Antimatter

Requirements

and

Energy

Costs

for

Near-term

Propulsion

Applications

G.R.
NASA

Schmidt*,

Marshall

H.P. Gerrish**

Space

Flight

and J.J. Martin***

Center,

Huntsville,

Alabama

35812

and
G.A. Smith'}- and K.J. Meyertt
Pennsylvania

State

University,

University

Park,

Pennsylvania

16802

Abstract
The
ultimate

superior

source

of present-day
consider

for

energy

for propulsion.

antiproton

production

antimatter

requirements

antiprotons

are used
against

the

capabilities

the

capacity
that

could

of propulsive

energy,

do fall within

projected

million

near-term
but

the

to consider

current

and omniplanetary

and very

systems

issue

part

based

of next

technology

could
antimatter

tt

Manager,

Propulsion

Research

Center.

Engineer,

Propulsion

Research

Center.

Research

Engineer,

Propulsion

Research

Center.

Director

& Professor,

Graduate

Student,

Laboratory
Dept

for Elementary

of Aerospace

Engineering.

Member

Results

show

AIAA.

Particle

Science.

Member

designed

costs

ranging

AIAA.

sole source

fission/fusion

support

AIAA.

Member

in which

and

feasibly

Nomenclature

the

infrastructure

as the

facility

to

requirements

on antimatter-assisted

Research

two

century.

a new

costly

assessing

These

per mission.

Deputy

by

production

In fact,

with

too

including

fission/fusion.

to as the

low efficiency

be

that rely on antimatter

capabilities.

spaceflight

this

antimatter

pointed

may

concepts,

the early

on existing

capacity

address

combined

for propulsion

based

been

antimatter

of propulsion
from

production

that

We

exist within

the requirements

production

missions

release
of both

it may be impractical

suggest

types

has often

the limited

applications.

energy

that although

precursor

However,

for six different

to drive

annihilation

methods

propulsion

are compared

for antiproton

of antimatter

of energy

near-term

improved

density

solely

interstellar
up

to

$6.4

speed

of light

Effusion

energy

contribution

Ein

energy

into antiproton

E o,a

antimatter

E_p

energy

Isp

specific

total energy

k gri d

power
mass

rest mass

contribution

production
energy

process

out of production

from antimatter

process

annihilation

cost

utility

cost ($ per unit energy)

of antiprotons

v_'hicle

Mp

propellant

M pay

payload

spacecraft

r e

rocket

exhaust

fusion

energy

Lorentz-Fitzgerald

AV

mission

velocity

-_-

energy

conversion

dry mass

(structure

+ payload)

mass
mass

wall-plug

r]grid

fusion

impulse

m o

COlq;'

from

wet mass

to dry mass

ratio

velocity
to annihilation
factor,

energy

ratio
1

y -

requirement
efficiency

efficiency

Fltot

total production

r_e

propulsion

A.

vehicle

efficiency

energy
structure

utilization
to propellant

efficiency
mass

ratio

Introduction
The annihilation
energy

per

antiproton
combustion
antihydrogen

unit

mass

annihilation
and

at least

(i.e.,

of subatomic
of any

particles

reaction

known

with their
in physics.

(1.8 x 1014 J/g ofantiprotons)

100 times

"mirror"

more

hydrogen

energetic

atom

antimatter
The

is 10 l times
than

composed

fission

counterparts
energy'
greater

or fusion.

of an antiproton

has the

released
than
That
and

from

highest
proton-

oxygen-hydrogen
is, one
positron)

grmn

of

reacted

with the sameamountof normalhydrogenproducesa total energyequivalentto that deliveredby

23 ShuttleExternalTanks(ET).
Eversince1953when EugeneS,-mger
first proposeduseof electron-positronannihilation
to producethrust,_therehavebeenmany attempts26 to identify ways of exploiting antimatter
for propulsion. Practically all of theseconceptsinvolve applying the products from protonantiproton annihilation either to createthrust directly, or to energizea propellant through
interparticle collisions or heatingof an intermediatesolid core. In addition, the scientific
community,which until severaldecadesagoexhibitedonly casualinterestin the subject,is no,,,,
devotingmoreattentionandresourcesto usesof antimatter. The bestexamplesof this are the
acceleratorsat FermiNationalAcceleratorLaboratory(FNAL) andThe EuropeanLaboratory for
ParticlePhysics (CERt_N'),
which routinely produceantiprotons to extendthe energy range of
particlecollision experiments.
Although the worldwide productioncapacityhasbeengrowingat a nearly,geometricrate
sincethe discoveryof the antiprotonin 1955,the currentoutput rate of 1 to 10 nanograms(ng)
per year is minusculecomparedto that of other exoticmaterials. For this reason,somepeople
havequestionedthe practicality of using antimatter for propulsion, at least within the next
centuryor so. They feel that the energycostswould be exorbitantlyhigh andwould neverallow
antimatterto be competitivewith otherpropulsiontechnologies.
Most of this skepticismstemsfrom the misconceptionthat all the conceptsthat utilize
antimatterrely on the annihilationreactionas the solesourceof propulsive energy. Although it
is true that "conventional"antimattersystems,which derive all their energy from annihilation,
offer the highest specific impulse (Isp -105
concept,

there

antimatter,
-10

are several

while

still

antiproton-driven

coming

4 to 10 6 sec). 7"9 In fact,

well within
upgrades

the range

that

the

production

prospects

bleak after all and may indeed

we calculated

and compared
numbers

hybrid

required

of any

fission/fusion

to the performance

the quantities

of existing

10 7 sec)

propellant-based
concepts

of conventional

that

propulsion
require

antimatter

to test and demonstrate

these

facilities

at FNAL

and CERN,

of exploiting

antimatter

for space

once

far less

rockets
concepts

several

(Isp
may' be

promising

are incorporated.
It appears

in which

close

to

these

be quite

the antimatter
values

as a reference,

against

we examined

favorable.
quantities

the production

We have

confirmed

required

to accomplish

costs

of the current

the incorporation

of upgrades

propulsion

this by
a broad

conducting
range

infrastructure.
and

are not

improvements

so

a study

of missions,
Using

these

that

could

further increaseproductioncapacityandultimately lower energycosts. The results suggestan

evolution of production infrastructure,starting with quantities to support development of
antimatter-assistedfission/fusion propulsion technology, followed by actual use of these
systems for omniplanetary spaceflight and interstellar precursor missions beyond the
heliopause.
I

