1: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

3: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

4: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \title{Implementation of Time-Delay Interferometry for LISA}

9: 

10: \author{Massimo Tinto} 

11: \email{Massimo.Tinto@jpl.nasa.gov}

12: \altaffiliation [Also at: ]{Space Radiation Laboratory, California

13:   Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125} 

14: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California 

15: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}

16: 

17: \author{Daniel A. Shaddock}

18: \email{Daniel.A.Shaddock@jpl.nasa.gov}

19: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California 

20: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}

21: 

22: \author{Julien Sylvestre} 

23: \email{jsylvest@ligo.caltech.edu}

24: \altaffiliation [Also at: ]{LIGO Laboratory, California

25: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}

26: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California 

27: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}

28: 

29: \author{J.W. Armstrong}

30: \email{John.W.Armstrong@jpl.nasa.gov}

31: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,

32:  Pasadena, CA 91109}

33: 

34: \date{\today}

35: \vskip24pt

36: 

37: \begin{abstract}

38:   We discuss the baseline optical configuration for the Laser

39:   Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) mission, in which the lasers are

40:   not free-running, but rather one of them is used as the main

41:   frequency reference generator (the {\it master}) and the remaining

42:   five as {\it slaves}, these being phase-locked to the master (the

43:   {\it master-slave configuration}).  Under the condition that the

44:   frequency fluctuations due to the optical transponders can be made

45:   negligible with respect to the secondary LISA noise sources (mainly

46:   proof-mass and shot noises), we show that the entire space of

47:   interferometric combinations LISA can generate when operated with

48:   six independent lasers (the {\it one-way method}) can also be

49:   constructed with the {\it master-slave} system design.  The

50:   corresponding hardware trade-off analysis for these two optical

51:   designs is presented, which indicates that the two sets of systems

52:   needed for implementing the {\it one-way method}, and the {\it

53:     master-slave configuration}, are essentially identical.  Either

54:   operational mode could therefore be implemented without major

55:   implications on the hardware configuration.

56:   

57:   We then derive the required accuracies of armlength knowledge, time

58:   synchronization of the onboard clocks, sampling times and

59:   time-shifts needed for effectively implementing Time-Delay

60:   Interferometry for LISA.  We find that an armlength accuracy of

61:   about $16$ meters, a synchronization accuracy of about $50$ ns, and

62:   the time jitter due to a presently existing space qualified clock

63:   will allow the suppression of the frequency fluctuations of the

64:   lasers below to the level identified by the secondary noise sources.

65:   A new procedure for sampling the data in such a way to avoid the

66:   problem of having time shifts that are not integer multiples of the

67:   sampling time is also introduced, addressing one of the concerns

68:   about the implementation of Time-Delay Interferometry.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \pacs{04.80.N, 95.55.Y, 07.60.L}

72: 

73: \maketitle

74: 

75: \section{Introduction}

76: 

77: LISA, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, is a three-spacecraft

78: deep space mission, jointly proposed to the National Aeronautics and

79: Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA). The

80: LISA scientific objective is to detect and study low-frequency cosmic

81: gravitational radiation by observing phase differences of laser beams

82: interchanged between drag-free spacecraft \cite{1}.

83: 

84: Modeling each spacecraft with two optical benches, carrying

85: independent lasers, frequency generators (called Ultra Stable

86: Oscillators), beam splitters and photo receivers, the measured

87: eighteen time series of frequency shifts (six obtained from the six

88: one-way laser beams between spacecraft pairs, six from the beams

89: between the two optical benches on each of the three spacecraft, and

90: six more from modulation of the laser beams with USO data) were

91: previously analyzed by Tinto {\it et al.} \cite{2}.  There it was

92: shown that there exist several combinations of these eighteen

93: observables which exactly cancel the otherwise overwhelming phase noise

94: of the lasers, the phase fluctuations due to the non-inertial motions

95: of the six optical benches, and the phase fluctuations introduced by

96: the three Ultra Stable Oscillators into the heterodyned measurements,

97: while leaving effects due to passing gravitational waves.

98: 

99: The analysis presented in \cite{2} relied on the assumptions that (i)

100: the frequency offsets of any pair of independent lasers (assumed there

101: to be $ \approx \ 300 \ {\rm MHz}$) could be observed within the

102: detection bandwidths of the photo receivers where the one-way Doppler

103: measurements are performed, and (ii) the telemetry data rate needed by

104: two of the three spacecraft to transmit their measured one-way Doppler

105: data to the third spacecraft (where the interferometric combinations

106: are synthesized) is adequate.  Although the technology LISA will be

107: able to use should make possible the implementation of Time-Delay

108: Interferometry (TDI) as discussed in \cite{2}, the possibility of

109: optimizing the design of the optical layout, while at the same time

110: minimizing the number of Doppler data needed for constructing the

111: entire space of interferometric observables, was not analyzed there.

112: Here we extend those results to a different optical configuration, in

113: which one of the six lasers is the provider of the frequency reference

114: (albeit time-delayed) for the other five via phase-locking.  This {\it

115:   master-slave} optical design could provide potential advantages,

116: such as smaller frequency offsets between beams from pairs of

117: different lasers, hardware redundancy, reliability, and can result in

118: a smaller number of measured data. An outline of the paper is given

119: below.

