# On the mean anomaly and the mean longitude in tests of post-Newtonian gravity

## Abstract

The distinction between the mean anomaly \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) and the mean anomaly at epoch \(\eta \), and the mean longitude *l*(*t*) and the mean longitude at epoch \(\epsilon \) is clarified in the context of a their possible use in post-Keplerian tests of gravity, both Newtonian and post-Newtonian. In particular, the perturbations induced on \({\mathcal {M}}(t),\,\eta ,\,l(t),\,\epsilon \) by the post-Newtonian Schwarzschild and Lense–Thirring fields, and the classical accelerations due to the atmospheric drag and the oblateness \(J_2\) of the central body are calculated for an arbitrary orbital configuration of the test particle and a generic orientation of the primary’s spin axis \(\varvec{{\hat{S}}}\). They provide us with further observables which could be fruitfully used, e.g., in better characterizing astrophysical binary systems and in more accurate satellite-based tests around major bodies of the Solar System. Some erroneous claims by Ciufolini and Pavlis appeared in the literature are confuted. In particular, it is shown that there are no net perturbations of the Lense–Thirring acceleration on either the semimajor axis *a* and the mean motion \(n_{\mathrm{b}}\). Furthermore, the quadratic signatures on \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) and *l*(*t*) due to certain disturbing non-gravitational accelerations like the atmospheric drag can be effectively disentangled from the post-Newtonian linear trends of interest provided that a sufficiently long temporal interval for the data analysis is assumed. A possible use of \(\eta \) along with the longitudes of the ascending node \(\Omega \) in tests of general relativity with the existing LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites is suggested.

## 1 Introduction

In regard to possible tests of post-Newtonian (pN) features of general relativity^{1} and of alternative models of gravity with, e.g., Earth’s artificial satellites, Solar system’s planets and other astrophysical binaries, there is a certain confusion in the literature about the possible use of the mean anomaly \({\mathcal {M}}\left( t\right) \) as potential observable in addition to the widely inspected argument of pericentre \(\omega \) and, to a lesser extent, longitude of the ascending node \(\Omega \). Indeed, it is as if some researchers, including the present author, who have tried to compute perturbatively the mean rate of change of the mean anomaly in excess with respect to the Keplerian case due to some pN accelerations were either unaware of the fact that what they, actually, calculated was the secular precession of the mean anomaly at the epoch \(\eta \), or they systematically neglected a potentially non-negligible contribution to the overall change of the mean anomaly induced indirectly by the semimajor axis *a* through the mean motion \(n_{\mathrm{b}}\). Such a confusion has produced so far some misunderstanding which led, e.g., to unfounded criticisms about alleged proposals of using the mean anomaly, especially in the case of man-made spacecraft orbiting the Earth, or even uncorrect evaluations of the total pN effects sought. An example that sums up well the aforementioned confusion and misunderstanding, even in the peer-reviewed literature, is the following one. Ciufolini and Pavlis [6] wrote “[...] one of the most profound mistakes and misunderstandings of Iorio (2005) is the proposed use of the mean anomaly of a satellite to measure the Lense–Thirring effect [...] This is simply a nonsense statement: let us, for example, consider a satellite at the LAGEOS altitude, the Lense–Thirring effect on its mean longitude is of the order of 2 m/year, however, the mean longitude change is about \(1.8\times 10^{11}\) m/year. Thus, from Kepler’s law, the Lense–Thirring effect corresponds to a change of the LAGEOS semi-major of less than 0.009 cm! Since, even a high altitude satellite such as LAGEOS showed a semimajor axis change of the order of 1 mm/day, due to atmospheric drag and to the Yarkoski–Rubincam effect (because of atmospheric drag, the change of semimajor axis and mean motion is obviously much larger for lower altitude satellites), and since the present day precision of satellite laser ranging is, even in the case of the best SLR stations, of several millimeters, it is a clear nonsense to propose a test of the Lense–Thirring effect based on using the mean anomaly of *any* satellite, mean anomaly largely affected by non-conservative forces.” It is difficult to understand what is the target of the arrows by Ciufolini and Pavlis [6] since the mean anomaly is not even mentioned in the published version of the criticized paper by the present author, not to mention any explicitly detailed proposal to use it. Be that as it may, in the following, we will show that, actually, using the mean anomaly, or the mean longitude \(l\left( t\right) \), in pN tests with artificial Earth’s satellites may be feasible, provided that certain non-gravitational perturbations are compensated by some active drag-free mechanism. However, even in case of passive, geodetic satellites, we will show that, under certain conditions, it is possible to separate the relativistic linear trends of interest from the unwanted parabolic signatures of non-conservative origin. Furthermore, the arguments provided by Ciufolini and Pavlis [6] about the Lense–Thirring effect and the mean longitude are erroneous. Finally, the use of the mean anomaly at epoch or of the mean longitude at epoch \(\epsilon \) is, in principle, possible even with passive, geodetic spacecraft like those of the LAGEOS family because they are, by construction, free from the aforementioned potential drawbacks exhibited by the mean anomaly and the mean longitude themselves, which was completely ignored or unrecognized by Ciufolini and Pavlis [6].

