LowFrequency Gravitational Wave Searches Using Spacecraft Doppler Tracking
 1.6k Downloads
 45 Citations
Abstract
This paper discusses spacecraft Doppler tracking, the currentgeneration detector technology used in the lowfrequency (∼millihertz) gravitational wave band. In the Doppler method the earth and a distant spacecraft act as free test masses with a groundbased precision Doppler tracking system continuously monitoring the earthspacecraft relative dimensionless velocity 2Δv/c = Δν/ν_{0}, where Δν is the Doppler shift and ν_{0} is the radio link carrier frequency. A gravitational wave having strain amplitude h incident on the earthspacecraft system causes perturbations of order h in the time series of Δν/ν_{0}. Unlike other detectors, the ∼ 1–10 AU earthspacecraft separation makes the detector large compared with millihertzband gravitational wavelengths, and thus timesofflight of signals and radio waves through the apparatus are important. A burst signal, for example, is timeresolved into a characteristic signature: three discrete events in the Doppler time series. I discuss here the principles of operation of this detector (emphasizing transfer functions of gravitational wave signals and the principal noises to the Doppler time series), some data analysis techniques, experiments to date, and illustrations of sensitivity and current detector performance. I conclude with a discussion of how gravitational wave sensitivity can be improved in the lowfrequency band.
Keywords
Cassini Doppler stability Doppler tracking frequency stability gravitational wave detectors radio1 Introduction
Radio communications systems on deep space probes are used for both command and control of the spacecraft (via transmissions from the earth to the spacecraft, the uplink) and for returning telemetry to the ground (via transmission from the spacecraft to the earth, the downlink). These communications systems typically serve two additional purposes: navigation (use of radio ranging and earthspacecraft Doppler to determine the position and velocity of the probe) and radio science (use of measured radiowave properties — amplitude, frequency, polarization, etc. — explicitly for mission science). Radio science can address several scientific topics including estimation of planetary masses and mass distributions, measurements of planetary ionospheres/atmospheres/rings, studies of planetary shapes and surfaces, observations of the solar wind, and tests of relativistic gravity.
This article describes a radio science application: the use of precision Doppler tracking of deep space probes as a detector of lowfrequency^{1} gravitational waves (GWs). Precision Doppler experiments were pioneered by Vessot, whose GPA suborbital experiment measured the general relativistic redshift in the earth’s static gravitational field [126]. In the deep space GW observations discussed here, the earth and a distant spacecraft are free test masses with the groundbased Doppler tracking system continuously measuring the earthspacecraft fractional velocity (2Δv/c = Δν/ν_{0}, with Δν being the Doppler shift and ν_{0} being the radio link’s carrier frequency). A gravitational wave with strain amplitude h causes perturbations of order h in Δν/ν_{0}. Unlike other GW detectors, the ∼ 1–10 AU earthspacecraft separation makes the detector large compared with millihertzband gravitational wavelengths. Consequently timesofflight of the GWs and radio waves through the apparatus are important and impose characteristic signatures of GWs in the observed Doppler time series.
The theory of the (twoway) Doppler GW detector was built up by generalizing the response of socalled oneway Doppler measurements. In oneway tracking, each of two test masses has its own frequency standard. Equipment on one test mass transmits a wave referenced to its frequency standard and a receiver on the other mass estimates the Doppler shift by comparing the frequency of the wave it receives with the frequency of its local standard.^{2} In 1970, Kaufmann [74] calculated the fractional frequency fluctuation caused by GWs on oneway Doppler in the context of proposed earthbased GW detectors using the Mössbauer effect. In 1971, Anderson [2] commented on ∼ 100 s fluctuations in Mariner 6’s Doppler time series with the suggestion that these might be related to resonantbar events reported at roughly the same time. In 1974, Davies [42] surveyed the prospects for GW detection with deep space probes. He carefully noted the sensitivity advantages of Doppler (as contrasted with ranging), identified several competing error sources, and presented the GW response for twoway Doppler in the special case of GWs incident normal to the earthspacecraft line. In 1975, Estabrook and Wahlquist [52] derived the general GW response for arbitrary angleofarrival and for a detector large compared with the GW wavelength (see Section 3) and derived the spectral distribution of Doppler fluctuations due to an isotropic GW background. With colleagues they considered signal and noise transfer functions, the sensitivity of Doppler tracking to GWs (including the prospects for improving it), and the utility of simultaneous tracking of several spacecraft [52, 128, 46, 50, 47]. In 1976, Thorne and Braginsky [109] estimated event rates for lowfrequency GW bursts and discussed the prospects for observing these bursts with spacecraft Doppler tracking. The first systematic GW observations with deepspace Doppler tracking were made in the 1980s; those observations — and technical developments in the following two decades resulting in thousandfold improved GW sensitivity — are discussed below.
2 Notation, Acronyms, and Conventions
Some acronyms and notation used in this paper.
Symbol  Meaning 

acf  autocorrelation function 
AMC  Advanced Media Calibration system (see Section 4.3) 
DOY  dayofyear, i.e., January 20 = DOY 020 
DSN  Deep Space Network, the NASA/JPL spacecraft communications and tracking network with antennas at complexes in Australia, Spain, and the United States 
DSS  Deep Space Station (identifier for specific antennas in the DSN, e.g., “DSS 25”) 
f  Fourier frequency 
FTS  Frequency and Timing System, the reference for twoway Doppler tracking 
Kaband  a deep space communications frequency ∼ 32 GHz (for Cassini, “Ka1” is the downlink referenced to the Xband uplink; “Ka2” is the downlink referenced to the Kaband uplink) 
KaT  Cassini’s “Kaband Translator” which accepts an uplink Kaband signal and phasecoherently translates it to a downlink Kaband signal for retransmission to earth 
LISA  Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, a future lowfrequency GW observatory [24] 
oneway  Doppler tracking where the downlink is referenced to an oscillator on the spacecraft 
 probability density function [88] 
Sband  a deep space communications frequency ≃ 2.3 GHz 
scintillation  phase fluctuation due to wave propagation in a random medium [106, 79, 40, 99, 71] 
SEP angle  sunearthprobe angle, the apparent solar elongation angle of the spacecraft 
S_{x}(f)  power spectrum of x(t), i.e., Fourier transform of 〈x(t)x(t + τ)〉 [73, 89] 
T  duration of an observation 
T _{2}  twoway light time between earth and spacecraft 
threeway  Doppler tracking where the received downlink is coherently referenced to an uplink signal from another station 
twoway  Doppler tracking where the downlink is coherently referenced to the uplink signal 
Xband  a deep space communications frequency ≃ 8.4 GHz 
x * y  convolution of time series x(t) and y(t) [34] 
y(t)  generic time series of fractional frequency, Δν/ν_{0} [23] (y_{2}(t): time series of twoway Doppler fractional frequency) (y_{3}(t): time series of threeway Doppler fractional frequency) 
ν  radio frequency 
σ_{y}(τ)  Allan deviation, fractional frequency stability at integration time τ [23] 
θ  angle between GW propagation direction and earthspacecraft vector; μ = cos(θ) 
3 Gravitational Wave Signal Response
The theory of spacecraft Doppler tracking as a GW detector was developed by Estabrook and Wahlquist [52]. Briefly, consider the earth and a spacecraft as separated test masses, at rest with respect to one another and separated by distance L = cT_{2}/2, where T_{2} is the twoway light time (light time from the earth to the spacecraft and back). A ground station continuously transmits a nearly monochromatic microwave signal (center frequency ν_{0}) to the spacecraft. This signal is coherently transponded by the distant spacecraft and sent back to the earth. The ground station compares the frequency of the signal which it is transmitting with the frequency of the signal it is receiving. The twoway fractional frequency fluctuation is y_{2}(t) = [ν(t − T_{2}) − ν(t)]/ν_{0}, where ν(t) is the frequency of the actual transmitted signal. In this way the Doppler tracking system measures the relative dimensionless velocity of the earth and spacecraft: 2Δv/c = Δν/ν_{0}. In an idealized system (no noise, no systematic effects, no gravitational radiation), this time series would be zero.
In a practical GW observation spanning 20–40 days, the earthspacecraft distance and the orientation of the earthspacecraft vector on the celestial sphere change (typically slowly) with time. This modifies the idealized GW response (it is not strictly timeshift invariant) and has practical consequences in searches for longlived signals (see Section 5.7).
 1.
GW signals are observed in the Doppler tracking time series through the three pulse response [Eq. (1)].
 2.
The response depends on the twoway light time T_{2}, the cosine of the angle between the GW wavevector and unit vector from the earth to the spacecraft, and GW properties (Fourier content and polarization state) (Eq. (1) and the expression for \(\bar \Psi (t)\)).
 3.
The GW response is not in general timeshift invariant if T_{2} or μ change during the time of observation.
 4.
The GW response is a highpass filter: In the longwavelength limit (frequencies ≪ 1/T_{2}), the response is attenuated due to pulse overlap and cancellation (see Figure 2).
4 Apparatus and Principal Noise Sources
Of course this cannot be done without introducing noise. The following Sections 4.1–4.11 summarize the principal noises, their spectra or Allan deviations^{3}, and their transfer functions to the twoway Doppler time series.
4.1 Frequency standard noise
4.2 Plasma scintillation noise
The radio waves of the Doppler system pass through three irregular media: the troposphere, the ionosphere, and the solar wind.^{4} Irregularities in the solar wind and ionospheric plasmas cause irregularities in the refractive index. The refractive index fluctuations δn for a cold unmagnetized plasma are − λ^{2}r_{e}δn_{e}/(2π) and the phase perturbation is − ∫ λr_{e}δn_{e} dz, where λ is the wavelength, r_{e} is the classical electron radius, and δn_{e} is the electron density fluctuation along the line of sight z. These phase perturbations mimic timevarying distance changes (thus velocity errors) and so are a noise source in precision Doppler experiments. The transfer function of plasma phase scintillation to twoway Doppler is shown schematically in Figure 7. A solar wind plasma blob at a distance x from the earth (producing a oneway fractional frequency fluctuation time series y^{sw}) and an ionospheric plasma blob at negligible light time from the ground station (with oneway time series y^{ion}) produce twoway time series y^{sw}(t) * [δ(t) + δ(t − T_{2} + 2x/c)] and y^{ion} * [δ(t) + δ(t − T_{2})], respectively.
4.3 Tropospheric scintillation noise
Phase fluctuations also arise from propagation through the neutral atmosphere. Here the socalled dry component of the troposphere is large but fairly steady with the wet component (water vapor fluctuations) being smaller but much more variable [20, 95, 94, 96, 76]. Unlike plasma phase scintillation, propagation in the troposphere is effectively nondispersive at microwave frequencies [71]. Figure 10 shows the magnitude of the effect: The blue crosshatched region is the approximate level of uncalibrated tropospheric scintillation at NASA’s Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex [75]. Roughly, tropospheric scintillation is worse in the summer daytime and better on winter nights. Usually its raw magnitude is large compared with, e.g., antenna mechanical noise (discussed below.)
4.4 Antenna mechanical noise
Figure 7 shows schematically how mechanical noise in the antenna enters the Doppler. If, for example, the antenna’s phase center suddenly moves toward the spacecraft, the received signal is blue shifted, causing an immediate effect in the Doppler. The motion also causes the transmitted signal to be blue shifted; this signal is echoed in the time series a twoway light time later. Early tests by Otoshi and colleagues [86, 87] indicated that antenna mechanical stability would contribute ∼ 10^{−15} for 1000 s integrations on a 34mclass antenna.^{6}
At lower Fourier frequencies (less than about 10^{−4} Hz) the apparatus operates in the LWL and the signature of antenna mechanical noise is lost [19]. At these low frequencies aggregate antenna mechanical noise is probably composed both of approximately random processes (e.g., atmospheric pressure loading of the station [81, 123, 38], differential thermal expansion of the structure [100]) and of lowlevel quasideterministic processes (e.g., lowspatialfrequency imperfections in the antenna’s azimuth track, systematic errors in subreflector focusing, etc.). Thermal processes (e.g., response of the structure to ≃ 10 K temperature variations during a track) can plausibly produce only several millimeters of radio path length variation. The subreflector is continuously repositioned to approximately compensate for elevationangle dependent antenna distortions; systematic errors in this focusing at the several millimeter level over the course of a track are not unreasonable. Additionally, there are systematic low and highspatialfrequency height variations, ≃ 6 mm peaktopeak, in the azimuth track which will cause pathlength variability. Independently determined VLBI error budgets (omitting components due to radio source structure, uncalibrated troposphere, and charged particle scintillation which are not common with Cassiniclass Doppler tracking observations) are believed dominated by station position and slowlyvarying antenna mechanical noises. These account for ≃ 1.3 cm rms path delay [104], occur on time scales ≃ 10^{5}–10^{6} s, and correspond to fractional frequency fluctuations ≃ 10^{−15} or smaller.
4.5 Ground electronics noise
The DSN ground electronics have been carefully designed to minimize phase/frequency noise and produce only a small contribution to the overall error budget. (Here I distinguish this noise from the white phase noise due to finite signaltonoise ratio; see Section 4.7). In a controlled test at DSS 25 (antenna stationary, FTS common to the transmit and received chains and thus cancelled in this zero twoway light time test) the sum of the noises from the exciter, transmitter, downconversion electronics, and receiver was measured (Figure 5). The power spectrum of those test data is shown in [1]; the corresponding Allan deviation at τ = 1000 s is 2 × 10^{−16}.
4.6 Spacecraft transponder noise
Transponders accept an input carrier signal and produce an output signal at a different frequency. The process is phasecoherent; that is, for every N integer cycles of the input there are M integer cycles of the output (with M/N being the transponding ratio). When this condition is achieved, the transponder is operating normally and produces an output that is “locked” to the input signal. The Cassini spacecraft has two transponders^{7}. The standard flight transponder (“KEX”) accepts the Xband uplink and produces two phasecoherent outputs, one at fx · 880/749 (= Xband downlink frequency) and another at fx · 3344/749 (= Ka1 downlink frequency), where fx is the frequency of the Xband uplink signal observed at the spacecraft. These signals are amplified, routed to the spacecraft highgain antenna, and transmitted to the earth. Another flight unit, the Kaband Translator (“KaT”), accepts a Kaband uplink signal and produces a phase coherent signal with frequency f_{k} · 14/15 (= Ka2 downlink frequency), where f_{k} is the Kaband signal frequency observed at the spacecraft.
Prelaunch test data of transponders similar in design to Cassini’s KEX showed negligible (i.e., < 10^{−15}) frequency noise. Prelaunch tests of the KaT similarly showed negligible frequency noise (≃ 10^{−16} at τ = 1000 s), provided the received Kaband uplink signal was relatively strong (greater than about −127 dBm, see [1, 19, 78, 22]) at the input to the KaT.
Appropriate linear combinations of the frequency time series of the three downlinks can be used to estimate and remove (at the Fourier frequencies of interest) downlink and roundtrip plasma noise [68, 65, 69, 70] in GW observations. For example, the downlink plasma noise time series can be determined by forming fx − (880/3344)f_{Ka1}, which is independent of FTS noise, antenna mechanical noise, spacecraft buffeting, and GWs (since these are all nondispersive.) These plasma corrections were also used with good success by Bertotti, Iess, and Tortora [29] in a precision test of relativistic gravity involving Cassini tracking very close to the sun.
4.7 Thermal noise in the ground and spacecraft receivers
Noise sources and contributions (expressed as Allan deviation [23] at 1000 s integration) in Cassiniera precision Doppler tracking GW observations. This table is adapted from [1, 22]. SEP: sunearthprobe (solar elongation) angle; SNR: signaltonoise ratio of the downlink. Models of the spectra of the individual noises are given in [111].
Noise source  σ_{y} [1000 s]  Comment 

Frequency standard  ≃ 8 × 10^{−16}  
Antenna mechanical  ≃ 2 × 10^{−15}  DSS 25 (34m antenna) under favorable conditions [19] 
Ground electronics  ≃ 2 × 10^{−16}  measured in controlled test, DSS 25 [1] 
Plasma phase scintillation  < 10^{−15}, for Kaband and SEP > 150°  σ_{y} depends on SEP; dispersive; scales as square of radio wavelength; see Figure 10 
Stochastic spacecraft motion  ≃ 2 × 10^{−16}  
Receiver thermal noise  few × 10^{−16}  depends on link SNR and detector bandwidth [23] 
Spacecraft transponder noise  ≃ 10^{−16}  
Tropospheric scintillation(raw)  < 3 × 10^{−15} to ≃ 30 × 10^{−15}  
Tropospheric scintillation (corrected)  < 1.5 × 10^{−15} to ≃ 3 × 10^{−15}  under favorable conditions [19]; median conditions in connectedelement interferometry tests [96] 
4.8 Spacecraft unmodeled motion
Unmodeled motion of the spacecraft enters directly into the twoway Doppler time series (see Figure 7). The lack of a timedomain signature makes it difficult to isolate spacecraft motion using the Doppler data only. Such unmodeled motion can arise in principle from a variety of causes: fluctuations in the solar wind hitting the spacecraft, fluctuations in solar radiation pressure, physical articulation of spacecraft parts, leaking thrusters, sloshing of fuel in the spacecraft’s tanks, etc. Solar wind and solar radiation pressure fluctuations are computed to be far too small to affect observations at current levels of sensitivity [100]. Articulation of instruments is restricted during quiet spacecraft periods where good Doppler sensitivity is required. Leaking thrusters and fuel sloshing are also thought to be small effects at current generation Doppler sensitivity [100].
4.9 Numerical noise in orbit removal
Removal of the systematic variation in the Doppler time series due to the known motion of the earth and spacecraft can be done using the JPL/NASA Orbit Determination Program (ODP; [85]) or its successor the Missionanalysis, Operations, and Navigation Tool Environment (MONTE). Subtraction of the computed systematic Doppler frequency from the observed time series then gives residuals which can be searched for gravitational waves. The ODP computes Doppler by differencing the computed range to the spacecraft at two separated times and dividing by the time difference. Because of finite computer word length neither range nor time is expressed with perfect accuracy. These, coupled with finiteaccuracy computer arithmetic, give rise to numerical noise which propagates to the residuals. Because of the granularity in time and distance the magnitude of numerical noise depends on time past 12:00 UT January 1, 2000 (the ODP measures time from J2000), distance and relative radial velocity of the spacecraft [133] and is small compared with other noises for the early 2000s Cassini gravitationalwave observations (thus not included in Table 2). However, it is clear in Cassini Doppler data taken later in the Saturn tour [133, 67] and likely relevant for future, e.g., Juno and BepiColombo, observations.
4.10 Aggregate spectrum
The lowfrequency part of the spectrum in Figure 14 consists of a continuum plus spectral lines between ≃ 10^{−5} −10^{−4} Hz. The lines in the unsmoothed spectrum are near the resolution limit of the 40 day observation; their apparent width in Figure 14 is due to the spectral smoothing used to reduced estimation error. The lowest frequency line is near one cycle/day; the other lines are near harmonics of one cycle/day. Because of the multilink plasma correction, all random processes contributing to this spectrum are nondispersive. At frequencies greater than about 1/T_{2} there is clear, approximately cosinusoidal, modulation. This is characteristic of positive correlation in the time series at lag τ = T_{2}, i.e., either antenna mechanical noise or residual tropospheric noise. The level is too large to be dominated by residual tropospheric scintillation, however, and so is interpreted as mechanical noise. Many minima of the mechanical noise transfer function — at odd multiples of 1/(2T_{2}) — are easily visible in Figure 14. The spectrum appears to continue to be dominated by mechanical noise up to ≃ 0.01 Hz, with the signature of the transfer function being, however, difficult to see on this log plot (and also blurred at high frequencies since T_{2} changed with time by about 3% over the course of the 40 day observation.)
4.11 Summary of noise levels and transfer functions
Table 2 summarizes the noise model and the associated Allan deviation at τ = 1000 s for the principal noises (models of the spectra of the individual noises are given in [111]). Figure 5 shows, highly schematically, the signal flow. This sketch, the GW transfer function (see Eq. (1)), and the noise transfer functions (see, e.g., Figure 7) are used in discussions of sensitivity, signal processing, and for qualifying/disqualifying candidate GW events.
5 Signal Processing
This section discusses signal processing approaches, both formal and heuristic, which have been used to analyze Doppler observations. These include noise spectrum estimation, analysis methods to search for periodic, burst, and stochastic signals, and ideas for qualifying/disqualifying candidate signals based on signal and noise transfer functions.
5.1 Noise spectrum estimation
Spacecraft Doppler tracking shares attributes with all other real observations: The noise is nonstationary, there are lowlevel systematic effects, and there are data gaps. The noise can usually be regarded as effectively statistically stationary for at most the interval of a tracking pass (≃ 8 hours). The nonstationarity of (what may be fundamentally Gaussian but with timevariable variance) noise is a complication. For example in matched filtering for bursts, discussed below, the noise spectrum has to be estimated locally [63] for use in deriving locallyvalid matching functions from the assumed GW waveforms [61].
Noise characterization has historically been done via standard spectral and acf analysis techniques [73]. Spectra of various data sets have been presented in [4, 18, 32, 9, 19]. The data have typically been analyzed with varying timefrequency resolution to assess the fidelity of the spectral estimates and to provide local (in Fourier frequency) estimates of the underlying noise spectral density for sinusoidal and chirp signal searches (below). Running estimates of the variance and third central moments have been used as guides for identifying intervals of stationarity in pilot studies. Bispectra^{8} were computed for early data sets looking for nonlinear, nonGaussian effects. Bispectral analysis seemed to have limited utility, however; the Doppler noise is close to Gaussian and the slow convergence of higher statistical moments makes the bispectrum hard to estimate accurately over the length of a stationary data interval.
5.2 Sinusoidal and quasiperiodic waves
Some candidate sources radiate periodic or quasiperiodic waves. From an observational viewpoint a signal is effectively a sinusoid if the change in wave frequency over the duration of the observation T is significantly less than a resolution bandwidth 1/T. Since in a search experiment the signal phase is not known, spectral analysis [73, 107, 89] is appropriate. In the absence of a signal, the real and imaginary parts of the time series’ Fourier transform are Gaussian and uncorrelated, so the Fourier power is exponentially distributed [88]. In the presence of a signal, the Fourier power is “Ricesquared” distributed [97]. Formal tests for statistical significance [55, 107, 4, 18, 7, 5, 89] involve comparing the power in a candidate line with an estimate of the level of the local noisespectrum continuum. Since the frequency of the signal is also not known a priori, a range of frequencies must be searched. The spectral power is approximately independent between Fourier bins, so the joint probability density function of the power in n Fourier bins is the product of the individual bin pdfs. This can be used to set statistical confidence limits for the sensitivity of a search experiment over multiple candidate signal frequencies [18].
A signal is effectively a linear chirp if the change in frequency over the observation interval is > 1/T but the curvature of the signal’s trajectory in a frequencytime plot is negligible over the observing interval. In this case, signal power is smeared in (frequency, time) and simple spectral analysis is inappropriate. In a chirpwave analysis the Doppler data are first passed through a software preprocessor which tunes the signal to compensate for the linear chirping. With the correct tuning function, the chirp is converted to a sinusoid in the output. Spectral analysis is then used to search for statistically significant lines. The tuning function exp(iπβt^{2}) is complex. The parameter β, an estimate of df/dt, is unknown and must be varied. (In an idealized situation, this procedure resolves the signal into three lines, with frequency separation depending on β and T_{2} [5]. The observability of all three lines is unlikely in real observations, however.) The situation is different from the sinusoidal case in that an arrow of time has been introduced by the software dechirping; the positive and negative frequency components of the dechirped spectrum contain different information. In principle, an ensemble of chirping signals, each too weak to be detected individually, could be identified by noting differences in the statistics of the positive and negative frequency components of the dechirped spectrum.
Waveforms which are more complicated than linear chirps arise, e.g., from binary systems near coalescence. To do proper matched filtering [61] the waveform and the source location on the sky are needed. If one assumes the time evolution of the phase, the time series can be resampled at unequal times [102, 5] so that (in terms of the resampled phase variable) the signal is periodic. This suboptimum technique can be used in pilot analyses to prequalify candidates for exact matched filtering. Nonsinusoidal periodic waves, generated, e.g., by noncircular binary systems, can have rich Fourier content [127]. Searches for these waveforms have included folding the data with assumed periods [18].
5.3 Bursts
Bursts are timelocalized signals in the data set. Matched filtering with assumed waveforms involves varying several parameters, including cos θ, in the threepulse response. Burst searches are helped by the very diagnostic threepulse response (integral of signal response must be zero; location and amplitude ratios of the “pulses” must be consistent with θ.) Matched filter outputs have a “signal part” (integral of the matching function with the signal) and a “noise part” (integral of the matching function with the noise). The variance of the matchedfilter’s noiseonly output changes if the noise is nonstationary. If not accounted for this can result in distorted pdfs of matched filter outputs and (superficially significant) tails of the distribution of matched filter outputs, even in the absence of a signal. To allow for this [63] the data can be divided into intervals over which the noise appears stationary. A model of the noise spectrum over each interval is used, along with the assumed signal waveform, to compute the matching function. This matching function is then used for that interval only. Simulation of the matched filter against synthetic noise having the same spectrum and data gap structure of the interval being analyzed is used to estimate the variance of the noiseonly matched filter output. Then the actual matched filter outputs can be normalized by the estimated noiseonly variance to express outputs in terms of SNRs. This allows the outputs of the matched filter to be compared consistently across a data set where the noise statistics are changing. Multispacecraft coincidences can be used to reduce further falsealarms [28, 112, 63, 13].
Related to burst processing are “template independent” methods for identifying data intervals for more detailed study. Wavelet transforms of the data on a passbypass basis have been sometimes useful in finding timelocalized intervals formally contributing anomalously large variance. These are then typically checked to see if there are corresponding features within ±T_{2}. Examination of the time series reconstructed from some small fraction (≃ 10%) of the largest amplitude wavelets (or systematically from the wavelets in selected subbands only) have also been useful [11].
5.4 Stochastic background
Stochastic background limits can be derived from the smoothed Doppler frequency power spectrum [52, 26]. If the background is assumed isotropic, spectra of twoway Doppler can be converted to spectra of strain by dividing by the sky and polarizationaveraged GW response function [52, 54, 19]. (If a background is not isotropic, then the spectral response function is the square of the Fourier transform of the threepulse response evaluated for the relevant μ and averaged over polarization states.) From the strength of the background can be expressed relative to closure density or as a characteristic strain amplitude [108, 93, 72] (see Section 6.5).
5.5 Classification of data intervals based on transfer functions
Although the signal waveforms are not known a priori, there is a good understanding of transfer functions of the GW signal and the principal noises to the Doppler. Partitioning the data into “knownnoiselike” or “other” intervals based on the noise transfer functions can be useful. Examples of discreteevent noise classification based on transfer function were shown in Section 4; statistical classification of data intervals based on the local acf is also possible (see, e.g., [9, 19]). The local spectrum or correlation function has also been used to assess the relative importance of different noises and their stationarity from, e.g., the degree of correlation at τ = T_{2}.
5.6 Frequencytime representations
5.7 Qualifying/disqualifying candidates
Qualifying or disqualifying candidate signals is based both on spectra of noise processes and, usually more crucially, on signal and noise transfer functions. In some cases it is immediately obvious, using the noise transfer function and a single time series, that a stretch of data is noise dominated (large antenna mechanical events for example). In other cases, multiple time series (e.g., the multiple X and Kaband signals available with the Cassini observations; see Figure 5) can be used to qualify candidates.

Is there a radio wave amplitude variation associated with a Doppler variation (for GWs, there should not be)?
 Is there something special about the data taking or the data records where the candidate is observed?

Is the backend instrumentation distinguished in some way (e.g., common receiver or receiver rack)?

Is the candidate observed only at a specific trackingstation? (Is the candidate observed at only one kind of station, e.g., only at the DSN beamwaveguide antennas and not at the DSN “highefficiency” antennas?)

Is the signal a plausible alias of a manmade frequency?

Could a narrowband feature be due to a mechanical resonance of the antenna?


Does it appear in only part(s) of the tracking record?

Is its frequency modulation consistent with the source being at a fixed point on the sky, given the known earthspacecraft geometry variation over the observation?

Is the candidate observed in more than one radio band (e.g., X and Kaband) simultaneously? Is it demonstrably nondispersive? Are the individualband SNRs consistent with a common Δ/c?

Is the candidate consistent when observed with different resolutions in time and Fourier frequency?

Could this candidate have been introduced into the time series by a faulty calibration? Each of the above has been used to assess reality or unreality of candidate periodic and quasiperiodic waves in different data sets. Some published examples include the following ones:
Anderson et al. [5] observed a chirp that persisted over 10 days. The data were reanalyzed in subsets based on inclusion or exclusion of specific stations, specific transmitter/receiver pairs, and temporal partitions of the data set. The chirp was ultimately disqualified as nonastronomical because it was only observed in the subset of the data involving a particular transmitter/receiver pair.
In another Pioneer spacecraft observation [18] the statistical significance of candidate spectral lines was assessed by scrambling the data within the data gaps and reanalyzing. This confirmed analytical work on the false alarm probability and the (lack of) statistical significance of the strongest candidate periodic signals.
In the threespacecraft coincidence experiment involving the Galileo, Mars Observer, and Ulysses spacecraft [13] matched filtering for signals from particular directions that were sinusoidal (except for modulation due to earthspacecraft motion modulation over the course of the ∼ 20day track) gave undistinguished peak SNRs in the Mars Observer and Galileo data sets, but a formally significant SNR in the Ulysses data set. From the modulation over the period of the observations, the inferred direction of arrival was α ≃ 0°, δ ≃ +69°. Since the position of the candidate source was thus “known”, gravitationalwave polarization states [127, 18, 16] were explored looking for states which could simultaneously couple well to Ulysses but poorly (so as to push a real astronomical signal into the noise) to Mars Observer and Galileo. There was no polarization state which could produce this simultaneously in the three data sets, so this candidate was excluded as a false alarm.
The consistency of multiple, simultaneous data sets can also be used to qualify or disqualify nonperiodic waveform candidates. This is complicated by the fact that different data sets have different noise levels and thus different sensitivities to GWs. Figure 17 shows a normalized dynamic spectrum for Cassini twoway Kaband data on 2003 DOY 008. The strong feature observed in the average spectrum (right panel) comes from a short time interval in the track at about 08:50 UT. Figure 18 shows the dynamic spectrum of twoway Xband for the same track, with no highcontrast feature near (08:50 UT, 0.22 Hz). Subsequent analysis of band pass filtered time series for the X and Kaband data showed that the event seen in the Kaband data, if produced by a real earthspacecraft velocity, should have also been observable above the noise in the Xband and was not. Such events were observed once per day in the 2002–2003 Cassini observing campaign (only — and with varying strength) and are apparently a systematic effect specific to the twoway Kaband system (perhaps associated with the independence of the Kaband transmit and receive horns; see Section 4.4 and Figure 5).
Qualifying/disqualifying candidate burst waves is slightly different because, by hypothesis, the signal is only “on” for a finite time and some of the above tests do not apply. However a true GW burst must be nondispersive and show the correct threepulse signature in the time series. Here the threepulse response [52] is very powerful: Whatever the GW waveforms, the signal must show the threepulse response with correct amplitudes and spacings for a GW from a specific direction relative to the earthspacecraft line (see Figure 1).
