Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Advances in Space Research 54 (2014) 24412445
www.elsevier.com/locate/asr

A yby anomaly for Juno? Not from standard physics

L. Iorio
Ministero dellIstruzione, dellUniversita` e della Ricerca (M.I.U.R.) Istruzione, Viale Unita` di Italia 68, 70125 Bari, BA, Italy
Received 15 April 2014; received in revised form 23 May 2014; accepted 19 June 2014
Available online 3 July 2014

Abstract
An empirical formula recently appeared in the literature to explain the observed anomalies of about Dq_  1  10 mm s1 in the geocentric range-rates q_ of the Galileo, NEAR and Rosetta spacecraft at some of their past perigee passages along unbound, hyperbolic
trajectories.It predicts an anomaly of the order of 6 mm s1 for the recent yby of Juno, occurred on 9 October 2013.Data analyses
to conrm or disproof it are currently ongoing.We numerically calculate the impact on the geocentric Junos range rate of some classical
and general relativistic dynamical eects which are either unmodeled or mismodeled to a certain level in the software used to process the
data.They are: (a) the rst even zonal harmonic coecient J 2 of the multipolar expansion of the terrestrial gravitational potential causing
orbital perturbations both at the a0 Newtonian (J 2 ) and at the a00 rst post-Newtonian level (J 2 c2 ) (b) the post-Newtonian gravitoelectric (GE) Schwarschild-like component of the Earths gravitational eld (c) the post-Newtonian gravitomagnetic (GM) LenseThirring eect.The magnitudes of their mismodeled and nominal range-rate signatures are:a0 Dq_ rJ 2  1 lm s1 a00 Dq_ J 2 c2  0:015 lm s1
(b) Dq_ GE  25 lm s1 (c) Dq_ GM  0:05 lm s1. If a yby anomaly as large as a few mm s1 will be nally found also for Juno, it will not
be due to any of these standard gravitational eects. It turns out that a Rindler-type radial extra-acceleration of the same magnitude as in
the Pioneer anomaly would impact the Junos range-rate at a Dq_ Rin  1:5 lm s1 level. Regardless of the quest for the yby anomaly, all
such eects are undetectable.
2014 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Experimental studies of gravity; Experimental tests of gravitational theories; Modied theories of gravity; Lunar, planetary, and deep-space
probes

1. Introduction
On 9 October 2013, the NASAs spacecraft Juno1
(Matousek, 2007) made an Earth yby passing to within
561 km of our planet at 19 : 21 GMT to gain the required
gravitational energy to reach Jupiter, its nal target, in July
2016 Helled et al., 2011.
Such an event raised interest (Clark, 2013; Scuka, 2013;
Anderson et al., 2013; Busack, 2013) because of its potential capability to shed more light on one of the recently
Tel.: +39 329 2399167.

E-mail address: lorenzo.iorio@libero.it.

See also http://missionjuno.swri.edu/ and http://www.nasa.gov/
mission_pages/juno/ on the Internet.
1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2014.06.035
0273-1177/ 2014 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

reported astrometric anomalies in the Solar System

(Anderson and Nieto, 2010): the so-called yby anomaly
(Anderson et al., 2007; Lammerzahl and Dittus, 2008;
Anderson et al., 2008, Nieto and Anderson, 2009;
Turysheva and Toth, 2009). It consists of a small, unexpected increase of the geocentric range-rate
Dq_  1  10 mm s1

experienced by some spacecraft (Galileo, NEAR, Rosetta)

approaching the Earth along unbound, hyperbolic trajectories in occasion of some of their ybys. At present, no satisfactory explanations exist for such a phenomenon in
terms of both conventional gravitational and non-gravitational physics; see, e.g., Lammerzahl et al. (2008),
Turysheva and Toth (2009) and references therein. In

