So the only evidence in favor of RE astronomy is a service that a space agency or governemnt provides?
Is it surprising that something involving space would be provided by a space agency?
Who would you prefer to provide it? An English literature society? I would be far more suspicious if the latter was providing it.
But no, you don't need the space agency, you (and potentially a partner) can do it yourselves without the government.
The challenge was to post something that you think RE beats FE at in astronomy
And that has been met quite well, by providing the distance to the moon and a signficant part of the details for how it is determined and how you can determine it yourself.
Meanwhile all the FE has offered is deflection.
Can you tell us how far away the moon is and what that is based upon?
The other traditional way of determining the Moon's distance in astronomy is through parallax, and which makes an assumption that the Earth is round.
No, it makes the rational conclusion that the moon is very far away and that Earth is round. This is based upon the moon appearing roughly the same for all observers, yet it completely different directions.
This is another point that RE beats FE on.
If the Earth was flat and the moon was far away, then the moon would appear in basically the same direction to everyone.
If Earth was flat and the moon was close, people would see it vastly different.
But with a RE and a distant moon, the moon appears roughly the same to everyone and the reason it appears to be in a different location is that the reference, Earth's surface is at a different angle.
When the earth was assumed to be flat, the same observations computed the Moon to be close to the Earth.
How is RE astronomy superior, when the axioms depend on the shape of the Earth?
And with a height which varies dramatically depending upon what locations you choose.
You can choose a location with the moon directly above and another with it at 45 degrees and end up with roughly 5000 km.
Or you can choose a location with the moon directly above and another with it basically at the horizon and end up with roughly 0 km.
Yet with a RE, you end up with roughly the same distance, with the errors overlapping.
That is how RE is superior. It produces consistent results. It actually works. It allows one to make useful predictions.