Conservative evaluation of the uncertainty in the LAGEOS-LAGEOS II Lense-Thirring test

TL;DR

This paper critically assesses the reliability of previous estimates of systematic uncertainties in measuring the Lense-Thirring effect using LAGEOS satellites, highlighting that actual errors may be 3-4 times larger than previously thought due to model discrepancies.

Contribution

It introduces a conservative approach to evaluate the uncertainty in Earth's geopotential coefficients, revealing larger potential errors in the Lense-Thirring test than prior assessments.

Findings

Systematic error estimates are underestimated when using model covariances.

Discrepancies among different Earth's gravity models significantly increase uncertainty.

Major uncertainties remain for J_4, J_6, and J_8 coefficients.

Abstract

We deal with the test of the general relativistic gravitomagnetic Lense-Thirring effect currently ongoing in the Earth's gravitational field with the combined nodes \Omega of the laser-ranged geodetic satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II. One of the most important source of systematic uncertainty on the orbits of the LAGEOS satellites, with respect to the Lense-Thirring signature, is the bias due to the even zonal harmonic coefficients J_L of the multipolar expansion of the Earth's geopotential which account for the departures from sphericity of the terrestrial gravitational potential induced by the centrifugal effects of its diurnal rotation. The issue addressed here is: are the so far published evaluations of such a systematic error reliable and realistic? The answer is negative. Indeed, if the difference \Delta J_L among the even zonals estimated in different global solutions (EIGEN-GRACE02S, EIGEN-CG03C, GGM02S, GGM03S, ITG-Grace02, ITG-Grace03s, JEM01-RL03B, EGM2008, AIUB-GRACE01S) is assumed for the uncertainties \delta J_L instead of using their more or less calibrated covariance sigmas \sigma_{J_L}, it turns out that the systematic error \delta\mu in the Lense-Thirring measurement is about 3 to 4 times larger than in the evaluations so far published based on the use of the sigmas of one model at a time separately, amounting up to 37% for the pair EIGEN-GRACE02S/ITG-Grace03s. The comparison among the other recent GRACE-based models yields bias as large as about 25-30%. The major discrepancies still occur for J_4, J_6 and J_8, which are just the zonals the combined LAGEOS/LAGOES II nodes are most sensitive to.