Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:51:11.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probing general relativity with radar astrometry in the inner solar system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

Jean-Luc Margot  and
Jon D. Giorgini
Jean-Luc Margot
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, 595 Charles Young Drive East, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA email: [email protected]
Jon D. Giorgini
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA email: [email protected]
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.

We describe a long-term program designed to obtain and interpret high-precision radar range measurements of a number of near-Earth objects (NEOs) that have trajectories reaching deep inside the gravitational well of the Sun. Objects in our sample have perihelion shift rates 1.5 to 2.5 times that of (1566) Icarus (10″/cy) and span a wide range of inclinations and semi-major axes, allowing for an unambiguous separation of general relativistic and solar oblateness effects. Four objects have been observed at Arecibo on at least two apparitions since 2000, with typical uncertainties of a few hundred meters. Within the next three years, we anticipate securing a total of 15 observations of 5 different NEOs. This program is expected to provide a purely dynamical measurement of the oblateness of the Sun (J2 at the 10−8 level) and to constrain the Eddington parameter β at the 10−4 level. Although our objects are selected to minimize Yarkovsky orbital drift, we also anticipate measuring Yarkovsky drift rates, which are orthogonal to the GR and J2 signatures.

Keywords

general relativitysolar quadrupole momentYarkovsky driftasteroidsradar
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. 183 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Anders, E. and Grevesse, N.. Abundances of the elements – Meteoritic and solar. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53:197–214, January 1989.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. D., Slade, M. A., Jurgens, R. F., Lau, E. L., Newhall, X. X., and Standish, E. M.. Radar and spacecraft ranging to Mercury between 1966 and 1988. Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 9:324−+, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. D., Lau, E. L., Turyshev, S., Williams, J. G., and Nieto, M. M.. Recent Results for Solar-System Tests of General Relativity. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 34:660−+, May 2002.Google Scholar
Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., Prieto, C. Allende, and Kiselman, D.. Line formation in solar granulation. IV. [O I], O I and OH lines and the photospheric O abundance. A&A, 417:751–768, April 2004.Google Scholar
Basu, S. and Antia, H. M.. Helioseismology and solar abundances. Phys. Rep., 457:217–283, March 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertotti, B., Iess, L., and Tortora, P.. A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft. Nature, 425:374–376, September 2003.Google Scholar
Bottke, W. F. Jr., Vokrouhlický, D., Rubincam, D. P., and Nesvorný, D.. The Yarkovsky and Yorp Effects: Implications for Asteroid Dynamics. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34:157–191, May 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caffau, E., Ludwig, H.-G., Steffen, M., Ayres, T. R., Bonifacio, P., Cayrel, R., Freytag, B., and Plez, B.. The photospheric solar oxygen project. I. Abundance analysis of atomic lines and influence of atmospheric models. A&A, 488:1031–1046, September 2008.Google Scholar
Chesley, S. R., Ostro, S. J., Vokrouhlický, D., Čapek, D., Giorgini, J. D., Nolan, M. C., Margot, J., Hine, A. A., Benner, L. A. M., and Chamberlin, A. B.. Direct Detection of the Yarkovsky Effect by Radar Ranging to Asteroid 6489 Golevka. Science, 302:1739–1742, December 2003.Google Scholar
Evans, John V. and Hagfors, Tor, editors. Radar Astronomy. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
Folkner, W. M.. Relativistic Aspects of the JPL Planetary Ephemeris. American Astronomical Society, IAU Symposium #261, 155. Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy: Dynamics, Reference Frames, and Data Analysis 27 April – 1 May 2009 Virginia Beach, VA, USA, #6.01, 261, May 2009.Google Scholar
Gilvarry, J. J.. Relativity Precession of the Asteroid Icarus. Physical Review, 89:1046–1046, March 1953.Google Scholar
Giorgini, J. D., Ostro, S. J., Benner, L. A. M., Chodas, P. W., Chesley, S. R., Hudson, R. S., Nolan, M. C., Klemola, A. R., Standish, E. M., Jurgens, R. F., Rose, R., Chamberlin, A. B., Yeomans, D. K., and Margot, J.-L.. Asteroid 1950 DA's Encounter with Earth in 2880: Physical Limits of Collision Probability Prediction. Science, 296:132–136, April 2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iorio, L.. On the possibility of measuring the solar oblateness and some relativistic effects from planetary ranging. A&A, 433:385–393, April 2005.Google Scholar
Margot, J. L.. Candidate Asteroids for Discerning General Relativity and Solar Oblateness. AAS/Division of Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, 34, August 2003.Google Scholar
Misner, Charles W., Thorne, Kip S., and Wheeler, John Archibald. Gravitation. Freeman, 1973.Google Scholar
Nobili, A. M. and Will, C. M.. The real value of Mercury's perihelion advance. Nature, 320:39–41, March 1986.Google Scholar
Nordtvedt, K.. Improving gravity theory tests with solar system “grand fits”. Phys. Rev. D, 61 (12):122001−+, June 2000.Google Scholar
Pireaux, S. and Rozelot, J.-P.. Solar quadrupole moment and purely relativistic gravitation contributions to Mercury's perihelion advance. Ap&SS, 284:1159–1194, 2003.Google Scholar
Pitjeva, E. V.. Experimental testing of relativistic effects, variability of the gravitational constant and topography of Mercury surface from radar observations 1964-1989. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 55:313–321, April 1993.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, K.. On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point According to Einstein's Theory. Abh. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. Wissenschaften Jahre 1906,92, Berlin,1907, pages 189–196, 1916.Google Scholar
Shapiro, I. I., Ash, M. E., and Smith, W. B.. Icarus – Further Confirmation of Relativistic Perihelion Precession. Physical Review Letters, 20 (26):1517+, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, I. I., Smith, W. B., Ash, M. E., and Herrick, S.. General Relativity and the Orbit of Icarus. Astron. J., 76:588−+, September 1971.Google Scholar
Shapiro, I. I., Ingalls, R. P., Dyce, R. B., Ash, M. E., Campbell, D. B., and Pettengill, G. H.. Mercury's Perihelion Advance – Determination by Radar. Physical Review Letters, 28 (24):1594+, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, I. I., Counselman, C. C., and King, R. W.. Verification of the principle of equivalence for massive bodies. Physical Review Letters, 36:555–558, March 1976.Google Scholar
Will, C. M.. The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Reviews in Relativity, 9:3−+, March 2006.Google Scholar