120: 

121: In Section II we summarize TDI, the data processing technique needed

122: for removing the frequency fluctuations of the six lasers used by

123: LISA, and other noises.  In order to show that the entire space of

124: interferometric observables LISA can generate can also be

125: reconstructed by using a master-slave optical configuration, we

126: consider the simple case of spacecraft that are stationary with

127: respect to each other. After showing that the entire space of

128: interferometric observables can be obtained by properly combining four

129: generators, ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \zeta$), we then derive the

130: expressions for the four generators corresponding to the master-slave

131: optical configuration.  By imposing some of the one-way measurements

132: entering into ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \zeta$) to be zero (the so

133: called {\it locking conditions}), we show that the expressions for

134: these generators can be written in terms of the one-way and two-way

135: Doppler measurements corresponding to the locking configuration we

136: analyzed. Section III and Appendix A provide a theoretical derivation

137: and estimation of the magnitude of the phase noise expected to be

138: generated by an optical transponder. In Section IV we analyze and

139: compare the hardware requirements needed for implementing both optical

140: designs, while in Section V we turn to the estimation of the armlength

141: and time synchronization accuracies, as well as time-shift and

142: sampling time precisions needed for successfully implementing TDI with

143: LISA.  Our comments and conclusions are finally presented in Section

144: VI.

145: 

146: \section{Time-Delay Interferometry}

147: 

148: The description of TDI for LISA is greatly simplified if we adopt the

149: notation shown in Figure 1, where the overall geometry of the LISA

150: detector is defined. The spacecraft are labeled $1$, $2$, $3$ and

151: distances between pairs of spacecraft are $L_1$, $L_2$, $L_3$, with

152: $L_i$ being opposite spacecraft $i$.  Unit vectors between spacecraft

153: are $\hat n_i$, oriented as indicated in figure 1.  We similarly index

154: the phase difference data to be analyzed: $s_{31}$ is the phase

155: difference time series measured at reception at spacecraft 1 with

156: transmission from spacecraft 2 (along $L_3$).

157: \begin{figure}

158: \centering

159: \includegraphics[width=2.5in, angle=-90]{Fig1.ps}

160: \caption{Schematic LISA configuration.  Each spacecraft is equidistant

161: from the point O, in the plane of the spacecraft.  Unit vectors

162: $\hat n_i$ point between spacecraft pairs with the indicated

163: orientation.  At each vertex spacecraft there are two optical

164: benches (denoted 1, $1^*$, etc.), as indicated.}

165: \end{figure}

166: Similarly, $s_{21}$ is the phase difference series derived from

167: reception at spacecraft $1$ with transmission from spacecraft $3$. The

168: other four one-way phase difference time series from signals exchanged

169: between the spacecraft are obtained by cyclic permutation of the

170: indices: $1$ $\to$ $2$ $\to$ $3$ $\to$ $1$.  We also adopt a useful

171: notation for delayed data streams: $s_{31,2} = s_{31}(t - L_2)$,

172: $s_{31,23} = s_{31}(t - L_2 - L_3) = s_{31,32}$, etc.  (we take the

173: speed of light $c = 1$ for the analysis).  Six more phase difference

174: series result from laser beams exchanged between adjacent optical

175: benches within each spacecraft; these are similarly indexed as

176: $\tau_{ij}$ ($i,j = 1, 2, 3 \ ; \ i \ne j$).

177: 

178: The proof-mass-plus-optical-bench assemblies for LISA spacecraft

179: number $1$ are shown schematically in figure 2.  We take the left-hand

180: optical bench to be bench number $1$, while the right-hand bench is

181: $1^*$.  The photo receivers that generate the data $s_{21}$, $s_{31}$,

182: $\tau_{21}$, and $\tau_{31}$ at spacecraft $1$ are shown.  The phase

183: fluctuations of the laser on optical bench $1$ is $p_1(t)$; on optical

184: bench $1^*$ it is $p^*_1(t)$ and these are independent (the lasers are

185: for the moment not "locked" to each other, and both are referenced to

186: their own independent frequency stabilizing device).  We extend the cyclic

187: terminology so that at vertex $i$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) the random displacement

188: vectors of the two proof masses are respectively denoted $\vec

189: \delta_i(t)$ and $\vec \delta^*_i(t)$, and the random displacements

190: (perhaps several orders of magnitude greater) of their optical benches

191: are correspondingly denoted $\vec \Delta_i(t)$ and $\vec

192: \Delta^*_i(t)$.  As pointed out in \cite{3}, the analysis does

193: \underline {not} assume that pairs of optical benches are rigidly

194: connected, i.e. $\vec \Delta_i \neq \vec \Delta^*_i$, in general.  The

195: present LISA design shows optical fibers transmitting signals both

196: ways between adjacent benches.  We ignore time-delay effects for these

197: signals and will simply denote by $\mu_i(t)$ the phase fluctuations

198: upon transmission through the fibers of the laser beams with

199: frequencies $\nu_{i}$, and $\nu^*_{i}$.  The $\mu_i (t)$ phase shifts

200: within a given spacecraft might not be the same for large frequency

201: differences $\nu_{i} - \nu^*_{i}$. For the envisioned frequency

202: differences (a few hundred megahertz), however, the remaining

203: fluctuations due to the optical fiber can be neglected \cite{4}.  It

204: is also assumed that the phase noise added by the fibers is

205: independent of the direction of light propagation through them.

206: 

207: Figure 2 endeavors to make the detailed light paths for these

208: observations clear.  An outgoing light beam transmitted to a distant

209: spacecraft is routed from the laser on the local optical bench using

210: mirrors and beam splitters; this beam does not interact with the local

211: proof mass.  Conversely, an {\it {incoming}} light beam from a distant

212: spacecraft is bounced off the local proof mass before being reflected

213: onto the photo receiver where it is mixed with light from the laser on

214: that same optical bench. The inter-spacecraft phase data are denoted

215: $s_{31}$ and $s_{21}$ in figure 2.

