How to solve the trash problem? Ionic liquids are the current high tech favoured solution. Unfortunately, scaling up from the current trial plants and research testbeds to a system that could cope with a country's rubbish problems is not yet remotely possible.
Carbon nanotubes are already yesterday's wonder material. They are still very useful but in terms of advanced materials research and new products graphene and its derivatives are far superior. Graphene will be the source of major advances and new products (ultralightweight construction materials, paper-thin TVs, computers the size of a credit card etc are just some of the targets of current research) over the next few decades. And graphene is something that could conceivably be discovered many years prior to events of OTL, it all started from a Friday afternoon what-the-hell experiment with a lead pencil and some sticky tape.
If you want to develop manufacturing in space you may have to do something about capitalism first. Outside of niche materials (perfect ball bearings anyone?), the costs are too exorbitant and I don't think that any company that relies on delivering a profit to the shareholders will see a benifit in increasing transportation and setup costs by lord knows how many times.
There is no such thing as a viriphage and there can't be. A virus hijacks a host cell's replication machinery because it cannot replicate itself. A virus won't be able to do the same thing to another virus as there is no replication machinery it could make use of. Trying to stop a virus usually comes down to attempting to block its cell receptors, which are usually sugars, or how it trggers replication of coat proteins, though I am not a virologist so could be wrong about specifics. I do know that it isn't easy.
"Two possibilities come to mind, although I've no idea if they would work. One is just better funding - say somebody in the DoD realizes the role of materials as an enabling technology in the early 50s and starts heavily funding basic research into advanced materials. However, that seems like something that might have happened IOTL and I just don't know about it"
Materials research was heavily funded in the 50s, and later. The DoD does support research but it is not the main research funder in the US.
The biological warfare programme run by the South African government during the apartheid era was nasty but it wasn't as advanced as that run by the USSR, US, UK or other more technological countries. South Africa's military industry did produce a relatively large number of good quality systems but in many areas South Africa's scientific base has always been limited.
I gather that most people here think about "more advanced science" as being shiny big ticket items that make the news or general science documentaries but you are really just scratching the surface here. Almost all of the technological advances that shape our world come from fundamental research into interesting problems, the applications come afterwards. If you really want a dramatically advanced level of technology then first increase the number of states willing and able to fund fundamental scientific research, as someone has already suggested i.e. a multipolar world or comparative equals. Next, have the world have enough stability to allow reliable investment and growth but enough threats to encourage funding into solving them. Third, allow scientists the time to actually do research rather than waste most of it doing paperwork.
Carbon nanotubes are already yesterday's wonder material. They are still very useful but in terms of advanced materials research and new products graphene and its derivatives are far superior. Graphene will be the source of major advances and new products (ultralightweight construction materials, paper-thin TVs, computers the size of a credit card etc are just some of the targets of current research) over the next few decades. And graphene is something that could conceivably be discovered many years prior to events of OTL, it all started from a Friday afternoon what-the-hell experiment with a lead pencil and some sticky tape.
If you want to develop manufacturing in space you may have to do something about capitalism first. Outside of niche materials (perfect ball bearings anyone?), the costs are too exorbitant and I don't think that any company that relies on delivering a profit to the shareholders will see a benifit in increasing transportation and setup costs by lord knows how many times.
There is no such thing as a viriphage and there can't be. A virus hijacks a host cell's replication machinery because it cannot replicate itself. A virus won't be able to do the same thing to another virus as there is no replication machinery it could make use of. Trying to stop a virus usually comes down to attempting to block its cell receptors, which are usually sugars, or how it trggers replication of coat proteins, though I am not a virologist so could be wrong about specifics. I do know that it isn't easy.
"Two possibilities come to mind, although I've no idea if they would work. One is just better funding - say somebody in the DoD realizes the role of materials as an enabling technology in the early 50s and starts heavily funding basic research into advanced materials. However, that seems like something that might have happened IOTL and I just don't know about it"
Materials research was heavily funded in the 50s, and later. The DoD does support research but it is not the main research funder in the US.
The biological warfare programme run by the South African government during the apartheid era was nasty but it wasn't as advanced as that run by the USSR, US, UK or other more technological countries. South Africa's military industry did produce a relatively large number of good quality systems but in many areas South Africa's scientific base has always been limited.
I gather that most people here think about "more advanced science" as being shiny big ticket items that make the news or general science documentaries but you are really just scratching the surface here. Almost all of the technological advances that shape our world come from fundamental research into interesting problems, the applications come afterwards. If you really want a dramatically advanced level of technology then first increase the number of states willing and able to fund fundamental scientific research, as someone has already suggested i.e. a multipolar world or comparative equals. Next, have the world have enough stability to allow reliable investment and growth but enough threats to encourage funding into solving them. Third, allow scientists the time to actually do research rather than waste most of it doing paperwork.