Fundamental

energy

Energy

Cost

Constraints

The creation

of antimatter

be converted

into rest mass of antiparticles,

inefficient

and potentially

is an inherently

quite expensive.

energy-intensive

process.

but the application

The energy

Not

of this energy

cost can be generally

only

must

is ordinarily

expressed

as:

X = kgr;aegr,a,

where

kgri d is the unit cost of energy,

the commercial
The
overall

(1)

power

consumed

at the

wall-plug

(i.e., off

grid).

wall-plug

efficiency

EgrM is the energy

and

energy

of converting

Egri d is related
wall-plug

to the antimatter

power

rest

into antimatter

mass

collected

M a and

r/tot by:

(2)

= Mac2/r/,o,
The efficiency

?]tot

where

JTcom, is defined

the electrical
formation
counterpart.
perfectly

r/tot may be separated

r/convr/grid

efficiency
of

an

Thus,
efficient

the

that is:

(3)

solely

by

of the

accelerator
is

features

of the production
system.

always

antiproton

conversion

The total energy

into two parts,

antiparticle

the

process.

cost is obtained

Conservation

accompanied

can at most

and collection

by

of baryon
creation

be 1/2 of the

This sets a theoretical

by substituting

total

limit on

of
rest

process,

and

number

requires

its

standard

mass

l_grid

is

that

particle

produced

rlcom, of 1/2. II

Eqs. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1), namely:

in a

k_,.:,: M,, c"

K-

'

(4)

r/corn' r/grid

Equation
costs.

(4) clearly

Unfortunately,

r/co,,.,

protons,

which

spray

low.

beams

are typically

products,
only

while

a small

enough

at- the

per

collection

ratio

Furthermore,

pairs

are relatively

rare

1.5 seconds

to Eq. (3),

based

optimizing

proton

methods.

is excessively

on

13 It is also reasonable

production

facility

accelerator

systems,

antiproton

could

of magnitude

which

is roughly

to assume

yielding

more

duty
that

efficient,

rlg,.icl -10%.

times

over
the cost

to deliver

equates

current

targets.

and

the energy
at least

momentum

and

and
(120

yields

and

GeV/proton)

r/co,,,

by

= 7.8 x 10 s.
antiprotons

that

improved

the

of

or greater)
efficiency

of

substantially
improved

utilization

of a dedicated

to a level

comparable

assuming

kg,.id

of antiprotons.

(i.e., gram-scale
shown

according

an assumed

per gram

be

yields

small

about

= 5 x 10 3, and

incorporating

For example,
efficiency

Furthermore,

c 2 yields

of antimatter

factor,

copious

mass

low

values

can

most

5 x 1012 120-GeV

have

yield

of 1.2 x 1016 eV/antiproton

trillion

studies

The

storage.

to r/grid

these

by means

volts),

are the

large

energy

energy

collisions

15 and a 10% wall-plug

improvement
10,000

However,

pions

requirement

mass

quantities

and

material

is quite

cost of $6,410

material

energy

be made

14 thus

per 20 collisions

order

high!

proton/high-Z

acceleration

rest

Substituting

large

(high-Z)

proper

acceleration

target. 12 This

an energy

at the

process

an energy

r/tot = 3.9 x 10-10.

antiprotons

and

energy

particularly

creates

for subsequent

14 MW of power

the cost of producing

facilities

production

consume

into Eq. (4) yields

Obviously,

collection
Multiplying

onto the production

to

and cooled

yields

facilities,

due to their

the target

this into the specific

facilities

translates

per kW-hr

current

overall

in dictating

of 120 GeV (120 x 109 electron

positrons

(10 s proton/antiproton)

FNAL

number

Electrons,

collisions.

Dividing

which

site.

focused

factors

production

of this is FNAL,

leave

major

are

present-day

to energies

antiprotons

of the

l0 s proton

or 1.16 x 1021 J/g.

with

of the

performance

antiproton

$0.10

collision

r/grid

with high-atomic

accelerated

exit angle to be magnetically

The

every

protons

and

with

example

proton_ntiproton

portion

rico,,,

associated

A good

of relativistic

of particles

that

the values

are extremely

of colliding

shows

collection
antiproton

to other

a collection

ratio

an r/to t of 3.9 x 10 5.

capability

yields

a cost

of $64

of an equivalent

energy

load of Shuttle

by

billion
ET

new
of 1

This

per

5-

gr,'Ull,

propellants.

Suchimprovementswould most likely requirea substantialinvestmentof 3 to

dollars

for a dedicated
It appears

production

that

facility.

the cost of producing

extent

efficiency

to which

remotely

practical

interstellar

missions

using

below

power

on a conceivably

The
however,
of

current

prospects

antimatter

"free"

more

quantities

the energy

from only

costs

regardless

production

(roT)

costs

to

of the

to become

even

envisioned

for

quantities

utility

of $0.01

will

have

to occur

until

to

drop

abundant

available.

small

amounts

near-term

diagnostic

of antimatter

technologies

being

tomography

0.1 to 100 nanograms

for these

levels

will be high,

This is unlikely

becomes

Several

ton

power

<< $0.1/kW-hr).

medicines,

ranging

rockets),

involving

near current

for large-scale

(kg) to metric

resource

promising.

radioisotope

infrastructure,

(kg,,j

remain

of antimatter

In order

antimatter

for applications

look much

commercial

levels

rates

large quantities

at the kilogram
"pure"

dramatically
based

power

can be improved.

