Mars high resolution gravity fields from MRO, Mars seasonal gravity, and other dynamical parameters

Konopliv, A. S.; Asmar, S. W.; Folkner, W. M.; Karatekin, Özgür; Nunes, D. C.; Smrekar, S. E.; Yoder, C. F.; Zuber, M. T.

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.10.004

Cited by 332 publications

(311 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

295

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, there are 23 mass estimates for (3) Juno, obtained by studying the orbital deflection of other minor planets (see Fig. A.2 and Chernetenko & Kochetova 2002;Kochetova 2004;Pitjeva 2004Pitjeva , 2005Pitjeva , 2010Pitjeva , 2013Konopliv et al 2006Konopliv et al , 2011Baer et al 2008Baer et al , 2011Folkner et al 2009;Fienga et al 2010Fienga et al , 2011Fienga et al , 2013Fienga et al , 2014Somenzi et al 2010;Zielenbach 2011;Kuchynka & Folkner 2013;Goffin 2014;Kochetova & Chernetenko 2014). Because there is no known satellite of Juno, mass determination relies on these long-range interactions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

VLT/SPHERE- and ALMA-based shape reconstruction of asteroid (3) Juno

Viikinkoski

Kaasalainen

Ďurech

et al. 2015

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use the recently released Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) and VLT/SPHERE science verification data, together with earlier adaptive-optics images, stellar occultation, and lightcurve data to model the 3D shape and spin of the large asteroid (3) Juno with the all-data asteroid modelling (ADAM) procedure. These data set limits on the plausible range of shape models, yielding reconstructions suggesting that, despite its large size, Juno has sizable unrounded features moulded by non-gravitational processes such as impacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

VLT/SPHERE- and ALMA-based shape reconstruction of asteroid (3) Juno

Viikinkoski

Kaasalainen

Ďurech

et al. 2015

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They present the improvements Notes. The uncertainties are given at 1 published sigma and compared with Konopliv et al (2011). In conclusion, INPOP13a shows an important improvement in the Mercury orbit especially during the MESSENGER orbital and flyby phases of the mission.…”

Section: Inpop13amentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The previous estimations of these parameters using different techniques and a different data set, can be found in (Bertotti et al 2003;Müller et al 2008;Pitjeva 2009;Williams et al 2009;Manche et al 2010;Konopliv et al 2011;Fienga et al 2011). However, because of Mercury's relatively high eccentricity and its close proximity to the Sun, its orbital motion provides one of the best solar system tests of GR (Anderson et al 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of MESSENGER radioscience data to improve planetary ephemeris and to test general relativity

Verma

Fienga

Laskar

et al. 2014

A&A

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current knowledge of Mercury's orbit has mainly been gained by direct radar ranging obtained from the 60s to 1998 and by five Mercury flybys made with Mariner 10 in the 70s, and with MESSENGER made in . On March 18, 2011, MESSENGER became the first spacecraft to orbit Mercury. The radioscience observations acquired during the orbital phase of MESSENGER drastically improved our knowledge of the orbit of Mercury. An accurate MESSENGER orbit is obtained by fitting one-and-half years of tracking data using GINS orbit determination software. The systematic error in the Earth-Mercury geometric positions, also called range bias, obtained from GINS are then used to fit the INPOP dynamical modeling of the planet motions. An improved ephemeris of the planets is then obtained, INPOP13a, and used to perform general relativity tests of the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism. Our estimations of PPN parameters (γ and β) are more stringent than previous results.

show abstract

“…For the Yonsei-Yale models, grids for different α-element abundances are available. 13 The value given in Konopliv et al (2011) is compatible with the TDB time scale (Barycentric Dynamical Time) and was converted to the TCB-compatible value (Barycentric Coordinate Time) using the linear transformation adopted in IAU 2006 Resolution B3. 14 http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/YZVAR/ 15 http://www.astro.yale.edu/demarque/yystar.html Table 8).…”

Section: Mass Determination From Evolutionary Tracksmentioning

confidence: 99%

GaiaFGK benchmark stars: Effective temperatures and surface gravities

Heiter

Jofré

Gustafsson

et al. 2015

A&A

276

411

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. In the era of large Galactic stellar surveys, carefully calibrating and validating the data sets has become an important and integral part of the data analysis. Moreover, new generations of stellar atmosphere models and spectral line formation computations need to be subjected to benchmark tests to assess any progress in predicting stellar properties. Aims. We focus on cool stars and aim at establishing a sample of 34 Gaia FGK benchmark stars with a range of different metallicities. The goal was to determine the effective temperature and the surface gravity independently of spectroscopy and atmospheric models as far as possible. Most of the selected stars have been subjected to frequent spectroscopic investigations in the past, and almost all of them have previously been used as reference, calibration, or test objects. Methods. Fundamental determinations of T eff and log g were obtained in a systematic way from a compilation of angular diameter measurements and bolometric fluxes and from a homogeneous mass determination based on stellar evolution models. The derived parameters were compared to recent spectroscopic and photometric determinations and to gravity estimates based on seismic data. Results. Most of the adopted diameter measurements have formal uncertainties around 1%, which translate into uncertainties in effective temperature of 0.5%. The measurements of bolometric flux seem to be accurate to 5% or better, which contributes about 1% or less to the uncertainties in effective temperature. The comparisons of parameter determinations with the literature in general show good agreements with a few exceptions, most notably for the coolest stars and for metal-poor stars. Conclusions. The sample consists of 29 FGK-type stars and 5 M giants. Among the FGK stars, 21 have reliable parameters suitable for testing, validation, or calibration purposes. For four stars, future adjustments of the fundamental T eff are required, and for five stars the log g determination needs to be improved. Future extensions of the sample of Gaia FGK benchmark stars are required to fill gaps in parameter space, and we include a list of suggested candidates.

show abstract

Mars high resolution gravity fields from MRO, Mars seasonal gravity, and other dynamical parameters

Cited by 332 publications

References 90 publications

VLT/SPHERE- and ALMA-based shape reconstruction of asteroid (3) Juno

VLT/SPHERE- and ALMA-based shape reconstruction of asteroid (3) Juno

Use of MESSENGER radioscience data to improve planetary ephemeris and to test general relativity

GaiaFGK benchmark stars: Effective temperatures and surface gravities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About