The first constraint arises from the Earth-Moon system. A time variation of is then related to a variation of the mean motion () of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth. A decrease in would induce both the Lunar mean distance and period to increase. As long as the gravitational binding energy is negligible, one has) and none of them are very reliable. A main difficulty arises from tidal dissipation that also causes the mean distance and orbital period to increase (for tidal changes ), but not as in the same ratio as for .
The Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) experiment has measured the relative position of the Moon with respect to the Earth with an accuracy of the order of 1 cm over 3 decades. An early analysis of this data  assuming a Brans–Dicke theory of gravitation gave that . It was improved  by using 20 years of observation to get , the main uncertainty arising from Lunar tidal acceleration. With, 24 years of data, one reached  and finally, the latest analysis of the Lunar laser ranging experiment  increased the constraint to
Similarly, Shapiro et al.  compared radar-echo time delays between Earth, Venus and Mercury with a caesium atomic clock between 1964 and 1969. The data were fitted to the theoretical equation of motion for the bodies in a Schwarzschild spacetime, taking into account the perturbations from the Moon and other planets. They concluded that . The data concerning Venus cannot be used due to imprecision in the determination of the portion of the planet reflecting the radar. This was improved to by including Mariner 9 and Mars orbiter data . The analysis was further extended  to give . The combination of Mariner 10 an Mercury and Venus ranging data gives 
Reasenberg et al.  considered the 14 months data obtained from the ranging of the Viking spacecraft and deduced, assuming a Brans–Dicke theory, . Hellings et al.  using all available astrometric data and in particular the ranging data from Viking landers on Mars deduced that also tried to attribute their result to a time variation of the atomic constants. Using the same data but a different modeling of the asteroids, Reasenberg  got , which was then improved by Chandler et al.  to .
Living Rev. Relativity 14, (2011), 2
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.