Talk:Antimatter-catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion

message: I just changed the invented date to "before" 1992 instead of "in" 1992, because I was an intern at JPL in 1991 studying the concept.  I started in January of that year, and the concept was already being worked on, so it was presumably invented sometime in 1990 or earlier.  I don't have any cites other than the reference number of the internal JPL document I wrote.  It is JPL internal document #D-8672, published in July 1991.
Tom 04:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like the engines from Star Trek. Bioform 1234 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Although the reaction energy of a fusion reaction is about 1/10th that of a fission reaction, the Li-D fuel used in these reactions is much lighter.
Do I misunderstand the concept of "reaction energy", or is it possible that fission and fusion are swapped here. Please note that I'm no physicist, so this is merely a request for confirmation.--Malcohol 12:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation 

message: very unclear.  Midgley 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last paragraph 

message: I think that Thorium is a naturally fissile material, but I am unaware of whether or not fission based bombs can be made out of it.  Can fission based bombs be made from Thorium at all (Certainly, it can be used in nuclear fuel cycles).  With antimatter seeding (catalyzation, or whatever) could thorium be made to explode if seeded in a particular way (certainly this should be possible for a supercritical nuclear mass - but what about a subcritical one?).  
--Nukemason4
Thorium is NOT fissile, it is FERTILE.  In order for it to become something that can fiz it needs to capture a neutron, become protactinium, then decay to become U-233 which is fissionable. 
--Mike  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.104.254 (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly Question About Thorium Fission 

message: It seems that is may be useful to have a more detailed description of the specific reactions involved in antimatter fission and fusion processes, if this information is available anywhere.  I will look for some, if I get around to it.  --Tsuji 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fusion / Fission detailed description 

message: I'm 99% sure that the term "Sweet" is a poor word choice. I don't want to remove it in case it does describe some technical aspect of the articles subject. It also makes the article sound like some kind of bad sales pitch than a reasoned explanation.
Here is a snippet of the sentence.
"antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion has technically sweet intrinsic advantages"
Jado818 (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Wording 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antimatter-catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824024457/http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/ICAN.pdf to http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/ICAN.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified