4.7 Article

Radio source instability in VLBI analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEODESY
Volume 81, Issue 6-8, Pages 443-453

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00190-007-0136-2

Keywords

VLBI; source stability; terrestrial reference frame; earth orientation parameters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The source position time-series for many of the frequently observed radio sources in the NASA geodetic very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) program show systematic linear and non-linear variations of as much as 0.5 mas (milli-arc-seconds) to 1.0 mas, due mainly to source structure changes. In standard terrestrial reference frame (TRF) geodetic solutions, it is a common practice to only estimate a global source position for each source over the entire history of VLBI observing sessions. If apparent source position variations are not modeled, they produce corresponding systematic variations in estimated Earth orientation parameters (EOPs) at the level of 0.02-0.04 mas in nutation and 0.01-0.02 mas in polar motion. We examine the stability of position time-series of the 107 radio sources in the current NASA geodetic source catalog since these sources have relatively dense observing histories from which it is possible to detect systematic variations. We consider different strategies for handling source instabilities where we (1) estimate the positions of unstable sources for each session they are observed, or (2) estimate spline parameters or rate parameters for sources chosen to fit the specific variation seen in the position-time series. We found that some strategies improve VLBI EOP accuracy by reducing the biases and weighted root mean square differences between measurements from independent VLBI networks operating simultaneously. We discuss the problem of identifying frequently observed unstable sources and how to identify new sources to replace these unstable sources in the NASA VLBI geodetic source catalog.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available