# Can the technology behind Particle accelerators can be used for space propulsion?

As I understand, the kinetic energy of the proton beam in a hadron collider is quite large. Can you build a space propulsion system that is based on accelerating a proton bean to relativistic speeds and then using the resulting kinetic energy to propel a space vehicle?

Edit: In the large hadron collider, the kinetic energy of a proton reaches 7 Tev, which translate to about 6.71E+20 joules of kinetic energy per kg of accelerated protons.

If the Collider can accelerate 1 kg of proton every hour and point it downwards, then the resulting thrust could launch into orbit the entire collider structure.

Of course, the LHC cant accelerate 1 kg of protons in an hour, but maybe a derivative of it could and would be the basis of space propulsion system.

This is basically the idea. I know that it is enormously hard to build, but can it be done, in theory?

-
Would this provide any benefit over regular ion propulsion? –  endolith Apr 11 '12 at 17:57

It would be an extremely cumbersome and inefficient way to do it.

Already one uses the acceleration of ions in ion propulsion systems in space:

An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft propulsion that creates thrust by accelerating ions. Ion thrusters are categorized by how they accelerate the ions, using either electrostatic or electromagnetic force. Electrostatic ion thrusters use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the electric field. Electromagnetic ion thrusters use the Lorentz force to accelerate the ions. The term "ion thruster" by itself usually denotes the electrostatic or gridded ion thrusters.[citation needed]

Of course, the LHC cant accelerate 1 kg of protons in an hour, but maybe a derivative of it could and would be the basis of space propulsion system.

Contemplate the LHC system, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHC . The large circle is 27kimometers diameter. Thousands of magnets and cryogenic support give us a few horsepower in energy. How can this be amplified to the science fiction numbers you propose? Scientists are not crazy to use kilometers of land and enormous power were they able to get the same energy result in miniature.

The technology yes, as the link shows, is usable, but multiplying the energies by enormous factors does not belong to the present technology or available energies. In addition how would one produce megawatts in space? If one can, one does not need an intermediate wasteful step of such magnitude.

-
to be noted..this is for deep space travels..not for escaping earth's gravity.. –  Vineet Menon Mar 14 '12 at 8:37
Cumbersome, inefficient, and deadly. Sitting inside a huge particle-accelerator while magnetic fields are being alternated does not seem too safe.. Or is it? –  Manishearth Mar 14 '12 at 9:18
Considering that one megajoule is about .4 horsepower, the energy stored in the beams at LHC, 362 megajoules, could maybe push a cart. @Manishearth there are another 10000mjoule stored in the magnetic field, and that might be dangerous if missfired. What with superconductivity etc. –  anna v Mar 14 '12 at 12:14
@annav Of course, I'm not talking about the beams.. They're pretty weak as you said, even though they have rather impressive sounding units (mainly TeV--sounds huge;is tiny).. Yeah, superconducting magnets+humans=?? Doesn't look tested, though I've heard that extremely (how extreme I don't know) strong magnetic fields can disrupt our neural signals. –  Manishearth Mar 14 '12 at 12:19
I tried to BoTE the acceleration that CEBAF (the main accelerator at JLAB) would get if you put it in space. You have to make a bunch of assumptions about the masses of various bits (how much does the helium liquification plant mass, anyway?). I don't recall the result but it was ridiculously low. –  dmckee Mar 14 '12 at 16:58

Your 1kg beam carries 6E20J of energy. That's your power output (and therefore it is also a lower bound for your power input too!). What's your output (thrust, in this case)?

Three considerations relevant to reaction drives:

• The thrust you produce, is proportional to the momentum of the stream you accelerate (i.e. $m v$)
• the energy needed to produce this thrust, is related to the k.e. you apply to the stream ($\frac{1}{2}mv^2$
• if you carry your reaction mass onboard and if it is a significant fraction of your overall mass, you'll also want to consider the tradeoff of propellant mass consumption vs. energy consumption

Driving particles at relativistic speeds will entail a larger power consumption per unit of thrust generated, than driving a more massive exhaust stream at a lower speed.

-

it an be done you simple concentrate the force through a smaller surface area, compress the force to 20 x the gravitational pull of the earths orbit the craft would break the atmospheric barrier and reach the distance of the moon in mere seconds; instead of hours or even days. The proton acceleration would allow the barrier surface tension to "peel back" from the ship. The only major issue would be the impact and effect on the being(s) contained with in the craft. We evolved from a diesel submarine to nuclear, less wait longer running. Be it be said that a proton can travel at 1.5 times the speed of light, the speed of light was only discovered in the late 1930's. Einstien had a partial clue to the puzzle, Hawkins research proved it is possible. We could use the docking locks on the space station to jump from a shuttle to a large craft and jump further then any satelites have yet to travel and return a signal.

The basis for a transformation into a standard proton acceleration engine would be more to the same lines a a jet engine. Everything contains energy its just how it is and can be used; structure must change for further function. Less drag would occur if you could modify a partical field to allow for a much more stable co-effiecent then those used for say the space shuttle or a super sonic air craft.

(basic formula)(leymans' terms) 1 trillion protonic elapse force funnelled from a space around (300 ft X 120 ft) cavity forced through a "jet propulsion" engine compressed to the nanite scale linked to a grouping of passages to the tale end of the craft.

Super compressing can allow for less energy used - greater inertia: less drag - less energy.

This is coming for a man that turns wrenches and works on cars and understand the physics behind combustion and gas expansion.

-
Say what? "Be it be said that a proton can travel at 1.5 times the speed of light, the speed of light was only discovered in the late 1930's." Both statements are dead wrong. –  Phil Perry May 13 '14 at 14:27