2442

L. Iorio / Advances in Space Research 54 (2014) 24412445

particular, in Rievers and Lammerzahl (2011) it was shown

that the thermal eects which should be responsible for
most of the Pioneer anomaly (Turysheva and Toth, 2010)
could not explain the Rosetta yby anomaly. Possible
spacecraft electrostatic charging eects in terms of a
Lorentz force were ruled out in Atchison and Peck
(2010). For the-negligible-impact of the general relativistic
gravitomagnetic LenseThirring eect on the motion of a
test particle in hyperbolic motion, see Iorio (2009),
Hackmann and Laemmerzahl (2010). Another negative
result in term of the Kerr geometry in the context of Conformal Gravity was recently obtained in Varieschi (2014).
Several more or less sound explanations in terms of nonconventional physics have been put forth so far (Busack,
2007; Nyambuya, 2008; Cahill, 2008; Svozil, 2008; Petry,
2008; Gerrard and Sumner, 2008; Mbelek, 2008; Lewis,
2009; Murad, 2009; Fontana, 2009; Hafele, 2009; Petry,
2009; Busack, 2010; Castro, 2010; Martinis and Perkovic,
2010; Lassiaille, 2011; Raju, 2011; Hafele, 2011; Petry,
2011; Raju, 2012; Tank, 2012; Pinheiro, 2014; Acedo,
2014) with mixed success. We mention also a proposed
modication of inertia (McCulloch, 2008; McCulloch,
2008), and the eect of Earth-bound Dark Matter (Adler,
2009; Adler, 2009; Adler, 2010; Adler, 2013). Proposals
have been made to test the yby anomaly with dedicated
future space-based missions (Bertolami et al., 2011;
Bertolami et al., 2012; Paramos and Hechenblaikner,
2013).
The opportunity oered by Juno is, in principle, interesting also because of the relatively low altitude of its yby of
Earth. The expected eect is of the order of Anderson et al.
(2013)2
Dq_ Juno  7 mm s1

The gure in Eq. (2) can be obtained, e.g., by using the

empirical formula devised in Anderson et al. (2008) to
accommodate some of the previously observed ybys of
the other spacecraft. However, it should be recalled that
the formula by Anderson et al. Anderson et al. (2008) gives
wrong (not null) anomaly predictions for the second and
third Rosetta ybys. In waiting for the nal outcome of
the ongoing analysis by NASA/JPL of the data collected
by ESA aimed to establish if the yby anomaly exists also
for Juno or not, in this paper we will quantitatively look
at the eects of some standard Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational eects on the geocentric range-rate of the Jupitertargeted spacecraft at the epoch of its terrestrial yby. Some
of them, like the LenseThirring eect, recently detected in
the Earths gravitational eld with a claimed 19% accuracy
(Everitt et al., 2011), are unmodeled in the softwares used to
process the spacecrafts data, while others are modeled with
a necessarily limited accuracy. Our aim is to calculate the
size of such range-rate signals to see if they are relevant at
2
It may interesting to note that an anomaly with the same magnitude
but with the opposite sign was predicted in Busack (2013).