216: \begin{figure}

217: \centering

218: \includegraphics[width=6.0 in, angle=0]{Fig2.ps}

219: \caption{Schematic diagram of proof-masses-plus-optical-benches

220:   for a LISA spacecraft.  The left-hand bench, $1$, reads out the

221:   phase signals $s_{31}$ and $\tau_{31}$.  The right hand bench,

222:   $1^*$, analogously reads out $s_{21}$ and $\tau_{21}$.  The random

223:   displacements of the two proof masses and two optical benches are

224:   indicated (lower case $\vec \delta_i$ for the proof masses, upper

225:   case $\vec \Delta_i$ for the optical benches.)}

226: \end{figure}

227: Beams between adjacent optical benches within a single spacecraft are

228: bounced off proof masses in the opposite way.  Light to be {\it

229:   {transmitted}} from the laser on an optical bench is {\it {first}}

230: bounced off the proof mass it encloses and then directed to the other

231: optical bench.  Upon reception it does {\it not} interact with the

232: proof mass there, but is directly mixed with local laser light, and

233: again down converted. These data are denoted $\tau_{31}$ and

234: $\tau_{21}$ in figure 2.

235: 

236: The terms in the following equations for the $s_{ij}$ and $\tau_{ij}$

237: phase measurements can now be developed from figures 1 and 2, and they

238: are for the particular LISA configuration in which all the lasers have

239: the same nominal frequency $\nu_0$, and the spacecraft are stationary

240: with respect to each other. The analysis covering the configuration

241: with lasers of different frequencies and spacecraft moving relative to

242: each other was done in \cite{2}, and we refer the reader to that

243: paper.

244: 

245: Consider the $s_{31} (t)$ process (equation (\ref{eq:3})) below.  The

246: photo receiver on the left bench of spacecraft $1$, which (in the

247: spacecraft frame) experiences a time-varying displacement $\vec

248: \Delta_1$, measures the phase difference $s_{31}$ by first mixing the

249: beam from the distant optical bench $2^*$ in direction $\hat n_3$, and

250: laser phase noise $p^*_2$ and optical bench motion $\vec \Delta^*_2$

251: that have been delayed by propagation along $L_3$, after one bounce

252: off the proof mass ($\vec \delta_1$), with the local laser light (with

253: phase noise $p_1$). Since for this simplified configuration no

254: frequency offsets are present, there is of course no need for any

255: heterodyne conversion. 

256: 

257: In equation (\ref{eq:4}) the $\tau_{31}$ measurement results from

258: light originating at the right-bench laser ($p^*_1$, $\vec

259: \Delta^*_1$), bounced once off the right proof mass ($\vec

260: \delta^*_1$), and directed through the fiber (incurring phase shift

261: $\mu_1(t)$), to the left bench, where it is mixed with laser light

262: ($p_1$).  Similarly the right bench records the phase differences

263: $s_{21}$ and $\tau_{21}$.  The laser noises, the gravitational wave

264: signals, the optical path noises, and proof-mass and bench noises,

265: enter into the four data streams recorded at vertex

266: $1$ according to the following expressions \cite{2}

267: \begin{eqnarray}

268: s_{21} & = &  s^{\rm gw}_{21} + s^{\rm opt. \ path}_{21} +

269: p_{3,2} - p^{*}_1 + \nu_{0} \ \left[ 2 {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec \delta^{*}_1}  - 

270: {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec \Delta^{*}_1} - {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec

271:   \Delta_{3,2}} \right] \ ,

272: \label{eq:1}

273: \\

274: \tau_{21} & = &  p_{1} - p^{*}_1 + 2 \ \nu_{0} \ {\hat n_3} \cdot 

275: ({\vec \delta_1} - {\vec \Delta_1}) + \mu_1 \ ,

276: \label{eq:2}

277: \\

278: s_{31} & = & s^{\rm gw}_{31} + s^{\rm opt. \ path}_{31} + 

279: p^*_{2,3} - p_1 + \nu_{0} \ \left[ - \ 2 {\hat n_3} \cdot {\vec \delta_1} +

280: {\hat n_3} \cdot {\vec \Delta_1} + {\hat n_3} \cdot {\vec

281:   \Delta^*_{2,3}} \right] \ ,

282: \label{eq:3}

283: \\

284: \tau_{31} & = & p^{*}_{1} - p_1 

285: - \ 2 \ \nu_{0} \ {\hat n_2} \cdot ({\vec \delta^*_1} - {\vec

286:   \Delta^*_1}) + \mu_1 \ .

287: \label{eq:4}

288: \end{eqnarray}

289: \noindent

290: Eight other relations, for the readouts at vertices 2 and 3, are given

291: by cyclic permutation of the indices in equations

292: (\ref{eq:1})-(\ref{eq:4}).

293: 

294: The gravitational wave phase signal components, $s^{\rm gw}_{ij} \ , \

295: i, j = 1, 2, 3$, in equations (\ref{eq:1}) and (\ref{eq:3}) are

296: given by integrating with respect to time the equations (1), (2) of

297: reference \cite{5} that relate metric perturbations to frequency

298: shifts. The optical path phase noise contributions, $s^{\rm opt. \ 

299:   path}_{ij}$, which includes shot noise from the low signal-to-noise

300: ratio (SNR) in the links between the distant spacecraft, can be

301: derived from the corresponding term given in \cite{3}. The $\tau_{ij}$

302: measurements will be made with high SNR so that for them the shot

303: noise is negligible.

304: 

305: The laser-noise-free combinations of phase data can readily be

306: obtained from those given in \cite{3} for frequency data.  We use the

307: same notations: $X$, $Y$, $Z$, $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\zeta$,

308: etc., but the reader should keep in mind that here these are phase

309: measurements.

