Why can't we send the Earth's garbage into space?
96032
1. Its too expensive.\n2. Its dangerous for satellites.\n3. Do you want to see garrbage floating in the sky?
545695
I'd lay pretty good odds that the destruction of a planet in our solar system, and one not even that far from us relatively speaking, would have such catastrophic consequences on the Earth that we'd probably all be destroyed. That is one reason we might resist the otherwise obvious urge to blow up Mars.
89908
Yeah, if you think about it, there is really no way to "add" weight to the earth unless it comes from another planet or moon.  Everything on earth at some point was derived from existing matter.  This is a rule of nature.  Matter cannot be created nor destroyed!
365720
Because there are two basic ways to leave the planet.  One is to achieve escape velocity.  Throw a ball up into the air, it goes up and then back down.  Throw is hadrer (faster), it goes higher and then comes back down.  If you could throw it hard (fast) enough it would not come back, it will have left the earth.\n\nNow this speed is really fast, and very few things could withstand suddenly being hurled skyward at the speed, not to mention the force it would take to do so.  That is why we launch things by applying continuous force to them.\n\nBy constantly pushing against the earth we can keep accelerating upward against the force of gravity, and manage to leave the planet at a more gradual rate of increasing speed.
592132
There's no oxygen in space but we all breathe. The sun has enough gravity to keep the oxygen inside it just like Earth but even more so. However this oxygen isn't for burning like we would burn wood. It is part of the cycle of nuclear reactions going on in the sun. The gravity of the sun is large enough to keep the mass of gas concentrated enough to be able to sustain such nuclear reactions.
26676
Objects of any size can enter the Earth's atmosphere. We don't exactly have a security guard keeping out the big ones.
888184
Because they require very exacting conditions for their disposal.  It's not like you can just throw them in a bag and toss them out.  A lot of times, burning them just creates more toxic material.
1089548
The earth is being destroyed by mankind. It won't be overpopulated but drained out by human mischieves. Our duty is to preserve peace and harmony. What a pity...the beautiful earth is a war-ridden ball.
429942
an end...overpopulation etc...where can we live?  there are no other earths out there in space...(if we try to settle on saturn, we'll go right through the planet)  our food supply going down, energy being doomed. etc
381586
Yes we can. It's been attempted before but it's impossible. There are WAY too many people who rely on gas to do the daily things they do. It's just not going to happen.
1065055
All the weapons that have ever existed on Earth couldn't do more than split Mars into a couple chunks, which would just gravitate back together. You would need to literally pulverize the planet, and none of the weapons that we can make are even close to powerful enough to do that.
3702
Old satellites contribute a lot to the pollution around our planet. A snippet from the article below,\n\nAlthough penetration of space by people and their machines is but a few decades old, already the space above the Earth has become contaminated. There are now 110,000 man-made objects larger than a half-inch orbiting in the space above the Earth, and the situation has gotten so serious that NASA 'now replaces pitted orbiter windows after most flights' of space shuttles, notes a 1987 US National Research Council report that warns of potentially catastrophic collisions with space debris. The amount of 'space junk' has doubled since 1990 and now poses 'a navigational hazard,' says Norwegian space specialist Erik Tandberg. The US and Norway are planning a giant radar station to be called Globus II in Norway's Arctic specifically to better monitor orbiting debris.\n\n'A total of over 3,000 tons of space debris surrounds the Earth today,' says Dr. Alexey Yablokov, a noted biologist and president of the Centre for Russian Environmental Policy. The 'rapid accumulation of debris' could 'complicate the further development of astronautics since there would be a direct threat of collision with debris fragments which travel at very high altitudes,' says Dr. Yablokov.\n\nAmong the junk now overhead are 37 nuclear-powered satellites put in space by the US and former Soviet Union. The operation of the satellites is over but the radioactive fuel in them is still hot and lethal and they'll be falling back to Earth in the centuries ahead.
1020852
Sounds like you are on to something here, although with respect to the size of it, and if you are thinking that it will shadow earth to some degree and reduce the direct sunlight upon the earth and create energy at the same time which could be sent to earth by microwave then in theory it would be wonderful, although I believe you would have to design it in such a way, or by using special materials that the solar winds, solar storms, meteorites, and space junk would not destroy it.\n\nAlso depending upon the distance you place it from earth, and with respect to the diameter of the object then gravitational attraction will increase so you will have to maintain its orbit using thrusters and Ion pulse would be perfect for such a power plant.\n\nAlthough the down side is that the further the distance from earth the more massive the object must be to cast the shadow, and the materials involved in such an object would cost trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars unless you were capable of making it tissue paper thin.\n\nAdditional details\n\nHow about producing a vast number of multiple power plants connected to very large solar sheets and pepper them at multiple distances from earth, and multiple distances apart, however between earth and the sun. this would be much more cost affective and would be perfect for filtering out the sunlight, as with respect to us we would not even be capable of observing them,  but with respect to the filtration which would be offered it would be most effective.\n\nWith respect to the energy created you could send it to any receiver which you wish to send it by microwave.
33547
Same way they do anywhere....\n\nJets take in air and spit it back out. A jet wouldn't work in space.\n\nRockets carry their fule with them, and so don't need to take anything in.\n\nThe mass and energy pushing away from the rocket will push just as hard in space as on Earth, and will do all the better since there is less gravity to worry about.
703223
There is no oxygen in space, so you couldn't light a match. I bet if you could though, it would burn in a sphere.
847011
You would need to provide vast amounts of resources provided to earth from space and travel into space. People fight and hate for the limited resources  and wealth available.
225284
Yes, of course there is litter in space, AKA "space junk".\nStuff does get lost durring space walks, stuff will fall off a satelite, debris is in orbit around the Earth.\nAll that space junk is being tracked in its orbit along with all the other satelites and space vehicles since they pose a collision threat.  You need to know where all the potnetially dangerous stuff is up there when you launch something in to space so you dont put in on a collision course.\n\nEventually, all the stuff will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere after its orbit degrades.