astrodynamical space test of relativity using optical devices ( astrod ) @xcite aims at testing relativistic gravity , measuring the solar - system parameters with high precision and detecting gravitational waves from massive black holes and galactic binary stars .
the concept of astrod is to put two spacecraft in separate solar orbits and carry out laser interferometic ranging with earth reference stations ( e.g. a spacecraft at the earth - sun l1/l2 points ) . a simple version of astrod , astrod i , has been studied as the first step to astrod @xcite .
astrod i employs one spacecraft in a solar orbit and carries out interferometric ranging and pulse ranging with ground stations .
the main scientific goals of astrod i are to test relativistic gravity and the fundamental laws of spacetime with three - order - of - magnitude improvement in sensitivity and to improve the solar , planetary and asteroid parameter determination by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude .
the technological goal of astrod i is to prepare for the astrod mission .
the acceleration disturbance goal of the astrod i proof mass is @xmath0ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at frequency @xmath3 of 0.1mhz .
the power spectral density of the allowed level of the acceleration noise is shown in figure [ fig : curve ] . assuming a 10ps one - way timing accuracy ( 3 mm ranging accuracy ) and the acceleration noise of @xmath0ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at frequency of about 0.1mhz
, a simulation for 400 days ( 350750 days after launch ) showed that astrod  i could determine the relativistic parameters @xmath4 and @xmath5 , and the solar quadrupole parameter @xmath6 to levels of 10@xmath7 , 10@xmath7 and 10@xmath8 , respectively @xcite . in the simulation ,
( i ) the timing noise is modeled as gaussian random noise ; ( ii ) unknown acceleration noise is modeled to have gaussian random magnitude with zero mean and with standard deviation 10@xmath9ms@xmath1 and to have its direction changed randomly every 4h ( equivalent to 10@xmath10ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 for @xmath3 @xmath11 0.1mhz assumed as the requirement of the drag - free system ) and ( iii ) five range points are taken each day ( at 0.2d interval ) .
longer term systematic effects will be studied in a future paper .
this simulation agrees with the scientific goals of astrod  i. the timing uncertainty of event timer reaches 3ps in satellite laser ranging at present .
space qualified versions of similar accuracy are under development . for a ranging uncertainty of 3 mm in a distance of 3 @xmath12 10@xmath13 m ( 2au ) ,
the laser / clock frequency needs to be known to one part in 10@xmath14 . this can be set as a requirement of the space laser / clock or a requirement for laser frequency monitoring through ground clock and modeling . as to ground station jitter ,
monitoring to an accuracy of 3 mm is required and can be achieved .
the atmospheric effects on laser propagation will be monitored and subtracted to mm - level by using 2-color ( 2-wavelength ) ranging ( one color for pulse ranging and one for interferometric ranging ) .
these measurement uncertainties are not cumulative in the range determination while the acceleration disturbances accumulate in time in the geodesic deviations . in order to achieve the acceleration disturbance goal ,
a drag - free control system using capacitive sensors will be employed .    in order to decide on detailed designs of the accelerometer for astrod i
, we have to know the sources and magnitude of acceleration disturbances that could arise in the accelerometer . in this paper
, we carry out analyses , mainly based on existing literature on acceleration disturbances for other gravitational missions ( lisa @xcite and the lisa pathfinder @xcite ) , to give a preliminary overview of the acceleration disturbance to the astrod i proof mass .
based on the analyses , we infer some of the requirements for the designs of the astrod i payload and spacecraft .
also , we compare parameter values we have assumed in the analyses with those for lisa to confirm the feasibility of the requirements for astrod i.    first , we will give an overview of the astrod i configuration ( section [ configuration ] ) and the control - loop model we assumed ( section [ control - loop ] ) .
then , we will estimate the magnitude of acceleration disturbances and requirements for astrod i in sections [ ans ] to [ st : requirements ] , and compare the requirements of astrod i with lisa in section [ comparison with lisa ] .
the astrod i spacecraft has a cylindrical shape with diameter 2.5 m and height 2 m .
its cylindrical side is covered by solar panels .
the cylindrical axis is perpendicular to the orbit plane and the telescope is set to point toward a ground laser station .
the effective area of receiving sunlight is about 5m@xmath15 and it can generate power that is larger than 500w .
the total mass of the spacecraft is about 350 kg and that of payload is 100120 kg ( see @xcite for more detailed descriptions of the configuration ) .
the orbit distance from the sun varies from about 0.5au to 1au ( figure 2 of @xcite ) .
the proof mass ( @xmath16 = 1.75 kg ) is a rectangular parallelepiped ( 50 @xmath12 50 @xmath12 35mm@xmath17 ) made from au - pt alloy ( density @xmath18 = 2 @xmath12 10@xmath19kgm@xmath20 ) .
the six sides of the proof mass are surrounded by electrodes mounted on the housing for capacitive sensing and control .
the gap between each side of the proof mass and the opposing electrode is 2 mm .
assumed values for the capacitance and voltages are listed in table [ table : parameter values ] .
various acceleration disturbances would act on the proof mass in different ways . in order to infer how these different kinds of acceleration disturbances would contribute to the total acceleration disturbance of the proof mass , we tentatively assume a simple single - mass and single - axis control - loop model @xcite .
the diagram is shown in figure  [ fig : control - loop ] .
the relative difference between the displacement disturbance amplitudes of the proof mass and of the spacecraft , @xmath21 , with position readout noise @xmath22 , is measured by the position displacement sensor .
the output of this sensor is converted to acceleration disturbance @xmath23 , by a transfer function @xmath24 ( @xmath25 ) .
this acceleration is supplied to the thruster and the output acceleration disturbance with thruster noise @xmath26 is applied to the spacecraft .
the spacecraft also experiences acceleration disturbances by coupling to the proof mass with a coupling constant @xmath27 and external environmental disturbances ( @xmath28 ) that work directly on the spacecraft .
the total acceleration of the spacecraft @xmath29 is converted to the position noise @xmath30 with a transfer function @xmath31 .
we consider only the sensitive axis of the proof mass without actuation .
the proof mass would experience disturbances by spacecraft - proof mass coupling and environmental disturbances @xmath32 ( see section [ anp ] ) .
the total acceleration disturbance of the proof mass @xmath33 is converted to the displacement disturbance @xmath34 with a transfer function @xmath35 .    from this control - loop model ,
we obtain the following linear loop equations @xcite : @xmath36    by solving these equations for @xmath34 , and assuming @xmath37 and @xmath38 @xmath39 @xmath40 (= @xmath41 ; @xmath42 is nominally 1 and its effects are absorbed in @xmath24 and @xmath26 ) , we obtain ( e.g. @xcite ) : @xmath43 where @xmath44 .
this acceleration disturbance has to be less than the acceleration noise goal of @xmath45ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at @xmath3 = 0.1mhz .