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we will review the basics of the mean anomaly, the mean anomaly at epoch, the mean longitude, and the mean longitude at epoch along with the calculation of their perturbations with respect to the purely Keplerian case in presence of a generic disturbing post-Keplerian (pK) acceleration. Section 3 is devoted to the calculation of the effects of some well-known pN accelerations (Schwarzschild and Lense–Thirring), while the impact of the atmospheric drag and the oblateness of the primary are treated in Sect. 4. The potential of a possible use of the mean anomaly at epoch in the ongoing tests with the satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II is discussed in Sect. 5. Section 6 summarizes our findings, and offers our conclusions.

## 2 The mean anomaly and the mean longitude

### 2.1 The mean anomaly

*E*and the true anomaly

*f*the other two anomalies. In the unperturbed Keplerian case, the mean anomaly is defined as

^{2}\(\eta \) is the mean anomaly at the reference epoch \(t_0\), and

*M*, while

*G*is the Newtonian constant of gravitation; in the following, we will assume \(\mu =\text {const}\). The mean anomaly at epoch \(\eta \) is one of the six Keplerian orbital elements parameterizing the orbit of a test particle in space. In the unperturbed case, \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) is a linear function of time

*t*because both

*a*and \(\eta \) are constants of motion. If a relatively small perturbing pK acceleration \(\varvec{A}\) is present, both

*a*and \(\eta \) are, in general, affected by it, becoming time-dependent. As a result, also the mean motion is, in general, modified so that

^{3}

*a*is

*e*is the eccentricity, \(p\doteq a\left( 1-e^2\right) \) is the semilatus rectum, \(r = p/\left( 1+e\cos f\right) \) is the (unperturbed) distance of the test particle from the primary, and \(A_R\), \(A_T\) are the projections of the perturbing pK acceleration \(\varvec{A}\) onto the radial and transverse directions, respectively. The derivative of

*t*with respect to

*f*entering Eqs. (7) and (8) is, up to terms of the first order in the perturbing acceleration

*A*,

*a*undergoes a secular change due to, e.g., some non-gravitational perturbing accelerations as in artificial satellites’ dynamics. In general, the calculation of \(\Phi (t)\) is rather cumbersome since it involves two integrations. Moreover, it depends on \(f_0\).

From such considerations it follows that, at first sight, using the mean anomaly \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) may not be a wise choice because of the disturbances introduced by \(\Phi (t)\), especially in non-trivial scenarios in which several perturbing accelerations of different nature act simultaneously on the test particle inducing non-vanishing long-term effects on the semimajor axis *a*. Actually, we will show that it may not be the case in practical satellite data reductions if certain conditions are fulfilled. On the contrary, the mean anomaly at the epoch \(\eta \), which is one of the six osculating Keplerian orbital elements in the perturbed restricted two-body problem, is not affected by such drawbacks. As such, it can be safely used, at least in principle, as an additional piece of information to improve some tests of pN gravity on the same foot of \(\omega \) and \(\Omega \). This fact seems to have gone unnoticed so far in the literature, as in the case of Ciufolini and Pavlis [6].