5.8 Other comments
Another analysis scheme which is attractive in principle but does not seem useful in currentsensitivity Doppler data analysis is the KarhunenLoéve expansion [61, 43]. This is a signalindependent approach where the data themselves are used to construct a mathematical basis to express the data. Such representations may be useful for templatefree analysis of time series dominated by a signal of unknown waveform. However, experiments with this analysis procedure on simulated noisedominated Doppler data sets were disappointing; the modes discovered in the KarhunenLoéve simulations were always the noise modes.
Editing flags developed, e.g., from spacecraft telemetry or from DSN tracking logs have not historically been useful^{9} as veto signals (the internal monitoring capabilities of the spacecraft and ground stations were, of course, not intended for this purpose). The Doppler itself is much more sensitive than the system monitors and also — being spatially distributed by cT_{2}/2 — has noisesignatures which often allow easier identification of specific disturbances affecting the time series (see, e.g., Section 4).
Even though each class of tracking antenna has a common design, there are lowlevel stationspecific systematic differences. Getting data with different stations helps at least to identify these systematics (see, e.g., [5]). Also data taken at low elevation angle (< 20°) with any antenna are statistically of poorer quality.
Finally, at current levels of sensitivity Doppler tracking observations are clearly search experiments. We are looking for signals with poorlyconstrained waveforms which are “surprisingly” strong (thus expected to be rare). To maximize the chance that an unexpected real event will not be dismissed as due to a known noise process (or overlooked altogether), it is obviously useful to analyze the time series in different ways to bring out different aspects. Doppler tracking data sets are not impossibly large: It is practical for a person to actually look at all the data with varying timefrequency resolution — in addition to using formal and automated analysis procedures. (A potential difficulty is still actually recognizing unanticipated features if they are present. Reference [77] has interesting discussions of the problems of recognizing unexpected things.) As emphasized by Thorne [108], the largest events may be from unexpected sources so the data analysis scheme must be robust enough that unexpected signals are not preprocessed away.
6 Detector Performance
6.1 Observations to date
Spacecraft Doppler gravitationalwave observations. MO: Mars Observer; GLL: Galileo; ULS: Ulysses; MGS: Mars Global Surveyor; AMC: Advanced Media Calibration system (tropospheric calibration). A “pass” is a tracking pass over a given DSN antenna, i.e., about 8 hours long.
Year  Spacecraft  Comment  Reference 

1980  Voyager  several passes; Sband uplink, S/X downlink; burst search  [60] 
1981  Pioneer 10  3 passes; long T_{2}; GW background limit; observationally excluded GW from Geminga  
1983  Pioneer 11  3 days; long T_{2}; broadband periodic search  [18] 
1988  Pioneer 10  10 days; long T_{2}; chirp wave search  [5] 
1990  Ulysses  3.5 days; short T_{2}  
1992  Ulysses  14 days; long T_{2}; periodic and chirp search; Sband uplink, S/X band downlink  
1993  MO/GLL/ULS  19 days; X/Xband on MO; coincidence experiment; search for all waveforms  
1994–95  Galileo  40/40 days (two oppositions); long T_{2}; S/Sband  
1997  MGS  21 days; short T_{2}; X/Xband  [9] 
2001–03  Cassini  40/40/20 days (three oppositions); long T_{2}; Kaband; AMC; multilink plasma calibration  
2016+  Juno  opposition in early 2016; long T_{2}; Kaband; AMC; good geometric coupling to galactic center  
2019+  BepiColombo  short T_{2}; multilink plasma calibration; AMC; good geometric coupling to galactic center 
The observations in Table 3 reflect increasing sensitivity between about 1980 and the early 2000s. These improvements were due both to engineering advancements (in spacecraft and in the DSN) and to programmatic decisions allowing use of planetary spacecraft for these observations. Voyager sensitivity was limited by a combination of plasma noise in the Sband uplink (see Figure 10) and spacecraft buffeting noise from its thrusters. Although the data volume was small, those observations were used in the first formal search for lowfrequency burst waves [60]. The Pioneer spacecraft were spinstabilized, resulting in lower spacecraft buffeting noise, but were again sensitivitylimited by plasma noise in the Sband radio links. Despite this, Pioneer data were able to observationally exclude putative sinusoidal GW emission from Geminga [4] and place the thenbest limit on a lowfrequency GW background [6]. Ulysses observations in 1992 were the longest to date, motivated innovations in signal processing, and resulted in the thenbest sensitivity to periodic and chirp waveforms [31, 32]. Mars Observer was the first spacecraft to have Xband on both the up and downlinks, resulting in muchreduced plasma noise. Mars Observer, Galileo, and Ulysses did the first (and so far only) coincidence experiment [63, 13] which was used successfully to disqualify an event which was formally significant in one time series. Galileo observations in 1994–1995 had a long twoway light time and thus better GW response at lower Fourier frequencies. Unfortunately, the failure of the highgain antenna required Sband only observations (thus high plasma noise) [9]. Mars Global Surveyor observations in 1997 were done with Xband links (but off of solar opposition) and were the only observations where spacecraft engineering telemetry was used to correct the Doppler data for the (slow) systematic spacecraft motion. Those data also showed strong correlation at the twoway light time, indicating the importance of tropospheric calibration and placing upper limits on antenna mechanical noise [9, 22].
Most of the sensitivity discussion in this paper, however, relates to Cassini observations. Cassini was launched on a mission to Saturn in 1997 [37]. After earth, Venus, and Jupiter gravityassists, it continued on a free interplanetary cruise trajectory toward orbit insertion at Saturn. The Cassini gravitationalwave observations consisted of two 40day datataking campaigns, centered on the spacecraft’s solar oppositions during 2001–2002 and 2002–2003, and one 20day observation taken somewhat off opposition during late 2003. This data set is distinguished by its very sophisticated multilink radio system (allowing essentially perfect plasma correction [69, 122, 70, 29, 121]) and by the Advanced Media Calibration system (allowing excellent tropospheric scintillation removal) [94, 96, 19, 76].
6.2 Nearfuture observations
There are two potentiallygoodsensitivity nearfuture GW opportunities using Juno and BepiColombo in their cruise phases. Juno will reach Jupiter in July 2016. BepiColombo is a lowaltitude orbiter of Mercury.
The BepiColombo spacecraft will have a multilink radio system similar to Cassini’s. Thus plasma noise can be solvedfor and removed from the data prior to GW analysis. The nominal launch is in January 2017.^{10} Because BepiColombo is an inner solar system mission, the twoway light time during the cruise phase will never be more than about 1700 seconds. There is a GW observation opportunity, however. Between about 1000 and 1100 days after launch (e.g., late 2019 to early 2020 for the nominal launch date) the twoway light time is ≃ 1600 s while the earthspacecraft vector changes orientation substantially on the celestial sphere. Thus the geometric coupling to sources on the sky changes. For example, θ = arccos(μ) for a source at the galactic center changes between about 150 and 50 degrees over ≃ 100 days. Selected intervals in this time window could be used to search for shorter GW bursts, for example, targeting specific geometricallyfavorable directions (Figure 19 shows the coupling to the galactic center for late 2019, assuming nominal launch date.) Such a campaign would require the spacecraft’s solarelectric propulsion to be turned off during GW observations.
6.3 Sensitivity to periodic and quasiperiodic waves
6.3.1 Sinusoidal waves and chirps
Early searches for periodic waves involved short duration observations (several hours to a few days; see, e.g., [4, 18]) and thus ignorable modulation of an astronomical sinusoid due to changing geometry (nontimeshiftinvariance of the GW transfer function; see Section 3). A true fixedfrequency signal would be reflected in the spectrum of the (noisy) Doppler times series as a “Ricesquared” random variable [97] at the signal frequency. Subsequent observations were over 10–40 days and the time dependence of the earthspacecraftsource geometry became important: A sinusoidal excitation would be modulated into a nonsinusoidal Doppler response with power typically smeared over a few Fourier frequency resolution bins. Nonnegligible modulation has both advantages and disadvantages. An advantage is that a real GW signal has a sourcelocationdependent signature in the data and this can be used to verify or refute an astronomical origin of a candidate. The disadvantage is that a simple spectral analysis is not sufficient for optimum detection (SNR losses of the simple spectral analysis technique are frequency and geometry dependent but can be ≃ 3 dB or more in some observations) and the computational cost to search for even a simple astronomicalorigin sinusoid becomes larger. Searches to date have addressed this with a hierarchical approach to the data analysis. First a suboptimalbutsimple spectral analysis is done. Candidates are then identified using an SNR threshold which is high enough to exclude Fourier components which, even with proper analysis, would be too weak to be classified as otherthannoise. The idea is to use a computationally inexpensive procedure (i.e., FFTs) to exclude candidates which could not, in principle, be raised to a reasonable threshold SNR even with accurate matched filtering. The frequencies of candidate signals passing the threshold are saved and matched filters are constructed using the known timedependence of the earthspacecraft geometry and for 20 points on the sky (the vertices of a dodecahedron projected onto the celestial sphere.^{11})
Linear chirp processing adds an additional parameter (chirp rate) and requires detection thresholds to be set higher. In both the sinusoidal and chirp analyses, the pdfs of signal power have been used to assess candidates (see, e.g., [18, 3, 32]). Nonlinear chirps, if source parameters are favorable, could be strong candidate signals. Analysis methods, anticipated sensitivity, and detection range for Cassini are discussed in [30].
6.3.2 Nonsinusoidal periodic waves
Calculations of Doppler response to GWs from a nonrelativistic binary system [127] show that the observed Doppler waveform can have a rich harmonic content. Monte Carlo calculations of GW strength from stars in highly elliptical orbits around the Galaxy’s central black hole have been given in [53]. For these stellarmass secondaries generate wave amplitudes more than an order of magnitude weaker than Cassiniera Doppler sensitivity.
6.4 Burst waves
Waves from coalescing binary sources are intermediate between periodic and burst waves. Expected sensitivity and analysis methods have been treated in detail by Bertotti, Iess, and Vecchio [30, 124]; supermassive black hole coalescences with favorable parameters are visible with Cassiniclass sensitivity out to 100s of Mpc. Cassini is also sensitive to ≃ 50 M_{⊙} intermediatemass black holes coalescing with the supermassive black hole at the galactic center [30].
