McDonnald lunar laser ranging gets axed

This strikes me as stupid. They're talking about virtually no money to
continue a long-term, high-precision data set that has produced
significant results in the past and might well produce such in the
future.

And it does have a certain iconic value as well.

=================

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-laser-funding

After 40 years' reflection, laser moon mirror project is axed
The Observer, Sunday 21 June 2009

US research that began with the first Apollo landing - and helped to
prove that the moon is moving away from Earth - is to be axed

An experiment, begun when Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz
Aldrin left a mirror on the lunar surface 40 years ago to allow Earth-
based astronomers to fire lasers at it, has been ended by American
science chiefs.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) last week wrote to scientists
working at the McDonald Laser ranging station at Fort Davis in Texas
to tell them the annual $125,000 funding for their research project
was going be terminated following a review of its scientific merits.

The decision means that four decades of continuous lunar laser
research at the McDonald Observatory, run by the University of Texas
at Austin, will be halted by the end of this year. Among the project's
unlikely achievements has been the discovery that the moon is moving
away from Earth at a rate of two-and-a-half inches a year.

[etc.]

A spokesman from the NSF told the Observer last week that, after
carrying out two reviews, it had decided there was no longer "a strong
science case" for continuing its 40-year support for the lunar laser
ranging project. The spokesman added that two other astronomy centres
- at Apache Point in Texas and Observatoire de la Côte d'Azure in
France - were expected to carry out lunar-ranging experiments in
future.

Allen Thomson wrote:
This strikes me as stupid. They're talking about virtually no money to
continue a long-term, high-precision data set that has produced
significant results in the past and might well produce such in the
future.

And it does have a certain iconic value as well.

Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems that all this really means
is that the number of ground sites participating in laser ranging is
being reduced from three to two:

A spokesman from the NSF told the Observer last week that, after
carrying out two reviews, it had decided there was no longer "a strong
science case" for continuing its 40-year support for the lunar laser
ranging project. The spokesman added that two other astronomy centres
- at Apache Point in Texas and Observatoire de la Côte d'Azure in
France - were expected to carry out lunar-ranging experiments in
future.

Or am I misreading this?

It really doesn't seem to me that the loss of McDonald is that major,
especially given that there will still be a site in Texas that could do
long-baseline experiments in conjunction with the site in France.

Or are you personally aware of experiments that *require* three sites in
order to work?

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

:The spokesman added that two other astronomy centres
:- at Apache Point in Texas and Observatoire de la Côte d'Azure in
:France - were expected to carry out lunar-ranging experiments in
:future.
:

Just how many people do you think need to be making these
measurements?

3, equidistant around the Earth so we can take continous measurements 24x7.
We never know when the Moon will have an explosion on the far side that will
suddenly blast it out of orbit.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Jun 21, 8:45*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Just how many people do you think need to be making these
measurements?

If you want to maintain continuity of the data with the ability to
cross-check the data coming from the sites and resolve differences,
three is the bare minimum, four or more would be better.

On Jun 23, 4:55*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Allen Thomson wrote:

:On Jun 21, 8:45*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Just how many people do you think need to be making these
: measurements?
:
:If you want to maintain continuity of the data with the ability to
:cross-check the data coming from the sites and resolve differences,
:three is the bare minimum, four or more would be better.
:

Oh, poppycock. *

This is just more of the usual "We must never stop ANY project
ANYWHERE" lamentation.


Okay, okay, let's start with yours...