310: 

311: The phase fluctuations, $s_{ij} \ , \ \tau_{ij} \ , \ i,j=1, 2, 3$,

312: are the fundamental measurements needed to synthesize all the

313: interferometric observables unaffected by laser and optical bench

314: noises.  If we assume for the moment these phase measurements to be

315: continuous functions of time, the three armlengths to be perfectly

316: known and constant, and the three clocks onboard the spacecraft to be

317: perfectly synchronized, then it is possible to cancel out exactly the

318: phase fluctuations due to the six lasers and six optical benches by

319: properly time-shifting and linearly combining the twelve measurements

320: $s_{ij} \ , \ \tau_{ij} \ , \ i,j=1, 2, 3$.  The simplest such

321: combination, the totally symmetrized Sagnac response $\zeta$, uses all

322: the data of Figure 2 symmetrically

323: \begin{eqnarray}

324: \zeta & = & s_{32,2} - s_{23,3} + s_{13,3} - s_{31,1} + s_{21,1} - s_{12,2}

325: \nonumber \\

326: & & + {1 \over 2}

327: [ ({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,12}

328: + ({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})_{,23}

329: + ({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,13}]

330: \nonumber \\

331: & & +

332: {1 \over 2} 

333: [ ({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,3}

334: + ({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})_{,1}

335: + ({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,2}] ,

336: \label{eq:5}

337: \end{eqnarray}

338: and its transfer functions to instrumental noises and gravitational

339: waves are given in \cite{3} and \cite{5} respectively.  In

340: particular, $\zeta$ has a ``six-pulse response'' to gravitational

341: radiation, i.e.  a $\delta$-function gravitational wave signal

342: produces six distinct pulses in $\zeta$ \cite{5}, which are located

343: with relative times depending on the arrival direction of the wave and

344: the detector configuration.

345: 

346: Together with $\zeta$, three more interferometric combinations,

347: ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma$), jointly generate the entire space of

348: interferometric combinations \cite{3}, \cite{5}, \cite{6}. Their

349: expressions in terms of the measurements $s_{ij}$, $\tau_{ij}$ are as

350: follows

351: \begin{eqnarray}

352: \alpha & = & s_{21} - s_{31} + s_{13,2} - s_{12,3} + s_{32,12} -

353: s_{23,13} + {1 \over 2} \ [({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,2}

354: + ({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,13} + ({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})

355: \nonumber \\

356: & &

357: \ + \ ({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})_{,123} + ({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,3}

358: + ({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,12}] \ ,

359: \label{eq:6}

360: \end{eqnarray}

361: \noindent

362: with $\beta$, and $\gamma$ derived by permuting the spacecraft indices

363: in $\alpha$. Like in the case of $\zeta$, a $\delta$-function

364: gravitational wave produces six pulses in $\alpha$, $\beta$, and

365: $\gamma$. In equations (\ref{eq:5}, \ref{eq:6}) it is important to

366: notice that the $\tau_{ij}$ measurements from each spacecraft always

367: enter into the interferometric measurements as differences taken at

368: the same time. This property naturally suggests a locking

369: configuration that makes these differences equal to zero, as we will

370: show in the next section.

371: 

372: We remind the reader that the four interferometric responses ($\alpha,

373: \beta, \gamma, \zeta$) satisfy the following relationship

374: \begin{equation}

375: \zeta - \zeta_{,123} =  \alpha_{,1} - \alpha_{,23} + \beta_{,2} -

376: \beta_{,13} + \gamma_{,3} - \gamma_{,12} \ .

377: \label{eq:7}

378: \end{equation}

379: Jointly they also give the expressions of the interferometric

380: combinations derived in \cite{3}, \cite{5}: the Unequal-arm

381: Michelson (${\rm X}, {\rm Y}, {\rm Z}$), the Beacon (${\rm P}, {\rm

382:   Q}, {\rm R}$), the Monitor (${\rm E}, {\rm F}, {\rm G}$), and the

383: Relay (${\rm U}, {\rm V}, {\rm W}$) responses

384: \begin{eqnarray}

385: {\rm X}_{,1} & = & \alpha_{,23} - \beta_{,2} - \gamma_{,3} + \zeta \ ,

386: \label{eq:8} \\

387: {\rm P} & = & \zeta - \alpha_{,1} \ ,

388: \label{eq:9} \\

389: {\rm E} & = & \alpha - \zeta_{,1} \ ,

390: \label{eq:10} \\

391: {\rm U} & = & \gamma_{,1} - \beta \ ,

392: \label{eq:11}

393: \end{eqnarray}

394: with the remaining expressions obtained from equations (\ref{eq:8},

395: \ref{eq:9}, \ref{eq:10}, \ref{eq:11}) by permutation of the spacecraft

396: indices. All these interferometric combinations have been shown to add

397: robustness to the mission with respect to failures of subsystems, and

398: potential design, implementation, or cost advantages \cite{3},

399: \cite{5}.

400:  

401: \subsection{Locking Conditions}

402: 

403: The space of all possible interferometric combinations can be

404: generated by properly time shifting and linearly combining the four

405: combinations ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \zeta$), as given above.

406: Although they have been derived by applying TDI to the twelve one-way

407: Doppler data, in what follows we will show that they can also be

408: written in terms of properly selected and time shifted two-way and

409: one-way Doppler measurements. These can be generated by phase locking

410: five of the six lasers to one of them, as it is described below.

411: 

412: Assume, without loss of generality, the laser on bench $1^*$ to be the

413: master. Although there are several other possible locking schemes, the one

414: chosen minimizes the number of locking conditions between the master

415: and any given slave. Furthermore, locking schemes relying on more than

416: one master could be implemented, but we will not address those in this

417: paper. We will also assume the spacecraft to be stationary relative to

418: each other. This assumption simplifies the analysis, and does not

419: affect the validity of the general result \cite{8}.

420: \begin{figure}

421: \centering

422: \includegraphics[width=5in, angle=0]{Fig3.ps}

423: \caption{Simplified optical layout of the LISA interferometer,

424: showing all the optical benches, proof masses and lasers.}

425: \end{figure}

426: Under this assumption, the frequency provided by the master laser

427: $1^*$ can be used as input reference for the slaved lasers. In other

428: words the slaves will then have the same center frequency as the master, and

429: their phase fluctuations will be related to the fluctuations of the

430: master laser as well as any other fluctuations introduced into the

431: received light beam prior to reception and locking.

