Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1
Roberto Peron IFSI-INAF Email: roberto.peron@ifsi-roma.inaf.it

3
Near-Earth space (spacetime) is a good place to perform tests on theories about gravitation Earth Schwarzschild radius 1 cm The effects searched for are by now relevant for current technology: think about GPS!

4
What do we need in order to perform good science? SchwarzschildKerr A theory: Schwarzschild, Kerr (gravitomagnetism) exact solutions sufficiently general to be descriptive and predictive weak fieldslow motionPPN formalism Contat points with experiment: weak field and slow motion, PPN formalism test masses A probe: test masses

6
General relativity (geometrodynamics) implies a continuous feedback between geometry and mass-energy (nonlinearity) Practical needs often force to “hold on something”

7
The smallness of a test mass depends on the scale under consideration LAGEOS and SLR

8
A test mass in the outer solar system LAGEOS and SLR

9
A future test mass pretty close to the Sun LAGEOS and SLR

10
The LAGEOS satellite are probably the closest to the ideal concept of a test mass LAGEOS and SLR

11
LAGEOSLAGEOS II –COSPAR ID76039019207002 –Launch date4 May 197622 October 1992 –Diameter60 cm MMass406.965 kg405.38 kg –Retroreflectors426 CCR aSemimajor axis1.2286 · 10 7 m1.2155 · 10 7 m eEccentricity0.00450.0135 IInclination109.84°52.64° –Perigee height5.86 · 10 6 m5.62 · 10 6 m PPeriod225 min223 min nMean motion4.654 · 10 −4 s −1 4.696 · 10 −4 s −1 Node rate0.34266° d −1 -0.62576641° d −1 Perigee rate-0.21338° d −1 0.44470485° d −1

12
Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) A laser pulse from a ground station is sent to the satellite, where it is reflected back in the same direction from optical elements called Cube Corner Retroreflectors (CCR) The precision of this technique is noteworthy ( 1 mm) Matera MLRO CCR ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

13
LAGEOS and SLR

14
ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov LAGEOS and SLR

16
Moving (rotating) masses: what do they do? - Spacetime Kerr metricweak-field Kerr metric in weak-field (it describes in an approximate way the spacetime around a rotating mass)

17
Moving (rotating) masses: what do they do? - Spacetime weak field Lorentz gauge Gravitomagnetic potential Gravitomagnetic field Defined by analogy with electromagnetic case

18
Moving (rotating) masses: what do they do? - Geodesics Slow-motion Gravitoelectric field Gravitomagnetic contribution Thus mass-energy currents influence the motion of test masses: Gravitomagnetism Thus mass-energy currents influence the motion of test masses: Gravitomagnetism

19
Spherically symmetric rotating mass- energy distribution (J is the angular momentum associated to the distribution) A gyroscope in a gravitomagnetic field precesses Dragging of inertial frames

20
Obtain a solutionCelestial mechanics tools Osculating ellipse (Keplerian elements) Perturbation first-order analysis (Lagrange and Gauss equations) Periodic effects Secular effects ( t) Periodic effects Secular effects ( t)

21
Lagrange perturbation equations

22
Gauss perturbation equations

23
Secular effects on longitude of ascending node and argument of perigee J. Lense and H. Thirring, 1918 LAGEOSLAGEOS II 30.6631.51 31.31-57.35 Values in mas 1 mas = 2.8 ∙ 10 -5 °

25
Differential correction procedure Corrections to the models parameters Residuals Observation equations Least-squares (normal equations) Partials Covariance matrix

26
Parameter estimation

28
The analysis of experimental data to obtain the properties of a physical system requires models System dynamics Measurement procedure (Reference frame) The availability of good experimental data implies taking out a lot of “noise” in order to reach the phenomenology of interest – many orders of magnitude, in case of relativistic effects

29
Geopotential (static part) Solid Earth and ocean tides / Other temporal variations of geopotential Third body (Sun, Moon and planets) de Sitter precession Deviations from geodetic motion Other relativistic effects Direct solar radiation pressure Earth albedo radiation pressure Anisotropic emission of thermal radiation due to visible solar radiation (Yarkovsky-Schach effect) Anisotropic emission of thermal radiation due to infrared Earth radiation (Yarkovsky-Rubincam effect) Asymmetric reflectivity Neutral and charged particle drag Gravitational Non-gravitational