a rq_  mm s1 level of accuracy and, in particular, if they

could allow for an eect as large as Eq. (2).
2. Numerical simulations
In order to investigate the impact of some gravitational
eects which, in principle, may induce a yby anomaly for
Juno, we numerically integrate its equations of motion in
a geocentric reference frame with Cartesian orthogonal
coordinates. For each additional acceleration Apert with
respect to the Newtonian monopole AN , viewed as a small
perturbation of it, we perform two numerical integrations:
one in which the total acceleration is Atot AN Apert ,
and one in which we keep only AN . Both the integrations
share the same initial conditions, retrieved from the HORIZONS WEB interface by NASA/JPL. Then, from the
resulting time series fxpert t; y pert t; zpert tg and fxN t;
y N t; zN tg for the geocentric coordinates we produce
two time series q_ pert t and qN t for the range-rate q and
take, their dierence to obtain Dq_ which singles out the
expected signature of the eect one is interested in on
the Junos range rate. The integration time span is
Dt 4000 s, starting from the shadow entry, so that the
yby occurs after 1260 s from t0 0.
In Fig. 1 we depicts our results for the following dynamical features.
 The Newtonian eect of the Earths oblateness,pparam
eterized by the rst even zonal harmonic J 2  5 C 2;0 ,
where C ;m are the normalized Stokes coecients of
degree and order m of the geopotential (Heiskanen
and Moritz, 1967). In the left upper corner, its nominal
range-rate shift is depicted. It shows a peak-to-peak
amplitude of a few m s1. Actually, global Earths gravity eld models are usually adopted in the data reduction softwares, so that one has to look just at the
residual range-rate signature left by the unavoidable
mismodeling in J 2 as a potential cause for a yby anomaly. By conservatively evaluating rC2;0 as in Iorio (2012)
on the basis of the independent approach recently put
forth in Wagner and McAdoo (2012), we obtained the
signal displayed in the right upper corner of Fig. 1. Its
amplitude is as little as 1 lm s1.
 The rst post-Newtonian (1PN) gravitoelectric (GE),
Schwarzschild-like component of the Earths eld, usually modeled in the data analysis softwares. The left
mid panel shows its nominal range-rate signature, which
amounts to 25 lm s1.
 The rst post-Newtonian (1PN) gravitomagnetic (GM),
LenseThirring component of the Earths eld, usually
unmodeled in the data analysis softwares. The peakto-peak amplitude of its signal, shown in the right mid
panel of Fig. 1, is as little as 0:05 lm s1.
 The rst post-Newtonian (1PN) aspherical component
of the Earths eld, proportional to J 2 c2 (Soel et al.,
1988; Heimberger et al., 1990; Brumberg, 1991), usually
unmodeled in the data analysis softwares. Its eect on

L. Iorio / Advances in Space Research 54 (2014) 24412445

2443

Fig. 1. Simulated geocentric range-rate signatures of Juno at the Earths yby induced by various standard and non-standard dynamical eects. The units
are m s1 for the nominal J 2 signal in the upper left corner, while lm s1 are used for all the other eects. For the signal induced by the mismodeling in the
rst even zonal harmonic of the geopotential, displayed in the upper right corner, the conservative value rC2;0 1:09  1010 (Iorio, 2012), calculated with
the approach in Wagner and McAdoo (2012), is adopted. The Rindler-type curve, placed in the lower right corner, is obtained with the value
ARin 8:7  1010 m s2.

the Junos range-rate, displayed in the left lower corner

of Fig. 1, amounts to 0:015 lm s1.
 A Rindler-type radial acceleration (Grumiller, 2010;
Carloni et al., 2011; Grumiller and Preis, 2011) with
the same magnitude as in the Pioneer anomaly (right
lower corner). As elucidated in Carloni et al. (2011),
Grumiller and Preis, 2011, it may not be applicable to
huge bodies of astronomical size, contrary to man-made
objects such as spacecraft like, e.g., the Pioneer probes.
Indeed for a body of mass mb and size d b , the condition
(Carloni et al., 2011; Grumiller and Preis, 2011)
Gmb
K jARin jr
db

must be satised. Since3 (Matousek, 2007) mJ 3625 kg,

d J  9 m, and r 6894 km at the yby, Eq. (3) is fully
3

We take the largest dimension of the solar arrays for d J .

8
satised for Juno. Indeed, GmJ d 1
m2 s2,
J 2:7  10
3
2 2
while jARin jrJ 6  10 m s . The magnitude of the
putative Rindler-type eect on the Junos range-rate turns
out to be 1:5 lm s1.

It can be noticed that none of the eects considered is able

to impact the Junos range-rate at a mm s1 level. Moreover, the smallness of the 1PN signatures which will likely
not be modeled in the data analysis (GM + J 2 c2 ) should
make them practically undetectable. The same holds also
for a Rindler-type acceleration ARin large enough to explain
the Pioneer anomaly. On the one hand, it could not be
independently tested with the Moons motion. Indeed,
6
2 2
1
GmM d 1
m2 s2,
M 2:8  10 m s ; jARin jrM 3:3  10
so that the condition of Eq. (3) would not be satised for
the Moon. On the other hand, ARin could, in principle, certainly aect all the articial satellites orbiting the Earth
along bound trajectories. For, e.g., LARES, it is