we will estimate the values of the direct acceleration disturbances of the spacecraft ( @xmath28 and the thruster noise @xmath46 ) in section [ ans ] and of the proof mass ( @xmath32 ) in sections [ anp ] and [ back - action ] , and the stiffness @xmath27 in section [ stiff ] .
we will discuss the requirements for @xmath22 and @xmath38 in section [ st : requirements ] .
the spacecraft would be affected by environmental disturbances that stem from , for example , solar radiation pressure , solar wind and micrometeorite impacts . among these sources of disturbances ,
solar radiation pressure is considered to be the major contributor to the acceleration disturbances ( section 7 of @xcite ) .
the contribution from solar wind might be comparable to radiation pressure , but the spectral behavior of the solar wind is not well known .    by assuming a perfectly reflecting surface of the spacecraft , acceleration noise caused by fluctuation in solar irradiance @xmath47 is @xmath48 , where @xmath49 is the area of the spacecraft facing the sun , @xmath50 is the mass of the spacecraft and @xmath51 is the speed of light in vacuum . from the data of the virgo experiment on soho @xcite , fractional fluctuation in solar irradiance is @xmath52hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz ( figure 6 of @xcite ) . assuming that @xmath53 is the same at 0.5au , and taking a total irradiance of 5500wm@xmath1 , the area of 5m@xmath15 and a mass of 350 kg , we obtain @xmath54 = 9.8 @xmath12 10@xmath55ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .
the impact rate of 1-ng meteorites on the astrod i spacecraft ( its surface area is 25.5m@xmath15 ) is about 7 events per day or about 0.08mhz .
the average velocity of meteorites is 18kms@xmath56 in an earth frame near the earth ( figure 7.2 - 30 of @xcite ) .
an impact of 1-ng meteorite with the average velocity of 18kms@xmath56 on the surface of the spacecraft ( 350 kg ) without reflection produces a linear velocity increment of about 5 @xmath12 10@xmath57ms@xmath56 .
smaller meteorites have larger flux ( figure 7.2 - 29 of @xcite ) , but their impacts on velocity changes are smaller .
therefore , the contribution to the acceleration disturbances at 0.1mhz seems insignificant , in comparison with the effect of solar radiation pressure .
however , because such discrete changes could directly affect the astrod  i experiment , the impact effects have to be studied carefully in detail .
in addition to the acceleration noise from the environmental disturbances , the spacecraft would suffer from the thruster noise . a force fluctuation of 10@xmath58nhz@xmath2 in thruster
corresponds to the acceleration disturbance of @xmath46 = 2.8 @xmath12 10@xmath8ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .
therefore , the rss ( root - sum - square ) of these acceleration disturbances is : @xmath59 at 0.1mhz , dominated by the thruster noise . as per @xcite , lisa requires a force fluctuation to be less than a few @xmath58nhz@xmath2 .
however , recent studies for the lisa pathfinder indicate that force noise up to 0.1mnhz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz can be tolerated by increasing the gain @xcite ; the lisa study team is designing high gain loops and the requirement has been relaxed .
direct proof - mass acceleration disturbances can be classified into two categories depending on their origins @xcite : environmental disturbances ( @xmath60 ) and proof - mass sensor back - action acceleration disturbances ( @xmath61 ) .
the former includes disturbances related to magnetic effects ( @xmath62 , @xmath63 , @xmath64 , @xmath65 and @xmath66 ) , impact effects ( by cosmic ray ( @xmath67 ) and residual gas ( @xmath68 ) ) , temperature dependent effects ( radiometric and outgassing effects ( @xmath69 and @xmath70 ) and thermal radiation pressure ( @xmath71 ) ) and gravity gradients caused by thermal distortion of the spacecraft ( @xmath72 ) .
the latter is originated from voltage fluctuations ( @xmath73 and @xmath74 ) , charge fluctuations ( @xmath75 and @xmath76 ) , readout electronics ( @xmath77 ) , patch field voltages ( @xmath78 ) and thermal voltage noise by dielectric losses ( @xmath79 ) .
parameter values and physical constants used for the estimations are listed in tables [ table : parameter values ] and [ table : physical constants ] , respectively .
table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] provides a summary of the expressions used to estimate the direct proof - mass acceleration disturbances and the estimated values .
the disturbances noted as @xmath62 , @xmath63 , @xmath65 , @xmath66 , @xmath67 , @xmath68 , @xmath69 , @xmath71 , @xmath72 and @xmath73-@xmath76 in table  [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] correspond to @xmath80-@xmath81 and @xmath82-@xmath83 in @xcite , respectively in @xcite , would not arise in astrod  i , as the laser beam is not to be injected directly on the surface of the astrod  i proof mass . ] .
we will briefly explain each disturbance below .
@ll @xmath3 = 0.1 mhz & astrod i +   + mass : @xmath16 [ kg ] & 1.75 + density : @xmath18 [ kg m@xmath20 ] & @xmath85 + cross section : @xmath86 [ m@xmath15 ] & 0.050 @xmath12 0.035 + temperature : @xmath88 [ k ] & 293 + fluctuation of temperature difference & + across pm and housing : @xmath89 [ k hz@xmath2 ] & 1.0 @xmath12 @xmath91 + maximum charge build - up : @xmath92 [ c ] & @xmath93 + fluctuation in charge : @xmath94 [ c hz@xmath2 ] & 6.1 @xmath12 10@xmath9 + magnetic susceptibility : @xmath95 & @xmath96 + magnetic remanent moment : @xmath97 [ a m@xmath15 ] & 1 @xmath12 10@xmath7 + residual gas pressure : @xmath35 [ pa ] & @xmath91 + electrostatic shielding factors : @xmath98 & 10 + magnetic shielding factors : @xmath99 & 1 +   + mass : @xmath50 [ kg ] & 350 + velocity : @xmath100 [ m s@xmath56 ] & @xmath102 + thruster noise [ @xmath58n hz@xmath2 ] & 10 + area facing the sun : @xmath49 [ m@xmath15 ] & 5 + fluctuation of temperature in sc : @xmath103 [ k hz@xmath2 ] & 0.2 +   + capacitance : @xmath104 [ pf ] & 6 + capacitance to ground : @xmath105 [ pf ] & 6 + total capacitance : @xmath106 [ pf ] & ( @xmath107 @xmath108)36 + gap : @xmath109 [ mm ] & 2 + asymmetry in gap across opposite sides of pm : @xmath110 [ @xmath58 m ] & 10 + average voltage across opposite faces : @xmath111 ( @xmath39 @xmath112 ) [ v ] & 0.1 + proof mass bias voltage : @xmath113 [ v ] & 0.6 + voltage difference between @xmath111 and voltage to ground : @xmath114 [ v ] & 0.05 + voltage difference between opposing faces : @xmath115 [ v ] & 0.01 + fluctuation of voltage difference across opposite faces : & + @xmath116 [ v hz@xmath2 ] & @xmath117 + residual dc bias voltage on electrodes : @xmath118 [ v ] & 0.1 + loss angle : @xmath119 & 10@xmath120 +   + local magnetic field : @xmath121 [ t ] & 8 @xmath12 10@xmath7 + local magnetic field gradient : @xmath122 [ t m@xmath56 ] & 3 @xmath12 10@xmath123 + fluctuation in local magnetic field : @xmath124
