PRODUCTION AND TRAPPING OF ANTIMATTER FOR SPACE PROPULSION APPLICATIONS

M.H. Holzscheiter, R.A. Lewis, E. Mitchell, J. Rochet and G.A. Smith

Laboratory for Elementary Particle Science
Department of Physics
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-3076

Abstract

Production and trapping of antiprotons for space propulsion applications are reviewed. Present and foreseeable
production rates at Fermilab are discussed, and experiments on trapping, confinement and transport of large quantities of
antiprotons, as well as synthesis of atomic antihydrogen, are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

In a separate paper presented at this conference, it has been shown that amounts of antiprotons in the range 10-1000
nanograms (ng) can enable manned exploration of the planets, using antiproton-catalyzed microfission/fusion reactions
(Lewis 1997). Heretofore, no individual or group of individuals has embarked upon a practical, experiment-based program
of trapping antiprotons for scientific applications. The purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate that these amounts
of antiprotons can be trapped and transported into space using existing technologies. We review antiproton production
methods and yields, and apparatus for trapping, holding and transporting large numbers of antiprotons into space. A program
of research and experiments is outlined for the next several years.

PRODUCTION OF ANTIPROTONS

Antiproton sources exist worldwide at two sources, CERN in Geneva, Switzerland and Fermilab, in Batavia, Illinois.
These two laboratories utilize high energy proton synchrotron accelerators, with accumulator storage rings attached to collect
antiprotons produced by collisions of protons on targets. Details of the operation of these facilities go beyond the scope of
this paper. It is important to comment, however, on the current and anticipated levels of production of antiprotons, especially
at Fermilab which would be most likely to support a U.S. space program in the future.

Presently, Fermilab "stacks" 6 x 1010 antiprotons per hour in its Accumulator. This means that in one year of dedicated
production, it could produce a maximum of 0.85 ng of antiprotons. A new and funded facility, called the Main Injector, will
turn on in 1998, with a maximum annual production capacity of 14 ng. Discussions currently in progress about the
development of a new Recycler Ring located inside the Main Injector ring are centered around increasing the "stacking" rate
by a factor of 10, corresponding to a maximum production capacity of 140 ng per year. This would place Fermilab in the
10-1000 ng range specified above. Of course, to proceed the relevant federal funding agencies would have to see fit to
produce antiprotons in large numbers for purposes other than high energy physics.

TRAPPING ANTIPROTONS

Antiproton trapping work is currently being done at the Low Energy Antiproton Ring (LEAR) at CERN. LEAR
provides low energy antiproton beams, presently not available at Fermilab. A schematic layout of the "catcher" trap being
utilized by our group is shown in Figure 1.

The 5.9 MeV antiproton beam is degraded in the SF6 gas cell and Al foil down to an energy of 10-30 keV. In a
250 nanosecond (ns) pulse, the negatively charged antiprotons spiral down the axis of the 6T superconducting "Oxford
Magnet," where they are repelled by a 12.5 keV negative potential at the far end of the "Trap" electrode structure. They
reverse direction, and in less than 250 ns a 12.5 keV negative potential is placed on the upstream end of the "Trap" electrode
structure. The antiprotons are now trapped radially by the magnetic field, and axially by the two confining electrostatic
potentials. The harmonic frequencies of these two motions are about 300 and 5 MHz respectively. A third harmonic
 Figure 1. Schematic of the Antiproton Catcher Trap at CERN.

"magnetron" motion is also present. This precession around the direction of the E B vector is at a rate of about 80 kHz.

After injection, it is important to measure the actual number of antiprotons trapped. This is done by lowering the
potential of the far electrode, allowing the antiprotons to spill out of the trap and strike the "MCP," where they annihilate into
charged pions. These pions are then detected in the "Scintillators". The correlation between the number of scintillator counts
and the number of antiprotons actually injected into the trap shows that we can trap up to106 antiprotons per injection shot
from LEAR at will.