(especially

FY87

__

as long as commercial

$0. l per kW-hr,

10 billion

applications

and

pursued

cancer

(ng). 16 With

lie within

the

(M a -

range

1 I-tg),

in the areas

therapy

today's

require
production

of $640

thousand

to

as propulsion,

is

$640 million.
What
the

significant

several

within

important,

reduction

upgrades

to 3-order

into FNAL

interstellar

thousand

Also,
facility,

precursor

for high-energy

energy

and other existing

reduction

the next decade.

production

especially

in antimatter

of magnitude

antiproton
and

is more

missions

Propulsion

Approximately

in energy

based

could

be achieved

As the following

appears

existing
quantities

feasible

required

by

incorporating

discussion

and

technologies

on antimatter-assisted

could

into

shows,

be implemented

design

of a dedicated

for omniplanetary
fission/fusion

a 2-

spaceflight

would

cost

$64

Concepts
2/3 of the total rest mass
production

of charged

these

as possible

after the

which

costs

1- to 100-lag

goes into the immediate

products
neutral

directly

facilities.

by incorporating
the

that

such

to $6.4 million.

Antimatter

into

costs

applications

as soon
gamma

through
heats

rays

particle/fluid

a propellant,

and

unusable
collisions,

energy

of an annihilating

particles.

It is important

annihilation

neutrinos.

This

(2) absorbing

or (3) directing

to utilize

event,

before

they

entails

either

(1)

particle

the highly-energetic

proton-antiproton

energy

the energy

successively
heating

pions

or

of

decay'

a propellant

in an intermediate

charged

pair

muons

material
out

magneticnozzle to producethrust. We considersix different antimatter propulsion concepts.

These include four "'conventional"systems driven solely by annihilation energy and two
"hybrid" systemspoweredby antimatter-assisted
fission/fusion.
The simplestconventionalsystemis the solid-coreconcepts'_7,which usesantiprotons to
heata solid,high-Z, refractorymetalcore. Propellantis pumpedinto the hot coreandexpanded
througha nozzle to generatethrust. The performanceof this conceptis roughly equivalentto
that of the nuclearthermalrocket (lsp - 103sec) due to temperaturelimitations of the solid
(-3,500 K). However, the antimatterenergyconversionand heatingefficienciesare typically
high dueto the shortmeanpathbetweencollisionswith coreatoms( r/_
A slightly
melting

point

more

solid

and performance
absorption

operate

confinement

- 2 x 103 sec).
lower

conventional

at

even

energy

chamber

annihilation
velocities
light.

are directly
of these

Although

are typically
The
antiprotons
plasma

altogether.

very

the

vehicle

along

high (Isp

loss

efficiencies

gas is allowed

is suppressed

and

utilization

avoids

of the

high ( Isp

the problems

proton-antiproton

an axial magnetic

field.

The

approaching

are also high ( r/e - 60%),

magnetic

( r/e < 10%).

3"6:, which

107 sec),

to ionize

by

is extremely

products

temperatures

for thermalization

the

performance

charged

low-

the

the

flowrate

exhaust
speed

of

and thrusts

low.

hybrid

antimatter/fusion

are used

reactions.

of the

are exceptionally

energy" utilization

Heat

is the beamed-core
Here,

the

( r/e < 35%).

6:7 where

Although

substitutes

operating

free path

in very low energy

concept

out

efficiencies

temperatures.

higher

mean

plasma-core,

path results

expelled

products

or condensed

fusion

fluid

conversion

core 5'6:7, which

permitting

the longer

and nozzle.

conventional

a secondary

gas, thus

is the

effective

104 - 105 sec), the long mean-free

The "ultimate"

is the gaseous

However,

concept

higher

in the reaction

of heating

concept

a high temperature

in much

The third
and

with

( Isp

results

mphisticated

- 85%).

as a driver
material

concepts
to initiate

target.

Consequently,

from

a combined

Practically

antimatter

differ

the

conventional

fission/fusion

all of the

requirements

process

propulsive

are much

energy

lower

systems

in that

in a compressed
is derived

from

than the pure-antimatter

systems.
The
Here,

a pellet

first

of such

of D-T

processes

and U-238

is Antimatter-Catalyzed
is compressed

with

particle

Micro-Fission/Fusion
beams

and

irradiated

(ACMF).
with

a low-

intensity

beam

of antiprotons.

hyper-neutronic
and lesion
lower

fission

products

effective

an ablating

energy

performance
sec).

utilization

et al. 7 have

extremely

Assuming

over current

concept

within

a special

plasma
magnetic

fields.

heating

the

liquid

microns

(gin)

is about

to fusion

ignition.

The

and energy

Isp

D-He3

and

antiproton

2.2

fusion

power

propulsion.
to energy

for this

net energy

For such
This

D-T. 8

it should
applications,

conventional

fusion-based

Antimatter

Requirements

is enough

to antimatter

rest

results

in a

beam
mass

from

pellet,

(lsp

expansion

the

13,500

and

target

energy

fl of

process

of producing

concept

not

( r/e

antiprotons

the mass

and portability

than

which

antiproton
electric

ionize

and

field lines
ACMF

of

main

mechanism

have

a range

(Isp

heat

into
the

offers

the D-T

fuel atoms

,_ 67,000

see and

magnitude

are 10 _ for

improvement

of net energy

of the source

of 45

thrust.

The gains/3

power

for

to produce

sources

of terrestrial
designed

are equally

a distinct

in

flow.

in the development

in-space

and

of a metal,

fragments

in terms

fission/fusion

concepts.