[ t hz@xmath2 ] & 1 @xmath12 @xmath125 + interplanetary magnetic field : @xmath126 [ t ] & @xmath127 + interplanetary magnetic field gradient : @xmath128 [ t hz@xmath2 ] & @xmath129 + gradient of time - varying magnetic field : @xmath130 [ t m@xmath56 hz@xmath2 ] & 4 @xmath12 10@xmath8 +   + impact rate : @xmath131 [ s@xmath56 ] & 30 + mass of positron : @xmath132 [ kg ] & @xmath133 + incident energy : @xmath134 [ j ] & ( 200 @xmath135 =) 3.2
@xmath12 10@xmath57 +   + source mass : @xmath136 [ kg ] & 1 in @xmath72 and 0.03 in @xmath137 + distance from the source mass : @xmath138 [ m ] & 0.5 in @xmath72 and 0.05 in @xmath137 + thermal expansion coefficient : @xmath139(aluminium ) [ k@xmath56 ] & 2.5 @xmath12 10@xmath120 +   + multiplicative factor : @xmath4 & 5 + patch field voltage : @xmath140 [ v ] & 0.1 +    @lll & symbols & values used in the estimations + elementary charge & @xmath141 & 1.6 @xmath142 c + permeability of vacuum & @xmath143 & 1.26 @xmath144 n a@xmath1 + permittivity of vacuum & @xmath145 & 8.9 @xmath12 10@xmath146 f m@xmath56 + speed of light in vacuum & @xmath51 & 3.0 @xmath147 m s@xmath56 + boltzmann constant & @xmath148 & 1.38 @xmath149 j k@xmath56 + stefan - boltzmann constant & @xmath150 & 5.7 @xmath151 w m@xmath1 k@xmath152 + gravitational constant & @xmath153 & 6.7 @xmath12 10@xmath57 m@xmath17 kg@xmath56 s@xmath1 +    @llll [ @xmath154 m s@xmath1 hz@xmath2 ] & & expressions & astrod i +   + @xmath62 & magnetic & @xmath155 & 1.2 + @xmath63 & magnetic & @xmath156 & 3.4 + @xmath64 & magnetic & @xmath157 & 1.6 + @xmath65 & magnetic & @xmath158 & 0.0017 + @xmath66 & magnetic & @xmath159 & 0.91 + @xmath160 & cosmic rays & @xmath161 & 0.0015 + @xmath68 & residual gas & @xmath162 & 0.74 + @xmath69 & radiometric & @xmath163 & 0.17 + @xmath70 & outgassing & 10@xmath69 & 1.7 + @xmath71 & thermal radiation & @xmath164 & 0.13 + @xmath72 & gravity gradients & @xmath165 & 2.7 + & 5.2 +   + @xmath73 & @xmath166 & @xmath167 & 1.4 + @xmath74 & @xmath168 & @xmath169 & 4.8 + @xmath75 & @xmath170 & @xmath171 & 2.9 + @xmath76 & @xmath172 & @xmath173 & 0.040 + @xmath77 & readout electronics & ( see table 1 of @xcite ) & 1.8 + @xmath78 & patch fields & @xmath174 & 29 + @xmath79 & dielectric losses & @xmath175 & 1.6 + & 30 + & 30 +      the lowest order force on a proof mass with a magnetic moment @xmath176 in an external magnetic field @xmath177 is given by @xmath178 = @xmath179 @xcite .
the magnetic moment of the proof mass is a vector sum of the remanent moment @xmath180 and the induced moment @xcite : @xmath181 , where @xmath95 and @xmath182 are magnetic susceptibility and the volume of the proof mass , respectively ; @xmath183na@xmath1 is the permeability of vacuum .
the external magnetic field would be given by the superposition of the interplanetary magnetic field @xmath184 and a local magnetic field @xmath185 .
dominant terms in acceleration of the proof mass due to the induced magnetic moment produce acceleration disturbances noted @xmath62 and @xmath63 in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] , where @xmath99 is a scaling factor for possible suppression by magnetic shielding .
the average interplanetary magnetic field at 1au from the sun varies from @xmath186 to 3.7 @xmath12 10@xmath8 t @xcite .
ulysses data obtained near 1au from the sun ( figure 9 of @xcite ) showed a @xmath187 dependence of the variation in the interplanetary magnetic field and @xmath188 can be inferred to be about @xmath125thz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz .
as the behavior of @xmath188 at 0.5au from the sun is uncertain , we use a somewhat higher value of @xmath189thz@xmath2 ( see footnote in section [ st : lorentz ] ) . according to the formulation studies for lisa and the implementation work of the lisa pathfinder , batteries and micro - thrusters are the principal suspects of the origins of the local magnetic field in lisa .
we need elaborate modeling works to estimate the magnitude of local magnetic field . here
, we use the same values used in analyses for lisa @xcite : @xmath190 t , @xmath191 = 10@xmath7thz@xmath2 and @xmath122 @xmath108 3 @xmath192 @xmath108 3 @xmath12 10@xmath123tm@xmath56 ( where @xmath193 = 0.75 m ) .
silvestri et al .  have reported that the magnetic susceptibility of five samples ranged from @xmath1942.8 @xmath12 10@xmath120 to @xmath1942.1 @xmath12 10@xmath120 for two of them without traceable iron contamination and from + 1.1 @xmath12 10@xmath120 to + 8.8 @xmath12 10@xmath120 for the rest samples with a trace of iron @xcite .
lower susceptibility may be achievable by controlling the manufacturing process of the alloy .
the requirement for lisa is @xmath95 = 3 @xmath12 10@xmath123 @xcite .
we use a somewhat moderate value of @xmath95 = 5 @xmath12 10@xmath120 .
assuming @xmath99 = 1 as per @xcite , we obtain @xmath62 = 1.2 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 and @xmath63 = 3.4 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz .
acceleration disturbance due to the magnetic remanent moment is given by @xmath64 listed in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] ( equation 4(c ) of @xcite ) , where @xmath195 is time - varying magnetic field gradients .
according to measurements by gill et al .