The next step is to electron cool trapped antiprotons. This then permits "stacking" of successive shots from LEAR,
for example, "stacking" 10 successive shots would yield 107 antiprotons in the trap. Electron cooling is done by injecting
electrons (typically 108 or so) into the trap, where by collisions they absorb energy from the antiprotons. This energy is
released by the electrons as they spin around the magnetic field in the form of synchrotron radiation. The characteristic 1/e

Figure 2. Inverse Lifetime of Antiprotons Versus Cooling Time.

cooling time is 175 seconds, with a 70% efficiency. The data demonstrate lifetimes of up to several hours, corresponding
to vacua of the order of 10-14 Torr. The most interesting result from this work is shown in Figure 2, a plot of the quantity
1/N dN/dt, where N is the number of antiprotons in the trap at any time t (Holzscheiter 1996). For an exponential reduction
of antiprotons due to annihilation in residual helium gas in the trap, this is the inverse lifetime of the antiprotons. The rapid
rise in the first 170 seconds is due presumably to the expected fall-off in the cross section as cooling (energy reduction)
proceeds.

However, the sharp turn-over at 170 seconds is unexpected, signaling a rapid reduction in cross section as the
energy of the antiprotons is further reduced. The implications of this could be profound: (1) it may be possible to transport
cold antiprotons at room temperature (poor vacua), resulting in much simpler and less costly systems, and (2) if cross
sections for atomic antihydrogen behave similarly, it may be possible to degrade these atoms by collisions with gas, thus
facilitating their storage and condensation into liquid or solid states.

TRANSPORTING ANTIPROTONS TO SPACE

For space propulsion applications, 140 ng of antiprotons corresponds to about 1017 antiprotons. One possible
scenario therefore would be to transport 103 traps into space, each holding 1014 antiprotons. It is likely that these 103 traps
would be integrated into a common cryogenic system. Scale-up from traps holding 107 antiprotons to 1014 antiprotons will
not be trivial. Traps presently in use have a Brillouin limit of about 1011 antiprotons/cm3. Therefore, a trap with a volume
of 1 liter can hold the required number of antiprotons.

We are presently building a portable antiproton trap (Graham 1994 and Warner 1994). It is designed to carry up
to 109 antiprotons for 10 days. A schematic drawing of the trap is shown in Figure 3. It is a prototype for a trap, not
necessarily any larger, capable of carrying 1014 antiprotons for up to 120 days (duration of a round trip mission to Mars).
Since earlier experiments at LEAR have demonstrated antiproton lifetimes up to two months, we are confident we can
achieve this goal.

Figure 3. Portable Antiproton Trap.

The portable trap is one meter tall, 30 cm across, and weighs 55 kg. It operates at 4K temperature, supported by
cryogenic nitrogen and helium reservoirs, and has a unique feature that the confining magnet is made of permanently
magnetic SmCo materials, which should prove to be robust. This trap is currently being tested, and will then be sent to
CERN for a fill and demonstration journey across Europe. Figure 4 shows a photograph of the trap under test in the Penn
State laboratories.

SYNTHESIZING AND CONFINING ATOMIC ANTIHYDROGEN

Instabilities set in when the charged antiproton Coulomb energy density exceeds the magnetic (Penning traps) or
electric field (RFQ) energy densities. Since there are practical limits to fields that can be supported, the next step is to
prepare accumulations of large numbers of antiprotons in the form of electrically neutral atoms, such as atomic antihydrogen.
Figure 4. Portable Penning Trap Under Test at Penn State. Cylindrical upright object Trap; cylindrical horizontal
object Injection/Ejection Beamline with vacuum pumping apparatus (fore, sorption and ion pumps visible).

The recent production of nine antihydrogen events at CERN has created great excitement (Baur 1996). Although
these nine atoms were assembled at very high velocities and hence will not be confineable, static techniques for assembly
are available, as described below.

Within the next two years we will attempt to synthesize these atoms at CERN by injecting positronium atoms,
bound electron-positron pairs, into our trap filled with antiprotons. Initially we hope to form and confine thousands of
antihydrogen atoms in an Ioffe trap, consisting of a vacuum cylinder within a quadrupole magnet, augmented with confining
pinch coils at each end as illustrated in Figure 5. Confinement is provided by the interaction of the atomic magnetic moment
with the inhomogeneous magnetic field. This technology is currently available from laboratories studying atomic hydrogen
(Haensch 1993 and Doyle 1989), where densities of >1014 atoms/cm3 have been achieved (van Roijen 1988).

