/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3425843
That is pretty fucking amazing. I had no idea we were actually doing this kind of thing.

>>3425835
That's awesome. I was referring to the on the fly bit, but having the ability to assemble them without using tiny tweezers is a definite plus.

It'd work the same as incinerating the garbage, so in actuality doing that and generating power from the result would be a wiser plan.

>>3425831
I hope we can soon. The ability to do it would be quite literally revolutionary

The problem is that you don't start with an envelope containing x, I think. You either have one containing X/2 in which case a switch would give 300% more or one containing 2x in which a switch would give 75% less.

>>3425779
That's why we're suggesting nanotubes, and how was that kawaii?

>>3425769
it tends to be quite reliable.

>>3425728
5 or 6 huge things though. Gravity would be one of the most important considerations in reality.
Do you know how they explained not free-falling into the sun? were they in stable orbit or something?

Send a nanotube synthesising satellite into LEO to build 10KM stretches of tubes, replacing used carbon via rocket. Once there are 10,000 stretches, send up an X-37 unmanned space plane to boost the satellite into Geostationary HEO. Send up the counterweight station (Not necessarily the weight itself, but probably. Depending on the efficiency, harvesting moon rock might be more cost effective)
Assemble the tubes from the sky downwards, making sure the base station always stays within 200KM of geostationary. once enough cable has been assembled to balance the satellite at that point, fire it out a bit further and finish the cable. Keep the counterweight stable with chemical boosters, but allow conversion to VASIMR in the future.

>>3425716
I haven't (read: don't intend to) watch it, but that's a lot of problems with it :s

>>3425691
Not sure how you'd even do that. I guess you'd have to have preset unscientific details like there being a way to restart the sun with a bomb, and then change everything around them to be as plausible as possible.

>>3425670
I'm seriously disappointed he had anything at all to do with this. He's sensible re: the moon landings, homeopathy, and woo science in general, and yet he's willing to support a film which forwards the idea that the sun could go out

>>3425403
doesn't aerogel break down in virtually anything?

>>3425394
That's disappointing, I thought Asimov was more of a hard scifi kind of person. Misled by his short stories, apparently

>>3425375
I'd always assumed the mental stuff in the series was via machine, don't know why I didn't spot that
I wouldn't consider Gaia impossible, really; It's possible to store information in inanimate objects, and I see no hard problem with the whole hivemind thing assuming there's a reasonable method of transmission and reception

>>3425359
I've read the first few books and encountered nothing at all like that. Mind giving me a quote or two?

>>3425345
wut

>>3425337
I didn't say it was impossible, did I.

>>3425328
I don't think this could be patented (too simple and prior models already exist), and US patents cost $500.

>>3425327
not sure what problemis

How do you know it isn't possible? I mean, positrons would be awkward to use but it's by no means impossible to transmit signals with them.

>>3425318
I think Asimov is probably a good example of someone who manages it.

>>3425313
A good author can ususally pull off both.

>>3425284
Why do we believe there will be a singularity? It's a total disregard for the fact we can't shrink things down beyond a certain point, surely

>>3425286
how could they know drama if they didn't know explosions