You are correct and I imagine the term stuck due to it’s descriptive merit for the public.

It is interesting you site the factory on Mercury- the most recent and I believe the best prediction for interstellar propulsion is the small singularity drive. In this system a really tremendous amount of energy, like we could obtain from a Mercury power station, would manufacture very small black holes that would use Hawking radiation for propulsion. The interesting part is that after peer review it seems there are no road blocks for this scheme either. Though a century or more in the future, it may be a true Verne or Wells type prediction that will come to pass.
Very Exciting.
Thanks for your comment

The LHC is for research and is not designed to produce large quantities of antimatter. It should not be considered for that purpose at all.

No one has tried to produce antimatter on the scale required for interstellar travel. That does not mean that it can not be done.
A very large energy source is required to fuel the antimatter production at the scale required. The sun is a suitable source of the required energy.

Production of antimatter on a large scale should not be done on Earth. It is too dangerous. I suggest the use of Mercury as a way station to a robotic antimatter factory powered by the Sun itself. Lots of work to do to make it happen but there are really no road blocks.

Aside from the fact that damning star travel within the lifespan of a human being does not discredit star travel that takes longer–

This article is mostly about the pseudo science attached to CERN. I am pretty sick of it myself. Eades is saying that CERN cannot be used to provide antimatter for going to other stars- it is impossible.

You are the one saying no to anti-matter propulsion on the basis of his article. I am so disgusted with the CERN conversations that have discredited this blog that if you post anything else mentioning those four letters as a comment on one of my contributions I will delete it out of hand.

I consider gravity modification on the same level of conspiracy theory garbage as end of the world CERN scenarios; neither belong on this blog.

John Eades the author of the article (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/antimatter_pseudoscience/) received his PhD from the good University of Liverpool, UK, and then went on to become a Senior Physicist at CERN (!) where he researched antihydrogen and antiprotonic helium in collaboration with Japanese and European colleagues for several years until his retirement. And is now affiliated with Tokyo University.

The article was based on his job!

What is your pedigree to say such an esteemed physicist as John Eades is wrong? OK never mind pedigree, what experimental facts to you have to support your conclusion?