432: 

433: In order to understand the topology of the beams as the various slaves

434: are locked to the master, let us follow the light paths from the

435: master laser, $1^*$, to the slaves, as shown in Figure 3.  Let us

436: start first with the light beam that is bounced off the back of the

437: proof-mass $1^*$. This beam is then directed to the other bench, $1$,

438: where it is used as the input frequency reference for the laser there,

439: and the measurement $\tau_{31}$ is made. Light is then re-transmitted

440: back to bench $1^*$ where the measurement $\tau_{21}$ is performed.

441: Since the phase of the laser $1$ is locked to that of the master, the

442: relative phase fluctuations $\tau_{31}$ can be adjusted as follows

443: \begin{equation}

444: \tau_{31} = \tau_{21} \ ,

445: \label{eq:12}

446: \end{equation}

447: where we have assumed the noise introduced by phase-locking to be

448: negligible (on this point see the theoretical derivations in Section

449: III and Appendix A). Similarly, light beams from lasers $1$ and $1^*$

450: are transmitted to the lasers on the benches $2^*$ and $3$

451: respectively, where the lasers are locked to the incoming beams.  From

452: benches $2^*$ and $3$ beams are transmitted to the lasers on benches

453: $2$ and $3^*$ respectively, where again locking is performed similarly

454: to what is done onboard spacecraft $1$.  Finally, along arm $1$, only

455: two one-way relative phase measurements can be performed as it is easy

456: to see.  Since for the moment we have assumed a configuration with

457: stationary spacecraft, the optical configuration described above can

458: be translated into the following {\it locking conditions} on some

459: relative phase fluctuation measurements

460: \begin{equation}

461: \tau_{31}  = \tau_{21} \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ 

462: \tau_{13}  =  \tau_{23} \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ 

463: \tau_{32}  =  \tau_{12} \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ s_{23} = s_{32} = 0 \ .

464: \label{eq:13b}

465: \end{equation}

466: The locking conditions define specific relationships among the phase

467: fluctuations from various noise sources. As an example, the conditions

468: \begin{equation}

469: \tau_{31} = \tau_{21} \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ s_{23} = 0 \ ,

470: \end{equation}

471: imply the following relationships among the laser phase fluctuations,

472: the proof-mass noises, the gravitational wave signal, and the two

473: bench noises onboard spacecraft $1$

474: \begin{eqnarray}

475: p^*_1 & = & p_1 + \nu_{0} \ {\hat n_3} \cdot 

476: ({\vec \delta_1} - {\vec \Delta_1}) + \nu_{0} \ {\hat n_2} \cdot 

477: ({\vec \delta^*_1} - {\vec \Delta^*_1}) \ , 

478: \label{eq:13c}

479: \\

480: 0 & = & s^{\rm gw}_{23} + s^{\rm opt. \ path}_{23} + 

481: p^*_{1,2} - p_3 + \nu_{0} \ \left[ - \ 2 {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec \delta_3} +

482: {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec \Delta_3} + {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec

483:     \Delta^*_{1,2}} \right] \ ,

484: \label{eq:13d}

485: \end{eqnarray}

486: with similar expressions following from the other locking conditions

487: given in equation (\ref{eq:13b}).

488: 

489: If we now substitute the locking conditions into the expressions for

490: ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \zeta$), we obtain their expressions in terms

491: of the remaining measurements

492: \begin{eqnarray}

493: \zeta_{lo.} & = &  s_{13,3} - s_{31,1} + s_{21,1} - s_{12,2} \ ,

494: \label{eq:14}

495: \\

496: \alpha_{lo.} & = & s_{21} - s_{31} + s_{13,2} - s_{12,3} \ ,

497: \label{eq:15}

498: \\

499: \beta_{lo.} & = & - s_{12} + s_{21,3} + s_{13,23} - s_{31,12} \ ,

500: \label{eq:16}

501: \\

502: \gamma_{lo.} & = & s_{13} - s_{31,2} + s_{21,13} - s_{12,23} \ ,

503: \label{eq:17}

504: \end{eqnarray}

505: where the data ($s_{12}$, $s_{13}$) are one-way, and ($s_{21}$,

506: $s_{31}$) are effectively two-way Doppler measurements

507: due to locking.

508: 

509: The verification that the combinations ($\alpha_{lo.}, \beta_{lo.},

510: \gamma_{lo.}, \zeta_{lo.}$) exactly cancel the laser phase

511: fluctuations as well as the fluctuations due to the mechanical

512: vibrations of the optical benches, can be performed by substituting

513: the locked phase processes (such as \ref{eq:13c}, \ref{eq:13d}) into the

514: expressions for ($s_{12}, s_{13}, s_{21}, s_{31}$) (which are given by

515: equations (\ref{eq:1}, \ref{eq:3}) and their permutations), and by

516: further replacing them into equations (\ref{eq:14} - \ref{eq:17}).

517: 

518: The main result of implementing locking is quantitatively shown by

519: equations (\ref{eq:14} - \ref{eq:17}) in that the number of

520: measurements needed for constructing the entire space of

521: interferometric combinations LISA will be able to generate is smaller

522: by a factor of three than the number of measurements needed when only

523: one-way data are used.