### 2.2 The mean longitude

*l*defined as

^{4}\(\epsilon \) [2, 3, 15, 19] as

## 3 The secular rates of change of \(\eta (t),\,\epsilon (t),\,\Phi (t)\) for some pN accelerations

Here, we will preliminarily look at the effects due to the standard general relativistic pN accelerations induced by the static, gravitoelectric (Schwarzschild, Sect. 3.1) and stationary, gravitomagnetic (Lense–Thirring, Sect. 3.2) components of the spacetime of an isolated rotating body. We will not restrict to almost circular orbits; furthermore, we will allow the primary’s spin axis \(\varvec{{\hat{S}}}\), entering the Lense–Thirring acceleration, to assume any orientation in space.

### 3.1 The 1pN gravitoelectric Schwarzschild-like acceleration

*r*and moving with relative velocity \({\mathbf {v}}\) is [7, 19]

*c*is the speed of light in vacuum,

#### 3.1.1 The shift \(\Phi (t)\) due to the variation of the mean motion

*f*, and, thus, also the time

*t*, appears only in trigonometric functions. This implies that, in this case, \(\Phi (t)\) does not exhibit a polynomial temporal pattern, being, at most, linear in

*t*provided that Eq. (26) is not vanishing. Note also the dependence of Eq. (27) on \(f_0\). We are not able to analytically calculate Eq. (26) unless a power expansion in

*e*of Eq. (27) is made. Nonetheless, it is possible to perform a numerical integration of Eq. (26) for given values of the physical and orbital parameters entering it without any restriction on

*e*. We successfully tested it for a fictitious cannonball geodetic satellite moving along an eccentric orbit, whose arbitrarily chosen physical and orbital parameters are displayed in Table 1, by numerically integrating its equations of motion in rectangular Cartesian coordinates, and by numerically performing the integral of Eq. (26) with Eq. (27). Figure 1 displays the plot of Eq. (27), in milliarcseconds per year \(\left( \mathrm {mas\,year}^{-1}\right) \), for the orbital parameters of Table 1, and the numerically produced time series of \(\Phi (t)\), in mas, over 1 year for the same orbital configuration; the agreement between the slope of \(\Phi (t)\) and the area under the curve of Eq. (27) is remarkable. From Fig. 1, it can be noted that, as expected, the 1pN Schwarzschild-like acceleration induces a secular variation on \(\Phi (t)\) which has to be added to those affecting \(\eta \) and \(\epsilon \) displayed in Sect. 3.1.2.

Orbital and physical configuration of a fictitious terrestrial geodetic satellite. Since it is \(\rho _\text {LARES}=5.96\times 10^{-16}\,\text {kg m}^{-3}\) [16], and \(\rho _\text {LAGEOS}=6.579\times 10^{-18}\,\text {kg m}^{-3}\) [14], we, first, used them in \(\rho (h)=\rho _0\exp \left[ -\left( h-h_0\right) \Lambda ^{-1}\right] \), where \(\rho _0\) and \(h_0\) are, in general, referred to some reference height, to determine \(\Lambda \) in the case \(h_0=h_\text {LARES},\,h=h_\text {LAGEOS}\). Then, we used the so obtained characteristic length \(\Lambda _\text {LR/L}=999.51\,\mathrm {km}\), valid in the range \(h_\text {LARES}=1,442.06\,\text {km}<h<h_\text {LAGEOS}=5,891.96\,\text {km}\), to calculate \(\rho _\text {max}\) for our orbital geometry. Instead, the value \(\rho _\text {min}\) is just a guess which may be even conservative. The values of the satellite’s physical parameters were taken from [16] (\(m,~\Sigma ,~C_\text {D}\)).

Orbital and physical parameter | Numerical value | Units |
---|---|---|

Mass (LARES) | 386.8 | kg |

Area-to-mass ratio \(\Sigma \) (LARES) | \(2.69\times 10^{-4}\) | \(\text {m}^2~\text {kg}^{-1}\) |

Neutral drag coefficient \(C_\text {D}\) (LARES) | 3.5 | – |

Semimajor axis | 12,500 | km |

Orbital period \(P_\text {b}\) | 3.86 | h |

Orbital eccentricity | 0.36 | – |

Perigee height \(h_\text {min}\) | 1,621.86 | km |

Apogee height \(h_\text {max}\) | 10,621.9 | km |

Orbital inclination | 63.43 | \(^\circ \) |

Argument of perigee \(\omega \) | 0 | \(^\circ \) |

Period of the node \(P_{\Omega }\) | \(-1.76\) | year |

Period of the perigee \(P_{\omega }\) | \(-2903.62\) | year |

Neutral atmospheric density at perigee \(\rho _\text {max}\) | \(4.71\times 10^{-16}\) | kg m\(^{-3}\) |

