Look he says "seem" and "no measurable" this translates into I haven't checker for a degrading of the retroreflectors but it works so I think it hasn't degraded.
I don't accept in this case an argument from authority.
If he had said something like I tested for degradation and found non and proved his testing adequate I would be fine with the statement and would go on. Or had a reference to someone having done the same. But, sometimes under what appears to be idea conditions they fail to sense photons. It only takes one or two photons to reach the sensors to work. They simply try again and don't calk this up as damage to the retroflector but to weather or point error or some other problem. It would be pretty hard to prove from this end it was the reflector.
I see this like someone saying the fisheries are fine because I catch fish.
Space/Science » in reply to re: Uh, yeah Chris. I'm gonna do that....
re: Uh, yeah Chris. I'm gonna do that....
The whole thread (40 posts)
- OK! TIt's timne to end this cosmic bogeyman BS about the hazards of lunar dust.
- Agreed! It's time to end this cosmic bogeyman BS about the hazards of lunar dust.
- re: Not sure where you are coming from. Dust on the Moon is an engineering problem yet to be solved.
- This issue was discussed in the Physics Today article.
- re: Are you trying to claim micrometeorites and cosmic rays do not hit the surface of the Moon?
- OK, you have a point there
- This issue was discussed in the Physics Today article.