If vac cum contains any particles.  why we not ha we a satellite around sun to get more information.?
550511
Vacuum contains no particle (in classical sense) but lots of electromagnetic waves. photon (as a particle is a quantum mechanics concept) exists in vacuum. The problem with satellites around the sun is the heat radiation thats is emitted from the sun. Its difficult for instruments to work at that temperature. Things will melt though in vacuum.
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.
386067
Do we need anymore?  Maybe its just not an item we need seeming how we now have satellites over the ocean.  Good question
302598
An interesting question. The question that may comes to \neveryone's mind is "IS the earth round?"  \nAnd the answer is no, at least \nnot perfectly round.  But it is round compared to your average cube, that is \nfor sure!  Now, my understanding of how solar systems form is pretty \ninadequate; all I can tell you is what I see on "Nova."  But basically, I \nguess it has to do with gravity, which is a CENTRAL FORCE.  What that means is \nthat gravity pulls things together along a straight line, and the more massive \none of the things is, the stronger it pulls.  When the earth was forming, it \nwas basically a big ball of dust left over from an exploded sun (a supernova).  \nGravity caused a lot of the matter to condense into a big fiery ball (our \nsun), but some of the dust was far enough away from the Sun so that the \nstronger forces were between planetary dust particles and not the sun.  SO, \nthey swirled together into a ball.  You can see something similar when you \nmake a painting with one of those "spin-art" machines; you put a card on the \nspinner, which whirls around real fast, and then you squirt paint on the card.  \nThe whirling causes the paint to go out away from the center (this is like the \nexplosion of the supernova) and droplets go out along an interesting path \nuntil they stop, which happens when the spinning force is equal and opposite \nto the force which attaches paint to the card (this is like gravity).  Now, if \nthe force attaching paint to the card were not so strong,eventually the drops \nwould get bigger - "planets."
885748
About 1 atom for every 32 cubic centimeters\nActually, There is no such thing as a true vacuum.\nA true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count is zero.\nThere is always atomic content left to fill the "vacuous" space. No one has ever been able to creat a true vacuum.\n(exerpt from a previous answer)\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. \nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nOne day the misinformation of space, or anything else, as a vacuum will finally die out.\n\nIf you are referring to a vacuum cleaner.... then dirt.\n\nspread the knowledge
83472
Space is technically a vacuum, hence void of any matter, invisible, see-through, like a very clean window! That's also why they placed the Hubble Telescope in orbit, out of the atmosphere.  The atmosphere seriously effects a telescope's ability to 'see' far into the universe.  It's essentially like looking through a dirty glass, because of all the particulate.\n\nSo,\nIn space no physical matter, no perception of light.  There is no air and/or physical matter for the light to bounce off of and around etc..\nIn other words, the reflections of light from objects creates the effect we perceive as light, or being lit-up.  \n\nAny solid will also be illuminated by the sun, in space. Proof of that is the moon, or any other planets visible by eye or telescope.  \n\nOur atmosphere (air is matter too) gives the appearance of being "lit" up, and all the solids on earth reflect that light, causing the effect of being "lit up"..\n\nTry this.  Go into a completely dark room, and turn on a good straight beam flashlight.  Can you see the particulate in the air?  The little lighted particles?  If they weren't there, all you would see is the white dot on the wall, that the light creates.  The reason you can put your hand next to the beam and still see it is from the reflection on the wall, AND the particle matter in the air, which causes light to stray onto your hand.  In this case it's more the reflection, but both aid in you seeing your hand..\n\nNow, take that HUGE flashlight in the sky *sun*, and apply that to what you have asked!
1174955
In outer space there are some gasses but not enough in any one place to provide a medium for a sound wave to propagate through. Asteroids and meteors are silent until they enter an atmosphere.
900602
Well, it depends how good your eyesight is, but if you have perfect vision, yes it is very possible to see sunlight reflecting off a satellite or space station with the naked eye. It is not possible to see the light being generated within the space station, only the reflection of the sun from it. That's why the best time to look for satellites and space stations is just after sunset or just before sunrise, otherwise they are in the earth's shadow for the remainder of the night.
488000
I doubt we know it yet.  We know of a limited number of stable atoms that can be found in our solar system, and a few that have been made by man, though many of the nam made ones are not stable.  Most of the heavier atoms were created during several Supernova explosions.  It is reasonable to suspect that a planet system that formed from the debris left from extremely massive Supernova, the energy from those explosions may have created some exotic element we are not even aware of yet.  Perhaps such element exist on Earth, but in such tiny amounts that we are not even aware they are there yet.
677264
I just answered this on another question.\n\nActually, there is no such thing as a true vacuum...Period!\nA true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count is zero.\nThere is always atomic content left to fill the "vacuous" space. No one has ever been able to creat a true vacuum.\n\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. \nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nAs of today, light has NEVER been propagated through a true empty vacuum. \n\nOne day the misinformation of space, or anything else, as a vacuum will finally die out.\n\nSpread the knowledge
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.
803489
It  is a vacuum although you can find planets, stars, comets, asteroids and other types of bodies in it.
266887
Before the NASA satellite orbiting the sun had it's photographic information "pulled" from the web, it showed two distinct and large objects executing a right-angle turn right into the sun.  Planets, asteroids, etc. have no way of ever executing 90 degree turns naturally (as far as human understanding is at this time.) Why the information was pulled off the web--well there are a billion consipiracy theories about that, and I will skip it.  With proper technology, it is obvious to me the sun can be penetrated, and it well may be a portal to another dimension or whatever.  A black hole on "the other side" may appear as a sun here, and vice-versa.  If we exist in a fractal universe, there are three things: here, there, and the boundary between here and there.  This set of three keeps repeating infinitely.  Therefore the sun's energy producing layer may be a boundary to be passed through to get from "here" to "there."  Cool--huh?  Some very excellent minds are hard at work trying to further our understanding of the universe.
324864
Actually, There is no such thing as a true vacuum...Period!\n(exerpt from a previous answer)\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. In fact, a true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count is zero.\nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nOne day the misinformation of space as a vacuum will finally die out.\n\n\nspread the knowledge
931473
I have this very object. My foolish neighbor calls it an air humidifier, like he knows anything, ( he thinks we landed on the moon, I know crazy)\n     You can borrow it, but you have to come at night. My house is the one covered in tin foil and cloaked in the star trek special edition invisibility shield, with extra force field protons.
342181
Well the nearest star system is light years away. So if they send one, we won't find out the findings. Besides, how would we send commands and receive them, they would have to travel light years of distance. So I would say no.
847308
It's a bit complicated.  The Earth's magnetic field is powerful enough to minimize charged particles from the solar wind, and the atmosphere attunates almost all other particles.  However, when a star goes nova, two jets are created at the poles.  These jets are extremely powerful with respect to the rest of the explosion.\n\nTherefore, if the Earth were not in the line of sight of the jets, the atmosphere and magnetic field would be extremely effective, and a supernova would have to be with a few 10s of light years to be dangerous.  However, if the Earth were in a line of sight of the jets, then during a few seconds the Earth could be bathed in deadly radiation, even if the source were a thousand light years away.