Neutral atmospheric density at apogee \(\rho _\text {min}\) | \(1\times 10^{-20}\) | kg m\(^{-3}\) |

Characteristic atmospheric length scale \(\Lambda \) | 836.34 | km |

*a*-or even of the masses involved-are absent or negligible with respect to either the duration of the typical data analyses or to the observational accuracy. Indeed, in all such cases, the perturbed evolution of the mean anomaly can, in principle, be monitored as well, and \(\langle \dot{\Phi }(t)\rangle \) may represent an important contribution to the overall long-term rate of change of \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\). Suffice it to say that, in the case of Mercury and the Sun, it is

#### 3.1.2 The mean anomaly at epoch \(\eta \) and the mean longitude at epoch \(\epsilon \)

### 3.2 The 1pN gravitomagnetic Lense–Thirring acceleration

*a*and the mean motion \(n_{\mathrm{b}}\) of a satellite are, in fact, erroneous for

*any*spacecraft.

*z*axis directed along \(\varvec{{\hat{S}}}\), Eq. (36) reduces to

## 4 The secular rates of change of \(\eta (t),\,\epsilon (t),\,\Phi (t)\) for some Newtonian perturbing accelerations

Here, we will deal with the impact of the oblateness of the primary (Sect. 4.1), whose spin axis \(\varvec{{\hat{S}}}\) is assumed arbitrarily oriented in space, and of the atmospheric drag (Sect. 4.2). The small eccentricity approximation for the satellite’s orbit will not be adopted. Such classical accelerations represent two of the most important sources of systematic errors in accurate tests of pN gravity with artificial satellites. On the other hand, they can be considered interesting in themselves if one is interested in better characterizing the shape and the inner mass distribution of the primary like, e.g., a star, at hand, and the properties of the atmosphere of the orbited planet.

### 4.1 The quadrupole mass moment \(J_2\)

#### 4.1.1 The shift \(\Phi (t)\) due to the variation of the mean motion

*z*axis of the coordinate systems adopted. In regard to an Earth’s satellite, whose motion is customarily studied in an equatorial coordinate system whose reference

*z*axis is aligned with \(\varvec{{\hat{S}}}\), we have

#### 4.1.2 The mean anomaly at epoch \(\eta \) and the mean longitude at epoch \(\epsilon \)

*z*axis aligned with the body’s spin axis, as in the case of an Earth’s satellite referred to an equatorial coordinate system, Eqs. (48) and (49) reduce to

### 4.2 The atmospheric drag

The atmospheric drag induces, among other things, a secular decrease of the semimajor axis *a* which, in turn, has an impact on \(n_{\mathrm{b}}(t)\) and \(\Phi (t)\).

*e*and \(\nu \doteq \Psi /n_{\mathrm{b}}\) is difficult.

In Sects. 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, we will calculate the impact of Eq. (52) on \(\Phi (t)\), and \(\eta \) and \(\epsilon \), respectively.

#### 4.2.1 The shift \(\Phi (t)\) due to the variation of the mean motion

*e*and \(\nu \), we will plot it as a function of

*f*over a full orbital cycle and integrate it numerically for the physical and orbital parameters of Table 1. The upper panel of Fig. 3 depicts Eq. (59), while the lower panel displays the time series for \(\Delta n_{\mathrm{b}}(t)\) calculated from a numerical integration of the satellite’s equations of motion in rectangular Cartesian coordinates over 1 year.

^{5}in time and, thus, \(\Phi (t)\) is quadratic. It is explicitly shown in Fig. 4 by the time series calculated for Eq. (8) from the same integration of the satellite’s equations of motion.