, magnetic remanent moment of three 4.2-cm 70/30 au - pt alloy cubes ( one of them was 73/27 au - pt alloy ) ranged from 3.5 @xmath12 10@xmath196am@xmath15kg@xmath56 to 3.1 @xmath12 10@xmath8am@xmath15kg@xmath56 @xcite . by scaling the largest measured remanent moment by weight , it is @xmath197am@xmath15 for a 1.75-kg proof mass . by using a somewhat relaxed value of 1 @xmath12 10@xmath7am@xmath15 and @xmath198tm@xmath56hz@xmath2 @xcite , which is a factor of four higher than the assumed requirement for lisa in @xcite
, we obtain @xmath199ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz . in the error
estimates for lisa @xcite , magnetic remanent moment of 2 @xmath12 10@xmath8am@xmath15 is used .
the proof mass in orbit would be charged up by cosmic - ray impacts @xcite .
as the charged proof mass moves through the interplanetary magnetic field ( @xmath184 ) with a velocity @xmath100 of about 4 @xmath12 10@xmath19ms@xmath56 , it experiences the lorentz force : @xmath200 = @xmath201 , where @xmath92 is the built - up charge .
acceleration disturbances due to the fluctuation of the charge build - up ( @xmath94 ) in the proof mass and of the average interplanetary magnetic field are given by @xmath65 and @xmath66 ( see table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] ) , respectively , where @xmath98 is an electrostatic shielding factor ; in the rest frame of the proof mass , the motion of the proof mass through the interplanetary magnetic field generates an electrostatic field .    by assuming the poisson distribution of cosmic - ray impacts , the average charge fluctuation spectral density can be defined as @xmath202 . for the frequency ( @xmath203 ) of 0.1mhz and the effective charging rate ( @xmath204 ) of 288 @xmath205s@xmath56 , which was estimated for a lisa proof - mass ( 46-mm cube ) by a simulation using geant 4 toolkit @xcite
, we obtain @xmath206 = 6.1 @xmath12 10@xmath9chz@xmath2 . using this value , @xmath98 = 10 and @xmath126 = 1.2 @xmath12 10@xmath7 t
, we obtain @xmath65 = 1.7 @xmath12 10@xmath207ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz .
the maximum value of @xmath126 at 1au is about 3 @xmath12 10@xmath8 t .
we tentatively use four times the maximum value as @xmath126 at 0.5au , by assuming 1/(distance)@xmath15 dependence of @xmath126 10@xmath55 t . the main magnetic field at 0.5au to 1au is due to the influence of solar winds which attenuate with ( distance)@xmath15 .
] . because the volume of the astrod  i proof - mass is about 10% smaller than the lisa proof mass , the charging rate for astrod  i might be smaller than the value for lisa .
bao et al .
are working on simulations to estimate the charging rates for astrod  i @xcite .
stebbins et al .
use @xmath98 = 100 , which is one order of magnitude larger than the value we used here , in the current error estimates for lisa @xcite . taking a nominal maximum build - up charge @xmath92
= 10@xmath146c , which is one order of magnitude larger than the value used in the error estimates for lisa @xcite , we obtain @xmath66 = 9.1 @xmath12 10@xmath208ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .
some cosmic rays get stopped in the proof mass and deposit momentum @xcite . assuming the poisson distribution of cosmic ray impact , spectral density of momentum transfer ( @xmath209 ) is @xmath210 , where @xmath131 is the fluctuation in the impact rate @xcite .
the acceleration disturbance due to the fluctuation in the impact rate is given by @xmath160 , listed in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] .
the impact rate was inferred from simulations done for lisa ; by adding the effects of all stopped particles ( protons and helium ) and taking into account their directions , the acceleration disturbance by momentum transfer was estimated to be @xmath108 2 @xmath12 10@xmath207ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 for a lisa proof mass @xcite .
this corresponds to a disturbance due to momentum transfer by protons ( mass @xmath2111.7 @xmath12 10@xmath212 kg ) , with an impact rate of @xmath11 30s@xmath56 , at incident energy @xmath134 = 200mev (= 3.2 @xmath12 10@xmath57j ) . using these values
, the acceleration disturbance becomes @xmath160 = 1.5 @xmath12 10@xmath207ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .      from the kinetic theory ,
the number of residual - gas molecules ( assumed as ideal gas ) that pass an area ( @xmath86 ) of the proof mass per second is given by @xmath213 = @xmath214 , where @xmath215 = @xmath216 is the number density of the molecules and @xmath217 = @xmath218 is the average thermal velocity ( @xmath35 is the pressure of residual gas , @xmath148 = 1.38 @xmath12 10@xmath219jk@xmath56 is the boltzmann constant , @xmath220 is the temperature of the proof - mass housing and @xmath221 = 4.65 @xmath12 10@xmath222 kg is the mass of nitrogen molecules ) . assuming the poisson distribution of the impact rate
, we define the spectral density of fluctuations in @xmath213 as @xmath223 @xmath39 @xmath224 .
acceleration due to the residual gas impacts is given by @xmath225 and acceleration disturbance due to fluctuations in the impact rate of residual gas is given by @xmath68 listed in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] .
for @xmath35 = 10@xmath120pa , @xmath226 = 1.75 @xmath12 10@xmath20m@xmath15 and @xmath220 = 293k , we obtain @xmath68 = 7.4 @xmath12 10@xmath208ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .
stebbins et al .
use 3@xmath1210@xmath123pa as the residual gas pressure around the proof mass in the error estimates for lisa @xcite
.      acceleration disturbance due to the radiometric effect ( e.g. @xcite ) is given by @xmath69 listed in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] , where @xmath89 is fluctuation in temperature difference across the proof mass housing .
this value has to be estimated by carrying out thermal modeling . according to thermal analysis for lisa , temperature fluctuation on the optical bench ,
to which the proof mass housing is mounted , due to power dissipation of amplifiers is about 3.0 @xmath12 10@xmath120khz@xmath2 at 1mhz ( table 6.2 - 28 of @xcite ) . by assuming that the fluctuation rises as @xmath227 ,
the temperature fluctuation of the optical bench is @xmath228khz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz . at the frequency of 0.1mhz and higher frequencies , the temperature fluctuation on the optical bench would be dominated by the fluctuation in the power dissipation @xcite ; fluctuation due to solar irradiance at 0.1mhz is @xmath229khz@xmath2 ( table 6.2 - 16 of @xcite ) .
the ratio @xmath230/@xmath231 would range from 30 to 100 @xcite . by using a value of 30 for the ratio ,
we obtain @xmath232khz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz . by using this value
, we obtain @xmath69 = 1.7 @xmath12 10@xmath208ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz .
outgassing from walls of the sensor cage is thought to produce greater acceleration noise than the radiometric effect @xcite .
an analysis done for the lisa technology package ( ltp ) , assuming a simple model of flow circuit with a linear approximation , shows that the outgassing effect is nearly 10 times the radiometric effect @xcite . by using this estimate and the estimate we made for the radiometric effect in the previous section , we obtain @xmath70 = 1.7 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz for astrod  i.      by assuming a perfectly reflecting surface of the proof mass , thermal radiation pressure produces acceleration disturbance ( @xmath71 in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] ) due to fluctuations in the temperature difference across the proof - mass housing . in the expression of @xmath71
listed in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] , @xmath150 = 5.7 @xmath12 10@xmath8wm@xmath1k@xmath152 is the stefan - boltzmann constant , @xmath86 is the area of the proof mass and @xmath88 is the temperature of the proof - mass housing .