524: 

525: Once ($\alpha_{lo.}, \beta_{lo.}, \gamma_{lo.}, \zeta_{lo.}$) are

526: constructed according to the expressions given in equations

527: (\ref{eq:14} - \ref{eq:17}), all the other interferometric

528: combinations can be derived by applying the identities given in

529: equations (\ref{eq:8} - \ref{eq:11}). As an example, it is

530: straightforward to show that equation (\ref{eq:8}) implies the

531: following expression for the unequal-arm Michelson combination $X_{lo.}$

532: \begin{equation}

533: X_{lo.} = [s_{21} - s_{31}] - [s_{21,33} - s_{31,22}] \ , 

534: \label{eq:18}

535: \end{equation}

536: which coincides with the expression for $X$, derived for the first time

537: in \cite{7}, in terms of the two-way Doppler measurements from the two

538: LISA arms.

539: 

540: As a final comment, we have analyzed also several locking

541: configurations needed when the spacecraft are moving relative to each

542: other. We have found that there exist techniques, when locking is

543: implemented, which are similar to the one analyzed in \cite{2} for

544: removing the noise of the onboard Ultra Stable Oscillators from the

545: phase measurements. The conclusions derived above for the case of

546: stationary spacecraft are therefore general, and an analysis

547: covering locking configurations with moving spacecraft

548: is available in \cite{8}.

549: 

550: \section{Phase Locking Performance}

551: 

552: %% This entire section has been altered starting from here, Daniel 1/23/03

553: 

554: The locking conditions given in equation (\ref{eq:13b}) reflect the

555: assumption that the noise due to the optical transponders is

556: negligible. In this section we analyze the noise added by the process

557: of locking the phase of the local laser to the phase of the received

558: light. This noise will be in addition to the optical path and USO

559: noises, which we consider separately.

560: 

561: A block diagram of the phase locking control system is shown in figure

562: \ref{Servo}(a). The system consists of a photoreceiver, phasemeter,

563: controller, actuator and laser (see section IV for a description of

564: these subsystems). Each of these subsystems can be characterized by

565: its transfer function and, when it applies, by a noise contribution

566: \cite{Abramovici}. The main inputs to the system are the phase noise

567: of the local laser, $p_L(s)$, and the phase fluctuations of the signal

568: beam from the distant spacecraft, $p_S(s)$ (with $s=\sigma + i \omega$

569: being the Laplace variable).  The closed loop output is the phase

570: noise of the retransmitted laser beam, $p_{CL}(s)$.

571: \begin{figure}[httb]

572: \centering 

573: \includegraphics[width=7in, angle=0]{Fig4.ps}

574: \caption{a) Block diagram of phase locking control system showing transfer 

575:   functions and noise contributions of various system components.  (b)

576:   Simplified control system block diagram.}

577: \label{Servo} 

578: \end{figure}

579: 

580: From the block diagram shown in figure 4a, it is easy to see that the

581: closed loop output phase $p_{CL}(s)$ can be written in terms of the

582: free-running laser phase noise, $p_L(s)$, the input signal phase

583: fluctuations, $p_S(s)$, and the various feedback components' transfer

584: functions and noises shown in Figure 4, as follows

585: \begin{equation}

586: p_{CL} = p_L+L  \left\{ N_A + A \ G \left[ N_M+M

587: \left(N_R+R\left\{N_D+p_S - p_{CL}\right\}\right) \right] \right\} \ .

588: \end{equation} 

589: This equation can be solved for $p_{CL}$

590: \begin{equation}

591: p_{CL} = 

592: {

593: {

594: p_L+L  \left\{ N_A + A \ G \left[ N_M+M

595: \left(N_R+R\left\{N_D+p_S\right\}\right) \right] \right\}}

596: \over 

597: {1+L \ A \ G \ M \ R}

598: } \ ,

599: \label{eq:18bis}

600: \end{equation}

601: where we have denoted with $N_R (s)$, $N_M (s)$, and $N_A (s)$ the

602: noises due to the photoreceiver, phasemeter, and actuator

603: respectively.  The detection noise, $N_D(s)$ is the error in the

604: measurement of the relative phase of the two beams. This noise is the

605: fundamental limit to the phase measurement process for the LISA

606: detection system (see Appendix A). Since the link from the phasemeter

607: to the controller will be digital, the controller noise will be due

608: only to the finite precision of the digital phase information. We thus

609: assume this noise to be negligible and do not include it in this

610: analysis.

611: 

612: Since (i) the product $M (s) \ R (s) = 1$ (the phase at the phasemeter output

613: ought to be equal to the phase at the input point of the

614: photoreceiver), (ii) the contribution of the actuator noise to the

615: output, $L(s) N_A(s)$, is much smaller than the noise from the

616: free-running laser (the free running laser noise is measured with the

617: actuators attached and thus intrinsically contains this noise source),

618: and (iii) the laser transfer function, $L(s)$, is a passive low pass

619: filter with a pole at several GHz (and so can be ignored in this

620: discussion), we conclude that the block diagram in \ref{Servo} (a) now

621: simplifies to that shown in figure \ref{Servo}(b), with the closed

622: loop output now given by

623: \begin{eqnarray}

624: p_{CL}&=&p_L+AG\left[N_T+p_S-p_{CL}\right] \ \ \ 

625: \longrightarrow p_{CL}=\frac{p_L+AG\left[N_T+p_S\right]}{1+AG} \\

626: p_{CL}-p_S&\simeq&N_T+\frac{p_L}{AG}\,\,\,\,\, (\rm{for}\,\,AG\gg1) \ .

627: \label{closedloop}

628: \end{eqnarray}

629: The quantity $N_T(s)$ is the total noise at the input to the

630: controller and is given by

631: \begin{eqnarray}

632: N_T&=&N_M+MN_R+N_D) \ .

