Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-28T08:34:25.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Report on Astronomical Constants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Toshio Fukushima
Toshio Fukushima*
Affiliation:
IAU WG on Astronomical Standards, National Astronomical Observatory, 2-21-1, Ohsawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan Toshio.Fukushima@nao.ac.jp

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.

Recent progress in the determinations of astronomical constants is reviewed. First is the latest estimation of the general relativistic scale constants, LC, LG , and LB (Irwin and Fukushima, 1999). By reestimating the uncertainty, the value of the first constant is given as LC = 1.480 826 867 4 × 10–8 ± 1.4 × 10–17. Also noted is the rigorous relation among these three, LB = LC + LG – LCLG . Based on the latest determination of the geoidal potential W 0 in the IAG 1999 Best Estimate of Geodetic Parmeters (Groten, 1999), LG and LB were reevaluated as LG = 6.969 290 09 × 10–10 ± 6 × 10–18 and LB = 1.550 519 767 3 × 10–8 ± 2.0 × 10–17. Since LG is roughly related to W 0, a proposal to fix its numerical value is presented in order to remove the geophysical ambiguity in its evaluation in the future. In that case, LG becomes a defining constant for the scale difference between the geocentric and terrestrial coordinate systems. While LC and LB remain as a primary and derived constant, respectively. Next is the correction to the current precession constant, Δp. The recent estimates of Δp based on Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) observation seem to converge to a value close to –0.30″/cy (Mathews et al., 2000; Petrov, 2000; Shirai and Fukushima, 2000; Vondrák and Ron, 2000). Unfortunately this is significantly different from –0.34″/cy, the latest value determined from the Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data (Chapront et al., 1999). The difference is roughly ten times larger than the sum of their formal uncertainties. Since the cause of this difference is not clear, we first arranged the best estimates based on VLBI and LLR techniques, respectively, then took a simple mean of these two best estimates, and recommend it as the current best estimate. The value derived is p = 5 028.78 ± 0.03 ″/cy. Similar estimates were given for some other quantities related to the precession formula; namely the correction to the obliquity rate of the IAU 1976 precession formula (Lieske et al., 1977), Δε 1 = (–0.024 5 ± 0.002 5) ″/cy, and the offsets of the Celestial Ephemeris Pole of the International Celestial Reference System, Δψ 0 sin ε 0 = (–17.5 ± 0.8) mas and Δε 0 = (–5.2 ± 0.4) mas. As a result, the obliquity of the ecliptic at the epoch J2000.0 was estimated as ε 0 = 23°26′21.″405 6 ± 0.″000 5. The draft IAU 2000 File of Current Best Estimates of astronomical constants, that is to replace the 1994 version (Standish, 1995) or maybe even the formal IAU 1976 System of Astronomical Constants (Duncombe et al., 1977), after discussion at the 24th General Assembly of the IAU is presented.

Information

Type
Section 4. Time and Standards
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 180: Towards Models and Constants for Sub-Microarcsecond Astrometry , March 2000 , pp. 417 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © US Naval Observatory 2000