2444

L. Iorio / Advances in Space Research 54 (2014) 24412445

(Paolozzi et al., 2011; Paolozzi and Ciufolini, 2013)

mLR 386:8 kg, d LR 36:4 cm, and rLR 7828 km; thus
8
GmLR d 1
m2 s2 ; jARin jrLR 6:8  103 m2 s2,
LR 7  10
and the condition of Eq. (3) is fully satised. From
Renzetti (2013), it turns out that the perigee precession of
LARES is constrained down to rx_ LR 522 milliarcseconds
per year (mas yr1) level because of unmodeled empirical
accelerations in the along-track direction. This rules out
the possible existence of an anomalous Rindler-type acceleration for the Earth as large as ARin 8:7  1010 m s2
since it would induce an anomalous perigee precession4for
LARES as large as x_ Rin 800 mas yr1. From the point of
view of the Junos yby anomaly, an even smaller magnitude of a putative ARin , compatible with the LARES
bound, would be even more insignicant.
3. Conclusions
After its yby of Earth occurred on 9 October 2013,
analyses of the data collected by ESA have been started
by NASA/JPL to determine if also Juno, now en route to
Jupiter, will exhibit the so-called yby anomaly which
was detected in some of the past ybys of the Galileo,
NEAR, and Rosetta spacecraft. An empirical formula proposed to explain the anomalies of such probes predicts an
eect as large as about 6 mm s1 for the Junos range-rate.
We looked at some dynamical eects which, in principle,
may be considered as viable candidates by numerically calculating their eects on the range-rate of Juno at its yby of
Earth. The Earths quadrupole mass moment J 2 , usually
modeled in the data reduction softwares, nominally shifts
the Junos range-rate by a few m s1 at the Newtonian
level; by conservatively assuming an uncertainty in it of
the order of  1010 from the latest global gravity eld
models, the resulting residual signal reduces down to about
1 lm s1. The general relativistic Schwarzschild-type component of the Earths gravitational eld, which is modeled
in the data analyses, causes a nominal range-rate shift of
the order of 25 lm s1. The impact of the unmodeled general relativistic Lense-Thirring and J 2 c2 eects on the
Junos range-rate is at the 0:05  0:01 lm s1 level. A putative Rindler-type radial uniform acceleration of the same
magnitude as in the Pioneer anomaly would perturb the
Junos range-rate by 1 lm s1.
If a  mm s1 yby anomaly will nally result also for
Juno, it will not be caused by any of the dynamical eects
considered in this work. In particular, the unmodeled relativistic signatures will be too small to be detectable, regardless of any further consideration on the yby anomaly as a
sign of new physics.

4
The pericenter precession caused by a radial uniform extra-acceleration A is Iorio
and Giudice (2006), Sanders (2006), Sereno and Jetzer
p
1
(2006) x_ A 1  e2 n1
b a , where nb ; a; e are the satellites mean motion,
semimajor axis, and eccentricity, respectively.

