The dicarbon molecule, C₂, does exist in nature. It has been detected in stellar atmospheres, the interstellar medium, and cometary comas. The fluorescence of C₂ in the latter contributes to the green appearance of certain comets, including C/2022 E3 (ZTF) currently approaching Earth.

However as discussed in this paper (link to abstract only), the 4th inter-carbon bond does not make for a 'stronger' molecule:

>Quantum chemical calculations using the complete active space of the valence orbitals have been carried out for HnCCHn (n=0–3)...

>The bond dissociation energies and the force constants suggest that C₂ has a weaker C−C bond than acetylene, C₂H₂.

>By about .25 seconds per century.

By about 0.002 seconds per century.

Why would we? Currently there is no significant commercial or military use for ^(3)He. One of those is usually necessary to justify any effort to stockpile a resource.

>Most of these probes have defied their expected deaths...

Nonsense, but par for the course with space.com.

No one expected New Horizons to be kaput by 2022.

And since it's been known for some time that the Voyagers' RTG power loss wouldn't become critical before 2025, no one really expected them to have "died" just yet either.

Nearly every interplanetary NASA probe has exceeded its original planned mission duration, sometimes by years, sometimes by decades. They rarely succumb to component failure, most often reaching their end-of-life due to power or propellant exhaustion.

>couldn't we just watch the neutron star until it gains enough mass to become a black hole?

Sure. You got a few million years? Patience is a virtue.

Was it moving west to east? If so, it might have been the ISS.

It's the flight azimuth that changes as the Earth rotates during the launch window. The rocket rolls to align itself to its flight azimuth so its flight path then becomes a simple pitch program.

Interesting. It appears that rotation of Soyuz launch vehicles was necessary until the Soyuz 2.a which first launched in 2004.

>Why wasn’t the module adjusted on the launch pad so this wasn’t necessary?

Several reasons.

The launch pad/tower infrastructure (elevators, hold down clamps, umbilicals) are designed to mate with the launch vehicle in a specific orientation. But even if you could rotate the whole kit and caboodle, it wouldn't help:

For launches with non-instantaneous launch windows, such as the Apollo missions, the trajectory the vehicle will take once it clears the launch tower varies depending on when liftoff actually occurs. Therefore, there is no pad orientation which would eliminate the need for the roll maneuver in every case.

Eventually, yes, over multi-million year time scales.

>lugging huge chunks of ice with multiple rockets would be "easier" than from other celestial bodies in our solar system.

Escaping Enceladus' feeble gravity isn't the issue. Dragging that mass out of Saturn's gravity well is. Enceladus is deep down that well, orbiting Saturn considerably closer than the Moon orbits the Earth.

This is not correct on several levels.

The mass of the Earth is constantly changing:

• Atmospheric loss: -100000 tons/year.
• Micrometeoroids: +50000 tons/year.

This net mass loss has no measurable effect on the shape of the Earth's orbit. However, the continuous mass loss of the Sun (5 million tons/sec via fusion and the solar wind) does mean the Earth's orbit grows ever so slightly more distant from year to year.

The mass of the central body (the Sun) and the velocity of the object in orbit determine the path said object will take.

Why are the 18 diffraction spikes on the bright stars. I understand diffraction spikes, but 18?

edit: nevermind. Probably due to 9-blade irised aperture of the camera lens.

Ok, I'll play... The flag on the lunar surface.

>the Soyuz spacecraft docked to ISS formerly being the return trip home for two cosmonauts and one astronaut

formerly? That's still to be decided.

That time presupposes magical instantaneous acceleration and deceleration at the other end.

90% wouldn't help much. It'd still take you almost 2 years to travel to Alpha Centauri. 99.999% would get you there in 3 weeks.

>Even at the speed of light, it would still take 4 years to travel to the nearest star system (Alpha Centauri). You can’t just yell “Hyperspeed, Chewie!” and travel through large distances instantaneously, because it’s just not possible.

Are you concerned with the lifespan of the travelers?

Because IF you could travel at nearly the speed of light (assume instantaneous acceleration), you would not experience the same passage of time while covering vast distances that an outside observer of your travels would.

For example, if you travelled a distance of 4 light years at 0.99999c, 4 years would pass for an outside observer, while you would experience about 3 weeks. At 0.999999c, the trip would take you 2 days. At 0.9999999c, 16 hours. At this last speed, you could travel from the Sun to the center of the Milky Way in under 12 years, during which 1000 generations would pass on Earth.

A fundamental problem of ludicrous speed travel is that the travellers can't stay "synchronized" with the civilization they are a part of.

Anything that primarily radiates in the UV spectrum.

Hubble can image from far UV through near IR. Webb can make observations in orange light through mid-IR. Hubble is blind to light longer than 2500 nm. Webb is blind to light shorter than 600 nm. The instruments are not competitors. Their observations complement one another.

Stupid headline. It's a different instrument observing at different wavelengths. Hubble can see plenty that Webb is blind to.

CH₄ + 2 O₂ → CO₂ + 2 H₂O

Methane + Oxygen yields Carbon Dioxide + Water

Without an atmosphere, sure (though it wouldn't increase linearly with radius).

But wtmospheric extinction is a thing. On a huge planet, your horizon might be 1000 km away, but you're unlikely to be able to see it clearly through an Earth-like atmosphere.

The amount of mass that would be required to "engorge" the Milky Way to your proposed size simply isn't present in its region of space. So, anyone can say that our galaxy will not be appreciably larger than its current size as it merges with M31 a few billion years from now.

No earlier that 2050