Although these densities are much higher than allowed by Penning or RFQ traps, instabilities exist which prohibit
their use at high densities for long term accumulation. The next step therefore involves forming condensates of electrically
neutral molecular antihydrogen, either in liquid or solid form, which would provide densities approaching 1023 atoms/cm3;
140 ng of antihydrogen would constitute a spherical volume of about 60 micrometers radius.

SYNTHESIZING LIQUID OR SOLID ANTIHYDROGEN

Confinement of antimatter has been the subject of extensive studies (Michaelis 1988). Since liquid or solid
antihydrogen is diamagnetic, levitation within a confining vessel could be provided by a magnet of modest size (Paine 1991).
Serious technical issues include annihilation of surface atoms with residual gas in the confining vessel, and sublimation of
surface atoms with resultant annihilation on the walls of the confining vessel. In the latter case, the annihilation could eject
matter from the walls, which in turn annihilates with the antihydrogen, starting a chain reaction (Shmatov 1993 and 1994).
We find that for vacua of ~ 10-18 Torr and temperatures at 2.7K, a region of stability may exist.
 Figure 5. A Simplified Scheme of Production and Storage of Antihydrogen Atoms.

Serious questions remain concerning the processes described above. First, in order to confine antihydrogen atoms
in an Ioffe trap (Fig. 5), the atoms must be cooled to milliKelvin temperatures. This could be done by laser cooling. Or,
if it turns out that these atoms resist annihilation at low energies, then cooling by collisions with residual gas, as is done in
the case of hydrogen, could be tried.

Second, in order to achieve condensation of atoms into molecules with a subsequent phase transition to the liquid
state, microKelvin temperatures must be achieved. Again, laser or collisional cooling would be required. The condensate
will finally begin to be created in the form of small molecular clusters when the ambient pressure of the sample is at least
100 times greater than the liquid vapor pressure (Frenkel 1995).

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

Production and trapping of large numbers of antiprotons for use in space appears practical. First efforts to trap
antiprotons in electromagnetic confinement vessels called Penning traps have been highly successful. Portability of these
vessels will soon be demonstrated. Storage and transport of very large amounts of antimatter, i.e. one microgram, require
demonstration of the formation and confinement of atomic antihydrogen. An experimental program for this work is currently
being put together, with the goal of achieving confinement in the next few years.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Air Force Office of Sponsored Research, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(NASA) and the NSF Research for Undergraduates (REU) Program.

References

Baur, G. et al. (1996) "Production of Antihydrogen," Phys. Lett. B. 368:251-258.

Doyle, J.M. et al. (1989) "Energy Distributions of Trapped Atomic Hydrogen," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6:2244-2248.

Frenkel, J. (1955) Kinetic Theory of Liquids, Dover Publications, New York.

Graham, D. (1994) "Have Antimatter, Will Travel," Technology Review 97, 5:14-15.

Haensch, T.W. and C. Zimmerman (1993) "LaserSpectroscopy of Hydrogen and Antihydrogen," Hyperfine Interactions
76:47-57.

Holzscheiter, M.H. et al. (1996) "Are Antiprotons Forever?," Phys Lett. A 214:279-284.
Lewis, R.A., et al. (1997), "Antiproton-Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Space Propulsion Systems for Exploration of the
Outer Solar System and Beyond," Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF 97) January
26-30, 1997, Albuquerque, New Mexico, CONF-970115, ed. M. El-Genk, American Institute of Physics, New York.

Michaelis, M.M. and R. Bingham (1988) "Solid Antimatter," Laser and Particle Beams, 6:83-91.

Paine, C.G. and G.M. Seidel (1991) "Magnetic Levitation of Condensed Hydrogen," Rev. Sci. Instrum 62, 12:3022-
3024.

Shmatov, M.L. (1993) "Development of Annihilation as a Consequence of Sputtering Processes," Tech. Phys. Lett.
19:578-579.

Shmatov, M.L. (1994) "Some Safety Problems in the Storage of Solid Antihydrogen," Tech. Phys. Lett. 20:357-358.

van Roijen, R. et al. (1998) "Experiments with Atomic Hydrogen in a Magnetic Trapping Field," Phys. Rev. Lett.
61:931-934.

Warner, J. (1994) "A Churnful of Antiprotons, Please," New Scientist 143, 1943:20.