a factor of one - third is multiplied , as done in the estimation for lisa by schumaker @xcite , as a margin for the fact that not all of the radiation momentum is normally incident on the proof mass . for the housing temperature of 293k and the temperature fluctuation of 1.0 @xmath12 10@xmath120khz@xmath2
, we obtain @xmath71 = 1.3 @xmath12 10@xmath208ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz .
the same value was used for the temperature fluctuation in the error estimates for lisa @xcite .
the temperature fluctuation in solar irradiance would cause fluctuation in distortions of the spacecraft : @xmath233 , where @xmath139 and @xmath103 are the coefficient of thermal expansion and temperature fluctuation of the spacecraft , respectively .
the inherent fluctuation in solar radiation is @xmath234hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz @xcite .
therefore , the temperature fluctuation is 0.2khz@xmath2 for @xmath88 = 293k .
the gravitational disturbance by a 1-kg mass ( @xmath136 ) separated from the proof mass in the sensitive axis by @xmath138 = 0.5 m of aluminium structure would be @xmath235ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 for @xmath103 = 0.2khz@xmath2 and @xmath139 ( of aluminium ) = 2.5 @xmath12 10@xmath120k@xmath56 .
the same disturbing mass ( @xmath136 = 1
kg and @xmath138 = 0.5 m ) is assumed in @xcite . in reality
, the mass to be involved in thermal distortion would be much larger , but the influence would be largely canceled because of the axial symmetry in the original spacecraft geometry . the inherent fluctuation in solar radiation could be reduced largely by thermal shielding . in the estimation for lisa ,
@xmath103 = 0.004khz@xmath2 is used @xcite . for a more accurate estimate ,
gravity effects by thermal and non - thermal distortions of the spacecraft and the payload have to be studied by appropriate modeling .
the total mechanical energy of the capacitive sensing system can be expressed as ( e.g. equation ( a.3 ) of @xcite ) : @xmath236 where @xmath92 is a net charge of the proof mass ; @xmath106 is the sum of the capacitances due to the applied voltages on the surrounding electrodes @xmath237 and the potential to ground @xmath238 : @xmath239 , where @xmath240 ; @xmath241 is the voltage induced on the proof mass by the applied voltages on the electrodes : @xmath242 .
the first term of @xmath243 is the total energy done on the proof mass by the applied voltages of the surrounding electrodes .
the second term is the energy acquired on the proof mass by the image charge on the surrounding electrodes .
the third term is the energy stored on the proof mass by the deposit of the free charge on the proof mass .
the @xmath138-component of the force on the proof mass is given by differentiation of equation ( [ eq : total mechanical energy ] ) with respect to @xmath138 .
for a simplicity , we assume that neither the free charge @xmath92 nor the potentials @xmath244 have appreciable gradients along the @xmath138-axis , as per @xcite .
acceleration disturbances due to fluctuations in the applied voltages and charge can be given by @xmath73 - @xmath76 as listed in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] .
a detailed description on the deviations of @xmath73 - @xmath76 is given in appendix a of @xcite .
the parameter values used in this section and the estimated values are listed in tables [ table : parameter values ] and [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] , respectively .    to simplify the analysis ,
several assumptions were made in the process of deriving the expressions for the four classes of acceleration disturbances ( @xmath73 - @xmath76 ) @xcite : ( 1 ) @xmath245 are all comparable with each other in magnitude and on the order of @xmath104 @xmath108 6pf (= @xmath246 , where @xmath145 = 8.9 @xmath12 10@xmath146fm@xmath56 is the permittivity of vacuum , @xmath247 is the area of each electrode and @xmath109 = 2 mm is the gap ) ; ( 2 ) only the capacitances @xmath248 and @xmath249 have nonzero gradients along the @xmath138-axis : @xmath250 = @xmath251 , and the gradient of the total capacitance @xmath106 @xmath108 6 @xmath104 is : @xmath252 @xmath108 @xmath253 , where @xmath110 is the gap asymmetry in the @xmath138-direction ; ( 3 ) the average of the potentials on opposing faces is same for all three axes and expressed as @xmath111 ( @xmath254 0.1v ) ; ( 4 ) the magnitude of the fluctuation in potential @xmath255 is all identical and take the value of the average fluctuation of all the potentials for the three axes and the voltage to ground .
we express the fluctuation as @xmath256 .
it should be noted that we do not consider any cross - talk effects that arise in the sensitive axis due to forces applied to the other degrees of freedom .
@xmath73 is associated only with sensing voltages but not the free charge , and its value is @xmath73 @xmath108 1.4 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 , by assuming @xmath114 @xmath39 @xmath257 = 0.05v .
this value is larger than the value used for lisa @xcite by a factor of five .
also , we use @xmath116 = 1.0 @xmath12 10@xmath152vhz@xmath2 as fluctuation in voltage imbalance @xmath115 ( @xmath39 @xmath258 = 0.01v ) .
this value ( @xmath116 ) is one order of magnitude larger than the value used for lisa@xcite .
further , we assume that @xmath259 @xmath108 1/6 , as per @xcite .
@xmath74 and @xmath75 arise from fluctuations in the force due to the interaction between the net free charge and applied sensing voltages .
@xmath74 is due to fluctuation in voltage imbalance and its value is @xmath74 @xmath108 @xmath1944.8 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 , where the net free charge on the proof mass is set to the nominal maximum built - up charge , described earlier .
@xmath75 is due to fluctuation in charge and its value is @xmath75 @xmath108 @xmath1942.9 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .
the value of @xmath115 used here is larger than the one used in the error estimates for lisa @xcite by a factor of two .
@xmath76 is associated only with the free charge and its value is @xmath76 @xmath108 4.0 @xmath12 10@xmath260ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 . in the estimation ,
we assume that the gap asymmetry in the @xmath138-direction is @xmath110 = 10@xmath58 m , which is larger than @xcite by one order of magnitude .
readout electronics for the capacitive sensing will be similar to ones studied for lisa ( e.g. @xcite ) .
for the standard resonant inductive - bridge scheme discussed in @xcite , the sources of disturbances due to readout electronics can be classified into two categories : imperfections in the capacitance bridge and the electric noise in the detecting circuit .
the former includes fluctuations of inductance imbalance ( @xmath261 ) , fluctuations of mutual inductance imbalance ( @xmath262 ) , bias oscillator relative amplitude noise ( @xmath263 , where @xmath113 is the 100khz bias voltage capacitively applied to the proof mass by injection electrodes on insensitive faces ( the @xmath264 and/or @xmath265 faces ) of the proof mass ; the sensing electrodes are grounded ) and bias oscillator phase noise ( @xmath266 ) .