30
CauseFormulaAcceleration (m s -2 ) Earth’s monopole2.8 Earth’s oblateness1.0 ∙ 10 -3 Low-order geopotential harmonics 6.0 ∙ 10 -6 High-order geopotential harmonics 6.9 ∙ 10 -12 Perturbation due to the Moon 2.1 ∙ 10 -6 Perturbation due to the Sun 9.6 ∙ 10 -7 General relativistic correction 9.5 ∙ 10 -10 Table taken from A. Milani, A. Nobili, and P. Farinella, Non–gravitational perturbations and satellite geodesy, Adam Hilger, 1987

31
CauseFormulaAcceleration (m s -2 ) Atmospheric drag3 ∙ 10 -12 Solar radiation pressure3.2 ∙ 10 -9 Earth’s albedo radiation pressure 3.4 ∙ 10 -10 Thermal emission1.9 ∙ 10 -12 Dynamic solid tide3.7 ∙ 10 -8 Dynamic ocean tide 0.1 of the dynamic solid tide 3.7 ∙ 10 -9 Reference system: non-rigid Earth nutation (fortnightly term) 0.002 arsec in 14 days3.5 ∙ 10 -12 Table taken from A. Milani, A. Nobili, and P. Farinella, Non–gravitational perturbations and satellite geodesy, Adam Hilger, 1987

32
The Earth is not a sphere! Spherical harmonics expansion Spherical harmonics classification Zonal Tesseral Sectorial

33
Quadrupole perturbation (l = 2, m = 0) to first order

34
Some geopotential models ModelData typeMaximum degree JGM-3Combined70 GRIM5-S1Satellite95 GRIM5-C1Combined120 OSU89A/BCombined360 EGM96Combined360 EIGEN-2Satellite120 EIGEN-GRACE02SSatellite150 GGM02SSatellite160

35
The geoid is a gravitational equipotential surface, taken as reference surface (“sea level”); It differs in general from a rotation surface, like the reference ellipsoid Models

36
The gravity anomalies are the difference between the real gravity field and that of a reference body (rotation ellipsoid) Models

37
The degree variance is useful when comparing various geopotential solutions Its behaviour is well described by the so-called Kaula’s rule

38
Earth geopotential degree variance is well approximated by Kaula’s rule Models

39
The signal-to-noise ratio indicates how well the signal is recognizable from the noise Models

40
Though similar in behaviour, Earth and Moon gravity potentials differ in the way the power is distributed at the various wavelengths Models

41
The various geopotential solutions differ strongly in the uncertainty associated to the harmonic coefficients Models

42
Direct solar radiation pressure It is due to reflection-diffusion-absorption of solar photons from the spacecraft surface

43
The energy flux from the Sun varies with a periodicity of about 11 years (Solar Cycle); plot from www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant Models

44
Yarkovsky-Schach effect It is due to infrared radiation anisotropically emitted from the satellite (warmed by the Sun)

45
Farinella–Vokhroulicky–Barlier model Models

46
Farinella–Vokhroulicky–Barlier model Models

47
“Inertial” reference frame ICRF Precession Nutation Length of Day Pole motion ITRF

48
IERS data (EOP 05 C04) Models

49
IERS data (EOP 05 C04) Models

51
Tracking data: Normal Point from ILRS Software: Geodyn II (NASA GSFC) Arc length: 15 days Estimate: state vector and other model parameters Further information: residuals RESIDUAL = OBSERVED - CALCULATED

52
FeatureModel Geopotential (static part)EGM96, EIGEN-2, GGM01S, EIGEN-GRACE02S (among others) Geopotential (tides)Ray GOT99.2 Third bodyJPL DE-403 Relativistic correctionsPPN Direct solar radiation pressureCannonball Albedo radiation pressureKnocke–Rubincam Yarkovsky–Rubincam effectGEODYN model Spin axisFarinella–Vokhroulicky–Barlier Stations positions (ITRF)ITRF2000 Ocean loadScherneck with GOT99.2 tides Pole motionIERS EOP Earth rotationIERS EOP