References
Matousek, S., 2007. The Juno new frontiers mission. Acta Astronaut. 61,
932939.
Helled, R., Anderson, J.D., Schubert, G., Stevenson, D.J., 2011. Jupiters
moment of inertia: a possible determination by Juno. Icarus 216, 440
448, arXiv:1109.1627 [astro-ph.EP].
Clark, S., 2013. Juno: the spacecraft putting sling theory to the
test.www.bbc.com/future/story/20131009-spacecraft-tests-slingtheory.
Scuka, D., 2013. Tonights Juno yby may help unravel a cosmic
mystery.http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2013/10/09/tonights-junoyby-may-help-unravel-a-cosmic-mystery/.
Anderson, J.D., Jordan, J.F., Campbell, J.K., Ekelund, J.E., Bordi, J.J.,
Abrahamson, M., Ardalan, S.M., Thompson, P.F., 2013. Juno Earth
yby as a sensitive detector of anomalous orbital-energy changes. In:
AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, p. B2187.
Busack, H.-J., 2013. Expected velocity anomaly for the Earth yby of
Juno spacecraft on October 9, 2013.arXiv:1312.1139 [physics.gen-ph].
Anderson, J.D., Nieto, m.m., 2010. Astrometric solar-system anomalies.
iN: Klioner, S.A., Seidelmann, P.K., Soel, M.H. (Eds.), IAU
Symposium, vol. 261, pp. 189197.
Anderson, J.D., Campbell, J.K., Nieto, M.M., 2007. The energy transfer
process in planetary ybys. New Astron. 12, 383397, astro-ph/
0608087.
Lammerzahl, C., Dittus, H., 2008. The yby anomaly. In: Kleinert, H.,
Jantzen, R.T., Runi, R. (Eds.),The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann
Meeting On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental
General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories, p.
25642566.
Anderson, J.D., Campbell, J.K., Ekelund, J.E., Ellis, J., Jordan, J.F.,
2008. Anomalous orbital-energy changes observed during spacecraft
ybys of earth. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (9), 091102.
Nieto, M.M., Anderson, J.D., 2009. Earth yby anomalies. Phys. Today
62 (10), 7677.
Turysheva, S.G., Toth, V.T., 2009. The puzzle of the yby anomaly. Space
Sci. Rev. 148, 169174, arXiv:0907.4184 [gr-qc].
Lammerzahl, C., Preuss, O., Dittus, H., 2008. Is the physics within the
solar system really understood? In: Dittus, H., Lammerzahl, C.,
Turysheva, S.G. (Eds.), Lasers, Clocks and Drag-Free Control:
Exploration of Relativistic Gravity in Space. Astrophysics and Space
Science Library, vol. 349, p. 75.
Rievers, B., Lammerzahl, C., 2011. High precision thermal modeling of
complex systems with application to the yby and Pioneer anomaly.
Ann. Phys. 523, 439449, arXiv:1104.3985 [gr-qc].
Turysheva, S.G., Toth, V.T., 2010. The pioneer anomaly. Living Rev.
Relativ. 13, 4, arXiv:1001.3686 [gr-qc].
Atchison, J.A., Peck, M.A., 2010. Lorentz Accelerations in the Earth yby
anomaly. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 33, 11151122.
Iorio, L., 2009. The eect of general relativity on hyperbolic orbits and its
application to the yby anomaly. Scholarly Res. Exch. 2009, 7695,
arXiv:0811.3924 [gr-qc].
Hackmann , E., Laemmerzahl, C., 2010. Flyby anomaly and Lense
Thirring eect. In: 38th COSPAR Scientic Assembly. COSPAR
Meeting, vol. 38, p. 3845.
Varieschi, G.U., 2014. Kerr metric, geodesic motion, and yby anomaly in
fourth-order conformal gravity. Gen. Relativ. Gravitation 46, 1741,
arXiv:1401.6503 [gr-qc].
Busack, H.-J., 2007. Simulation of the yby anomaly by means of an
empirical asymmetric gravitational eld with denite spatial orientation, ArXiv e-prints. arXiv:0711.2781 [physics.gen-ph].
Nyambuya, G.G., 2008. Are yby anomalies an ASTG phenomenon?
ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0803.1370 [physics.gen-ph].
Cahill, R.T., 2008. Resolving spacecraft Earth-yby anomalies with
measured light speed anisotropy. Prog. Phys. 3, 915.
Svozil, K., 2008. Microphysical analogues of yby anomalies, ArXiv eprints, arXiv:0804.2198 [quant-ph].