The

by the fission

consideration

antiproton-assisted

propulsion

fragments

are near breakeven

for

an

with a small concentration

a 3-order

case

Here,
combined

r/e - 69% with D-T).

assuming

be the

via

out magnetic

are higher

sec and

gains

(AIM).

to completely

are directed

Again

these

released

gain is a fundamental

is where

rockets

fission

is obtained

antiproton

into the plasma.

fission

density

_ 61,000

efficiency,

systems,

gain.

power

efficiency

production
Although

The

products

x 104 for

heated

from the ignited

compressed
mixed

injected

is antimatter-induced

Isp

The

thrust

core

the

Microfusion

are synchronously

and

additional

beamed

and initiate

of the flow

in the efficiency

D-T or D-He3

heated

r/e - 84% with D-He3,

isotropy

between

is repetitively

5 x 1013 W/cm 3, which

The

and

U-238

core.

due to the isotropic

improvement

trap

containing

in the droplet.

D-T

radiation

energy

is also lower

by the

gain is 640.

Penning

droplet

or D-He3

interaction

a ratio of fusion

utilization

the

Although

is Antimatter-Initiated

or U-238,

ignites

but the inherent

the plasma

the

of magnitude

Droplets

such as Pb-208

that

the net energy

Another

and

absorbed

and electromagnetic
than

yielding

a 3-order

heats

thrust,

neutrons

shown

energy

values,

rapidly

is lower

high-gain

are readily

and jet efficiency.

that absorbs

1.6 x 107. However,

15%).

that

to produce

of this concept

Gaidos

exhibits

process

expand

surface

The antiprotons

for

important

advantage

over

We

consider

exploration

of

heliopause,

missions

solar

system,

precursor

to our closest

of propulsion

are shown
Our

concepts

reference

and missions

evaluation
AV's

the

six

options

in Table

We begin

by

expression

taking

for

interstellar

stellar

ambitious
study

neighbors.

for interstellar

the

of mission
the

These

missions.

antimatter

of
reflect

_ The

fr6m the

quantities

requirements,

definition

for propellant-to-dry-mass

MP

reflect

robotic

and

phenomena

outside

the data

missions

manned

and

the

used

in a recent

their

associated

1.

goal is to calculate

as a function

which

of mass

relativistic

more
ratio,

rocket

for each

specifically

R=(Mp

equation.

of the

A V and payload

+ M,)/M,,

18 This

previously

yields

and
the

described
mass

equating

following

Mpa v .
it to the

relationship

ratio:

--

Mo

- R - 1 ,

(5)

where:

C'

R =

Note
structure,

(6)

--

that

Mp

systems

requirement
jet energy

includes

and

both

payload.

is determined

antimatter

The

by equating

of the exhaust,

fraction
the

actual

and

propellant,

of antimatter
energy

and
making

introduced

M o accounts
up

the

for

total

vehicle

propellant

into the propellant

with

the

that is:

(7)

The
applied

to the exhaust,

The right-hand
mass

left-hand

side

of Eq. (7) represents

and accounts

and fusion

combined

for the energy-utilization

side of Eq. (7) represents

of the annihilation

the

energy

kinetic

energy

is subtracted

annihilation
efficiency

of the exhaust

and

fusion

of the nuclear
products,

from the total reaction

products.

where

mass.

energy

the rest

E-_:, is the

rest mass energy of the annihilation reaction and accountsfor both proton and antiproton
reactants. E_t,

= 2m.fc'-.

The

fusion

energy

is expressed

in terms

of annihilation

energy

with

E ti,.,i,,, = flE_F, .
Substituting

the definitions

of Epp

and

an expression

for the antimatter-to-propellant-mass

(5)

an

to

yield

requirements,

expression

propulsion

M,-20+
Inert
to propellant

for

in terms

where

Substituting

Eq. (9) into Eq. (8) yields

1 for the ACMF,

concepts

AIM,

plasma

are not shown,

the Isp's
marginally

values

of ,_ were

synthesized

of 0.3 was

assumed

beamed

expression

because

calculations,

core,

of

mission

efficiency:

for structure

for M a in terms

for both

containment
core

and

AIM

the solid-

(i.e.,
were

gas-core

confinement

lower

10

(2

mass

of Mpay

on payload

core concepts.

are lower

than either

less than

from estimates
and

core,

of antimatter

core and beanaed

For these

plasma

function

by using the definition

in Fig. 1 the dependence

are only

reaction

l+:t-R J

requirements

and

mass

the following

and the antimatter

structure

as

by Eq.

Msm,c , = M o - Mpay"

concepts,

2-value

can be multiplied

parameters:

We use Eq. (10) to illustrate

and gas-core

yields

(9)

Ma-2(I+P)

solid-

ratio

gain and energy

of payload

1 XR)M, .

velocity

in turn

temas

(8)

mo

mission

This

rearranging

(R-0

_ = Msm,c t/Mprop,

and propulsion/performance

ratio.

fusion

mass can be expressed

ratio,

into Eq. (7) and

antimatter-to-inert-mass

performance,

r-f

Effusion

by various

concepts
chamber).

= 0.2 ) because

that

of the

Plots

for the

of the

hybrid

of the plasma
sources.

to account
The

and

core.

4-10,16

for tankage,

)t-values
improved

for the
reaction

confinementpertbrmanceexpectedwith these more advancedconcepts. With the ACMF

concept,a muchhigher 2 of 0.7 wasassumedto accountfor the largemassof the ion driver
system.
In thelower rangeof missionvelocities(10 km/sec_<AV
AIM

concepts

planetary,

are

early

clearly

interstellar

the best performance.

10 to 100 metric
appears
with

superior
precursor

The reference

ton (mT)

as though

unmanned,

in terms

payload

simple

minimizing

could

missions.

human

an antimatter
drop

antimatter

omniplanetary

case of a 1-year
requires

this requirement
planetary

and

of

< 103 km/sec),

However,

round-trip

mission

was

and
For

ACMF

exhibits

to Jupiter

with

of 1 to 10 micrograms

1 to 10 ng range

ACMF

ACMF

requirements.

applications,

quantity

into the

the

(lag).

for payloads

originally

a
It

consistent

conceived

for

crewed

-%

omniplanetary
driver

flight

system.