the latter includes current noise and thermal noise .    using the expressions for these sources of the disturbances given in table 1 of @xcite , the main contributions to the acceleration disturbance at 0.1mhz for astrod  i are from @xmath267 ( @xmath108 1.5 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 ) and @xmath266 ( @xmath108 9.1 @xmath12 10@xmath208ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 ) , and the thermal noise ( @xmath108 3.8 @xmath12 10@xmath260ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 ) and the current noise ( @xmath108 1.3 @xmath12 10@xmath260ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 ) .
contributions from fluctuations of @xmath268 and @xmath262 are insignificant . in the estimation ,
we use the following parameters based on experimental results reported in @xcite : @xmath269 , @xmath270 , @xmath271hz@xmath2 , @xmath272hz@xmath2 and the turn ratio of the transformer @xmath215 = 1 ( 40 turns , inductance of 5mh and a quality factor of 165 ) , and a somewhat relaxed residual imbalance of the bridge @xmath273 .
this relaxation has resulted in the dominant contributions from the bias oscillator relative amplitude noise and the phase noise . in @xcite ,
the thermal noise is dominant as they use @xmath274 in their estimation .
the rss of these disturbances is @xmath77 @xmath108 1.8 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz and listed in table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] .      even when the sensing voltages are not applied on the electrodes , differences in local surface properties of the electrodes and the proof mass could lead a potential difference , patch - field voltage , between them @xcite .
the charge fluctuations @xmath94 result in acceleration disturbance @xmath78 ( table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] ) through the patch field @xcite . by taking the average patch - filed voltage difference between opposing electrodes as @xmath140=0.1v @xcite ,
we obtain @xmath78 = 2.9 @xmath12 10@xmath275ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz .
this is the dominant contribution to the total acceleration disturbance of the astrod  i proof mass .
the lisa study team is investigating the possibility of measuring and compensating voltage differences across capacitors , during the mission commission process , to considerably better than 0.01v @xcite .
dielectric losses are thought to stem from surface contamination of electrodes and produces thermal voltage noise @xcite : @xmath276 where @xmath119 is loss angle .
the upper limit of @xmath119 is reported to be @xmath91 for al electrodes @xcite . for @xmath277 ,
this voltage noise is about 6.6 @xmath58v hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz and produces acceleration disturbance @xmath79 ( see table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] for the expression ) , through residual dc bias voltage on electrodes , in the sensitive axis @xcite . by making the same assumption of the average potential difference @xmath278v between a given electrode and the proof mass as @xcite ,
we obtain @xmath79 @xmath108 1.6 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 . in the error
estimates for lisa @xcite , @xmath279v is used .      by adding in quadrature , the rss of the proof - mass environmental acceleration disturbances ( @xmath60 ) and the sensor back - action acceleration disturbances ( @xmath61 ) are 5.2 @xmath12 10@xmath9ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 and 3.0 @xmath12 10@xmath275ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 , respectively .
therefore , the total direct proof - mass acceleration disturbance ( @xmath32 ) is 3.0 @xmath12 10@xmath275ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz , dominated by the sensor back - action acceleration disturbances .
the stiffness @xmath27 is considered to stem from gravity gradients ( @xmath280 ) , fluctuations in sensing capacitance and capacitance gradients ( @xmath281 , @xmath282 and @xmath283 ) , bias voltage ( @xmath284 ) , patch field voltage ( @xmath285 ) and magnetic field gradients ( @xmath286 and @xmath287 ) . table [ table : stiffness ] gives a summary of estimated values for these sources of stiffness .
the expressions used in the estimations are briefly described below .
a detailed description on deviations of the expressions for @xmath280 , @xmath281 , @xmath282 , @xmath283 and @xmath288 is given in appendix a of @xcite in text is noted as @xmath284 in @xcite . ] .
for a given disturbing point mass ( @xmath136 ) at a distance @xmath138 from the center of mass of the proof - mass on the sensitive axis , the amplitude of the acceleration disturbance of the proof - mass caused by a positional fluctuation @xmath289 is @xmath290 , where @xmath280 is given in table [ table : stiffness ] .    making the same assumption of @xmath136 = 0.03 kg and @xmath138 = 0.05 m as @xcite
, we obtain @xmath280 @xmath108 3.2 @xmath12 10@xmath8s@xmath1 . for a more detailed analysis ,
the identification of the disturbing mass is necessary .
gravitational modeling for astrod  i is in progress @xcite .
this disturbance arises from any positional fluctuation and is different from the gravity gradient caused by thermal distortion or motion ( @xmath72 ) , which was discussed earlier .
the expressions for @xmath281 , @xmath282 and @xmath283 can be obtained in the similar way as @xmath73 , @xmath74 , @xmath75 and @xmath76 in the previous section , under the following assumptions @xcite : fluctuations in the capacitances @xmath248 and @xmath249 and their derivatives produce disturbing forces in the @xmath138-direction , but not the fluctuations in other capacitances or their derivatives ; we ignore the cross - coupling effects .
also , we assume @xmath291 = @xmath292 and @xmath293 = @xmath294 .
@xmath281 is due to the fluctuations in the coulomb interaction between the charged proof mass and the image charges on the surrounding electrodes .
@xmath282 arises from interaction between the net free charge @xmath92 on the proof - mass and the average electrode voltages .
@xmath283 is due to the applied voltages across electrodes and the voltage difference across opposite electrodes .
the estimated values for @xmath281 , @xmath282 and @xmath283 are given in table [ table : stiffness ] .      by assuming that the sensing electrodes are grounded , the dominant term of the readout stiffness along the sensitive axis is given by @xmath284 @xcite , listed in table [ table : stiffness ] .
assuming , as per @xcite , that the proof mass is biased to @xmath295v , @xmath284 @xmath108 3.1 @xmath12 10@xmath7s@xmath1 .      by assuming a nominal patch - field voltage of @xmath140 = 0.1v @xcite and an overall multiplicative factor of @xmath4
= 5 as per @xcite , the contribution due to the patch field to the proof mass - spacecraft coupling is @xmath285 @xmath108 1.2 @xmath12 10@xmath196s@xmath1 ( table [ table : stiffness ] ) .
the magnetic stiffness is given by @xmath296 = @xmath297 $ ] @xcite .
the expressions for dominant terms of the stiffness due to the induced magnetic moment and the remanent moment are given by @xmath286 and @xmath287 ( as listed in table [ table : stiffness ] ) , respectively , where @xmath298 = 1.7 @xmath12 10@xmath120tm@xmath1 for @xmath193 = 0.75 m .
their contributions to the total stiffness are insignificant .
these contributions to the coupling constant @xmath27 are summarized in table [ table : stiffness ] .
the rss of the coupling constant is 3.1 @xmath12 10@xmath7s@xmath1 .
this is slightly below the requirement for the total stiffness in lisa ( 4 @xmath12 10@xmath7s@xmath1 @xcite ) .
