According to New Scientist, this anti-proton ring joins the previously discovered positron cloud that’s also circling the Earth like an invisible shield. Ironically, the anti-protons are 2,000 times more massive than their positron counterparts, but were discovered second. Both are trapped in a donut-like ring called the Van Allen radiation belt that’s held in place by the planet’s magnetic field.
In the distant future, a spacecraft designed to use anti-protons (or other types of antimatter) as a fuel source could tap into this ring to top off its tanks and head out into the void, said Alessandro Bruno, a member of the University of Rome Tor Vergata team that confirmed the anti-proton area’s existence. I’m really looking forward to that not happening in my lifetime! [New Scientist, Image]
Nathan
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 10:58 AMYeah lets use anti-protons from a ring we only just discovered and have no idea what function it plays and if it renews itself.
No wonder the robots will take over.
Jason
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:54 PMLuddites like you need to not reply to things like this. Consider the following:
a) Given the enormity of the ring and the relatively small size of space craft we use the amount “harvested” would be utterly inconsequential, even if there were hundreds of flights.
b) Once in space a vehicle wouldn’t need to use that much fuel. There is nothing to slow the momentum of an object in space so you don’t need constant acceleration (ala a car or plane) to continue on your way. Turning, deceleration and subsequent acceleration is all you need fuel for.
c) It’s all hypothetical at this point so don’t wet your pants.
d) You doomsday/”humans are reckless and useless” types need to learn to shut up. Humans have, and continue, to accomplish astounding things so stop projecting your inferiority complex on the whole species.
Awesome discovery though.
Mikey
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 5:26 PMNeedlessly rude.
tim
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 1:29 AMNathan has a valid point
Daniel
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 2:19 AMa) hundreds of flights? I wouldn’t put it past someone so short sighted as yourself to come up with a statement like that.
Lumbrejacks of the middle ages didn’t envision massive machinery taking down thousands of trees a day, but hey, we’re a few hundred years from our less-developed counterparts, and when you think about it, it’s really not that long compared to our long term future.
b) the functions humans will carry out in space in the future is unforeseen, therefore it is quite ignorant to try and anticipate our fuel needs of the future as we have barely left our own planet. To say you don’t need much fuel based on simply physics is quite naive as we have not made plans for such a voyage as yet. Sure, we may not need much fuel in your vision of space exploration, but the human always wants to go further – and we may eat that matter up like your suburban suv consumes petrol, and uses oil to keep itself consuming petrol for another few years, before you buy a more beefier diesel engine – like most city dwellers.
c) You’re right – it is hypothetical, which is why all you’ve done is come across as a jerk who seems to seek comfort in insulting other people’s ideas and theories. He’s presenting a valid idea. You’ve presented replies that don’t really “invalidate” his argument.
d) I cannot believe these comments still get accepted. This is a prime example of close-mindedness in play, and should not be present on a technology forum. He’s presenting a valid point about consumption, and how we will strive for a more efficient method. Especially given our specie’s own track record of fossil fuel consumption, i’d rather listen to the person who prioritises efficiency, than a close-minded individual such as yourself that seems to put down all other ideas.
Part of our development is improving our current ideas by communicating. You’ve just presented a view that implies we’ve all got to sit and watch the “big scientists” do it for us. To be honest, i would recommend nathan’s comment simply for contribution even without taking its content into consideration.
Giz really needs to crack down on witty comments that do nothing but insult. This could be a much more educational forum if it’s contributors – both editors and readers contributed equally. We could really learn from another.
Daniel
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 2:23 AMand i apologise for the occasional spelling/grammar errors. I have read over my comment, and take them into account, therefore i would like to see a valid reply instead of simple mistakes i made.
Brock
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 9:20 PMYeah the Anti-Protons most likely come from the Sun. So yeah it renews it self and it doesn’t serve much purpose at all, think of it as a fish caught in a net just swimming along.
Unless you think it has something to do with the Mayans you crazy doomsday man.
Daniel
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 2:25 AMSo you’ve turned your “most likely” into a true fact? wow!
“Anti protons most likely come from the sun”
into
“Yeah, it’s definitely renewable”
See what i’m getting at here? You create your own conclusions.
And please refrain from bringing up irrelevant theories that are foreign to this subject.
MrTaco
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:18 PM…Contons?
olearymo
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM…croutons?
M4191
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 6:23 PM…Electrons?
simulacrum
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:59 PMYay lets get the antiprotons together with the positrons and make anti-hydrogen.. just for a laff
Craig
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 8:24 PMAnti Protons would likely come from the Sun, thus they would renewed while the solar wind blows…