AV's

Therefore,

ACMF

not scaleable
is restricted

to smaller
to missions

sizes due to the large

mass

which

1 to 10 lag and

would

require

of its ion

less than or equal to 100 kin/see.

The

accomplish
However,

AIM

concept,

more

ambitious

the antimatter

For that reason,

design

point

The

consistent

attractive
either

antimatter
tremendous

requirement

The structural

ratio and

missions

one

permits

missions
notes

ACMF

or

the

AIM

requirement

is about

amounts

of antimatter,

(i.e., 4 to 40 light years)

within

for unmanned
trip

Isp

that

is the

core concepts

antimatter

mT,

depending

but it is the only

a "reasonable"

beamed

AV

For

to

greater

concept

mission.
that

Isp,

Oort
than

can

cloud.
ACMF.

payloads.

The

a 100 kg payload.
low,

above

2 x

Although

Even

within

the

103 km/sec
a structural

higher

exhaust

approaching
At

first

is many" orders

on the

the

smaller

the much

a payload

a higher

10

to 103 km/sec.

core.

in 10 years. I

time (i.e.,

11

with

to velocities

requirement
case.

with

velocities

accelerations

trips

is still relatively

is assumed,

Centauri

reference
40

cloud

limit the maximum

achieve

from

of magnitude

missions

to the Oort

can

vehicle

benefits

precursor

the total requirement

to Alpha

that

and

1 to 2 orders

solar influence

and plasma

products

"fast"

the

concept

well beyond

with the AIM

until

suited

a 50-year

a driver

as interstellar

is roughly

is better

antimatter

need

such

usage,

only

enable

not

rate of antiproton

of the annihilation
would

does

missions,

in Fig. 1 represents

to 100 lag range.

accomplish

which

this concept

with the higher

than

and is probably

of

this

The
can travel

10 to 100 years).

ratio

velocity

0.4 c, which
appears

quite

of magnitude

1 metric
beamed

and

ton

greater

(naT),

core

the

requires

to the nearest

stars

Although the inordinatelyhighantimatterrequirementsof the conventionalsystemsare

impracticalto considerin the near-term,the moremodestquantitiesassociatedwith ACMF and
AIM may bequite attainable. The catalyzedsystemscould not be usedfor trips to the stars,
dueto their limited
sufficient

performance

the entire

solar

Antimatter

19 Protons
protons

other fundamental

Antiproton

the storage

ring.

energies
FNAL
program

Ring

produced

would

have

ACMF

and

sole

AIM

and support

the

appear

human

to have

exploration

low enough

of

added

experiments.

funds

were

was

around

of magnitude

late-70's

done

equates

less than

in

held within
beams

high energies.
into

of

accumulated

For

a new

back
future

ring

(not

increase

the

late-90's

to

period

between

1997

of a very

day,

1011 antiprotons/hour,
This

and

to the

per

Main

in traps.

in the midst

24 hours

in the

as intense

be loaded

a year-long

to run

8.8 x 1014 antiprotons.

is 3 to 4 orders

the

During
This

sufficient
rates

from

for producing

and temporarily

at very

collection

or FNAL.

and a plethora

magnets

are re-injected

could

to allow

at FNAL
to 120 GeV

with

with protons

CERN

antiprotons

cooled

antiprotons

antiprotons

used

produces

are sign-selected

these

at either

accelerated

are stochastically

8-GeV

was

currently

which

out collisions

1 ng of antiprotons.

365

days

yield

required

1998,

experimental

per

so a full year

to an annual

the quantities

large

and

year.

The

of operation

of approximately
for

missions

using

AIM.

It is important
for the

to carry

collision

produced

1.5 ng, which

and

is produced

are sequentially

Here they
experiments

capability

accumulation

system

with a target,

to an energy

did not have

instantaneous

ACMF

probes

in the world

The antiprotons

applications,

of particle

source

then collide

in order

unique

antimatter

an H

Source.

and decelerated

that

from

For physics

propulsion

This

precursor

of the accelerator

particles.

the 8-GeV

into the Main

However,

Capability

a schematic

These

shown)

interstellar

all of the controlled

2 shows

Injector.

102 to 103 km/sec.

to propel

Production

antiprotons.

space

of only

system.

Almost
Figure

AV's

purpose

to remember

that neither

of producing

antiprotons.

facilities

had been operating

collision

experiments.

(i.e., antiprotons

The collection

collected)

ratio of 10 .5 is very

for some

per proton

low, there

of the facilities
This

at FNAL

capability,

time, was only intended

to generate

ratio, which

can be viewed

on target,

was not the main

are ways in which

was
enough

as the effective

it can be increased.
12

which

or CERN

concern.

was

added

designed
after

antiprotons
antiproton

Although

the
for
yield

the current

We consider the case of FNAL, which is the largest, most convenient source of
antiprotons in the U.S.

From 1998 to mid-1999, FNAL's accelerator was down for

commissioningof a new Main Injector. We expectthat when the new injector comeson-line in
1999,productionyields will increaseby anotherorderof magnitude.This will eventually boost
the productionrate to about10_2antiprotons/hour.Wethereforeexpectthat by the early part of
next decade,the total annualproduction capacity should approach15 rig. At the sametime,
FNAL could start incorporatingevenbetter collectiondevicesandtechniques. Developmentof
moreefficientcollectionequipment,suchasimproved
receivers,

has been

reasonable

culminate

perhaps

an additional

50-fold

a 500-fold

The impact
3-order

significant
fusion

13 and could

to expect

thus yielding

nearly

considered,

of magnitude

propulsion

devices

production

portable

antiproton

devices,

beyond

those

In the

current

planned

They
To

Penning

an additional

433 MeV

10 years.

