Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:53:54.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Astrometric solar-system anomalies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

John D. Anderson  and
Michael Martin Nieto
John D. Anderson
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Retired), 121 S. Wilson Ave., Pasadena, CA 91106-3017, U.S.A. email: jdandy@earthlink.net
Michael Martin Nieto
Affiliation:
Theoretical Division (MS-B285), Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87645U.S.A. email: mmn@lanl.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There are at least four unexplained anomalies connected with astrometric data. Perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that when a spacecraft on a flyby trajectory approaches the Earth within 2000 km or less, it often experiences a change in total orbital energy per unit mass. Next, a secular change in the astronomical unit AU is definitely a concern. It is reportedly increasing by about 15 cm yr−1. The other two anomalies are perhaps less disturbing because of known sources of nongravitational acceleration. The first is an apparent slowing of the two Pioneer spacecraft as they exit the solar system in opposite directions. Some astronomers and physicists, including us, are convinced this effect is of concern, but many others are convinced it is produced by a nearly identical thermal emission from both spacecraft, in a direction away from the Sun, thereby producing acceleration toward the Sun. The fourth anomaly is a measured increase in the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit. Here again, an increase is expected from tidal friction in both the Earth and Moon. However, there is a reported unexplained increase that is significant at the three-sigma level. It is prudent to suspect that all four anomalies have mundane explanations, or that one or more anomalies are a result of systematic error. Yet they might eventually be explained by new physics. For example, a slightly modified theory of gravitation is not ruled out, perhaps analogous to Einstein's 1916 explanation for the excess precession of Mercury's perihelion.

Keywords

gravitationcelestial mechanicsastrometry
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 5 , Symposium S261: Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy: Dynamics, Reference Frames, and Data Analysis , April 2009 , pp. 189 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Anderson, J. D., Laing, P. A., Lau, E. L., Liu, A. S., Nieto, M. M., & Turyshev, S. G. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 2858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. D., Laing, P. A., Lau, E. L., Liu, A. S., Nieto, M. M., & Turyshev, S. G. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 082004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. D., Campbell, J. K., & Nieto, M. M. 2007, New Astron., 12, 383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. D., Campbell, J. K., Ekelund, J. E., Ellis, J., & Jordan, J. F. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 091102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antreasian, P. G. & Guinn, J. R. 1998, AIAA/AAS Paper No. 98–4287 (http://www2.aiaa.org/citations/mp-search.cfm)Google Scholar
Danby, J. M. A. 1988, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics (Richmond: Willmann-Bell), sec. 8.2Google Scholar
Dunham, D. W., Farquhar, R. W., & McAdams, J. V. 2005 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1065, 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flandro, G. A. 1966, Astronaut. Acta, 12, 329Google Scholar
Kliore, A. J., Anderson, J. D., Armstrong, J. W., & ten others 2004 Space Science Reviews, 115, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasinsky, G. A. & Brumberg, V. A. 2004 Celest. Mech. Dynam. Astron., 90, 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, C. J. & Hanson, R. J. 1974 Solving Least Squares Problems (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall)Google Scholar
Livingston, W. C. 1999, in Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition ed. Cox, A. N., (New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), Chap. 14Google Scholar
Morley, T. & Budnik, F. 2006, 19th Int. Symp. on Space Flight Dynamics, Paper No. ISTS 2006-d-52Google Scholar
Moyer, T. D. 2003, Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data Types for Navigation (Print ISBN: 9780471445357, Online ISBN: 9780471728474: John Wiley & Sons), chap. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, M. M. & Anderson, J. D. 2007 Contemp. Phys., 48, 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitjeva, E. V. 2007 in Proceedings of the “Journées Systèmes de Référence Spatio-temporels 2007” (Observatoire de Paris), p. 65.Google Scholar
Pitjeva, E. V. 2009 this proceedings, 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitjeva, E. V. 2009 JOURNEES-2008 Astrometry, Geodynamics and Astronomical Reference Systems ed. Soffel, M. & Capitaine, N., p. 57Google Scholar
Pitjeva, E. V. & Standish, E. M. 2009, Celest. Mech. Dynam. Astron., 103, 365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, C. T. 1992, The Galileo Mission (Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Watkins, M., & Reigber, C. 2004 Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L09607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesel, W. E. 1989, Spaceflight Dynamics (New York: McGraw-Hill), sec. 11.5Google Scholar
Williams, J. G. & Boggs, D. H. 2009 in Proceedings of 16th International Workshop on Laser Ranging ed. Schillak, S., (Space Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences)Google Scholar