6.5 Sensitivity to a stochastic background
Predictions for an astrophysical GW background in the lowfrequency band, e.g., from an ensemble of galactic binary stars or an ensemble of massive black hole binaries, have mainly been aimed at the design sensitivity of future dedicated GW missions [24]. The galactic binary star background is much too weak to be seen with spacecraft Doppler tracking. At lower frequencies (10^{−9} − 10^{−6} Hz) the strength of a GW background from an ensemble of coalescing black hole binaries has been estimated [93, 72, 132] mostly in the context of a pulsar timing array. Extrapolations or predictions in the lowfrequency band [72, 132] give strengths substantially lower than spacecraft Doppler tracking can presently observe (see Figure 21).
7 Improving Doppler Tracking Sensitivity
Required improvement in subsystems to improve overall Doppler sensitivity by a factor of 10 relative to Cassiniera performance.
Noise source  Comment (σ_{y} at τ = 1000 s)  Required improvement 

Frequency standard  currently FTS + distribution ≃ 8 × 10^{−16}  ≃ 8X 
Ground electronics  currently ≃ 2 × 10^{−16}  ≃ 2X 
Tropospheric scintillation  currently ≃ 10^{−15} under favorable conditions  ≃ 10X 
Plasma scintillation  Cassiniclass radio system probably adequate for calibration to ≃ 10^{−16}  ≃ 1X 
Spacecraft motion  currently ≃ 2 × 10^{−16}  ≃ 2X 
Antenna mechanical  currently ≃ 2 × 10^{−15} under favorable conditions  ≃ 20X 
FTS stability at the 10^{−17} level for τ ≃ 1000 s has been demonstrated [62]. (If highstability flyable frequency standards become available in the future, they would allow simultaneous multiple one and twoway Doppler measurements. These multiple observations would give excellent diagnostics of many instrumental noises and provide further rejection of systematic effects [125, 8, 117]). Better frequency standards would require better frequency distribution. Prototypes for frequency distribution within the Atacama Large Millimeter Array achieve stability 10^{−16} or better for time scales of about 1000 seconds [39].
Improving ground electronics noise by 2X is probably possible by even more careful design. Reducing tropospheric scintillation by 10X will require either an antenna at very high altitude, improvements in AMC technology (e.g., exactly coincident beams, better water vapor radiometry technology), or perhaps an interesting idea (suggested independently by Estabrook [48] and Hellings [59]) whereby a second ground station (listenonly, at high altitude) could be employed to synthesize a Doppler observable which has the (presumably much lower) tropospheric phase scintillation noise of the higheraltitude receiveonly station. Plasma scintillation correction technology is already adequate to reach an Allan deviation of ∼ 10^{−16}. Cassini spacecraft unmodeled motion was measured to be within a factor of about 2 of 10^{−16} (see Section 4.8); it is not clear what actually limited the Cassini motion measurement so additional analysis/design might be required to assure that this component entered at the 10^{−16} level or lower.
Suitably stiff antennas (i.e., antennas with mechanical stability at least an order of magnitude better than that of DSS 25) have been built for radio astronomy applications [103]. These or comparable antennas could be used to reduce the antenna mechanical noise in Doppler gravitationalwave tracks to ∼ 10^{−16} or lower for τ = 1000 s. Of course one would not use this technique except in situations where the antenna mechanical noise dominates. Some considerations for a practical implementation of this method are discussed in [14].
There is no currentlyplanned mission that requires Doppler stability at the ≃ 10^{−16} level. Indeed unless such stability can be achieved inexpensively that level of Doppler performance might have to be justified by a mission dedicated to precision radio science. As outlined above, however, ∼ 10^{−16} burst sensitivity may be possible with extensions of current technologies. To do several orders of magnitude better than 10^{−16}, however — e.g., to achieve sensitivity adequate to detect the very weak GWs from known galactic binaries — would almost certainly require a different utilization of electromagnetic tracking [24], discussed briefly in Section 8.
8 The LISA LowFrequency Detector
Current Doppler tracking observations piggyback on spacecraft mainly serving the planetary science community. Future lowfrequency detectors could be dedicated GW missions — fully spacebased — involving separated dragfree test masses [24, 105, 90, 115]. The LISA/eLISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) mission is currently (2015) in the design and development stage, with a technology demonstration mission, LISA Pathfinder, launched in December 2015. The three LISA sciencecraft will form an approximately equilateral triangle with nominal 5 × 10^{9} m armlengths (timevariable by ∼ 1% due to celestial mechanics). Six oneway laserdriven optical links between spacecraft pairs will monitor Doppler (or phase) fluctuations as the test masses respond to incident GWs.^{13} The principal advantages to moving all the apparatus to space are that the environment is very stable and dragfree technology can be employed. The final noise level can then in principle be set by (very small) opticalpath and proof mass noises [24]. LISA’s anticipated sensitivity is excellent: ∼ 10^{−23} for sinusoidal signals in a one year integration.
To reach the levels of the secondary opticalpath and proofmass noises, however, LISA must first cancel laser phase noise (which is otherwise overwhelming, ≃ 160 dB larger than the secondary noises). Since LISA’s armlengths cannot be made equal and constant, conventional laser noise cancelling methods, e.g., Michelson interferometry, will not work. LISA will use a technique based on the transfer functions of signals and noises to the inter and intraspacecraft Doppler data called “timedelay interferometry” (TDI; see, e.g., [116]), to cancel the laser phase noises.^{14} TDI had its genesis in Doppler tracking where, as with LISA, timeofflight of GWs and electromagnetic waves must be treated explicitly in the analysis.
9 Concluding Comments
This paper discussed the principles of operation and status of spacecraft Doppler tracking, the currentgeneration GW detector technology in the ∼ 10^{−6} to 10^{−1} Hz band. Doppler tracking differs from all other currentlyoperating detectors in that the size of the apparatus (earthspacecraft distance) is large compared with the GW wavelength. As a consequence timesofflight of GWs and radio waves through the apparatus are important, resulting in a threepulse signal response and various twopulse noise responses. The different signal and noise transfer functions suggest data analysis approaches for various waveforms; some of these approaches were outlined here. The sensitivity of currentgeneration Doppler observations was discussed as well as what would be required to improve this sensitivity by another order of magnitude (to ∼ 10^{−17} for sinusoidal waves). Further large sensitivity improvements in the lowfrequency band will require dedicated multispacecraft arrays in space. Until such a dedicated mission flys, spacecraft tracking will provide the best observational capability in the lowfrequency GW band.
Footnotes
 1.
Gravitationalwave bands conventionally divide based on detector technology [108, 35]: Future extremelylowfrequency (∼ 10^{−18} to ∼ 10^{−15} Hz) search programs will be based on mapping the intensity and polarization of the cosmic microwave background; verylow frequency observations (∼ 10^{−9} to ∼ 10^{−6} Hz) mostly use pulsar timing observations; lowfrequency (∼ 10^{−6} to ∼ 10^{—1} Hz) observations currently use Doppler tracking of spacecraft (in the 2020’s a laser interferometer in space); highfrequency (∼ 1 to ∼ 10^{4} Hz) observations involve groundbased laser interferometers or resonant bar detectors. For general reviews see [91, 108, 36].
 2.
Although conceptually important — and used with excellent success as part of the hydrogenmaserbased suborbital GPA experiment [126] — oneway Doppler presents a practical problem for precision tracking of deep space probes: Flightqualified frequency standards for deep space are currently (2015) substantially less stable than groundbased standards. The quality of oneway spacecraft Doppler GW measurements is severely limited by noise in the flight frequency generator. Deep space tracking systems circumvent this by measuring twoway Doppler. In the twoway mode the ground station transmits a radio signal referenced to a highquality frequency standard. The spacecraft receives this signal and phasecoherently retransmits it to the earth. The transponding process adds noise, but at negligible levels in current observations (see Table 2), and does not require a good oscillator on the spacecraft. The ground station then measures the twoway Doppler shift by comparing the frequency of the received signal against the frequency of a local reference derived from the ground frequency standard.
 3.Noises are characterized in the time domain by Allan deviation, σ_{y}(τ), or in the frequency domain by the power spectra of fractional frequency fluctuations, S_{y}(f). These are related bywhere S_{y}(f) is the twosided spectrum [23].$$\sigma _y^2(\tau) = 4\int\nolimits_0^\infty {{{{S_y}(f){{\sin}^4}(\pi \tau f)} \over {{{(\pi \tau f)}^2}}}df,}$$
 4.
 5.
A particularly welldefined example of a spatiallylocalized solar wind scattering region when Cassini’s lineofsight was close to the sun, thus τ substantially smaller than T_{2}, is shown in [98]
 6.
The mechanical stability of the DSN’s 70m antennas has not been systematically studied. A few observations done with Cassini in 2003 suggest mechanical noise of the 70m antennas is substantially larger than for the 34m beamwaveguide antennas.
 7.
In principle, Cassini has one transponder and one translator. The distinction is that a transponder performs functions in addition to phasecoherent generation of the downlink signal from the uplink signal.
 8.
The bispectrum is the Fourier transform of the thirdorder lagged product 〈x(t) x(t + τ_{1}) x(t + τ_{2})〉; it gives the contribution to the third moment from the product of three Fourier components having frequencies which add to zero. It has been used in many fields, notably geophysics, to study weak nonlinearities (see, e.g., [56, 80]).
 9.
 10.
Trajectory information for BepiColombo’s nominal mission was kindly provided by L. less and L. Imperi.
 11.
This was suggested by Estabrook as giving “noncommittal” directions on the celestial sphere and have separations which are reasonably matched to the effective angular response of a typical Doppler tracking observation.
 12.
 13.
Oneway tracking emphasizes the symmetry of the LISA array and simplifies the analysis of the apparatus; for technical reasons the actual implementation of LISA may involve some of the links being twoway [101].
 14.
TDI developed in increasing sophistication to account for unequal armlengths, differences between the (unequal) armlengths on given up and downlinks due to aberration, and timedependences of the unequal, aberrated armlengths. For a discussion of this development see [116] and references therein. TDI also allows LISA’s laser noises to be canceled in many ways [17, 51, 118]. In particular, one lasernoisefree combination is insensitive to GWs, but responds to the instrumental noises; this combination will be used to discriminate a stochastic GW background due to galactic binary stars from instrumental noises [114, 45]. Because multiple lasernoisefree combinations can be simultaneously constructed, the optimum sensitivity of the LISA array can be achieved by appropriately linear combinations of the TDI data streams [92].
