3 ms·
In the far future, I could see technology advancing enough to where we could efficiently create/manufacture antimatter (e.g. from a star or something). But the
by superkarn 15y ago
In the far future, I could see technology advancing enough to where we could efficiently create/manufacture antimatter (e.g. from a star or something).
But the "fail-dangerous" issue is more of a user responsibility, and I don't see that being solved anytime before the above technology is discovered (if ever).
- jacques_chester 15y agoPeter F Hamilton surmised in his Night's Dawn trilogy that antimatter would be outlawed, but produced by large accelerators parked close to suns in unoccupied solar systems. It was still heinously inefficient, but the high price of black-market AM justified the cost. Putting speculation aside, we know that AM is fail-dangerous. For all current purposes, we have better alternatives. For long-endurance power sources we have fission. For weapons we have fusion. I cannot personally think of a common use where the statistical certainty of failure outweighs the risk.
- superkarn 15y agoI agree. My knowledge in this domain is quite limited, but maybe someday somebody will figure something out. Just the thought of antimatter existing is very cool.
- arethuza 15y agoA lot of the yield in H-bombs actually comes from the fission of the depleted uranium tamper - in the Ivy Mike test (the first real multi stage H-bomb) 77% of the yield was generated this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike The Tsar Bomb test was restricted to 50Mt by missing out the 3rd stage - so it was primarily a fusion device. Had the depleted uranium tamper been in place it would have given the 100Mt the design was capable of - but with horrific fall-out.
- jacques_chester 15y agoLooks like I forgot to append IANANWS :)
- Tharkun 15y agoWe have fusion for weapons?
- arethuza 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design