L. Iorio / Advances in Space Research 54 (2014) 24412445

Petry, W., 2008. A Possible explanation of anomalous earth ybys, ArXiv
e-prints, arXiv:0806.0334 [physics.gen-ph].
Gerrard, M.B., Sumner, T.J., 2008. Earth yby and pioneer snomalies,
ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0807.3158 [gr-qc].
Mbelek, J.P., 2008. Special relativity may account for the spacecraft yby
anomalies, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0809.1888 [gr-qc].
Lewis, R.A., 2009. Field theory model of the yby anomaly. In:
Robertson, G.A. (Ed.), American Institute of Physics Conference
Series, vol. 1103, pp. 226234.
Murad, P.A., 2009. Revisiting gravitational anomalies and a potential
solution. In: Robertson, G.A. (Ed.), American Institute of Physics
Conference Series, vol. 1103, pp. 302310.
Fontana, G., 2009. Maxwell formulation of gravity in the hyperspace. In:
Robertson, G.A. (Ed.), American Institute of Physics Conference
Series, vol. 1103, pp. 311316.
Hafele, J.C., 2009. Eect of the Earths time-retarded transverse gravitational eld on spacecraft ybys, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0904.0383
[physics.gen-ph].
Petry, W., 2009. Non-prefered reference frames and anomalous earth
ybys, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0909.5150 [physics.gen-ph].
Busack, H.-J., 2010. Test for consistence of a yby anomaly simulation
with the observed Doppler residuals for the messenger ybys of
mercury, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1006.3555 [physics.gen-ph].
Castro, C., 2010. The Cliord space geometry behind the pioneer and
yby anomalies. Int. J. Modern Phys. A 25, 815836.
Martinis, M., Perkovic, N., 2010. On the gravitational energy shift for
matter waves, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1004.0826 [gr-qc].
Lassiaille, F., 2011. Gravitational model of the three elements theory. Int.
J. Modern Phys. E 20, 7883.
Raju, C.K., 2011. Retarded gravitation theory: the gravitational velocity
eect in galactic rotation curves, and the yby anomaly, ArXiv eprints, arXiv:1102.2945 [physics.gen-ph].
Hafele, J.C., 2011. Eect of the Earths time-retarded transverse gravitational eld on the motion of the Moon, ArXiv e-prints,
arXiv:1105.3857 [physics.gen-ph].
Petry, W., 2011. Anomalous yby in the non-prefered reference frame of
the rotating Earth, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1109.0256 [physics.gen-ph].
Raju, C.K., 2012. Retarded gravitation theory. In: Alves Rodrigues Jr.,
W., Kerner, R., Pires, G.O., Pinheiro, C. (Eds.), American Institute of
Physics Conference Series, vol. 1483, pp. 260276.
Tank, H.K., 2012. Cumulative-phase-alteration of galactic-light passing
through the cosmic-microwave-background: a new mechanism for
some observed spectral-shifts. Prog. Phys. 2, 3942.
Pinheiro, M.J., 2014. The yby anomaly and the eect of a topological
torsion current, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1404.1101 [physics.space-ph].
Acedo, L., 2014. The yby anomaly: a case for strong gravitomagnetism?
Adv. Space Res. 54 (4), 788796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.asr.2014.04.014.
McCulloch, M.E., 2008. Can the yby anomalies be explained by a
modication of inertia. J. Br. Interplanetary Soc. 61, 373378,
arXiv:0712.3022.
McCulloch, M.E., 2008. Modelling the yby anomalies using a modication of inertia. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 389, L57L60,
arXiv:0806.4159.
Adler, S.L., 2009. Can the yby anomaly be attributed to earth-bound
dark matter? Phys. Rev. D 79 (2), 023505, arXiv:0805.2895.
Adler, S.L., 2009. Spacecraft calorimetry as a test of the dark matter
scattering model for yby anomalies, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0910.1564
[physics.space-ph].
Adler, S.L., 2010. Modeling the yby anomalies with dark matter
scattering. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 45774588, arXiv:0908.2414
[astro-ph.EP].

