Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T20:09:18.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Celestial Reference Frames: Definitions and Accuracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2017

E M Standish
E M Standish*
Affiliation:
Caltech / Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109

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.

The determination of a specific catalogue or ephemeris reference frame is a highly over-determined problem, depending on the particular selection of which coordinates, which objects and at what time(s) the determination is made. The consistency which various determinations exhibit is dependent upon the accuracy of the catalogue or ephemeris itself. This paper discusses the accuracies of the three most prominent celestial reference frames: stellar catalogues, the lunar and planetary ephemerides and the radio source catalogues.

The FK4 stellar catalogue contains known systematic errors amounting to a few tenths of an arcsecond; the FK5 will yield nearly an order of magnitude improvement; HIPPARCOS and Space Telescope expect by the mid 1990's optical interferometry should approach within a couple of years, tens of micro(!)arcseconds after a couple of decades. Present-day lunar and planetary ephemerides have accuracies at the level of for the moon and inner four planets; for the outer planets. Further observational data will permit continued improvement. Radio source catalogues now show internal consistency of

Type
Astrometry
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 129: The Impact of VLBI on Astrophysics and Geophysics , 1988 , pp. 309 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1988 

References

Boyce, P.B. and Reasenberg, R.D., eds.: 1984, “Proceedings of the Workshop on High Angular Resolution Optical Interferometry from Space”, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Fricke, W.: 1971, “A Rediscussion of Newcomb's Determination of Precession”, Astron. Astrophys. 13, 298–308.Google Scholar
Fricke, W.: 1982, “Determination of the Equinox and Equator of the FK5”, Astron. Astrophys. 107, L13–L16.Google Scholar
Fricke, W. and Kopff, A.: 1963, “Fourth Fundamental Catalogue (FK4)”, Veroff. #10, Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Johnston, K.J.: 1987, this volume.Google Scholar
Ma, C.: 1986, “The Celestial Reference Frame of the NASA Crustal Dynamics Project”, in “The Earth's Rotation and Reference Frame for Geodesy and Geodynamics” (McCarthy, D. and Babcock, A., eds.), IAU Symposium #128.Google Scholar
Ma, C. and Shaffer, D.B.: 1987, “The Celestial Reference Frame Defined by VLBI”, poster session, IAU Symposium #129.Google Scholar
Newhall, X X, Standish, E.M. and Williams, J.G.: 1983, “DE102: a numerically integrated ephemeris of the Moon and planets spanning forty-four centuries”, Astron. Astrophys. 125, 150–167.Google Scholar
Sovers, O.J. and Treuhaft, R.N.: 1987, “Radio Reference Frame Stability from VLBI Data”, poster session, IAU Symposium #129.Google Scholar
Standish, E.M.: 1982a, “The JPL Planetary Ephemerides”, Cel. Mech. J. 26, 181–186.Google Scholar
Standish, E.M.: 1982b, “Orientation of the JPL Ephemerides, DE200/LE200, to the Dynamical Equinox of J2000”, Astron. Astrophys. 114, 297–302.Google Scholar
Williams, J.G.: 1984, “Determining Asteroid Masses from Perturbations on Mars”, Icarus 57, 1–13.Google Scholar