It is an important feature because it allows to accurately separate the unwanted parabolic signature due to the atmospheric drag from the relativistic trend of interest affecting the time series of \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) or *l*(*t*), provided that a sufficiently long time span is chosen for the data analysis. The same holds, in principle, also for any other perturbing acceleration of non-gravitational origin inducing a secular trend in the satellite’s semimajor axis like, e.g., the Yarkovsky-Rubincam thermal effect. We numerically confirmed that by integrating the equations of motion of the fictitious satellite of Table 1 including the 1pN Schwarzschild-like and the atmospheric drag accelerations, and fitting a linear plus quadratic model to the resulting time series of \(\Phi (t)\) over, say, 5 year for a given value of \(f_0\). As a result, we were able to accurately recover the slope of the relativistic secular signal. We successfully repeated it for different values of \(f_0\) as well. It turns out that the longer the data span is, the more accurate the recovery of the linear signal. This suggests that, actually, also the mean anomaly \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) and the mean longitude *l*(*t*) may be fruitfully used in tests of pN gravity in the field of the Earth even with passive artificial satellites, contrary to the claims by Ciufolini and Pavlis [6]. The dependence of \(\Phi (t)\) on \(f_0\) may even represent an advantage to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio since, in principle, one can choose \(f_0\) in order to maximize the relativistic rate for \(\left\langle \overset{\cdot }{\Phi }\right\rangle \) to be added to the further contribution due to \(\left\langle \overset{\cdot }{\eta }\right\rangle ,\,\left\langle \overset{\cdot }{\epsilon }\right\rangle \).

#### 4.2.2 The mean anomaly at epoch \(\eta \) and the mean longitude at epoch \(\epsilon \)

*f*over a full orbital cycle in Fig. 5 for the orbital configuration of Table 1, and, then, numerically calculate the areas under their curves in order to obtain \(\left\langle \overset{\cdot }{\eta }\right\rangle ,\,\left\langle \overset{\cdot }{\epsilon }\right\rangle \).

Also in this case, a numerical integration of the satellite’s equations of motion turns out to confirm such results.

## 5 Some possible uses with the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites

As an illustrative example, here we will look at the possibility of using the nodes \(\Omega \) and the mean anomalies at epoch \(\eta \) of, say, the existing satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II in order to propose an accurate test of the 1pN Lense–Thirring effect exploiting their multidecadal data records.

The availability of \(\eta \) in addition to \(\Omega \) may be particularly important in view of the fact that the competing classical secular precessions due to the even zonals of low degree, which have just the same time signature of the gravitomagnetic ones of interest, are nominally several orders of magnitude larger than them; thus, the signal-to-noise ratio must be somehow enhanced. The present-day level of actual mismodeling in the geopotential coefficients, which should be considered as (much) worse than the mere formal, statistical sigmas of the various global gravity field solutions^{6} releasing the experimentally estimated values of the geopotential’s parameters, does not yet allow to use the residuals of a single orbital element separately. To circumvent such an issue, some strategies involving the simultaneous use of more than one orbital element have been devised so far over the years: for a general overview, see, e.g., Renzetti [17], and references therein. To the benefit of the reader, we review here the linear combination approach, which is an extension of the one proposed by Ciufolini [5] to test the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth with artificial satellites of the LAGEOS family. In turn, it is a generalization of the strategy put forth, for the first time, by I.I. Shapiro [18] who, at that time, wanted to separate the Sun-induced 1pN gravitoelectric perihelion precession from that due to the solar quadrupole mass moment \(J_2\) by using other planets or highly eccentric asteroids.

*N*orbital elements

^{7}\(\kappa ^{(i)},\,i=1,2,\ldots N\) experiencing, among other things, classical secular precessions due to the even zonals of the geopotential, the following

*N*linear combinations can be written down

^{8}\(\upmu _\mathrm {1pN}\), and the errors in the computed secular node precessions due to the uncertainties in the first \(N-1\) even zonals \(J_{2s},~s=1,2,\ldots N-1\), assumed as mismodeled through \(\delta J_{2s},~s=1,2,\ldots N-1\). In the following and in Appendix A, we will use the shorthand

*N*combinations of Eq. (63) are posed equal to the experimental residuals \(\delta \overset{\cdot }{\kappa }^{(i)},~i=1,2,\ldots N\) of each of the

*N*orbital elements considered getting

*N*algebraic equations in the

*N*unknowns

*N*orbital residuals

*N*orbital residuals

*N*1pN orbital precessions as predicted by General Relativity. The dimensionless coefficients \(c_j,\ j=1,2,\ldots N-1\) in Eqs. (70) and (71) depend only on some of the orbital parameters of the satellite(s) involved in such a way that, by construction, \({{\mathcal {C}}}_\delta =0\) if Eq. (70) is calculated by posing