Notes
Acknowledgements
The precision Doppler tracking capability described here resulted from work by many dedicated people at NASA, in the Mars Observer/Mars Global Surveyor, Ulysses, Galileo, and Cassini Projects (and the international partners of those Projects), the NASA/JPL Deep Space Network, and the JPL Technical Divisions. I am particularly indebted to B. Bertotti, F.B. Estabrook, L. Iess, R.V. Stachnik, M. Tinto, H.D. Wahlquist, and E.J. Weiler. The research described here was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
References
 [1]Abbate, S. F. et al., “The Cassini gravitational wave experiment”, in Cruise, M. and Saulson, P., eds., GravitationalWave Detection, Proc. of SPIE, 4856, pp. 90–97, (The International Society for Optical Engineering, New York, 2003). (Cited on pages 24 and 28.)Google Scholar
 [2]Anderson, A. J., “Probability of Long Period Gravitational Radiation”, Nature, 229, 547–548 (1971). [DOI]. (Cited on page 7.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [3]Anderson, J. D., Armstrong, J. W., Campbell, J. K., Estabrook, F. B., Krisher, T. P. and Lau, E. L., “Gravitation and Celestial Mechanics Investigations with Galileo”, Space Sci. Rev., 60, 591–610 (1992). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 37 and 40.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [4]Anderson, J. D., Armstrong, J. W., Estabrook, F. B., Hellings, R. W., Lau, E. K. and Wahlquist, H. D., “Pioneer 10 search for gravitational waves — no evidence for coherent radiation from Geminga”, Nature, 308, 158–160 (1984). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 29, 37, and 39.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [5]Anderson, J. D., Armstrong, J. W. and Lau, E. K., “Upper Limits for Gravitational Radiation from Supermassive Coalescing Binaries”, Astrophys. J., 408, 287–292 (1993). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 29, 30, 32, 35, and 37.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [6]Anderson, J. D. and Mashhoon, B., “Pioneer 10 Search for Gravitational Waves — Limits on a Possible Isotropic Cosmic Background in the Microhertz Region”, Astrophys. J., 290, 445–448 (1985). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 37 and 42.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [7]Armstrong, J. W., “Spacecraft Gravitational Wave Experiments”, in Schutz, B. F., ed., Gravitational Wave Data Analysis, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, held at Dyffryn House, St. Nichols, Cardiff, Wales, 6–9 July 1987, NATO ASI Series C, 253, pp. 153–172, (Kluwer, Dordrecht; Boston, 1989). (Cited on pages 29, 41, and 42.)Google Scholar
 [8]Armstrong, J. W., “Gravitational Wave Search With the Clock Mission”, in Maleki, L., ed., Gravitational Wave Search with the Clock Mission, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Scientific Applications of Clocks in Space, Pasadena, California, 7–8 November 1996, JPL Publications, 9715, pp. 33–40, (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 1997). (Cited on page 44.)Google Scholar
 [9]Armstrong, J. W., “Radio Wave Phase Scintillation and Precision Doppler Tracking of Spacecraft”, Radio Sci., 33, 1727–1738 (1998). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 17, 18, 20, 29, 31, 37, 38, and 44.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [10]Armstrong, J. W., “LowFrequency Gravitational Wave Searches Using Spacecraft Doppler Tracking”, lecture notes, Caltech, (2000). URL (accessed 5 August 2005): http://cajagwr.caltech.edu/pdf/Armstrong.pdf. (Cited on pages 16, 17, 20, and 21.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [11]Armstrong, J. W., “The Cassini Gravitational Wave Experiment”, lecture notes, Caltech, (2002). URL (accessed 5 August 2005): http://cajagwr.caltech.edu/scripts/armstrong.ram. (Cited on pages 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 30, 42, and 44.)Google Scholar
 [12]Armstrong, J. W., “Doppler Tracking of Spacecraft for Gravitational Wave Detection in the LowFrequency Band”, lecture notes, Caltech, (2002). URL (accessed 5 August 2005): http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/week15/week15.html. (Cited on page 17.)Google Scholar
 [13]Armstrong, J. W., Bertotti, B., Estabrook, F. B., Iess, L. and Wahlquist, H. D., “The Galileo/Mars Observer/Ulysses Coincidence Experiment”, in Coccia, E., Veneziano, G. and Pizzella, G., eds., Gravitational Waves, Proceedings of the Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves, CERN, 1–4 July 1997, pp. 159–167, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 1998). (Cited on pages 30, 34, 37, and 41.)Google Scholar
 [14]Armstrong, J. W., Estabrook, F. B., Asmar, S. W., Iess, L. and Tortora, P., “Reducing Antenna Mechanical Noise in Precision Doppler Tracking”, IPN Progress Report, 2006, 42–165 (2006). URL (accessed 1 December 2007): http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42165/165F.pdf. (Cited on page 46.)Google Scholar
 [15]Armstrong, J. W., Estabrook, F. B., Asmar, S. W., Iess, L. and Tortora, P., “Reducing antenna mechanical noise in precision spacecraft tracking”, Radio Sci., 43, RS3010 (2008). [DOI], [ADS]. Online version (accessed 1 December 2007): http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42165/165F.pdf. (Cited on pages 45, 46, and 47.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [16]Armstrong, J. W., Estabrook, F. B. and Tinto, M., “TimeDelay Interferometry for SpaceBased Gravitational Wave Searches”, Astrophys. J., 527, 814–826 (1999). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 10, 11, 34, 38, and 39.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [17]Armstrong, J. W., Estabrook, F. B. and Tinto, M., “Sensitivities of Alternate LISA Configurations”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 4059–4065 (2001). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 48.)ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [18]Armstrong, J. W., Estabrook, F. B. and Wahlquist, H. D., “A Search for Sinusoidal Gravitational Radiation in the Period Range 30–2000 seconds”, Astrophys. J., 318, 536–541 (1987). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 11, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 39, and 40.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [19]Armstrong, J. W., Iess, L., Tortora, P. and Bertotti, B., “Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background: Upper Limits in the 10^{−6} to 10^{−3} Hz Band”, Astrophys. J., 599, 806–813 (2003). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 37, 38, 41, 42, and 44.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [20]Armstrong, J. W. and Sramek, R. A., “Observations of Tropospheric Phase Scintillations at 5 GHz on Vertical Paths”, Radio Sci., 17, 1579–1586 (1982). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 18, 20, and 28.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [21]Armstrong, J. W., Woo, R. and Estabrook, F. B., “Interplanetary Phase Scintillation and the Search for Very Low Frequency Gravitational Radiation”, Astrophys. J., 230, 570–574 (1979). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 17, 18, and 20.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [22]Asmar, S. W., Armstrong, J. W., Iess, L. and Tortora, P., “Spacecraft Doppler tracking: Noise budget and accuracy achievable in precision radio science observations”, Radio Sci., 40, RS2001 (2005). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 28, and 38.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [23]Barnes, J. A. et al., “Characterization of Frequency Stability”, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 20, 105–120 (1971). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 9, 15, 16, 24, and 28.)Google Scholar
 [24]Bender, P. L. et al. (LISA Study Team), LISA. Laser Interferometer Space Antenna for the detection and observation of gravitational waves. An international project in the field of Fundamental Physics in Space. PrePhase A report, MPQ233, (MaxPlanckInstitut für Quantenoptik, Garching, 1998). (Cited on pages 9, 43, 46, and 47.)Google Scholar
 [25]Benkhoff, J. et al., “BepiColumbo — Comprehensive Exploration of Mercury: Mission Overview and Science Goals”, Planet. Space Sci., 58, 2–20 (2010). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [26]Bertotti, B. and Carr, B. J., “The Prospects of Detecting Gravitational Background Radiation by Doppler Tracking Interplanetary Spacecraft”, Astrophys. J., 236, 1000–1011 (1980). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 30 and 42.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [27]Bertotti, B., Comoretto, G. and Iess, L., “Doppler tracking of spacecraft with multifrequency links”, Astron. Astrophys., 269, 608–616 (1993). [ADS]. (Cited on page 18.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [28]Bertotti, B. and Iess, L., “Doppler Search for a Gravitational Background Radiation with Two Spacecraft”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 17, 1043–1058 (1985). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 30, 41, and 42.)ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 [29]Bertotti, B., Iess, L. and Tortora, P., “A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft”, Nature, 425, 374–376 (2003). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 38.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [30]Bertotti, B., Vecchio, A. and Iess, L., “Gravitational Waves From Coalescing Binaries and Doppler Experiments”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 082001 (1999). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/9806021]. (Cited on pages 40 and 42.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [31]Bertotti, B. et al., “The gravitational wave experiment”, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 92, 431–440 (1992). [ADS]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [32]Bertotti, B. et al., “Search for gravitational wave trains with the spacecraft ULYSSES”, Astron. Astrophys., 296, 13–25 (1995). [ADS]. (Cited on pages 29, 37, and 40.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [33]Bolton, S. J. et al. (Juno Science Team), “The Juno Mission”, in Barbieri, C., Chakrabarti, S., Coradini, M. and Lazzarin, M., eds., Galileo’s Medicean Moons: Their Impact on 400 Years of Discovery, IAU Symposium, S269, pp. 92–100, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2010). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 37.)Google Scholar
 [34]Bracewell, R., The Fourier Transform and Its Applications, (McGrawHill, New York, 1965). (Cited on page 9.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [35]“CaJAGWR website”, project homepage, Caltech. URL (accessed 5 August 2005): http://cajagwr.caltech.edu/. (Cited on page 7.)
 [36]Camp, J. B. and Cornish, N. J., “Gravitational Wave Astronomy”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 54, 525–577 (2004). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 7.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [37]“CassiniHuygens Mission to Saturn & Titan”, project homepage, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. URL (accessed 5 August 2005): http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/. (Cited on pages 13, 14, and 38.)