633: \label{NT}

634: \end{eqnarray}

635: Equation (\ref{closedloop}) shows that phase locking will drive the

636: phase of the local laser, $p_{CL}(s)$, to that of the received laser,

637: $p_S(s)$, with an error introduced by two terms. The first term is the

638: total measurement noise in the phase measurement, $N_T(s)$, which is

639: in turn determined by the detection noise, photoreceiver noise and

640: phasemeter noise (see equation \ref{NT}). Recall that the detection

641: noise, $N_D(s)$, is the fundamental error in the measurement of the

642: relative phase of the two beams for the LISA detection system. A

643: rigorous calculation of this noise source, included in appendix

644: \ref{QMC}, shows that its root power spectral density is equal to

645: $\sim1~\mu{\rm cycle}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ at the output of the phase meter.

646: $N_R(s)$ is the electronic noise of the photoreceiver at the beat note

647: frequency.  Referenced to the output of the phasemeter this will be

648: well below the $1~\mu{\rm cycle}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ level. A phasemeter

649: noise floor of $\sim1~\mu{\rm cycle}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ has been set as a

650: requirement for the phasemeter noise. This level of performance has

651: already been demonstrated (\cite{8bis}, \cite{8SHA}) over the

652: frequency range of interest (1~mHz to 1 Hz) albeit with heterodyne

653: frequencies of a few kilohertz . Given these estimates of the

654: individual noise sources a total measurement error, $N_T (s)$ of less

655: than $2 \ \mu {\rm cycles}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ is expected.

656: 

657: The second source of error in Eq. (\ref{closedloop}) represents the

658: finite suppression of the free running laser noise.  This term is

659: inversely proportional to the loop gain and so can be reduced by

660: increasing the gain. Very high gains should be possible with LISA as

661: the frequencies of interest are very low \cite{Abramovici}, $\approx

662: 10$ ~Hz and lower.  A free-running laser frequency noise of

663: 1~MHz/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ at 1~mHz corresponds to a phase noise of

664: $10^9$~cycles/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$.  A total loop gain of $10^{15}$ is

665: therefore required to suppress the contribution of laser frequency

666: noise down to 1~$\mu{\rm cycle}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$. At low frequencies the

667: laser phase is altered by changing the temperature of the laser

668: crystal. This actuator has a typical (voltage to frequency) gain of

669: 5~GHz/Volt or $5 \times10^{12}~{\rm cycles}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ at 1~mHz.

670: Thus a controller gain of 200~V/cycle is needed. This gain requirement

671: could be eased by ``pre-stabilizing'' the laser frequency, for example

672: by locking to a low finesse cavity or other frequency reference.

673: Initial results from bench top experiments

674: (\cite{McNamaraPL},\cite{Ye}) indicate that loop gains of the order of

675: $10^{15}$ should be achievable, and hence that pre-stabilization may

676: not be necessary.

677: 

678: The master-slave configuration phase locking requirement should be

679: that the noise introduced by the locking process is insignificant

680: compared to the $20~\mu{\rm cycle}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ of optical path

681: noise allocated in the LISA noise budget \cite{1}. As the analysis

682: above has shown, phase locking is limited only by the measurement

683: noise (assuming adequate gain). This measurement noise is common to

684: both the one-way and the master-slave schemes and so, given adequate

685: gain of the phase locking loop, there will be no difference in the

686: performance of the two systems.

687: 

688: \section{Hardware Requirements}

689: 

690: In this section we compare the hardware needed by the two

691: implementations of TDI discussed in the previous sections. The

692: discussion will focus on the minimum hardware requirements and will

693: not fully consider redundancy or fallback options.  We will consider

694: LISA as composed of several basic subsystems, and compare the type and

695: quantity of the components required by each scheme.

696: 

697: \subsection{Laser Frequency Stabilization System}

698: 

699: Both schemes rely on a sufficiently high laser frequency stability.

700: This is because the cancellation of laser frequency noise via TDI is

701: not exact due to finite accuracy of the arm length knowledge, finite

702: timing accuracy, imperfect clock synchronization, and sampling time

703: jitters. The frequency stabilization system could be composed of

704: either an optical cavity, a gas cell, or a combination of both. The

705: output is an error signal proportional to the difference between the

706: laser frequency and the resonance frequency of the reference. Assuming

707: that an optical cavity is used as the frequency reference with a

708: Pound-Drever-Hall locking \cite{PDH} readout, the frequency

709: stabilization system will consist of an electro-optic phase modulator,

710: an optical cavity, a photoreceiver, a double-balanced mixer, and a low

711: pass filter \cite{8tris}.

712: 

713: \subsection{Phasemeter}

714: 

715: A phasemeter is a device capable of measuring the phase of a

716: photoreceiver output relative to the local USO. One could distinguish

717: between two types of phasemeter: single-quadrature phasemeters,

718: denoted PM(S), and full-range phasemeters, denoted PM(F). An example

719: of a single-quadrature phasemeter is a mixer. It will have only a

720: limited linear range as the output is generally sinusoidal. A

721: single-quadrature phasemeter has several potential advantages over a

722: full-range phasemeter including lower noise, higher speed operation,

723: increased reliability and lower power consumption. However, it is

724: restricted in usefulness to closed loop operation only and is

725: therefore not suitable for use in the one-way method. A

726: single-quadrature phasemeter could potentially be used in the

727: master-slaves configuration where one laser is phase locked to another

728: with a fixed phase shift (see section IV. E).

729: 

730: A full-range phasemeter has an output that is linearly proportional to

731: phase over the entire range $-\pi$ to $\pi$. An example of a

732: full-range phasemeter is a zero-crossing time interval analyzer. As we

733: show in section V. E, phasemeters used in an open-loop configuration

734: must have a dynamic range of at least $\sim10^{10}$ at $0.1$ mHz.

