Antimatter rocket v. black hole starship

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion compares the design constraints of an antimatter rocket, as proposed by Robert Frisbee in 2003, with those of a theoretical black hole starship. Frisbee's design emphasizes a long, needle-like craft that incorporates a significant radiation shield (5.15 x 105 meters) and a refrigerator (7.6 x 104 meters). The discussion suggests that a black hole starship, powered by Hawking radiation, would likely require similar structural considerations due to the high-energy gamma-ray emissions associated with black holes. The feasibility of constructing such a starship remains uncertain, as the existence and creation of mini-black holes are still theoretical.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of antimatter propulsion systems
  • Familiarity with black hole physics and Hawking radiation
  • Knowledge of radiation shielding techniques
  • Basic principles of thermodynamics in high-energy environments
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Robert Frisbee's antimatter rocket design in detail
  • Explore the theoretical framework of black hole starships
  • Investigate the properties and creation methods of mini-black holes
  • Study the implications of high-energy gamma-ray emissions on spacecraft design
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, astrophysicists, and researchers interested in advanced propulsion systems and theoretical spacecraft design.

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
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
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:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K