@llll [ @xmath186 @xmath299 & & expressions & astrod i + @xmath280 & gravity gradients & @xmath300 & 32 + @xmath281 & image charges & @xmath301 & 0.66 + @xmath282 & @xmath302 & @xmath303 & 0.40 + @xmath283 & applied voltages & @xmath304 & 0.095 + @xmath284 & bias voltage & @xmath305 & 3.1 @xmath12 10@xmath306 + @xmath285 & patch fields & @xmath307 & 1.2 + @xmath286 & induced magnetic moments & @xmath308 & 9.0 @xmath12 10@xmath120 + @xmath287 & magnetic remanent moments & @xmath309 & 6.9 @xmath12 10@xmath152 + & 3.1 @xmath12 10@xmath306 +
we have estimated values for the coupling constant @xmath27 , the direct spacecraft acceleration disturbance @xmath28 and the direct proof - mass acceleration disturbance @xmath32 . by using the expression for the total acceleration disturbance of @xmath33 ( equation ( [ eq : control - model ] ) )
, we infer the requirements for the readout sensitivity @xmath22 and the spacecraft control - loop gain @xmath38 . in this process
, we allocate an identical magnitude @xmath310 to each term of the expression ; @xmath311 . for astrod
i , the noise goal is @xmath0ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz and , therefore , @xmath312ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .
the second term of the expression is @xmath32 , which was estimated to be 3.0 @xmath12 10@xmath275ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 ( table [ table : pm acceleration disturbances ] ) ; it is about a factor of 2 smaller than the allocated requirement . with the estimated total stiffness @xmath313s@xmath1
, we obtain @xmath314mhz@xmath2 from the first term and @xmath315 from the last term of the expression .    from figure
[ fig : curve ] , one can see that the acceleration noise spectral density requirements for astrod i take its lowest value of about 0.4 @xmath12 10@xmath10ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.3mhz . at this frequency , @xmath310 becomes 2.3 @xmath12 @xmath316ms@xmath1 hz@xmath2 . therefore , the requirement for @xmath22 becomes more stringent at 0.3mhz : @xmath317mhz@xmath2 . as for the second term of @xmath318
, @xmath32 is smaller at higher frequencies @xcite .
our estimate of @xmath32 is dominated by the contribution from @xmath78 , which scales as @xmath319 .
therefore , at 0.3mhz , @xmath32 would be @xmath11 1 @xmath12 10@xmath275ms@xmath1hz , which is smaller than @xmath320 at 0.3mhz .
the last term scales as @xmath321 , and @xmath28 is expected to be smaller at higher frequencies because of the @xmath322 dependence of the fractional fluctuation in solar irradiance ( figure 6 of @xcite ) .
therefore , by assuming the same level of the thruster noise , the requirement for @xmath38 at 0.3mhz would be less stringent than that at 0.1mhz by a factor of @xmath11 4 .    in summary , the requirements for the readout sensitivity and the control loop gain for astrod i are @xmath317mhz@xmath2 and @xmath323 , respectively .
main relaxed parameter - values are listed in table [ table : comparison with lisa ] in comparison with lisa .
the values for lisa are quoted from the current error estimates by stebbins et al .
@xcite , except the thruster noise quoted from @xcite .
recently the lisa requirements for the thruster noise and the residual gas pressure have been relaxed further from the values given in table [ table : comparison with lisa ] ( this is a comment from one of the referees ) .
@lll @xmath3 = 0.1 mhz & astrod i & lisa + maximum charge build - up : @xmath92 [ c ] & @xmath93 & @xmath0 + magnetic susceptibility : @xmath95 & @xmath96 & @xmath324 + magnetic remanent moment : @xmath97 [ a m@xmath15 ] & 1 @xmath12 10@xmath7 & 2 @xmath12 10@xmath8 + residual gas pressure : @xmath35 [ pa ] & @xmath91 & @xmath325 + electrostatic shielding factors : @xmath98 & 10 & 100 + thruster noise [ @xmath58n hz@xmath2 ] & 10 & a few + fluctuation of temperature in sc : @xmath103 [ k hz@xmath2 ] & 0.2 & 0.004 + voltage difference between average voltage across & & + opposite faces and voltage to ground : @xmath114 [ v ] & 0.05 & 0.01 + voltage difference between opposing faces : @xmath115 [ v ] & 0.01 & 0.005 + fluctuation of voltage difference across opposite faces : & & + @xmath116 [ v hz@xmath2 ] & @xmath117 & @xmath91 + residual dc bias voltage on electrodes : @xmath118 [ v ] & 0.1 & 0.01 +    @xmath326 according to one of the referees , this lisa requirement has been relaxed to 10@xmath120 pa .
we have estimated the spacecraft acceleration disturbance @xmath28 ( section [ ans ] ) , the proof - mass acceleration disturbances @xmath32 ( sections [ anp ] and [ back - action ] ) and the stiffness @xmath27 between the spacecraft and the proof mass ( section [ stiff ] ) . by using the expression ( [ eq : control - model ] ) , we have inferred the requirements for the readout sensitivity @xmath22 and the control - loop gain @xmath38 ( section [ st : requirements ] ) .
table [ table : disturbances and requirements ] provides a summary of the estimated acceleration disturbances and the stiffness ( section ( b ) ) , and the requirements ( section ( c ) ) .
the estimated total acceleration disturbance @xmath33 at 0.1mhz ( section ( a ) of table [ table : disturbances and requirements ] ) is about 13 % less than the noise goal of @xmath0ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 .
we have compared the parameter values used in the estimation with lisa in section [ comparison with lisa ] .
@ll & astrod i +   + @xmath33 [ m s@xmath1 hz@xmath2 ] & 8.7 @xmath12 10@xmath275 +   + & @xmath327 + direct pm acceleration disturbances : & + @xmath32 [ m s@xmath1 hz@xmath2 ] & 3.0 @xmath12 @xmath316 + direct sc acceleration disturbances : & + @xmath328 [ m s@xmath1 hz@xmath2 ] & 2.8 @xmath12 @xmath329 + pm - sc spring constant : & + @xmath27 [ s@xmath1 ] & 3.1 @xmath12 @xmath125 +   + position readout noise : @xmath22 [ m hz@xmath2 ] & 7.4 @xmath12 @xmath329 + control - loop gain : @xmath38 & 3.8 @xmath12 @xmath331 +    the total direct acceleration disturbance of the proof mass ( @xmath32 ) at 0.1mhz was estimated to be nearly a factor of two smaller than the requirement .
this @xmath11 50% margin may be allocated for unknown disturbances or disturbances that would arise but have not been studied yet .
these unestimated disturbances would be originated from , for instance , cross - talks in the capacitive sensing and magnetic damping of the proof mass .
an estimate of acceleration disturbance due to magnetic damping for lisa is about 2 @xmath12 10@xmath208ms@xmath1hz@xmath2 at 0.1mhz @xcite .
the contribution from the magnetic damping effect to astrod  i would be in the similar order and insignificant .
the sensor back - action acceleration disturbances can be reduced by increasing the magnitude of the gap @xmath109 .
