Are not scientists decreasing world mass when they destroy nonworking spaceships & satelites in space ?
604087
They don't destroy them, they just leave them there (while taking action to ensure they don't hit anything).  With stuff in Low orbit they just burn up eventually and the matter gets returned to the Earth.  For higher orbits they get moved to a disposal orbit a few hundred kilometres away from their operational orbit.\n\nThe decrease in the Earth's mass is pretty much insignificant when you consider how heavy the Earth is and the amount of stuff that comes down on the Earth from space (so on the whole the Earth is actually gaining mass).
26371
Actually yes, they are planning a "Space Elevator"\n(Warning, while source below is mostly acccurate, the scientific papers could take years to get through)
1151473
No, because a black hole is a collapsed star, and the closest star to us, besides the sun, is thousands of light years away. They also suck in EVERYTHING including light and destroys it.
725131
This would be a terrible idea.\n1)  First of all, it would be horribly unsafe.  Even the safest 'man-rated' rocket boosters have a failure rate of 1/1000.  That is nowhere nearly a safe enough ratio for moving hundreds of tons of Highly Radioactive wastes into even a Solar orbit.\n2) You say 'space' like that is the end of it.  Orbit around the earth?  Orbits, even Clarke orbits decay, and here comes the waste back.  Solar orbits?  These also need to be carefully calcualted to prevent a future mishap or collison.   Interstellar space?  I'm sure that that would be a nice friendly gift for any other life forms out there, our waste?\n3)  This would be fabuolosly expensive.  Currently it costs about US $10,000 a pound to send something to high orbit.  \n4) It is unnecessary to do this.  We have proven technologies for 'filtering' or reprocessing wastes to recover fissionable materials for re-use in reactor cores.  We have technologies for using wastes themselves to generate power and more fuel (Breeder reactors).  Baisically the stumbling block is no one wants these facilities in their neighborhood and the failure of our politicians to address these problems in a logical and scientifically sound strategy.
316367
Yes, but only if they're passing through.  An extended time in the Belts would be lethal even in a spaceship, unless the craft were heavily shielded.
150431
in space there are negative effects such as loss of bone mass and gradual weakness due to the absence of gravity.
322967
To the chemist no, to the physicist yes.A nuclear explosion destroys matter and from so doing releases energy.
675302
Actually, the scientists don't, the planets do that themselves.
324067
No. Gravity has to do with the mass of objects--you have some too.
1023987
They don't have to. Yes, there are thousands of asteroids, but space is really, really big! The asteroids are so far apart that you could just randomly fly any path through the belt and never see one. They actually have to carefully plot a course to rendezvous with one if that is the goal of the mission, like NEAR or Hayabusa.
779101
Yes, If the mass of the everything doubles than whole universe will get shrunk and the heavenly bodies in the space will collide and get destroyed. because more the mass more the gravitation force. chances gettin hitted by a asteroid will increase. People will find difficult to walk, aeroplane will crash down and satellites may fall down. we've to give the rockets more spped currentl which is 11.2 km/s. so many things happen.
777741
No - (let me guess all you people who think we did will give me a thumbs down !!!!)\n\n- My old pocket calculator has more power than the computers used 'to get to the moon'\n- photographic evidence\n- the camrea evidence\n- if they got there, why did they then just 'stop'\nand not sent many other missions there / set up a research station etc\n\nI do, however, think that they DID get there years later - after all what would happen if a space craft passed over and there was no moom buggy, footprints & flag.\n\nIQ ? HAH !!!! IQ does not measure important things like common sense, creative thinking, social skills etc etc\n(and YES I do know mine - its above average I just choose to dismiss it)
51387
i got your point... truly when stars like X35 or YR463 (i don't know if they exist) were discovered it wasn't as if aids suddenly had a cure or it became possible for us to live a hundred years longer or that we can already live in mars... clearly discoveries about outer space don't benefit us directly. In fact , the only things it benefits directly are the oppurtunity-hogging world powers and the greedy curiousness of their scientists. It is however also true that because of the discoveries of the past, we are now more technologically advance and a step closer to other fundamental questions that will benefit the whole human race in the future. You see, it is very possible that the gains of prolific discoveries of today will not be felt by the present generation thats why people think that it is pointless. It may not help us now, but having the knowledge that these discoveries will ensure positive effects to the lives of our children and the future generation will make it all priceless.
994993
I woke up to a news report on the radio about how NASA had lost contact with their shuttle, and there had been reports of falling and burning debris. I was sad.\nHonestly... We should be surprised that things don't go wrong more often. Launching into space is a delicate and dangerous venture. There are far more people who are killed each year by toothpicks than die for the purpose of space exploration. This is something we should be proud of.
35188
i am one of your scientists.\n\nno, we are not.\n\nsorry to burst your bubble there, guy.
351894
The law of conservation of mass/matter (The Lomonosov-Lavoisier law) states that the mass of a system of substances will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter changes form, but cannot be created or destroyed. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.\n\nThe two posters above me are wrong. Just because we build and use resources, doesn't mean the weight goes away, it just changes form. People gaining weight, gain it from the earth, it doesn't magically appear.\n\nThe only way the earth would lose mass is, stuff leaving planet earth such as rockets, satalites, ect..\n\nThe only way earth would gain is the space stuff that hits earth every second, and adds to the total weight.
864941
Centrifugal forces keep Earth at a great distance from being converted from mass to energy~ Andromeda is more of a threat to us than the core of our own galaxy "Misses Milky"!!!!