The

degrading
portable

PS200

spectrometer
This

which
approach

with

the

It is quite

these

upgrades,

The

final result

microgram-range.
use

is a

This

is

of antimatter-catalyzed

able to confine
Work

to use the facility

is adequate

users,

of scientific

for replenishment

would

antiprotons

Injector

require

which

between
traps
10

over

to much

would

of

an additional

has progressed
antiprotons

for

13

some

antiproton

with transfer

well

decelerate

important

as a
from

device. 2
over

the

last

This

to a remote

is
site

of a magnetic

antiprotons

commercial

such

of hours.

for development

of

for collision

energies

and storage

extremely

proton
energy

device,

for periods

underway

inexpensively

energies

portable

Injector

original

low kinetic

higher

reduce

the Main

the

at a relatively

up to 1012 antiprotons

and

from

a small-volume,

is currently

will simply

support

activities.

process,

trapped

at expanding

commercial

into

Penning

"_1

22

into

and accelerated

antiprotons

ofantiproton

months.

large-aperture

gains.

in Fig. 3.

to consider

high-energy

extracted

experiment-

in efficiency

aimed

in the Main

deceleration

of soon being

of several

traps.

process,

these

begin

and

than 20 keV, is required

development

seen as a means
for periods

transfer

to no more

The

capacity

scientific

temporarily

experiments.
trap,

to support

are subsequently

multiple

production

is shown

who are planning

as NASA

production

site can be stored

433 MeV.

improvements

are obviously

customers
such

increase

and

applications.

enhancements

However,

in substantial

of production

for space

horns

capability.

at this level one can seriously

at FNAL.

collision

such

increase

research

feature

over current

of incorporating

because

These

improvement

focusing

into

applications

such
and

demonstratingfimdamentalpropulsion concepts,such as generationof subcritical microfission

reactionsand plasma tbrmation as a precursorto fusion reactions. However, it will not be
capableof providing the muchlargerquantitiesneededfor directpropulsionapplications. In this
case,a moreefficientdeceleratorsectionwill berequiredto achieveproductionratesequivalentto
-1 gg peryear. Antiproton deceleratorswhich accomplishthis do exist (e.g.,at
the case of FNAL
If the
continues

would

probably

the

be achieved

annual

and development
addressed

high repetition-rate
collector

with

facility

linacs),

with

be very
high-Z

efficient

similar

capacities

infrastructure

within

stored

the

quantities

of several
costing
and

per year

3 to 10 billion

FY87

beams

(including

beams,

dollars.

was

rapid

of

1 gram

13 Two

types

in Fig. 4) both
A comprehensive

considered.

cycling

plasma

facility'

development

as illustrated

systems

intense,

commercial

to possibly

to gram range.

such

the

studied

milligrams

milligram

of particle

and

production-oriented

Corporation

colliding

in the

NASA

new

the RAND

to implement

cooling

issues

a multi-billion
major

of known

to the current

method

would

1 gram,

solar

Among

synchotrons

collection

is necessary'.

science

lenses,

of creating

antiprotons

such

efficiency

and

trips

and

and

large

methods

basic
from

a capability
design

of such

production
collisions

accelerated

is
a

process
of protons

particles

and

more

considerably.

support
into

and the

the

as higher-Z

would

in such

projects,

In fact,

enhance

Several

investment

technology.

which

system

dollar

national

improvements,

devices,

the

a highly-evolved

interstellar

look promising,

space,

transportation
a completely

new

but all are at the very

early

maturity.
are how to store

on this

scale.

to that delivered
is required,

that

realm

above

of technological

equivalent

required

previous

However,

technology

energy

yields

of some

targets.

Other

antiproton

to note

that

For

stages

target

accelerator-types

collection/focusing

production

1980's,

that a capacity

targeting,

community,

in a completely'

(i.e., fixed

in

rings.

falls well within

would

scientific

investment

program

were

It is important
consistent

the

and

to construct.

with a new machine

considered

of producing

aperture

from

then

and concluded

were

topics

$10 million

be ,_karranted. 23 In the

per year could

research

demand

to grow,

such a capability'

capable

cost about

anticipated

sector

of facilities

would

CERN),

Again,

groups
the

by 23 Shuttle

of antiprotons

energy

stored

ET's.

of this scale
within

A systematic

as has been done with other highly

14

energetic

1 gram
approach

and

containment

of antimatter

is roughly

to safe storage

and reactive

materials.

of the

of such
Studies

of high-density

storage

of antimatter

are underway

and are an important

step

along

this

critical

pathway.

Antimatter

Production

Costs

The costs of producing

the

facilities

do

not

yet

recognize

the

Although

less experienced

interest
developed

provide

existence

in "going

of an

our

previ0_/as
present

ACMF

or AIM

missions

(-

by at least 2 orders

This

is too

quantities

expensive
the

range

of only

previous

levels,
pg)

costs
the

of magnitude
support

cost

FNAL

high-energy

has

Brookhaven's

since

is beginning

physics

Laboratory

even

of producing

the antimatter
cost

low

to

community.

recently

facilities

expressed

are much

$640

The situation
production

occasional

However,

this

cost

fusion/fission

1 p.g of antimatter

needed

to support

billion,

production

to $64 million

especially

would

initial

from before,

regular

rate

much

less

would

capacity.
per/.tg

high

require

ambitious

for

missions,

and

certainly"

permits

until

we account

for

would

go

for a 100 pg mission.

is certainly

prohibitive

ground-based

technology,

practical

an unreasonably

In this case the costs

or $6.4 billion

propulsion

is $6.4

highly

too

looks discouraging

have

cost

would

be much

antimatter
based

becomes

on some

on the

a capability

greater.
come

to the outer

For antimatter

to be based

for such

the costs could

excursions

facility.

per I.Lg. In this case tile antimatter

infrastructure

however,

would

of years.

in a new, dedicated

grid costs

values,

the

National

current

to the current

missions,

efficiencies

such

the

extremely

of 100's

to

Production

thousand

outside

service.

characterized,

which

for

testing
would

and

require

1 pg or less.

above,
section,

are not well

as an actual

business";

100

10 pg level.

for investment
and

Brookhaven

of antimatter-assisted

For actual
need

FNAL,

the

improvements

down

demonstration

demand

analysis,

In addition,

above

incipient

production

long fill time on the order

anything

function

on demand

at FNAL.