^{9}\(\upsigma _{{\overline{{C}}_{8,0}}} = 1.3\times 10^{-14}\). It implies a combined mismodeled precessions as little as \(0.01\,\mathrm {mas\,year}^{-1}\), corresponding to \(0.01\%\) of the combined Lense–Thirring effect. If, instead, the difference \(\Delta {{\overline{C}}}_{8,0}\) between the values of \({{\overline{C}}}_{8,0}\) from Tongji-Grace02s and the zero-tide model ITU\(\_\)GRACE16 [1], whose formal errors are comparable, is adopted as a measure of the actual uncertainty in the even zonal of degree 8, the resulting mismodeled signal amounts to \(2.1\,\mathrm {mas\,year}^{-1}\) corresponding to a percent error in the Lense–Thirring combined signature of \(1.8\%\).

In fact, an accurate investigation, both analytical and numerical, of the perturbations on \(\eta \) induced by the main non-gravitational accelerations acting on the LAGEOS-type satellites like, e.g., the direct solar radiation pressure, the Earth’s albedo, the Earth’s direct infrared radiation pressure, the Earth’s Yarkovsky-Rubincam and Solar Yarkovsky-Schach thermal effects, possible anisotropic reflectivity, etc. [10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20] is required to realistically assess the overall error budget of the promising combination of Eq. (73). This is outside the scopes of the present paper.

## 6 Summary and overview

In presence of Newtonian, general relativistic 1pN or modified gravity-induced disturbing accelerations, the shifts \(\Delta {\mathcal {M}}(t)\) and \(\Delta l(t)\) of the mean anomaly \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) and the mean longitude *l*(*t*) with respect to their Keplerian linear trends are, in general, due to the perturbations \(\Delta \eta (t)\) and \(\Delta \epsilon (t)\) of the mean anomaly at epoch \(\eta \) and mean longitude at epoch \(\epsilon \), and the change \(\Delta n_{\mathrm{b}}(t)\) in the mean motion \(n_{\mathrm{b}}\) which, in some cases, can induce a quadratic shift \(\Phi (t)\) in \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) and *l*(*t*) depending on the true anomaly at epoch \(f_0\).

In the case of an Earth’s artificial satellite, the atmospheric drag affects \(\Phi (t)\) quadratically; nonetheless, the non-Newtonian linear trends of interest may be effectively separated from such a potentially competing aliasing effect if a sufficiently long time span for the data analysis is adopted. Thus, also \({\mathcal {M}}(t)\) and *l*(*t*) can, in principle, be employed in gravity tests even with passive geodetic satellites, not to mention the use of drag-free apparatuses. If, instead, \(\eta \) and \(\epsilon \) are adopted, such an issue is a-priori circumvented because they are not impacted by the possible change in the mean motion \(n_{\mathrm{b}}\). Since \(\eta \) and \(\epsilon \) undergo secular precessions due to the even zonal harmonics \(J_\ell ,\,\ell =2,\,4,\ldots \) of the geopotential, it is possible, in principle, to use them in combination with, say, the nodes \(\Omega \) to reduce the impact of the mismodeled even zonals in experiments of fundamental physics with existing satellites. In an actual test, a detailed analysis of the perturbations affecting \(\eta \) and \(\epsilon \) by all the most relevant non-gravitational accelerations should be performed. There are no net Lense–Thirring rates of change of the semimajor axis *a* and \(n_{\mathrm{b}}\).

In astronomical binary systems, not affected by non-gravitational perturbations, using \(\eta \) may provide a further valuable observable in addition to the usual periastron precession to put to the test general relativity and, say, modified models of gravity, or to better characterize the physical properties of the bodies like, e.g., their oblateness \(J_2\) and their orbital configurations as well. Indeed, the 1pN effects on \(\eta \) are often larger than the corresponding pericenter rates.

## Footnotes

- 1.
For a recent overview of the current status and challenges of the Einsteinian theory of gravitation, see, e.g., Debono and Smoot [8], and references therein.