 [38]Chen, G. and Herring, T. A., “Effects of Atmospheric Azimuthal Asymmetry on the Analysis of Space Geodetic Data”, J. Geophys. Res., 102(B9), 20489–20502 (1997). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [39]Cliche, J.F. and Shillue, B., “Precision Timing Control for Radioastronomy: Maintaining Femtosecond Synchronization in the Atacama Large Millimeter Array”, IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag., 26, 19–26 (2006). [DOI]. (Cited on page 44.)Google Scholar
 [40]Coles, W. A., “Interplanetary Scintillation”, Space Sci. Rev., 21, 411–425 (1978). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 9 and 16.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [41]Comoretto, G., Bertotti, B., Iess, L. and Ambrosini, R., “Doppler Experiments With the Cassini Radio System”, Nuovo Cimento, 15, 1193–1198 (1992). [DOI]. (Cited on page 18.)Google Scholar
 [42]Davies, R. W., “Issues in Gravitational Wave Detection with Space Missions”, in Gravitational Waves and Radiations, Proceedings of the international conference, Université de Paris VII, Paris, France, June 18–22, 1973, Colloques Internationaux du CNRS, 220, pp. 33–45, (CNRS, Paris, France, 1974). (Cited on page 7.)Google Scholar
 [43]Dixon, R. S. and Klein, C. A., “On the Detection of Unknown Signals”, in Shostak, G. S., ed., Third Decennial USUSSR Conference on SETI, University of California, Santa Cruz, August 5–9, 1991, ASP Conference Series, 47, pp. 129–140, (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, 1993). (Cited on page 34.)Google Scholar
 [44]Dobrowolny, M. and Iess, L., “Interplanetary Plasma Turbulence and the Doppler Detection of a Gravitational Wave Background”, Astron. Astrophys., 157, 346–352 (1986). [ADS]. (Cited on page 42.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [45]Edlund, J. A., Tinto, M., Królak, A. and Nelemans, G., “Whitedwarfwhitedwarf galactic background in the LISA data”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 122003 (2005). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0504112]. (Cited on page 48.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [46]Estabrook, F. B., “Gravitational Wave Detection with the Solar Probe: II. The Doppler Tracking Method”, in Neugebauer, M. and Davies, R. W., eds., A CloseUp of the Sun, Proceedings of the Solar Probe Science Workshop, Pasadena, California, 22–23 May 1978, JPL Publications, 7870, pp. 441–449, (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 1978). (Cited on pages 8, 15, 17, 18, and 26.)Google Scholar
 [47]Estabrook, F. B., “Response functions of free mass gravitational wave antennas”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 17, 719–724 (1985). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 8 and 11.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [48]Estabrook, F. B. and Armstrong, J. W., “ThreeWay Doppler Data for Gravitational Wave Searches”, unpublished, (1983). Jet Propulsion Laboratory Interoffice Memorandum, 4/4/83. (Cited on page 44.)Google Scholar
 [49]Estabrook, F. B., Armstrong, J. W., Tinto, M. and Folkner, W. M., “SyZyGy: A Straight Interferometric Spacecraft System for Gravity Wave Observations”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 062001 (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0306071]. (Cited on page 11.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [50]Estabrook, F. B., Hellings, R. W., Wahlquist, H. D. and Wolff, R. S., “Gravitational Radiation Detection with Spacecraft Doppler Tracking: Limiting Sensitivities and Prospective Missions”, in Smarr, L. L., ed., Sources of Gravitational Radiation, Proceedings of the Battelle Seattle Workshop, July 24–August 4, 1978, pp. 37–48, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1979). (Cited on page 8.)Google Scholar
 [51]Estabrook, F. B., Tinto, M. and Armstrong, J. W., “Timedelay analysis of LISA gravitational wave data: Elimination of spacecraft motion effects”, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 042002 (2000). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 10 and 48.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [52]Estabrook, F. B. and Wahlquist, H. D., “Response of Doppler spacecraft tracking to gravitational radiation”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 6, 439–447 (1975). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 26, 30, 31, 34, 39, 41, and 42.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [53]Freitag, M., “Gravitational Waves from Stars Orbiting the Sagittarius A* Black Hole”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 583, L21–L24 (2003). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:astroph/0211209]. (Cited on page 40.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [54]Giampieri, G. and Vecchio, A., “Limits on the GravitationalWave Background from Spacecraft Doppler Experiments”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 793–811 (1995). [ADS]. (Cited on pages 31, 41, and 42.)Google Scholar
 [55]Groth, E. J., “Probability Distributions Related to Power Spectra”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 29, 285–302 (1975). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 29.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [56]Hasselmann, K., Munk, W. and MacDonald, G., “Bispectra of Ocean Waves”, in Rosenblatt, M., ed., Proceedings of the Symposium on Time Series Analysis, Brown University, June 11–14, 1962, pp. 125–139, (Wiley, New York, 1963). (Cited on page 29.)Google Scholar
 [57]Hellings, R. W., “Testing relativistic theories of gravity with spacecraftDoppler gravitywave detection”, Phys. Rev. D, 17, 3158–3163 (1978). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 10.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [58]Hellings, R. W., “Detecting a GravitationalRadiation Background Using Spacecraft Doppler Tracking”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 43, 470–473 (1979). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 42.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [59]Hellings, R. W., personal communication, (1983). (Cited on page 44.)Google Scholar
 [60]Hellings, R. W., Callahan, P. S., Anderson, J. D. and Moffet, A. T., “SpacecraftDoppler gravitywave detection. II. Results”, Phys. Rev. D, 23, 844–851 (1981). [ADS]. (Cited on pages 37 and 41.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [61]Helstrom, C. W., Statistical Theory of Signal Detection, International Series of Monographs in Electronics and Instrumentation, 9, (Pergamon Press, Oxford; New York, 1968), 2nd edition. (Cited on pages 29, 30, and 34.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [62]Hinkley, N. et al., “An Atomic Clock with 10^{−18} Instability”, Science, 341, 1215–1218 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [1305.5869 [physics.atomph]]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [63]Iess, L. and Armstrong, J. W., “Spacecraft Doppler Experiments”, in Ciufolini, I. and Fidecaro, F., eds., Gravitational Waves: Sources and Detectors, Proceedings of the international conference, Cascina, Italy, 19–23 March, 1996, pp. 323–329, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 1997). (Cited on pages 29, 30, 34, 37, 41, and 42.)Google Scholar
 [64]Iess, L., Armstrong, J. W., Bertotti, B., Wahlquist, H. D. and Estabrook, F. B., “Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts by Simultaneous Doppler Tracking of Three Interplanetary Spacecraft”, Paper presented at 15th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Pune, India, December 16–21 1997, conference paper, (1997). (Cited on pages 37, 41, and 42.)Google Scholar
 [65]Iess, L., Bonifazi, P., Bertotti, B. and Comoretto, G., “Differential Doppler Tracking of Interplanetary Spacecraft”, Nuovo Cimento C, 10, 235–246 (1987). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 18, 20, and 24.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [66]Iess, L. and Boscagli, G., “Advanced Radio Science Instrumentation for the Mission BepiColombo to Mercury”, Planet. Space Sci., 49, 1597–1608 (2001). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [67]Iess, L., di Benedetto, M., James, N., Mercolino, M., Simone, L. and Tortora, P., “Astra: Interdisciplinary Study on Enhancement of the EndtoEnd Accuracy for Spacecraft Tracking Techniques”, Acta Astron., 94, 699–707 (2014). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 25.)Google Scholar
 [68]Iess, L., Dobrowolny, M. and Bertotti, B., “Plasma effects on Doppler measurements of interplanetary spacecraft. I. Discontinuities and waves”, Astron. Astrophys., 121, 203–210 (1983). [ADS]. (Cited on page 24.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [69]Iess, L., Giampieri, G., Anderson, J. D. and Bertotti, B., “Doppler measurement of the solar gravitational deflection”, Class. Quantum Grav., 16, 1487–1502 (1999). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 24 and 38.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [70]Iess, L. et al., “The Cassini solar conjunction experiment: a new test of general relativity”, in Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference 2003, Big Sky, MT, March 8–15, 2003, IEEE Conference Proceedings, pp. 1211–223, (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, 2003). (Cited on pages 24 and 38.)Google Scholar
 [71]Ishimaru, A., Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media, (Academic Press, New York, 1978). (Cited on pages 9, 16, and 18.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [72]Jaffe, A. H. and Backer, D. C., “Gravitational Waves Probe the Coalescence Rate of Massive Black Hole Binaries”, Astrophys. J., 583, 616–631 (2003). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 31 and 43.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [73]Jenkins, G. M. and Watts, D. G., Spectral Analysis and Its Applications, (HoldenDay, San Francisco, 1969). (Cited on pages 9, 25, and 29.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [74]Kaufmann, W. J., “Redshift Fluctuations Arising from Gravitational Waves”, Nature, 327, 157–159 (1970). [DOI]. (Cited on page 7.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [75]Keihm, S. J., Water Vapor Radiometer Measurements of the Tropospheric Delay Fluctuations at Goldstone Over a Full Year, TDA Progress Report, 42122, (JPL, Pasadena, CA, 1995). (Cited on pages 20, 21, and 28.)Google Scholar
 [76]Keihm, S. J., Tanner, A. and Rosenberger, H., “Measurements and Calibration of Tropospheric Delay at Goldstone From the Cassini Media Calibration System”, IPN Progress Report, 2004, 42–158 (2004). URL (accessed 5 August 2005): http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42158/158A.pdf. (Cited on pages 18, 20, 21, and 38.)Google Scholar
 [77]Kellerman, K. and Sheets, B., eds., Serendipitous Discoveries in Radio Astronomy, Proceedings of a Workshop held at NRAO, Greenbank, USA, May 4–6, 1983, (National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Green Bank, 1983). (Cited on page 36.)Google Scholar
 [78]Kliore, A. et al., “Cassini Radio Science”, Space Sci. Rev., 115, 1–70 (2004). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 14, 24, and 37.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [79]Lovelace, R.V.E., Theory and Analysis of Interplanetary Scintillations, Ph.D. thesis, (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1970). (Cited on pages 9 and 16.)Google Scholar
 [80]MacDonald, G. J., “Spectral Analysis of Time Series Generated by Nonlinear Processes”, Rev. Geophys., 27, 449–469 (1989). [DOI]. (Cited on page 29.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [81]MacMillan, D. S. and Gipson, J. M., “Atmospheric Pressure Loading Parameters from Very Long Baseline Interferometry Observations”, J. Geophys. Res., 99(B9), 18081–18088 (1994). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [82]Mashhoon, B. and Grishchuk, L. P., “On the Detection of a Stochastic Background of Gravitational Radiation by the Doppler Tracking of Spacecraft”, Astrophys. J., 236, 990–999 (1980). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 42.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [83]Matousek, S., “The Juno New Frontiers Mission”, Acta Astron., 61, 932–939 (2007). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 37.)Google Scholar
 [84]Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S. and Wheeler, J. A., Gravitation, (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). [ADS]. (Cited on page 10.)Google Scholar
 [85]Moyer, T. D., Mathematical Formulation of the DoublePrecision Orbit Determination Program (DPODP), JPL Technical Report, 321527, (JPL / NASA, Pasadena, CA, 1971). Online version (accessed 2 January 2016): http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19710017134. (Cited on page 25.)Google Scholar
 [86]Otoshi, T. Y. and Franco, M. M., “Measurements of a Deep Space Station Fractional Frequency Stability to the 10^{−15} Level”, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 41, 577–587 (1992). [DOI]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [87]Otoshi, T. Y., Franco, M. N. and Lutes, G. F., “The Fractional Frequency Stability of a 34m Diameter Beam Waveguide Antenna”, Proc. IEEE, 82, 788–795 (1994). [DOI]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [88]Papoulis, A., Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, (McGrawHill, New York, 1965). (Cited on pages 9 and 29.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [89]Percival, D. B. and Walden, A. T., Spectral Analysis for Physical Applications, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). [Google Books]. (Cited on pages 9, 25, and 29.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [90]Pitkin, M., Reid, S., Rowan, S. and Hough, J., “Gravitational Wave Detection by Interferometry (Ground and Space)”, Living Rev. Relativity, 14, lrr20115 (2011). [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 2 January 2016): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20115. (Cited on page 47.)
