Re: Laser ranging to moon begs questions


"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:h5knh35ets75qel45ivcq4cuoa5606k5ci@xxxxxxxxxx
On 21 Oct 2007 14:21:10 -0400, Craig Markwardt
<craigmnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


John C. Polasek <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 20 Oct 2007 08:32:03 -0400, Craig Markwardt
<craigmnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>Yep, for example:
> http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stations/sitelist/MDOL_sitelog.html
>
>Pulsed ND Yag laser, pulsed at 10 Hz with a 200 ps duty cycle. Those
>parameters appear to be pretty standard (though the peak power varies
>from one station to another).
>
>Also, the beam-width of most laser systems reported on that page
>appear to be in the 10's of arcsecond range, not the 0.075 microrad
>values previously reported.
>
>Craig
This spec says divergence is adjustable from 0-20 seconds. It also
says "final beam diameter .75m ". This latter is probably as adjusted
out of the telescope which may have a final mirror of .75m.

snip

This is really valuable information that straightens things out
considerably:
From Dickey et al. 1994,
Ranging to the moon is technically challenging. An outgoing pulse
of laser light transmitted from the a collimating telescope with a
beam divergence of 3 to 4 s of arc, consistent with atmospheric
seeing, spreads to an area of approximately 7 km in diameter on the
lunar surface. ...

[Corner cube ] arrays intercept only 10^{-9} of the area of the
impinging light beam. The angular spread of the returning pulse is
set by diffraction, polarization properties, and irregularities of
the array's individual corner cubes. In the case of the the 3.8 cm
diameter Apollo corner cube, the spread is approximately 10 sec of
arc. Thus, the diameter of the spot produced on the Earth is
approximately 20 km. A 1 m diameter receiving telescope would
collect only 2 x 10^{-9} of the returning photons. A variety of
practical matters, such as quantum efficiencey, mirror reflectance,
optical performance under thermal stress, and velocity aberration
(which slightly shifts the center of the returning beam from the
location of the transmitting and receiving telescope), make the
product of the transmitting, lunar retroreflecting, and receiving
efficiences considerably less than unity. The overall signal loss
of approximately 10^{-21} puts a premium on the detailed design of
ground stations to minimize their losses.
...


With 20 seconds of beamwidth, (which I doubt, since, if it's
adjustable, what would be the point?) we reduce the photon count from
6.43e22 to 4.02e16 photons/s/m^2. The field strength would go down by
sqrt(1.6e6) or1265 to 1.9millivolts/meter.

According to Shelus et al, approx 3 x 10^{17} photons are launched per
pulse, which is reduced by the losses to significantly less than one
returned photon per pulse (approx 1/3rd of a return per minute, at a
10 Hz pulse rate). I have read elsewhere that under the best
conditions (rather than average), the McDonald station can return 1
photon per minute.

On the other hand, newer stations like APOLLO (Apache Point) can
return several photons per pulse.

CM


References

Dickey et al., "Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo
Program," Science, 1994, Vol. 265. no. 5171, pp. 482 - 490

Shelus et al. "McDonald Observatory Lunar Laser Ranging: Beginning the
Second 25 Years," IAU Symp, 1996, v.172, p. 409
Thank you Craig for getting some real data.

Using their figures, the attenuation, as I figure it, is 7.7x10^-28
yielding a "robust" 15 photons per pulse m/l in line with their
"several photons per pulse".

They use much smaller mirror 3.8cm., and first patch of 7 km vs 28m
from a 3 second divergence and not microradians.

Ohh, so it is diffraction limitted? And the formulas I gave were correct?

And so all that stuff about how diffraction effects had nothing to do with it that you posted was wrong?

And all the arguments you gave about how the spot size would be 2m, and no far field effects apply, that was wrong as well? (or, indeed, for a 3.8 cms mirror the return spot would be 7.6 cms in diameter).

Next time, if you are discussing a subject you obviously know nothing about with someone who obviously does know what they are talking about, perhaps you would be better of shutting up and listening, instead of telling them they are wrong.

HTH



.

Quantcast