Concepts, Problems, & Opportunities for use of Annihilation Energy:

An Annotated Briefing on Near-Term RDT&E to Assess Feasibility

RAND Note N-2302-AF/RC

B. W. Augenstein

EXAMPLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

BENCHMARKS/DECISION POINTS

	Year	Activity
Phase A	1	Survey, scoping, experiment + team choices; some experiments (first go-no go decisions)
	3-5	Conduct of critical experiments; design point information (second go-no go decision)
Phase B	1	Accelerator design
	4-5	First Beam (IOC as medium high energy physics facility)
	4	Factory System design/construction initiated (if go from Phase A)
	6-7	First Product (prototype factory IOC)
	8	Design Product level (design validation - full factory go-no go)
Phase C	7	Full Factory design initiated
	8	Construction go-ahead (if go from Phase B)
	15	First Beams
	17	First Product delivery (full factory IOC)
	18-19	Full scale operation
	20	At least 10-20 mg. final product

Higher risk program eliminates Phase B
Pushes Phase C up by ~ 4 years (~ 16 year program total)

This chart summarizes the critical times implicit in the 3 phasedevelopment program suggested as an example. The first major go-no godecisions are to occur by end of year 1.

The schedule shown is felt to be "conservatively realistic" in asuccess oriented program--i.e., one in which each "go - no go" decisionpoint happens to produce a "go." The mini-factory in Phase B is assumedto be designed to use external electrical power for its relativelymodest power demands. For Phase C one would presumably have the optionto select either externally powered or self-powered designs. with sitingconsiderations, achieved l values, and the goal for product yield beingimportant factors in the selection.

The 5-year period for Phase A will strike some as optimistic, sinceit is often suggested that fundamental insights into the basicfeasibility of applications-oriented antimatter technology will take anumber of decades.

We believe that attitude is probably wrong. A great deal ofrelevant work in Phase A problem areas will involve use of normalmatter. If the experiments with normal matter have satisfactoryoutcomes, then one should almost always have reasonably confidentexpectations that work with actual antimatter has a very good chance ofsuccess--albeit that work will entail additional complications, requireadded experimental subtlety, and demand more attention to handling,safety, and reliability and operability issues. The successful normal matterwork may be regarded as a necessary but not totally sufficient conditionfor confidence in being able to develop antimatter technology. At thesame time, if there are basic stumbling blocks in antimatter technology,particularly in storage, these seem very likely to surface first inappropriate normal matter analyses and experiments. accomplishable inPhase A.

In short, the ability to predict with confidence the basicfeasibility of antimatter technology--go or no-go-should be largelyaccessible by Phase A end.