PDA

View Full Version : Nanotech?



Vhear
2005-Sep-13, 12:09 PM
What do you think of nanotechnology and space exploration?

I think that its an essantial part if we want to do extensive space exploration. As not only it will let us construct materials that normally we won't be able to do also it will cut down on construction time. But before we use it in masses, we need to master it in small amount. Also probably outlaw it on Earth so no terrorists can get their hands on it and only use it in space.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-13, 01:11 PM
Nanotech will make some things possible in space. I don't think it will be outlawed on Earth. Note that if it is developed in space, and outlawed on Earth, it will still be possible for people to get it and use it on Earth for their evil plans... That's what you're worried about right?

Swift
2005-Sep-13, 01:57 PM
I think nanotechnology will allow us to make better materials and will help space travel and a lot of Earth-bound applications. But it is not a magic wand.
Why do you think it needs to be outlawed? Is there some terrorist use for quantum dots?

Saluki
2005-Sep-13, 03:35 PM
If you outlaw nanotech, then only criminals will have nanotech.

Vhear
2005-Sep-13, 04:22 PM
Note that if it is developed in space, and outlawed on Earth, it will still be possible for people to get it and use it on Earth for their evil plans... That's what you're worried about right?

Yes your correct. The thing is nanotechnology is a dangerous tech if not used correctly, even if used by mistake. The outcome will be devastating. By "outlawing" I meen that to make sure no country, corporation, or person will be able to develop it on Earth. So it wont' fall into the wrong hands. To do this you most likely need a world government.

If its only possible to develop out in space if something goes wrong nothing will happen to dear old Earth. Especially if they're dissamblers.

Have strict rules in any place thats a starport or skytower. That no nanotech gets trough. Also with several billion people on Earth, nanotech will fall easily into the wrong hands. Out in space it wont' fall so easily and can be kept under survialance.


If you outlaw nanotech, then only criminals will have nanotech.

By outlawing it means no one will have it, as no one will be able to produce it on Earth. Also to produce nanotech you will need some top notch manufactures, programmers, and what else you need to produce them. So I dont' think criminals will have them.

Saluki
2005-Sep-13, 04:40 PM
I said that sort of tongue in cheek, but if it is valuable, it will be produced, regardless of the law. We learned at the beginning of the last century that prohibition simply does not work.

Swift
2005-Sep-13, 07:36 PM
The thing is nanotechnology is a dangerous tech if not used correctly, even if used by mistake. The outcome will be devastating.
I still don't understand what is so dangerous about nanotechnology. Are we talking real world nanotech, like making quantum dots, buckyballs, and carbon nanotubes, or are we talking science fiction (Star Trek, for example) tiny little machines. If we are talking about the latter, I think we are a very long way from it being a working technology, let alone a problem.

Vhear
2005-Sep-13, 09:18 PM
Nanotechnology, I'm talkin aobut nanites(nanobots), organic robots constructed from DNA, genetically modified viruses, etc... anything that can be used to construct hard to get things easily.

Also the above post I was talking about nanites(nanobots). Next time I should be more specific for posting a topic that involved nanotechnology. :whistle:

For now this thread will be nanotechnology in general.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-13, 09:25 PM
The term "nanotechnology" has been generalized to include all areas of nanoscale engineering, so you do need to be specific when referring to nanobots.

Anyway, I selected "important." It will be very useful when we get it but we can do plenty without. Also, I think macroscale self replicating machines will come earlier and will be extremely useful in developing space resources.

Zaster
2005-Sep-13, 11:11 PM
Material science (a field which nanotechnology has alot to offer) will always be important wherever extremes of heat, cold, and radiation are encountered. There is alot of incredibly exciting stuff happening in this field even without self-replicating nanites.

As for the nanites, I'm not too worried about the idea of nano-weapons wreaking havoc on the environment or our bodies. I worry about the reverse -- the hazards posed by the environment to nano-scale machines. I wonder how useful they will ever be outside a carefully controlled laboratory setting, let alone in space.

gopher65
2005-Sep-14, 03:11 AM
The term "nanotechnology" has been generalized to include all areas of nanoscale engineering, so you do need to be specific when referring to nanobots.

Anyway, I selected "important." It will be very useful when we get it but we can do plenty without. Also, I think macroscale self replicating machines will come earlier and will be extremely useful in developing space resources.
Eeeeep! Replicators! ;)

Ilya
2005-Sep-14, 03:35 PM
Dark Helmet already posted this, but it bears repeating:

The Nanotechnology Myth (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Nanotech.html)

It pours a lot of cold water onto more wide-eyed claims (and fears) of nanotechnology.

For a long time my impression of nanotech has been similar to this article; the only criticism I have is about the line "Remember that unlike a bacterium, it's not made from organic materials. It needs refined metals and other specialized raw materials, but where is it going to find them?" Why should it NOT be made of organic materials? If anything, I find organic chemistry the only realistic basis for nanotech -- in effect, nanomachines will be purpose-designed enzymes. But that means they will have limitations of "real" enzymes -- need for very specific raw materials in a liquid solution, for one.

publiusr
2005-Sep-14, 04:13 PM
That is a good link.

gopher65
2005-Sep-15, 12:49 PM
Personally I think of viruses as naturally occuring nanites. After all, they aren't alive.

publiusr
2005-Sep-16, 06:11 PM
Depends on who you talk to. Prions/free radicals might be better examples.

Swift
2005-Sep-16, 06:51 PM
Depends on who you talk to. Prions/free radicals might be better examples.
Those are two very different things. Free radicals are molecules with an unpaired election; they are generally very reactive, and can be quite small. Prions are mis-folded proteins and like other proteins are generally extremely large molecules. I wouldn't think of either as "nanite" like.

gopher65's idea about viruses and nanites isn't bad. I think the Star Trek view of nanites as cell sized (mechanical) machines is a technology we are very far from. But the idea of manipulating bacteria and viruses to perform functions we want, such as doing particular chemical reactions, introducing particular genetic material into human cells, or performing other specific functions, is a technology that we are very close to.

publiusr
2005-Sep-21, 06:11 PM
I think the most we can hope for are artificial/beneficial prions--certain substances that don't doo much/ An artificial virus would be biotech--I would call an artificial substance nanotech as it is inorganic--that was where I was going.