Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-28T06:28:23.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Mars rotation angle models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2024

Marie Yseboodt Open the ORCID record for Marie Yseboodt [Opens in a new window] ,
Rose-Marie Baland Open the ORCID record for Rose-Marie Baland [Opens in a new window]  and
Sébastien Le Maistre
Marie Yseboodt*
Affiliation:
Royal Observatory of Belgium, Avenue circulaire 3, Brussels, Belgium
Rose-Marie Baland
Affiliation:
Royal Observatory of Belgium, Avenue circulaire 3, Brussels, Belgium
Sébastien Le Maistre
Affiliation:
Royal Observatory of Belgium, Avenue circulaire 3, Brussels, Belgium UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
*
email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

We compare published solutions for the rotation angle W(t) which describes the location of the prime meridian of Mars with respect to the ICRF equator in IAU recommendations. If the model for W includes a very long period term, we transform it into a quadratic polynomial with updated epoch value and rate, resulting in a difference in the mean epoch value up to 200 km. The mean and true epoch rotation angles are about 800 mas (13 m) apart in J2000 and should not be confused with each other in order to accurately locate the prime meridian. We identify two groups of radio-science solutions for W, which can be distinguished by the prime meridian location they used as a priori that differ from each other by about 100 m at J2000.

Keywords

Mars rotationgeodesydynamicsVikinglongituderadio scienceprime meridian
Type
Contributed Paper
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 18 , Symposium S382: Complex Planetary Systems II: Latest Methods for an Interdisciplinary Approach , December 2022 , pp. 198 - 204
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Astronomical Union

References

Archinal, B.A., Acton, C.H., et al., 2018, Cel. Mec. Dyn. Astr., 130.Google Scholar
Davies, M.E., Abalakin, V.K., et al., 1983, Cel. Mec. Dyn. Astr., 29.Google Scholar
de Vaucouleurs, G., Davies, M.E., Sturms, F.M. Jr., 1973, JGR, 78.Google Scholar
Duxbury, T., Kirk, R.L., Archinal, B.A., Neumann, G.A., 2001, https://astrogeology.usgs.gov/groups/ISPRS.Google Scholar
Folkner, W. M., Yoder, C. F., et al., 1997, Science, 278.Google Scholar
Jacobson, R.A., 2010, A.J., 139.Google Scholar
Jacobson, R.A., Konopliv, A.S., Park, R.S., Folkner, W.M., 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 152.Google Scholar
Kahan, D.S., Folkner, W.M., et al., 2021, Planetary and Space Science, 199.Google Scholar
Konopliv, A.S., Yoder, C.F., Standish, E.M., Yuan, D.-N., and Sjogren, W.L., 2006, Icarus, 182.Google Scholar
Konopliv, A.S., Asmar, S.W., et al., 2011, Icarus, 211.Google Scholar
Konopliv, A.S., Park, R.S., and Folkner, W.M., 2016, Icarus, 274.Google Scholar
Konopliv, A.S., Park, R.S., et al., 2020, GRL, 47.Google Scholar
Kuchynka, P., Folkner, W.M., et al., 2014, Icarus, 229.Google Scholar
Le Maistre, S., Rivoldini, A. et al., 2023, Nature 619.Google Scholar
Seidelmann, P.K., Abalakin, V.K., Bursa, M. et al., 2002, Cel. Mec. Dyn. Astr. 82.Google Scholar
Yseboodt, M., Baland, R.M., and Le Maistre, S., 2023, Cel. Mec. Dyn. Astr., 135.Google Scholar