53
ElementValueUncertainty a12265733.6258 m0.1616 m e0.0051376777090.000000008907 I109.891430986°0.000001159° 314.057527507°0.000001163° 45.867206979°0.000158387° M212.542258784°0.000157151° LAGEOS initial conditions estimate for 15-day arc with epoch 3 January 1993 (MJD 48990)

54
ElementValueUncertainty a12160019.9315 m0.0066 m e0.0132775894980.000000010922 I52.622724892°0.000001051° 68.835933790°0.000001258° 244.234411803°0.000061024° M51.909462952°0.000063071° LAGEOS II initial conditions estimate for 15-day arc with epoch 3 January 1993 (MJD 48990)

55
Data analysis

59
Data analysis – Residuals

61
The recent geopotential models make critical in the error budget only the uncertainty associated with C 20 (Earth quadrupole)

62
Ciufolini, Pavlis and Peron, New Astron. 11, 527 (2006) Data analysis – Lense- Thirring

63
A peculiar error estimate is associated to each analysis Data analysis – Lense- Thirring

64
In common practice often empirical accelerations are included in the modelization setup to take into account small not modeled perturbations Fit improving Estimation biases risk Constant part ∼ 10 −12 m/s 2 Possible correlation between C R and empirical accelerations coefficients

65
Data analysis – Estimation biases

66
Lucchesi et al., Plan. Space Sci. 52, 699 (2004) Data analysis – Estimation biases

67
Lucchesi et al., Plan. Space Sci. 52, 699 (2004) Data analysis – Yarkovsky- Schach effect

68
The reported secular trend for the integrated residuals of the longitude of the LAGEOS ascending node abruptly changes from 0.026 mas d −1 to 0.24 mas d −1 Data analysis – Unexpected results

69
The reported secular trend for the integrated residuals of the longitude of the LAGEOS II ascending node abruptly changes from -0.0079 mas d −1 to -0.53 mas d −1 Data analysis – Unexpected results

70
Geopotential harmonics coefficients change in time: Tides Secular variations (e.g. postglacial rebound) Mass transport (e.g. oceans ↔ atmosphere) This variation seems to be due to an abrupt change in the quadrupole rate (Cox and Chao, Science 297, 831 (2002); Ciufolini, Pavlis and Peron, New Astron. 11, 527 (2006)) The causes are uncertain: Mantle? Tides? In any case, this implies a net mass transfer from polar to equatorial regions Geopotential harmonics coefficients change in time: Tides Secular variations (e.g. postglacial rebound) Mass transport (e.g. oceans ↔ atmosphere) This variation seems to be due to an abrupt change in the quadrupole rate (Cox and Chao, Science 297, 831 (2002); Ciufolini, Pavlis and Peron, New Astron. 11, 527 (2006)) The causes are uncertain: Mantle? Tides? In any case, this implies a net mass transfer from polar to equatorial regions

72
D. W. Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, Faber & Faber, 1959 C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman and Co., 1973 I. Ciufolini and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation and inertia, Princeton University Press, 1995 B. Bertotti, P. Farinella, and D. Vokrouhlický, Physics of the Solar System — Dynamics and Evolution, Space Physics, and Spacetime Structure, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003 A. Milani, A. Nobili, and P. Farinella, Non–gravitational perturbations and satellite geodesy, Adam Hilger, 1987 O. Montenbruck and E. Gill, Satellite Orbits — Models, Methods and Applications, Springer, 2000 C. M. Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 9, (2006), 3, http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3 D. McCarthy, and G. Petit (eds.), IERS Conventions (2003), IERS, 2004

Similar presentations

OK

LLR Analysis – Relativistic Model and Tests of Gravitational Physics James G. Williams Dale H. Boggs Slava G. Turyshev Jet Propulsion Laboratory California.

LLR Analysis – Relativistic Model and Tests of Gravitational Physics James G. Williams Dale H. Boggs Slava G. Turyshev Jet Propulsion Laboratory California.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google