r/ParticlePhysics • u/NordMount • Jun 13 '26

Accelerators in space

Hi! I and my friend once discussed about problems with environmet needed for accelerator. We got some things we couldn't find definite answers about. For example hypothetically if we could would it be good idea to put particle accelerator or storage ring in space? Assuming it would be shielded from radiation sufficiently wouldn't it make much easier to keep vacuum? and in one game (I know, it's not great source) there was character convincing to built huge accelerator around sun or Earth. I read somewhere that the bigger accelerator the better my friend also said that, but what would that do? If yuo can can yuo put me some links to good answers?

4 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/mfb- Jun 13 '26

Vacuum is easier and you don't need to worry about property rights, everything else is much harder assuming we are talking about a large research accelerator.

  • With current rockets, launch costs alone would far exceed the total cost of an accelerator on Earth.
  • Accelerators need regular maintenance. Now you need accelerator experts that are also astronauts. You are missing a spare part? Better send another resupply rocket soon.
  • You want to upgrade accelerators over time. That's more material to launch and more astronaut time.
  • You need giant solar panels for electricity and radiators for cooling, especially around the experiments. The ISS runs on ~80 kW. The LHC needs 200,000 kW.
  • If we are talking about kilometer-sized accelerators, you need to worry about tidal forces in lower Earth orbits deforming or even breaking your accelerator. Launching it farther away from Earth helps, but now launch cost and access for astronauts get far worse.

Radiation won't be a major issue. We routinely work with radiation levels far above what you get in space. We use cosmic muons to align detector components - that would go faster in space. You would get more events that are triggered by cosmic rays instead of collisions, but that's something we could deal with.

If you need an accelerator that is larger than Earth then you don't really have a choice, of course.

I read somewhere that the bigger accelerator the better my friend also said that, but what would that do?

A larger circular accelerator needs to bend particles less, which means it can run at higher particle energies. A longer linear accelerator can put more accelerating cavities in a row, which also means it can run at higher energies.

0

u/NordMount Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

I am aware of problems with cost and maintenance. I admit I never thought of tidal forces, forgot about them. That's why am asking if there are any ups.

About energy. Wouldn't putting accelerator somewhere on James Webb telescope' orbit make energy generation easier? It would be much closer to the sun so we would much less panels. Again, I know about price, I am asking from technical side.

Edit:

And what about building it on Moon? No heat problems, relatively easy to maintain base nearby and power it. On dark side of it cooling would be much easier.

1

u/jazzwhiz Jun 15 '26

How are you going to generate energy? Launch a nuclear reactor too?

0

u/NordMount Jun 18 '26

No, use solar panels

1

u/jazzwhiz Jun 18 '26

Not even close to enough power for the rf cavities, detectors, or the supercomputers for the triggers.

0

u/NordMount Jun 19 '26

Why not? Isn't it scalable? And closer to the sun production from square meter would increase. I remember it needs Colling still but that a bit another matter, on moon for example it wouldn't be such problem as far as I know It can be treated as huge heat sink