Assuming

the anticipated

this

than

billion.

considerations.

of antimatter

into the antimatter

than those

From

batches

estimated

Assuming

down

by nearly

enough

form of antimatter-assisted

15

there

to

3 more

of a new

milli_am

facility.

In

to be $3 to $10

orders

mission

would

support

fission/fusion.

will be a

in the -1

an qtof of 3.9 x 10 .5 and

cost for a 100/.tg

aflbrdable

requirements

capabilities

was

solar system,

be $6.4
space

billion.

the

of magnitude

the
13

power
to -$64

million.

transportation

At

Conclusions
We have completed
propulsion

concepts

requirements

against

compared

these

(4) estimated

again

a study

that:

over

a range

the

capabilities

assuming

antimatter

of missions

the improved

that

that is systems

which

rely on antimatter

considered

system

magnitude

for anything

and

greater

the antimatter

Antimatter-assisted
applications.
provide
The

excellent

current

equates

upgrades

2 orders

of magnitude

of these

technologies,

production
thousand
feasibility,
applying

and

would

per
that

for space

compared

these

several

and improved
conventional

to nearby

various

infrastructure,

over the next

of propulsive

within

and

infrastructure.

energy,

production

(3)

years,

antimatter

stars.

justify

mission.

rockets,

are too

high to

Even

missions

rates

6 to 9 orders

cost

of $6.4

could

for trips

system

and

billion

in the near-term,
would

investment

antimatter-assisted

solar

promise

of 1 to 100 p.g per

This

These

considerable

not be used

the

scale

per p.g.

a facility

holds

could

be incorporated

could

Such

production

with

require

however,

to an antiproton

which

million

antimatter

space

of propulsion

to $64 million

suggest

missions

are on the

that could

technology.
to $6.4

than

for missions

for antimatter

infrastructure

with several

expected

(2)

for

within
of

infrastructure.

this form

performance

requirements

capability

associated

requirements

requirements,

for both the current

fission/fusion,

Although

velocity

as the sole source

int__near-interstellar

antimatter

antimatter

costs

other

than the existing

the

existing

costs in S/microgram

show

the solar

and

of the

Results

be seriously

(1) evaluated

mission

are certainly

fission/fusion

propulsion.

16

near-interstellar

mission,

billion.

development

the

by at least

and demonstration
based

requirements

may

with

However,

drop

facility

the

it does
space.

which

to $640

within

near-term

to the stars,

the cost could

in a dedicated

support
costs

enable

for

on

at a cost
range

be a viable

existing
of

$64

of economic

"first

step"

in

References
I. Sanger,E., "'The
2.

Morgan,

D.L..

Forward,

4.

Cassenti,

Society,

B.N.,

7.

"Design

Impact

on a Manned

Mission,"

G.,

G.A.,

Lewis,_R.A.,

G.,

Initiated

B. and

Cassenti,

98-3589,

for

Propulsion
12. Antiproton

T. and

private

K.,

Rockets,"

1998;

AIP Conf.

Vol 1.5, 1985.

Rockets,"

Schmidt,

B.

Vol.

J.

British

and

and the

Potential

5.3, 1989.

AIAA

for

91-2548,

Chakrabarti,

Technology

and

June

1991.

S. "Antiproton-

Exploration
G., Laiho,

of

the

J., Lewis,

Applications

Outer
R.A.,

Solar
Smith,

International

420, p 1365.

T. and

Interstellar
ed.

Concepts

Gaidos,

Proc.

- 1999,

Galbraith,

AIAA

Smith,

G.A.,

Missions,"

M.S.

D.L.,

96-3068,

S.D., "Evaluation

EI-Genk,

"AIMStar:

Space
AIP

Antimatter

Technology

Conf.

Proc.

458,

and
p 954;

"Antiproton-Catalyzed

July

Fusion

Propulsion

1996.

of Propulsion

Options

for Interstellar

Missions,"

July 1998.

"Fundamental
and Power,
production

x 10 _2 protons

J. British

Vol 44, 1999, p 183.

R.H. and Leifer,

T.H.,

July

Precursor

Missions,"

98-3403,

Antimatter

and Power,

Systems

S.. Space

Forum

B., Kammash,

10. Frisbee,

Rocket,"

and Power,

Propulsion

Dundore,

Propulsion

Meyer,

International

for Interplanetary

11. Rider,

R.A.,

Astronautica,

Relativistic

Antimatter

G.A.,

Chakrabarti,

Microfusion

Applications

J. Propulsion

J. Propulsion

Smith,

AIAA

Lewis,

for

Impulse

- 1998, ed. M.S. EI-Genk,

Gaidos,

AIAA

Specific

and Beyond,"

Forum

Acta

Mars

"High

Dundore,

Propulsion,"

"Antiproton-Based

Microfission/Fusion

System

Annihilation

Vol 35, 1982.

J.D.,

B.N.,

Vol 21, 1953.

of an Antimatter

Considerations

S.D. and Metzger,

Cassenti,

Ing. Arch.,

1982.

Annihilation

Society,

Catalyzed

Vol 35.9,

Howe,

Gaidos,

Rockets,"

for the Design

R.. "Antiproton

Interplanetary
5.

of Photon

"Concepts

Interplanetary
3.

Theory

every

Constraints

on

Large-Scale

Vol 13.3, May-June

facilities

presently

1.5 seconds

Antimatter

Rocket

Propulsion,"

J.

