/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9271653
>>9271690
>>9271692

We don't have self replicating microbots or more efficient matter converters than nature. We are quite far from that. We don't even know if the technology to do this is possible.

So let's go back to OP's 'viral nanotechnology' which is using viruses we find in nature as nanotech building blocks. We use viruses we find in nature because we aren't very good at engineering our own building blocks from scratch.

Oh and all the research that could make scary nanotech possible isn't happening under the name of nanotech. Really nanotech is just a meme field.

>>9230255
Yes. There is even a name for this: massless space exploration. http://www.spacecraftresearch.com/blog/?p=523
The problem with the Moon is that there is fuck all in the way of volatile elements like hydrogen and carbon. Things that require plastics require getting creative.

>>9230294
>>by designing genes that create much more compact/energy efficient electron excitement arrays
that sounds extremely difficult. Solar cells require semiconductors, the semiconductors that we know of tend to not be soluble in water or tend to be toxic to living things. But viruses have been used to make interesting nanoparticles
http://news.mit.edu/2011/solar-virus-0425
https://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1635.php

that being said, there are a number of approaches that could yield ridiculously cheap solar cells. Polymer(almost all organic,cheap processing costs), perovskite(really common elements, processing is basically paint it on), nanoantenna(patterned metal on plastic, IE a fancy potatochip bag) based solar cells could become very cheap.