Ephemeris theories JPL DE, INPOP and EPM

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

This paper provides an overview and description of three leading sources of planetary ephemerides: the ephemerides from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and their developed ephemeris theory DE; the ephemerides from the Institute of Celestial Mechanics and Ephemeris Calculation (IMCCE) and their developed theory INPOP; and the ephemeris theory EPM developed at the Institute of Applied Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IAA RAS). The methods and observational data sets used in constructing each of the theories are described. A comparison of the ephemerides computed within these theories is made using examples from future space missions. It is shown that the differences in computed positions do not exhibit systematic characteristics and represent rather random discrepancies caused by variations in dynamic models and the observational data taken into account. The overall conclusion from the comparison of the ephemerides is that none of the considered options (JPL DE, EPM, and INPOP) has an advantage in terms of accuracy. All three options are equally valid, and any of the three ephemeris options can be used in practice.

Keywords

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

I. A. Moiseev

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: lxyniti@gmail.com

Department of Celestial Mechanics, Astrometry and Gravimetry, Faculty of Physics

Russian Federation, Moscow

N. V. Emelyanov

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Sternberg Astronomical Institute

Email: emelia@sai.msu.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Н. В. Емельянов, Земля и вселенная 5, 32 (2010).
  2. E. Pitjeva, D. Pavlov, D. Aksim, M. Kan, Proc. IAU 15, 220 (2019).
  3. A. Fienga, P. Deram, V. Viswanathan, A. Di Ruscio, L. Bernus, D. Durante, M. Gastineau, and J. Laskar, Notes Scientifiques et Techniques de l'Institut de Mecanique Celeste 109 (2019).
  4. V. Viswanathan, A. Fienga, O. Minazzoli, L. Bernus, J. Laskar, and M. Gastineau, Monthly Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476(2), 1877 (2018).
  5. W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, D. H. Boggs, R. S. Park, and P. Kuchynka, The Interplanetary Network Progress Report 42–196, 1 (2014).
  6. R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, and D. H. Boggs, Astron. J. 161(3), id. 105 (2021).
  7. A. Fienga, P. Deram, A. Di Ruscio, V. Viswanathan, J. I. B. Ca margo, L. Bernus, M. Gastineau, and J. Laskar, Notes Scientifiques et Techniques de l’Institut de Mecanique Celeste 110 (2021).
  8. E. V. Pitjeva, Proc. of the Journees 2008 Systemes de reference spatiotemporels, X. Lohrmann-Kolloquium: Astrometry, Geodynamics and Astronomical Reference Systems, TU Dresden, Germany, 22–24 September 2008, edited by M. Soffel and N. Capitaine, Lohrmann-Observatorium and Observatoire de Paris, p. 57 (2009).
  9. E. V. Pitjeva and N. P. Pitjev, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 119(3–4), 237 (2014).
  10. E. V. Pitjeva, in Proc. of the Journees 2014 Systemes de reference spatio-temporels, edited by Z. Malkin and N. Capitaine, Pulkovo Observatory (2015), p. 92.
  11. A. J. S. Capistrano, J. A. M. Penagos, and M. S. Alarcon, Monthly Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463(2), 1587 (2016).
  12. L. Iorio and M. L. Ruggiero, Intern. J. Modern Physics A 25(29), 5399 (2010).
  13. L. Iorio, Astron. J. 157(6), id. 220 (2019).
  14. L. Iorio, European Phys. J. C 80(4), id. 338 (2020).
  15. E. V. Pitjeva, in Protecting the Earth against Collisions with Asteroids and Comet Nuclei, Proc. of the Intern. Conference Asteroid–Comet Hazard 2009, edited by A. M. Finkelstein, W. F. Huebner, and V. A. Shor (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2010), p. 237.
  16. A. Einstein, L. Infeld, and B. Hoffmann, Ann. Mathematics 39, 65 (1938).
  17. P. Kuchynka, J. Laskar, A. Fienga, and H. Manche, Astron. and Astrophys. 514, id. A96 (2010).
  18. E. V. Pitjeva and N. P. Pitjev, Astron. Lett. 44(8–9), 554 (2018).
  19. E. V. Pitjeva and N. P. Pitjev, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 130(9), 57 (2018).
  20. N. V. Emelyanov and A. E. Drozdov, Monthly Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 494, 2410 (2020).
  21. D. J. Tholen, PH. D. Thesis The University of Arizona, Dissertation Abstracts International 45–07(B), 2201 (1984).
  22. W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, and D. H. Boggs, The Interplanetary Network Progress Report 42–178, 1 (2009).
  23. W. B. Hayes, Monthly Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 386(1), 295 (2008).
  24. S. A. Klioner and M. Peip, Astron. and Astrophys. 410(3), 1063 (2003).
  25. V. Robert, V. Lainey, D. Pascu, J.-E. Arlot, J.-P. De Cuyper, V. Dehant, and W. Thuillot, Astron. and Astrophys. 572, id. A104 (2014).
  26. M. J. Holman, A. Akmal, D. Farnocchia, H. Rein, M. J. Payne, R. Weryk, D. Tamayo, and D. M. Hernandez, Planetary Sci. J. 4(4), id. 69 (2023).
  27. J. D. Giorgini, D. K. Yeomans, A. B. Chamberlin, P. W. Chodas, et al., Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 28, 1158 (1996).
  28. A. Fienga, J. Laskar, H. Manche, and M. Gastineau, Astron. and Astrophys. 587, id. L8 (2016).
  29. V. Mariani, A. Fienga, O. Minazzoli, M. Gastineau, and J. Laskar, Phys. Rev. D 108(2), id. 024047 (2023).
  30. L. Bernus, O. Minazzoli, A. Fienga, M. Gastineau, J. Laskar, and P. Deram, Phys. Rev. Letters 123(16), id. 161103 (2019).
