Mathematically the presence of the moon's inverse square law alters the earth's inverse square law. The basic mathematics demonstrating the alteration has been done or will have been done prior to a moonshot. All it amounts to is finding where the spaceship will leave the earth's gravity field and enter the moon's gravity field.
What hasn't been done is seeing the alteration as the reason we observe a high tide under the moon. If and when we do see such we learn that Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation is a mathematical impossibility. At this stage we are still mistakenly living and teaching the alteration as evidence of the moon possessing a force that extends to the earth to cause high tides. When the moonshot arithmetic is done and understood, the tides are then apparent as as a lunar induced alteration of the earth's inverse square law and the Newtonian extension of a lunar force to the earth is left as non existent.
Most on the planet do not live and breath the inverse square law of diminishing fall rate or have a great awareness of it. This law was originally deduced a number of centuries ago through what is known as Johannes Kepler's third law of planetary motion. It is a delicate piece of knowledge and is our doorway into greater knowledge of the universe. What it means is a rate of fall towards a celestial body like the earth decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the earth. As that area increases with vertical distance increase, in proportion the rate of fall towards the earth decreases. The earth's inverse square law is what we regularly refer to as the earth's gravity field.
Universal gravitation carries an after the fact drawing power anomaly and is structurally incoherent as well.
Unimportant as it is, my name is George Kingston and, on behalf of junior learning, looks like I have an educational job to do. For reasons hard to fathom, being a first one to see the physics of the Copernican revolution wasn't making sense has fallen my way.
For those not so familiar with what the Copernican revolution refers to, it is a scholastic shift from believing that the earth is fixed in the centre of the universe to new scholars saying that is a mistake. Observations are now telling us that the earth is a planet in motion around the star that we call the sun.
At secondary school the early childhood acceptance of the revolution became a qualified one. What was taught as the reason that the planets orbit the sun didn't make sense. The teacher had the planets ascending and descending at the same time. When the teacher's inadequacy about planetary motion was coupled with his explaining one high tide happens because the moon pulls the earth away from the earth, school was left unimpressed with where higher education was or would be at. For all of man just having walked on the moon, to be teaching junk explanations of the tides and planetary motion in the late sixties last century was decidely uninspiring. Something was awry in the Copernican revolution.
Today if everyone is happy with the world as it is, sorry for butting in. If that apology is unneeded, the basic answer to world affairs is to teach the motions of the stars at the junior school level. In particular the motion of the sun that we live our lives by. And, also at that the junior school level, considering a connection between gravity field rotation rates and the day lengths of the planets would be a step in the right direction. It's unlikely that the similar day lengths of outer planets is coincidence.
This table with its added middle column aside, stopping the teaching of fixed sun planetary motion at the junior school level should be a unifying cure for many of the world's ailments. Except for mathematical physicists looking at the universe through the mistakes of the Copernican revolution, we are going a lot better than we think we are.
At this stage it's up to the custodians of Sir Isaac Newton law of universal gravitation to explain why it should be taught at the lower school level.