 [91]Press, W. H. and Thorne, K. S., “GravitationalWave Astronomy”, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 10, 335–373 (1972). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 7.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [92]Prince, T. A., Tinto, M., Larson, S. L. and Armstrong, J. W., “LISA optimal sensitivity”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 122002 (2002). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0209039]. (Cited on page 48.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [93]Rajagopal, M. and Romani, R. W., “UltraLowFrequency Gravitational Radiation from Massive Black Hole Binaries”, Astrophys. J., 446, 543–549 (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 31 and 43.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [94]Resch, G. M., BarServer, Y., Keihm, S. J., Kroger, P., Linfield, R. P., Mahoney, M. J., Tanner, A. and Teitelbaum, L. P., “Atmospheric calibration for precision Doppler tracking of spacecraft”, Planet. Space Sci., 46, 1257–1261 (1998). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 18, 21, and 38.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [95]Resch, G. M., Hogg, D. E. and Napier, P. J., “Radiometric Correction of Atmospheric PathLength Fluctuations in Interferometric Experiments”, Radio Sci., 19, 411–422 (1984). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 18 and 21.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [96]Resch, G. M., Keihm, S. J., Lanyi, G. E., Linfield, R. P., Naudet, C. J., Riley, A. L., Rosenberger, H. W. and Tanner, A. B., “The Media Calibration System for Cassini Radio Science: Part III”, IPN Progress Report, 2002, 42–148 (2002). URL (accessed 5 August 2005): http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42148/148H.pdf. (Cited on pages 18, 21, 28, and 38.)Google Scholar
 [97]Rice, S. O., “Mathematical Analysis of Random Noise”, in Wax, N., ed., Selected Papers on Noise and Stochastic Processes, pp. 133–294, (Dover, New York, 1954). (Cited on pages 29 and 39.)Google Scholar
 [98]RichieHalford, A. C., Iess, L., Tortora, P., Armstrong, J. W., Asmar, S. W., Woo, R., Habbal, S. R. and Morgan, H., “SpaceTime Localization of Inner Heliospheric Plasma Turbulence Using Multiple Spacecraft Links”, Space Weather, 7, S12003 (2009). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [99]Rickett, B. J., “Interstellar Scattering and Scintillation of Radio Waves”, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 15, 479–504 (1977). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 9 and 16.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [100]Riley, A. L. et al., Cassini KaBand Precision Doppler and Enhanced Telecommunications System Study, (NASA/JPL and Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, Pasadena, CA; Rome, 1990). (Cited on pages 22 and 25.)Google Scholar
 [101]Shaddock, D. A., “Operating LISA as a Sagnac interferometer”, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 022001 (2004). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [102]Smith, S., “Algorithm to search for gravitational radiation from coalescing binaries”, Phys. Rev. D, 36, 2901–2904 (1987). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 30.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [103]Snel, R. C., Mangum, J. G. and Baars, J. W.M., “Study of the Dynamics of Large Reflector Antennas With Accelerometers”, IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., 49, 84–101 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0710.4254]. (Cited on page 46.)Google Scholar
 [104]Sovers, O. J., Fanselow, J. L. and Jacobs, C. S., “Astrometry and geodesy with radio interferometry: experiments, models, results”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1393–1454 (1998). [DOI], [ADS], [astroph/9712238]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [105]Study of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna — Final Technical Report, (NASA, Pasadena, CA, 2000). Online version (accessed 11 January 2016): http://lisa.nasa.gov/documentation.html. (Cited on page 47.)
 [106]Tatarski, V. I., Wave Propagation in a Turbulent Medium, (Dover, New York, 1961). (Cited on pages 9 and 16.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [107]Thomson, D. J., “Spectrum Estimation and Harmonic Analysis”, Proc. IEEE, 70, 1055–1096 (1982). [DOI]. (Cited on page 29.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [108]Thorne, K. S., “Gravitational radiation”, in Hawking, S. W. and Israel, W., eds., Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, pp. 330–458, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1987). [Google Books]. (Cited on pages 7, 31, 36, and 41.)Google Scholar
 [109]Thorne, K. S. and Braginsky, V. B., “Gravitationalwave bursts from nuclei of distant galaxies and quasars: Proposal for detection using doppler tracking of interplanetary spacecraft”, Astrophys. J., 204, L1–L6 (1976). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 8.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [110]Tinto, M., “Spacecraft Doppler tracking as a xylophone detector of gravitational radiation”, Phys. Rev. D, 53, 5354–5364 (1996). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [111]Tinto, M., “The Cassini Kaband gravitational wave experiments”, Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 1767–1773 (2002). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 27, 28, and 40.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [112]Tinto, M. and Armstrong, J. W., “Coincidence Probabilities for Spacecraft Gravitational Wave Experiments: Massive Coalescing Binaries”, Astrophys. J., 372, 545–553 (1991). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 30 and 41.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [113]Tinto, M. and Armstrong, J. W., “Spacecraft Doppler tracking as a narrowband detector of gravitational radiation”, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 042002 (1998). [ADS]. (Cited on page 38.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [114]Tinto, M., Armstrong, J. W. and Estabrook, F. B., “Discriminating a gravitational wave background from instrumental noise in the LISA detector”, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 021101(R) (2001). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 48.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [115]Tinto, M., DeBra, D., Buckman, S. and Tilley, S., “gLISA: geosynchronous laser interferometer space antenna concepts with offtheshelf satellites”, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 86, 014501 (2015). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1410.1813 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [116]Tinto, M. and Dhurandhar, S. V., “TimeDelay Interferometry”, Living Rev. Relativity, 17, lrr20146 (2014). [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 13 October 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20146. (Cited on page 48.)
 [117]Tinto, M., Dick, G. J., Prestage, J. D. and Armstrong, J. W., “Improved spacecraft radio science using and onboard atomic clock: Application to gravitational wave searches”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 102003 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0812.2581 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [118]Tinto, M., Estabrook, F. B. and Armstrong, J. W., TimeDelay Interferometry and LISA’s Sensitivity to Sinusoidal Gravitational Waves, (JPL / Caltech, Pasadena, CA, 2002). Online version (accessed 11 January 2016): http://list.caltech.edu/doku.php?id=mission_documents. (Cited on page 48.)Google Scholar
 [119]Tinto, M., Estabrook, F. B. and Armstrong, J. W., “Timedelay interferometry for LISA”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 082003 (2002). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 10.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [120]Tinto, M., Estabrook, F. B. and Armstrong, J. W., “Timedelay interferometry with moving spacecraft arrays”, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 082001 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0310017]. (Cited on page 10.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [121]Tortora, P., Iess, L., Bordi, J. J., Ekelund, J. E. and Roth, D. C., “Precise Cassini Navigation During Solar Conjunctions Through Multifrequency Plasma Calibrations”, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 27, 251–257 (2004). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 18, 20, 21, and 38.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [122]Tortora, P., Iess, L. and Ekelund, J. E., “Accurate Navigation of Deep Space Probes using Multifrequency Links: the Cassini Breakthrough During Solar Conjunction Experiments”, IAF abstracts, 34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, The Second World Space Congress, held 10–19 October, 2002 in Houston, TX, USA, p.Q203, conference paper. [ADS]. (Cited on pages 18, 20, 21, and 38.)Google Scholar
 [123]van Dam, T. M., Blewitt, G. and Heflin, M. B., “Atmospheric Pressure Loading Effects on Global Positioning System Coordinate Determinations”, J. Geophys. Res., 99 (B12), 23939–23950 (1994). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [124]Vecchio, A., Bertotti, B. and Iess, L., “Coalescing Binaries and Doppler Experiments”, in Coccia, E., Veneziano, G. and Pizzella, G., eds., Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves, Proceedings of the conference held at CERN, Switzerland, 1–4 July, 1997, Edoardo Amaldi Foundation Series, 4, p. 272, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 1998). [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/9708033]. (Cited on page 42.)Google Scholar
 [125]Vessot, R. F. C. and Levine, M. W., “A TimeCorrelated FourLink Doppler Tracking System”, in Neugebauer, M. and Davies, R. W., eds., A CloseUp of the Sun, Proceedings of the Solar Probe Science Workshop, Pasadena, California, 22–23 May 1978, JPL Publications, 7870, pp. 457–497, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 1978). (Cited on pages 15, 17, and 44.)Google Scholar
 [126]Vessot, R. F. C. et al., “Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a SpaceBorne Hydrogen Maser”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 45, 2081–2084 (1980). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 7.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [127]Wahlquist, H. D., “The Doppler response to gravitational waves from a binary star source”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 19, 1101–1113 (1987). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 30, 34, 39, and 40.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [128]Wahlquist, H. D., Anderson, J. D., Estabrook, F. B. and Thorne, K. S., “Recent JPL Work on Gravity Wave Detection and Solar System Relativity Experiments”, in International Meeting on Experimental Gravitation, Simposio internazionale sulla gravitazione sperimentale, Pavia, Italy, 17–20 September 1976, Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 34, pp. 335–350, (Accad. Naz. dei Lincei, Rome, 1977). (Cited on pages 8 and 18.)Google Scholar
 [129]Won, L., Hanover, G., Belenky, R. and Lee, A., “Supporting the Gravity Wave Experiment: Three AACS Topics”, unpublished, (2001). Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cassini Project presentation October 18, 2001. (Cited on pages 25, 26, and 28.)Google Scholar
 [130]Won, L. and Lee, A., “AACS Support for the Gravity Wave Experiment”, unpublished, (2001). Jet Propulsion Laboratory Interoffice Memorandum SCO01044, 10/29/01. (Cited on page 28.)Google Scholar
 [131]Woo, R. and Armstrong, J. W., “Spacecraft Radio Scattering Observations of the Power Spectrum of Electron Density Fluctuations in the Solar Wind”, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 7288–7296 (1979). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 14, 17, and 20.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [132]Wyithe, J. S.B. and Loeb, A., “LowFrequency Gravitational Waves from Massive Black Hole Binaries: Predictions for LISA and Pulsar Timing Arrays”, Astrophys. J., 590, 691–706 (2003). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 43.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [133]Zannoni, M. and Tortora, P., “Numerical Error in Interplanetary Orbit Determination Software”, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 36, 1008–1018 (2013). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 25.)ADSGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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.