  31. A. Fienga, J. Laskar, P. Exertier, H. Manche, and M. Gastineau, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 123(3), 325 (2015).
  32. L. Bernus, O. Minazzoli, A. Fienga, A. Hees, M. Gastineau, J. Laskar, P. Deram, and A. Di Ruscio, Phys. Rev. D 105(4), id. 044057 (2022).
  33. A. Fienga, C. Avdellidou, and J. Hanu, Monthly Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 492(1), 589 (2020).
  34. N. A. Moskovitz, L. Wasserman, B. Burt, R. Schottland, E. Bowell, M. Bailen, and M. Granvik, Astron. and Comput. 41, id. 100661 (2022).
  35. C. L. Lawson and R. J. Hanson, Solving Least Squares Problems (Prentice-Hall, 1974).
  36. F. Spoto, P. Tanga, F. Mignard, J. Berthier, et al., Astron. and Astrophys. 616, id. A13 (2018).
  37. P. Deram, A. Fienga, A. K. Verma, M. Gastineau, and J. Laskar, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 134, 32 (2022).
  38. K. P. Hand, A. E. Murray, J. B. Garvin, W. B. Brinckerhof, et al., Report of the Europa Lander Science Definition Team (NASA, 2017).
  39. L. M. Prockter, E. J. Bunce, and M. N. Choukroun, 55th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, held 11–15 March, 2024 at The Woodlands, Texas/Virtual, LPI Contribution №3040, id. 1289 (2024).
  40. G. W. Patterson, R. T. Pappalardo, L. M. Prockter, D. A. Senske, and S. D. Vance , European Planetary Science Congress 2012, IFEMA-Feria de Madrid, held 23–28 September, 2012 in Madrid, Spain, id. EPSC2012-726 (2012).
  41. J. W. Barnes, E. Turtle, M. Trainer, R. Lorenz, S. Murchie, and S. MacKenzie, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 52(3), 1 (2020).
  42. A. Chatain, A. Le Gall, J.-J. Berthelier, R. D. Lorenz, R. Hassen-Khodja, J.-P. Lebreton, T. Joly-Jehenne, and G. Deprez, Icarus 391, id. 115345 (2023).
  43. W. B. Hubbard, NASA Ice Giants Decadal Study Revision (2010).
  44. L. N. Fletcher, A. A. Simon, M. D. Hofstadter, C. S. Arridge, I. Cohen, A. Masters, K. Mandt, and A. Coustenis, Philosoph. Transactions Roy. Soc. A 378(2187), id. 20190473 (2020).
  45. A. M. Rymer, K. D. Runyon, B. Clyde, J. I. Nunez, et al., Planetary Sci. J. 2(5), id. 184 (2021).
  46. G. H. Fountain, D. Y. Kusnierkiewicz, C. B. Hersman, T. S. Herder, et al., Space Sci. Rev. 140, 23 (2008).
  47. S. A. Stern, Space Sci. Rev. 140, 3 (2008).
  48. A. H. Parker, The Pluto System After New Horizons, edited by S. A. Stern, J. M. Moore, W. M. Grundy, L. A. Young, and R. P. Binzel (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2010), p. 545.
  49. C. Howett, S. Robbins, B. J. Holler, A. Hendrix, et al., Planetary Sci. J. 2, 75 (2021).
  50. J. B. Garvin, S. A. Getty, G. N. Arney, N. M. Johnson, et al., Planetary Sci. J. 3(5), id. 117 (2022).
  51. L. Zasova, T. Gregg, N. Eismont, T. Economouu, et al., EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2019, held 15–20 September 2019 in Geneva, Switzerland, id. EPSC-DPS2019-1938 (2019).
  52. N. Eismont, V. Zubko, A. Belyaev, K. Fedyaev, L. Zasova, D. Gorinov, A.Simonov, and R. Nazirov, Acta Astronautica 197, 310 (2022).
  53. N. V. Emel'yanov and J. E. Arlot, Astron. and Astrophys. 487(2), 759 (2008).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the Sun in the sky in the theories INPOP, EPM and JPL DE in the time interval from 01.01.2024 to 01.01.2026. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (116KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. The distance between the ephemerides of the Moon's position in the sky in the INPOP, EPM and JPL DE theories for the time interval from 01.01.2024 to 02.06.2024. The solid line corresponds to the EPM–INPOP difference, the dashed-dotted line to the EPM–DE difference, and the dashed line to the DE–INPOP difference.

Download (94KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the planet Jupiter in the INPOP, EPM and JPL DE theories for the time interval from 01.04.2030 to 01.04.2032. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (81KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the planet Saturn in the sky in the theories INPOP, EPM and JPL DE in the time interval from 01.01.2036 to 01.01.2038. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (75KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the planet Neptune in the sky in the theories INPOP, EPM and JPL DE in the time interval from 01.01.2049 to 01.01.2051. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (70KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the planet Venus in the INPOP, EPM and JPL DE theories for the time interval from 01.01.2030 to 01.01.2032. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (113KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 7. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the planet Mars in the INPOP, EPM and JPL DE theories for the time interval from 01.01.2030 to 01.01.2032. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (104KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 8. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the planet Uranus in the INPOP, EPM and JPL DE theories for the time interval from 01.01.2045 to 01.01.2047. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (81KB)
Indexing metadata
10. Fig. 9. The distance between the ephemerides of the position of the dwarf planet Pluto in the INPOP, EPM and JPL DE theories for the time interval from 01.01.2024 to 01.01.2026. The solid line corresponds to the difference EPM–INPOP, the dashed-dotted line to the difference EPM–DE, and the dashed line to the difference DE–INPOP.

Download (89KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 The Russian Academy of Sciences