Because you are so emphatic in your answer that expansion is not a force that one gets the impression that no such force exists. For example, you quote > You shouldn’t think of galaxies as being pulled apart by some kind of expanding space

and > there is no local effect on particle dynamics from the global expansion of the universe: the tendency to separate is a kinematic initial condition, and once this is removed, all memory of the expansion is lost.

While both sentences are technically correct, a lay person will incorrectly conclude that no local repulsive force exists. I don't think this is good science communication.

Of course cosmic expansion does not induce small-scale gravitational repulsion, it's the other way around. It's incomprehensible how can you say that they are not directly linked.

I think you are focussing too much on correcting the misconception that the inertial expansion of the universe is somehow a force pulling things apart, so much that you are ignoring the fact that the cosmological constant is a force pulling things apart that in fact causes the cosmic expansion to accelerate.

Of course it is linked to the cosmic expansion rate, it is the very thing that is making the expansion rate accelerate!

Which implies that your top-level comment is incorrect. There is a force acting at small scales, due to the cosmological constant, there is a tendency to expand that you need to counteract via gravity for things to become static.

Note that the Weinberg interview you quote is from 1993. This was years before the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe. At the time it was thought that the expansion of the universe was purely inertial, but we know better now, and you should stop spreading obsolete information.

If the goal was to make it look like the photo OP would just have used the photo.

Arianespace itself has plenty of experience with solid rockets. It's no excuse.

The problem is that Vega C wasn't pushing the envelope. It's a dead simple rocket using decades-old technology. It was not supposed to fail.

Failures are acceptable and expected when you're innovating.

Be careful to reformulate your question in terms of dimensionless constants. Changing those has observational consequences. Changing the value of dimensionful constants, like the speed of light, is meaningless.

The link you gave me redirects to this

That's amazing. Now I really want the source.

> Others follow the stars.

I'm skeptical. Do you have a source for that? (For a star other than the Sun, I mean.)