Abstract:The new geodetic satellite LARES 2, cousin of LAGEOS and sharing with it almost the same orbital parameters apart from the inclination, displaced by 180 deg, was launched last year. Its proponents suggest using the sum of the nodes of LAGEOS and of LARES 2 to measure the sum of the Lense-Thirring node precessions independently of the systematic bias caused by the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential, claiming a final $\simeq 0.2$ percent total accuracy. In fact, the actual orbital configurations of the two satellites do not allow one to attain the sought for mutual cancellation of their classical node precessions due to the Earth's quadrupole mass moment, as their sum is still $\simeq 5000$ times larger than the added general relativistic rates. This has important consequences. One is that the current uncertainties in the eccentricities and the inclinations of both satellites do not presently allow the stated accuracy goal to be met, needing improvements of 3-4 orders of magnitude. Furthermore, the imperfect knowledge of the Earth's angular momentum $S$ impacts the uncancelled sum of the node precessions, from 150 to 4900 percent of the relativistic signal depending on the uncertainty assumed in $S$. It is finally remarked that the real breakthrough in reliably testing the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth would consist in modeling it and simultaneously estimating one or more dedicated parameter(s) along with other ones characterising the geopotential, as is customarily performed for any other dynamical feature.

Reply to "The meaning of systematic errors, a comment to "Reply to On the Systematic Errors in the Detection of the Lense-Thirring Effect with a Mars Orbiter", by Lorenzo Iorio'', by G. Felici

Reply to `A comment on `The Cauchy problem of f(R) gravity''

Reply to Benestad's comment on "Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming" by Scafetta (2013), <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1306.2011" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2011">arXiv:1306.2011</a>

Reply to "Comments on Transient Magnetic Shielding of a Planar Conductive Thin Screen Via Exact Image Theory"

On the impossibility of using certain existing spacecraft for the measurement of the Lense-Thirring effect in the terrestrial gravitational field

Reply to Sergiu I. Vacaru's "Critical remarks on Finsler modifications of gravity and cosmology by Zhe Chang and Xin Li"

Limitations in Testing the Lense-Thirring Effect with LAGEOS and the Newly Launched Geodetic Satellite LARES 2

Reply to Comment on "Failure of the work-Hamiltonian connection for free-energy calculations" by Luca Peliti

Reply to Schneider et al. [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1407.4127v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4127v1">arXiv:1407.4127v1</a>]

Solar System Tests of Some Models of Modified Gravity Proposed to Explain Galactic Rotation Curves without Dark Matter

On the high accuracy to test dragging of inertial frames with the LARES 2 space experiment

Reply to the "Comment on The Tully-Fisher law and dark matter effects derived via modified symmetries by I. Arraut"

Reply to "Comment on 'Precision measurement of the Casimir-Lifshitz force in a fluid'"

Reply to Comment on "Doppler signature in electrodynamic retarded potentials"

Comments on "Procedures for proper validation of record critical current density claims" by Chiara Tarantini and David C. Larbalestier

Reply to "Presence of a fundamental acceleration scale in galaxies" and "A common Milgromian acceleration scale in nature"

Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Testing General Relativity with LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and Ajisai laser-ranged satellites

Reply to the comment on the letter "Geometric Origin of the Tennis Racket Effect"

Addressing some critical aspects of the BepiColombo MORE relativity experiment

Using the Difference of the Inclinations of a Pair of Counter-Orbiting Satellites to Measure the Lense-Thirring Effect