatter annihilation can be difficult to control and could potentially damage the spacecraft. Similarly, using a black hole for propulsion would require precise navigation and control to avoid being pulled into the black hole's event horizon. This would require advanced technology and understanding of black holes.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top