AAWSAP DIRD, Positron Aerospace Propulsion, March 2010
DOW-UAP-D123 · page 28 of 35
Text
This text came with the file. It may have mistakes. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.
UNCLASSIFIED/fFOA OFFIEIAL U&li QNkY Assuming that 1016 positrons/sec can be realized in the next 10 years, then 150 micrograms could be produced in 6 months to enable a globe-encircling flight of a small air-breathing turbojet UAV as discussed earlier. Positron Costs An independent study has been done to determine future costs of positrons and, for comparison, antiprotons as well. The results, shown in Table 6, are based on data for existing sources and proposals for future sources. 60, 61, 62 Table 6. Positron and Antiproton Expected Costs in the Next 10 Years Source CERNA Fermilab Trap Injection Ener 0.01 - 0.1 <0.002 0.1 Filling Rate sec1 4 X 10 2.8 X 10 When Now Now 2011 /1 9 $/JOULE annihilation ? 333* 0.4/0.004** * $100 million/year (est. op. cost). ** $5 million/year (est. op. cost, adjusted for inflation)/$100 million/year (est. op. cost). Two clear results of the study should be noted . First, measured on a scale of dollars per joule of annihilation energy, positrons cost less than antiprotons by a factor of 1,000-100,000. Because each antiproton produces 1,836 times more energy per annihilation than a positron, this result appears to defy logic. However, the laboratory energy threshold for producing antiprotons is 6,000 times greater than for positrons, requiring a relatively complex proton synchrotron that is costly to construct and run. In addition, antiprotons are made at much higher laboratory energy than positrons and require costly apparatuses to decelerate them to trapping energies. On the other hand, because electrons and positrons are relativistic at very low energy, their electron production and secondary systems are comparatively simple and less costly to operate and maintain than proton systems. These factors, combined with the absence of radioactive residue associated with positron annihilation, make positrons the obvious choice over antiprotons. Second, the cost of positrons is projected to be $0 .004/J x 180 MJ/µg = $720K/µg. Hence, the cost of 1 gram is $0 .72T, or 5 percent of the 2008 U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). A 2000 NASA study63 on which this author collaborated placed the cost of antiprotons at $64T/g, consistent with the $333/J figure in the second line of Table 5, and roughly six times the 2000 GDP. Unfortunately, this is still being quoted in U.S. scientific and government communities. The dramatic reduction in the unit cost of antimatter since 2000 is due to a new emphasis on positrons by the physics community, and hopefully this paper will help spread that good news. Earlier, a nonstop flight around the globe by a small positron UAV was described as equivalent to the 1927 Spirit of St. Louis transatlantic flight of Charles Lindbergh. From UNCLASSIFIED//EAR OEEJCJO! 1!Sli ODIL¥ 23