the total stiffness @xmath27 would be also reduced , for example , by a factor of four by changing the gap to 4 mm . the optimum design for the capacitive sensing is to be discussed based on results from the ongoing laboratory torsion balance experiment for astrod  i @xcite .
parameter values we used in this paper are mainly based on the results of studies done for lisa and lisa pathfinder .
this may be sufficient for the preliminary estimation .
more accurate estimation would be obtained by carrying out the following works dedicated for astrod  i : ( a ) modeling local magnetic fields of the spacecraft , ( b ) estimating the effective charging rate of the proof - mass , ( c ) estimating the cosmic - ray impact rate of the proof - mass , ( d ) estimating the micrometeorite impact effects , ( e ) thermal modeling of the proof - mass housing and the spacecraft , ( f ) gravitational modeling that includes thermal and non - thermal deformation of the spacecraft and the payload , ( g ) electrostatic modeling for the capacitive sensors and ( h ) estimating environmental factors ( such as the interplanetary magnetic field , solar wind , solar radiation and cosmic rays ) in the varying orbit ( 0.5au to 1au ) . simulations to estimate charging rates for astrod  i are in progress @xcite .
we have tentatively estimated acceleration disturbances for astrod  i. this work has allowed us to set preliminary requirements for astrod  i. to improve the current estimation , the disturbances that have not been studied yet have to be included and more detailed modeling works are necessary for astrod  i. in comparison with lisa , requirements for astrod  i can be largely relaxed .
this will make the technological developments for astrod  i less demanding to meet the drag - free requirements .
this work was funded by the national science council and the foundation of minor planets of purple mountain observatory .
we thank a. rdiger , s. vitale , d. k. gill , a. pulido patn , and , especially , the referees for useful information on acceleration disturbances and helpful comments on the manuscript .
00 bec - borsenberger a _ et al _ 2000 _ astrod _ esa f2/f3 mission proposal ; and references therein ni w - t 2002 _ int . j. mod .
d _ * 11 * 947 ; and references therein ni w - t _ et al _ 2002 _ int . j. mod .
d _ * 11 * 1035 ; and references therein ni w - t _ et al _ 2003 astrod i : mission concept and venus flybys , _ proc .
5th iaa intnl . conf . on low - cost planetary missions , estec , noordwijk , the netherlands , 24 - 26
september 2003 _ , esa sp-542 , pp .
79 - 86 , november 2003 ; _ acta astronaut .
_ in press , 2006 xia y , ni w - t , tang c j and li g 2006 orbit design and orbit simulation for astrod i , _ gen . relat .
gravit . _ * 38 * , in press anza s _ et al _ 2005 _ class .
quantum grav . _
* 22 * s125 2000 esa - sci(2000)11 hammesfahr a _ et al _ 2000 _ lisa - study of the laser interferometer space antenna , final technical report _
esa industrial study at phase a , estec contract no .
13631/99/nl / ms , dss report no .
li - rp - ds-009 vitale s _ et al _ 2005 _ science requirements and top - level architecture definition for the lisa technology package ( ltp ) on board lisa pathfinder ( smart-2 ) _ ltpa - utn - ssrd - iss003-rev1 june 30 , 2005 ni w - t , shiomi s and liao a - c 2004 _ class .
quantum grav . _
* 21 * 641 vitale s and dolesi r 2000 cp523 _ gravitational waves : third edoardo amaldi conference _ , ed meshkov s , american institute of physics 1 56396 - 944 - 0 231 vitale s _ et al _ 2002 _ nucl .
b ( proc . suppl . ) _ * 110 *
209 schumaker b l 2002 overview of disturbance reduction requirements for lisa http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/week18/drs-bls01may02.pdf schumaker b l 2003 _ class .
quantum grav . _
* 20 * s239 pap j _
et al _ 1999 _ adv .
space res . _ * 24 * , no.2 215 fichter w , gath p , vitale s and bortoluzzi d 2005 _ class .
quantum grav . _
* 22 * s139 jackson j d 1998 _ classical electrodynamics _ , 3rd ed .
, john wiley & sons , inc .
hanson j _ et al _ 2003 _ class .
quantum grav .
_ * 20 * s109 lang k r 2001 _ the cambridge encyclopedia of the sun _ , cambridge university press balogh a _
et al _ 1992 _ astron .
* 221 shaul d n a _ et al _ 2005 _ class .
quantum grav . _
* 22 * s297 silvestri z _ et al _ 2003 _ metrologia _ * 40 * 172 - 176 stebbins r t _ et al _ 2004 _ class
. quantum grav . _ * 21 * s653 gill d k , private communication , january 2006 jafry y and sumner t j 1997 _ class .
quantum grav . _
* 14 * 1567 arajo h m _
et al _ 2004 detailed calculation of test - mass charging in the lisa mission airxiv : astro - ph/0405522 v3 7 oct 2004 , published in _ astroparticle physics _ * 22 * 2005 451 bao g _ et al
_ 2006 astrod i charging simulation and disturbances _ gen .
gravit . _ * 38 * , in press blaser j p , lockerbie n , paik h j , speake c and vitale s 1996 _ class .
quantum grav .
_ * 13 * a203 touboul p , rodrigues m , willemenot e and bernard a 1996 _ class .
quantum grav . _ * 13 * a67 nobili a m _ et al _ 2001 _ phys .
* 63 * 101101(r ) worden p , mester j and torii r 2001 _ class .
quantum grav . _ * 18 * 2543 rodrigues m , foulon b , liorzou f and touboul p 2003 _ class .
quantum grav . _ * 20 * s291 bender p 2003 _ class .
quantum grav . _ * 20 * s301 rdiger a 2002 residual gas effects in space - borne position sensors http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/nobili/opendiscussion/ruediger_30aprile.pdf dolesi r _
et al _ 2003 _ class .
quantum grav . _ * 20 * s99 speake c c and andrews p l 1997 _ class
. quantum grav . _
* 14 * 1557 cavalleri a _ et al _ 2001 _ class .
quantum grav . _ * 18 * 4133 weber w j _ et al _ 2003 _ proc .
spie conf . on astronomical telescopes and instrumentation
_ * 4856 * ed cruise m and saulson p
( bellingham wa : spie optical engineering press ) 31 speake c c 1996 _ class .
quantum grav .
_ * 13 * a291-a297 vitale s and speake c c 1998 _ 2nd lisa symposium aip proceedings _ * 456 * , 172 speake c c , davis r s , quinn t j and richman s j 1999 _ phys .
a _ * 263 * 219 shiomi s 2005 acceleration disturbances due to local gravity gradients in astrod i , _ proceedings of the 6th edoardo amaldi conference on gravitational waves _ ( okinawa , japan , june 20 - 24 , 2005 ) ; 2006 _ j. phys.:conf .
ser . _ * 32 * 186 zhou z b , gao s w and luo j 2005 _ class .
quantum grav . _
* 22 * s537