- 2.
The symbol \(\eta \) is used for the mean anomaly at epoch by Milani et al. [15]. In the notation by Brumberg [3], the mean anomaly is

*l*, while the mean anomaly at epoch is \(l_0\). Kopeikin et al. [9] denote \(\eta \) as \({\mathcal {M}}_0\), while Bertotti et al. [2] adopt \(\epsilon ^{\prime }\). - 3.
It should be recalled that we kept \(\mu \) constant.

- 4.
It is more suited than \(\eta \) at low orbital inclinations [2].

- 5.
Strictly speaking, it is, in general, true only for fast satellites orbiting in much less than a day, so that the term proportional to \(\nu ^2\) in Eq. (60), which contains \(\omega \), can be neglected. However, in the particular case of the fictitious satellite of Table 1, \(\omega \) stays essentially constant because of the frozen perigee configuration.

- 6.
They are freely available on the Internet at the webpage of the International Centre for Global Earth Models (ICGEM), currently located at http://icgem.gfz-potsdam.de/tom_longtime.

- 7.
At least one of them must be affected also by the 1pN effect one is looking for. The

*N*orbital elements \(\kappa ^{(i)}\) may be different from one another belonging to the same satellite, or some of them may be identical belonging to different spacecraft (e.g., the nodes of two different vehicles). - 8.
It is equal to 1 in the Einstein’s theory of gravitation, and 0 in the Newtonian one. In general, \(\upmu _\mathrm {1pN}\) is not necessarily one of the parameters of the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, being possibly a combination of some of them.

- 9.
The zonal harmonics \(J_\ell \) of the geopotential are connected with its fully normalized Stokes coefficients \({{\overline{C}}}_{\ell ,0}\) by the relation \(J_\ell = -\sqrt{2\ell +1}\,{{\overline{C}}}_{\ell ,0},\,\ell =2,\,3,\,4,\ldots \)

## References

- 1.O. Akyilmaz et al., ITU\(\_\)GRACE16 The global gravity field model including GRACE data up to degree and order 180 of ITU and other collaborating institutions (2016). Accessed 16 Oct 2018Google Scholar
- 2.B. Bertotti, P. Farinella, D. Vokrouhlický,
*Physics of the Solar System*(Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.V.A. Brumberg,
*Essential Relativistic Celestial Mechanics*(Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 4.Q. Chen, Y. Shen, O. Francis, W. Chen, X. Zhang, H. Hsu, J. Geophys. Res.
**123**, 6111 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.I. Ciufolini, Il Nuovo Cimento A
**109**, 1709 (1996)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.I. Ciufolini, E. Pavlis, New Astron.
**10**, 636 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.T. Damour, N. Deruelle, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Phys. Théor.
**43**, 107 (1985)Google Scholar - 8.I. Debono, G.F. Smoot, Universe
**2**, 23 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.S. Kopeikin, M. Efroimsky, G. Kaplan,
*Relativistic Celestial Mechanics of the Solar System*(Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.D.M. Lucchesi, Planet. Space Sci.
**49**, 447 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.D.M. Lucchesi, Planet. Space Sci.
**50**, 1067 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.D.M. Lucchesi, Geophys. Res. Lett.
**30**, 1957 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.D.M. Lucchesi, L. Anselmo, M. Bassan, C. Magnafico, C. Pardini, R. Peron, G. Pucacco, M. Visco, Universe
**5**, 141 (2019)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.D.M. Lucchesi, L. Anselmo, M. Bassan, C. Pardini, R. Peron, G. Pucacco, M. Visco, Class. Quantum Gravity
**32**, 155012 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.A. Milani, A. Nobili, P. Farinella,
*Non-gravitational Perturbations and Satellite Geodesy*(Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1987)zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 16.C. Pardini, L. Anselmo, D.M. Lucchesi, R. Peron, Acta Astronaut.
**140**, 469 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.G. Renzetti, Open Phys.
**11**, 531 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.I.I. Shapiro, in
*General Relativity and Gravitation, 1989*, ed. by N. Ashby, D.F. Bartlett, W. Wyss (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990), pp. 313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.M.H. Soffel,
*Relativity in Astrometry, Celestial Mechanics and Geodesy*(Springer, Heidelberg, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.M. Visco, D.M. Lucchesi, Phys. Rev. D
**98**, 044034 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP^{3}