2445

Adler, S.L., 2013. Modeling the yby anomalies with dark matter
scattering: update with additional data and further predictions. Int.
J. Modern Phys. A 28, 50074, arXiv:1112.5426 [astro-ph.EP].
Bertolami, O., Francisco, F., Gil, P.J.S., Paramos, J., 2011. Probing the
yby anomaly with the Galileo constellation. In: 3rd International
Colloquium.. Scientic and Fundamental Aspects of the Galileo
Programme, 31 August2 September 2011, Copenhagen, Denmark.
arXiv:1109.2779 [gr-qc].
Bertolami, O., Francisco, F., Gil, P.J.S., Paramos, J., 2012. Testing the
yby anomaly with the Gnss constellation. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 21,
50035, arXiv:1201.0163 [physics.space-ph].
Paramos, J., Hechenblaikner, G., 2013. Probing the yby anomaly with
the future STE-QUEST mission. Planet. Space Sci. 79, 7681,
arXiv:1210.7333 [gr-qc].
Everitt, C.W.F., Debra, D.B., Parkinson, B.W., Turneaure, J.P., Conklin,
J.W., Heifetz, M.I., Keiser, G.M., Silbergleit, A.S., Holmes, T.,
Kolodziejczak, J., Al-Meshari, M., Mester, J.C., Muhlfelder, B.,
Solomonik, V.G., Stahl, K., Worden Jr., P.W., Bencze, W., Buchman,
S., Clarke, B., Al-Jadaan, A., Al-Jibreen, H., Li, J., Lipa, J.A.,
Lockhart, J.M., Al-Suwaidan, B., Taber, M., Wang, S., 2011. Gravity
probe B: nal results of a space experiment to test general relativity.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (22), 221101, arXiv:1105.3456 [gr-qc].
Heiskanen, W., Moritz, H., 1967. Physical Geodesy. W.H. Freeman, San
Francisco.
Iorio, L., 2012. Constraints from orbital motions around the Earth of the
environmental fth-force hypothesis for the OPERA superluminal
neutrino phenomenology. J. High Energy Phys. 5, 73, arXiv:1109.6249
[gr-qc].
Wagner, C.A., McAdoo, D.C., 2012. Error calibration of geopotential
harmonics in recent and past gravitational elds. J. Geod. 86, 99108.
Soel, M., Wirrer, R., Schastok, J., Ruder, H., Schneider, M., 1988.
Relativistic eects in the motion of articial satellites. I the oblateness
of the central body. Celestial Mech. 42, 8189.
Heimberger, J., Soel, M., Ruder, H., 1990. Relativistic eects in the
motion of articial satellites the oblateness of the central body II.
Celestial Mech. Dyn. Astron. 47, 205217.
Brumberg, V.A., 1991. Essential Relativistic Celestial Mechanics. Adam
Hilger, Bristol.
Grumiller, D., 2010. Model for gravity at large distances. Phys. Rev. Lett.
105 (21), 211303, arXiv:1011.3625 [astro-ph.CO].
Carloni, S., Grumiller, D., Preis, F., 2011. Solar system constraints on
Rindler acceleration. Phys. Rev. D 83 (12), 124024, arXiv:1103.0274
[astro-ph.EP].
Grumiller, D., Preis, F., 2011. Rindler force at large distances. Int. J. Mod.
Phys. D 20, 27612766, arXiv:1107.2373 [astro-ph.CO].
Paolozzi, A., Ciufolini, I., Vendittozzi, C., 2011. Engineering and scientic
aspects of LARES satellite. Acta Astronaut. 69, 127134.
Paolozzi, A., Ciufolini, I., 2013. LARES successfully launched in orbit:
satellite and mission description. Acta Astronaut. 91, 313321,
arXiv:1305.6823 [astro-ph.IM].
Renzetti, G., 2013. First results from LARES: an analysis. New Astron.
23, 6366.
Iorio, L., Giudice, G., 2006. What do the orbital motions of the outer
planets of the solar system tell us about the pioneer anomaly? New
Astron. 11, 600607, gr-qc/0601055.
Sanders, R.H., 2006. Solar system constraints on multield theories of
modied dynamics. Mon. Notices R. Astron. Soc. 370, 15191528,
astro-ph/0602161.
Sereno, M., Jetzer, P., 2006. Dark matter versus modications of the
gravitational inverse-square law: results from planetary motion in the
Solar system. Mon. Notices R. Astron. Soc. 371, 626632, astro-ph/
0606197.