References

Anderson, J.D., Colombo, G., Esposito, P.B., Lau, E.L., and Trager, G.B., 1987, Icarus, 71, 337.Google Scholar
Andrei, A.H., and Elsmore, B., 1991, Proc. IAU Colloq. 127, 157.Google Scholar
Campbell, J.K., and Anderson, J.D., 1989, Astron. J., 97, 1485.Google Scholar
Campbell, J.K., and Synott, S.P., 1985, Astron. J., 90, 364.Google Scholar
Chapront, J., Chanpront-Touzé, M., and Francou, G., 1999, Astron. Astrophys., 343, 624.Google Scholar
Charlot, P., Sovers, O.J., Williams, J.G., and Newhall, XX, 1995, Astron. J., 109, 418.Google Scholar
Dehant, V., et al., 1999, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 72, 245.Google Scholar
Duncombe, R.L., Fricke, W., Seidelmann, P.K., and Wilkins, G.A., 1977, Trans. IAU, 15B, 56.Google Scholar
Fanselow, J.L., Sovers, O.J., Thomas, J.B., Purcell, G.H. Jr., Cohen, E.J., Rogstad, D.H., Skjerve, L.J. and Spitzmesser, D.J., 1984, Astron. J., 89, 987.Google Scholar
Fukushima, T., 1995, Astron. Astrophys., 294, 895.Google Scholar
Groten, E., 1999, Geodesists Handbook 2000, Part 4, http://www.gfy.ku.dk/iag/HB2000/part4/groten.htm.Google Scholar
Herring, T.A., 1995, Highlights of Astronomy, 10, 222.Google Scholar
Herring, T.A., Buffett, B.A., Mathews, P.M., and Shapiro, I.I., 1991, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 8259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, T.A., Gwinn, C.R., and Shapiro, I.I., 1986, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 8259.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. and Fukushima, T., 1999, Astron. Astrophys., 348, 642.Google Scholar
Jacobson, R.A., Campbell, J.K., Taylor, A.H., and Synott, S.P., 1992, Astron. J., 103, 2068.Google Scholar
Jacobson, R.A., Riedel, J.E., and Taylor, A.H., 1991, Astron. Astrophys., 247, 565.Google Scholar
Lieske, J.H., Lederle, T., Fricke, W., and Morando, B., 1977, Astron. Astrophys., 58, 1.Google Scholar
Mathews, P.M., Buffett, B.A., and Herring, T.A., 2000, J. Geophys. Res., submitted.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D.D. (ed.), 1989, IERS Standards (1989), IERS Tech. Note, 3.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D.D. (ed.), 1992, IERS Standards (1992), IERS Tech. Note, 13.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. D. (ed.), 1996, IERS Conventions (1996), IERS Tech. Note, 21.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. D. (ed.), 2000, IERS Conventions (2000), IERS Tech. Note, in printing.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. D., and Luzum, B.J., 1991, Astron. J., 102, 1889.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, M. and Soma, M., 1993, Astron. J., 105, 691.Google Scholar
Mohr, P.J. and Taylor, B.N., 1999 J. Phys. and Chem. Ref. Data, 28, No. 6.Google Scholar
Null, G.W., 1969, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc., 1, 356. Google Scholar
Petrov, L., 2000, Proc. IAU Colloq. 180 (This volume).Google Scholar
Roosbeek, F. and Dehant, V., 1998, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 70, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidelmann, P.K., 1982, Celest. Mech., 27, 79. Google Scholar
Shirai, T. and Fukushima, T., 2000, Proc. IAU Colloq. 180 (This volume).Google Scholar
Sjogren, W.L., Trager, G.B., and Roldan, G.R., 1990, Geophys. Res. Lett, 17, 1485.Google Scholar
Souchay, J., Feissel, M., Bizouard, C., Capitaine, N., and Bougeard, M., 1995, Astron. Astrophys., 299, 277.Google Scholar
Standish, E.M. Jr., 1995, Highlights of Astronomy, 10, 180.Google Scholar
Standisti, E.M. Jr., 1998, Planetary/Lunar Ephemeris DE405, ftp://navigator.jpl.nasa.gov/ephem/de405.iom. Google Scholar
Tholen, D.J. and Buie, M.W., 1997, Icarus, 125, 245.Google Scholar
Vityazev, V., 2000, Proc. IAU Colloq. 180 (This volume).Google Scholar
Vondark, J. 1999, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 20, 169.Google Scholar
Vondark, J. and Ron, C., 2000, Proc. IAU Colloq. 180 (This volume).Google Scholar
Walter, H.G. and Ma, C., 1994, Astron. Astrophys., 284, 1000.Google Scholar
Walter, H.G. and Sovers, O.J., 1996, Astron. Astrophys., 308, 1001.Google Scholar
Williams, J.G., 1994, Astron. J., 108, 711.Google Scholar
Wilkins, G.A., 1989, in Reference Frames, Kovalevsky, J. et al. (eds.), 447.Google Scholar
Zhu, S.Y., Groten, E., and Reigber, Ch., 1990, Astron. J., 99, 1024.Google Scholar