Talk:Antimatter-catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I just changed the invented date to "before" 1992 instead of "in" 1992, because I was an intern at JPL in 1991 studying the concept. I started in January of that year, and the concept was already being worked on, so it was presumably invented sometime in 1990 or earlier. I don't have any cites other than the reference number of the internal JPL document I wrote. It is JPL internal document #D-8672, published in July 1991. Tom 04:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like the engines from Star Trek. Bioform 1234 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation[edit]

Although the reaction energy of a fusion reaction is about 1/10th that of a fission reaction, the Li-D fuel used in these reactions is much lighter.

Do I misunderstand the concept of "reaction energy", or is it possible that fission and fusion are swapped here. Please note that I'm no physicist, so this is merely a request for confirmation.--Malcohol 12:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The energy per reaction for a fusion reaction is a mere 5-20 MeV, while a fission reaction produces over 180 MeV per reaction. However, uranium used in fission masses at 235 AMUs per nucleus, while the fusion fuel is a mere 2 or 3 AMUs, making fusion considerably more efficient. The fuel is also cheaper and does not need enrichment.Dark Shikari 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph[edit]

very unclear. Midgley 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Question About Thorium Fission[edit]

I think that Thorium is a naturally fissile material, but I am unaware of whether or not fission based bombs can be made out of it. Can fission based bombs be made from Thorium at all (Certainly, it can be used in nuclear fuel cycles). With antimatter seeding (catalyzation, or whatever) could thorium be made to explode if seeded in a particular way (certainly this should be possible for a supercritical nuclear mass - but what about a subcritical one?). --Nukemason4

Thorium is NOT fissile, it is FERTILE. In order for it to become something that can fiz it needs to capture a neutron, become protactinium, then decay to become U-233 which is fissionable. --Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.104.254 (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion / Fission detailed description[edit]

It seems that is may be useful to have a more detailed description of the specific reactions involved in antimatter fission and fusion processes, if this information is available anywhere. I will look for some, if I get around to it. --Tsuji 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Wording[edit]

I'm 99% sure that the term "Sweet" is a poor word choice. I don't want to remove it in case it does describe some technical aspect of the articles subject. It also makes the article sound like some kind of bad sales pitch than a reasoned explanation.

Here is a snippet of the sentence.

"antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion has technically sweet intrinsic advantages"

Jado818 (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Fixed 86.152.14.11 (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antimatter-catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824024457/http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/ICAN.pdf to http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/ICAN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]