1997.
consume

at 120 GeV

energy

14 MW

of power

at FNAL,

onto the production

target.

delivering
(J. Marriner,

communication.)

13."Proceedings

of

the

Scientific,

Singapore,

Executive

Summary,"

RAND
New

Workshop

Jersey

RAND

and Hong

on

Antiproton
Kong,

Note N-2763-AF,

17

Science

June,

1988;

October

1988.

and

Technology,"

Augenstein,

B.W.,

World
Annotated

14.AcceleratorProductionof Tritium

(APT),

under

completed,

100 mA of protons

at !.6 GeV

42%.

value

not

The

commercial

power

15. Forward,

R.L.,

Propulsion,"
R.L.,

reactors

Air Force

"Prospects

S.K.,
Fusion

G.P.,

Hyperfine

Trapping

M.H.,

Applications

22. Smith,
Trap

M.H.
and

(HiPAT),"

"Enabling
Space

93-2031,

June

has

recently
private

Antiproton

Ions

decided

of

to

use

communication.)
Beamed

Oct.

1987;

Proceedings

Workshop,

if

efficiency

and

AD-A189-218,

Propulsion,"

S.D.,

"Antiproton

of Fusion/Antiproton
Propulsion:

Inc.,

Intense
Vol.
Lewis,

Power
Forward,

of the

Cooling,

SRI International,

Portable

Propulsion

AIAA

Starflight

Menlo

Traps

and

Medical

Progress

Systems

for Interplanetary

in Astronautics

and Aeronautics,

- A Pioneer's

Guide

to Interstellar

of

Antiprotons

Antimatter

Research

for

at FNAL,"

109, 1997.
R.A.,

Mitchell,

Space

Forum-

NASA

Handbook

1989.

Source

for

Meyer,

Center,

B.N.,

Cluster

E., Rochet,

Propulsion

"Preliminary

Marshall

Space

of Deep

Space:

E1-Genk,

Forever?"

K.J.,

Design

Flight

High

J. and

Smith,

Applications,"

1997, ed. M.S.

et al, "Are Antiprotons

Exploration

Flight

23. Cassenti,

& Sons,

International

G.A.

Report

a wall-plug

provide,

Vol 109, 1997.

G., "The

Antimatter

21. Holzscheiter,

Laboratory,

Howe,

in Space

Matloff,

"An

of

Study

Interactions,

Interactions,

20. Holzscheiter,

DoE

Lawrence,

Propulsion

and

with

would

T. ed., 1995.

John Wiley

19. Jackson,

since

(S. Howe/G.

Production

and

"Comparison

Vol 167, Kammash,

Travel,"

on target

verified,

of Hydrogen

G.A.

Energy

E. and

energy

at LANL,

1987.

Hyper'fine

17. Borowski,

18. Mallove,

Astronautics

Smith,

Applications,"

Travel,"

Space

and Storage

R.A.,

be

to make tritium.

for Antiproton

CA, January

16. Lewis,

may

"Advanced

Condensation,
Park,

of 42%

development

Center,

Density

Space

AIP Conf.

Physics

Letters

for

High

the
1998;

Storage

G.A.,

Smith,

Proc.

Production
Technology

Performance

of Antimatter,"

and

387, p 1493.

A, Vol 214,

G.A.

and

1996.
Antimatter

and Kramer,
NASA

L.J.,

Marshall

1999.

"Concepts

for the Efficient

Production

1993.

18

and

Storage

of Antimatter,"

AIAA

Table 1: Reference
Mission

Planetary

Descri

Deep

space

throughout

Omniplanetary

1O0 - 1000

solar

throughout

solar

Interstellar

precursor

Gravity

Slow

AU

Interstellar

Typical

missions

AV (km/s
10

system

human

Heliopause

10,000

_tion

robotic

Ambitious

AU

Missions

30 - 200

exploration

system

missions

100

to

(100 AU)

Lens

focus

Interstellar

precursor

Oort Cloud

(10,000

4.5 light-years

(550 AU)

mission

to

1,000

AU)

30,000

in 40 years

(=0.1 c)
Fast Interstellar

4.5 light-years
light-years

in 10 years

in 100 years

19

or 40

120,000

(= o.4 c)

OmnlJ planetary
Planetary

Heliopause
Grav

lO,I

Lens

I
(IOO
(550

AU)
AU)

Ort

Cloud

(103

AU)

Interstellar
Slow(.1

I I

c)

Fast

(.4 c)

metric

,/I
Beamed
Core
I

10 3
gl

'Plasma
Core

ton

(mT)

-kilogram

gram

z..

AIM

II
milligram

10 .3

_Z

I
)Oorl Cloud

'load)

10 "s
round trip Jupiter
(10 - 1 O0 mT payload)

11ACMF
10

10 2

I
I

II

10 3

microgram

10 4

10 5

nanogram

10 6

V (km/sec)

Figure

l : Antimatter

requirements

for different

2O

propulsion

concepts

Target

p --.t_

_..__
_8

8 - 120 GeV

_l

GeV_

Antiproton

Main Ring
or

Main Injector

750 keV
H- Source

0.75 - 400 MeV

Linac

0.4 - 8
Booster

H- _

Figure

2: Antiproton

production

21

facilities

pping Foil

at FNAL

[Ref.

19]

10"6.

10 -7

n
10.8

10-9
1998

1999-2000

Current
Capability

Main injector
comes on-line

> 2000
Improve
production &
collection
efficiency

Figure

3" Impact

of near-term

22

improvements

at FNAL

Fixed

target,

enveloping

plasma

collector

Proton beam

Colliding

beams,

Mirror

machine

plasma

collector;

large field volume

enveloping

plasma

collector
e.g., Mirror

machine

Proton beam
Heavy
proton

Figure

4: Concepts

for milligrams

per year production

23

ion or
beam

facility

[Ref.

13]