735: 

736: \subsection{Controller}

737: 

738: A controller takes the signal from either a frequency stabilization

739: system or phasemeter, amplifies and filters it appropriately, and

740: feeds it back to the frequency/phase actuators of a laser. A

741: controller is needed to frequency lock a laser to a frequency

742: reference or to phase lock one laser to another. In practice the

743: frequency locking and phase locking controllers will differ by a pole

744: in the controller transfer function and by a gain factor. Depending on

745: the sophistication of its design, a controller could potentially be

746: reconfigured in-flight to perform either function.

747: 

748: \subsection{Photoreceivers}

749: 

750: Each scheme requires twelve photoreceivers to measure the interference

751: from the front and back of the proof masses. The photoreceiver unit

752: will consist of a photodiode and low-noise electronic amplifiers.

753: Although the photoreceivers for LISA will contain quadrant photodiodes

754: for alignment sensing, this is irrelevant for the following discussion

755: which assumes that single element photodiodes are used.

756: 

757: \begin{table}

758:  {\centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

759:  \hline

760: Spacecraft/Bench & Master-Slave Configuration &

761: One-Way Method\\

762:  \hline

763:  \hline

764: SC $1^*$& 1 FS, 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller&1 FS, 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller\\

765:  \hline

766:  SC 1& 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller&1 FS, 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller\\

767: \hline

768: SC $2^*$&2 PR, 1 PM(F), 1 PM(S), 1 Controller&1 FS, 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller\\

769: \hline

770: SC 2&2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller&1 FS, 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller\\

771: \hline

772: SC $3^*$&2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller&1 FS, 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller\\

773: \hline

774: SC 3&2 PR, 1 PM(F), 1 PM(S), 1 Controller&1 FS, 2 PR, 2 PM(F), 1 Controller\\

775: \hline

776: 

777: \end{tabular}\par}

778: 

779: \caption{\label{tbl:comp1} Comparison of minimum system components

780: required for each scheme. FS: frequency stabilization system, 

781: PM(S): single-quadrature phasemeter, PM(F) full-range phasemeter, 

782: PR: photoreceiver.}

783: \end{table}

784: 

785: \subsection{Requirements for the Master-Slave Configuration}

786: 

787: Table I summarizes the system components needed on each optical bench.

788: The quantities shown represent the minimum requirements with no

789: redundancy included. In the master-slave configuration scheme one

790: master laser is frequency stabilized to its own frequency reference.

791: All other lasers are phase locked in a chain to this master laser, as

792: described in section IIA. For this reason the minimum system

793: requirement is only one frequency stabilization system. However, the

794: capability of stabilizing other lasers to a local stabilization system

795: should be included for redundancy against failure of the master's

796: stabilizing device.  Providing each laser with a frequency

797: stabilization system would provide a high level of redundancy and

798: maintain compatibility with the one-way mode of operation.

799: 

800: The master-slave configuration will require at least four full-range

801: phasemeters for the main signal read out photoreceivers, $s_{21}$,

802: $s_{31}$, $s_{12}$ and $s_{13}$. Full-range phasemeters will also be

803: required for measuring the signals derived from the back side of the

804: proof masses, $\tau_{ij}$, as the lasers on adjacent benches are

805: locked by suppressing the difference of the phasemeter outputs,

806: $\tau_{ij}-\tau_{kj}=0$. If just one of these phasemeter outputs were

807: used for phase locking then a single-quadrature phasemeter could be

808: utilized. However, the noise in the optical fiber linking the benches,

809: $\mu_{i}$, would then be imposed on the phase of the slave laser.

810: Although this noise would be removed by including the second detector

811: in the time-delay interferometry processing, this would impose

812: unnecessary requirements on the stability of the fiber link to prevent

813: increasing the slave laser's frequency noise. Furthermore, by

814: suppressing the difference of these phasemeter outputs, we do not need

815: to record this information for processing, as only the difference of

816: the phasemeter outputs appears in the TDI equations (see for example,

817: equations \ref{eq:5} and \ref{eq:6}). Single-quadrature phasemeters

818: could potentially be used on the remaining two photoreceivers where

819: phase locking of the beams returning to spacecraft $1$ ($s_{23} =

820: s_{32} = 0$) is performed. This is a relatively minor simplification,

821: as suitable full-range phasemeters must be developed for the remaining

822: ten photoreceivers. If the phase locking hierarchy must be reordered,

823: for example due to a frequency stabilization system failure, then

824: full-range phasemeters will also be required at these positions.

825: Finally, implementing full-range phasemeters at all photoreceiver

826: outputs will maintain compatibility with the one-way method. For these

827: reasons we will drop the (F) or (S) suffix for the phasemeters and

828: assume that only full-range phasemeters are used.

829: 

830: Table II summarizes the total number of components required and the

831: number of data streams to be recorded by each scheme. Using the

832: master-slave configuration only four data streams remain to be

833: measured ($s_{21}$, $s_{31}$, $s_{12}$ and $s_{13}$) as all other

834: variables have been suppressed to effectively zero and therefore do

835: not need to be recorded (although they should be monitored to ensure

836: proper operation of the phase locking systems). One potential concern

837: with the master-slave configuration is in the non-local nature of the

838: control system, that is to say the main phase input to the control

839: loop comes from the light from the distant spacecraft. The amplitude

840: and phase of this beam could be adversely affected by many factors

841: such as spacecraft alignment. Although this will also affect the

842: quality of the one-way measurements, it could be more detrimental to

843: the master-slave configuration. For example, the signal intensity could

844: become so low to cause loss of phase lock entirely. Furthermore,

845: because all the slaves are linked to the master by the phase-locking

846: chain, if one phase-locking link is disrupted then all downstream

847: links may also be lost. The severity of this non-local control problem

848: depends on how often lock will be disrupted, and the difficulty of

849: lock reacquisition.

850: 

851: \begin{table}

852:  {\centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

853:  \hline

854: Subsystem&Master-Slave Configuration &One-Way Method\\

855:  \hline

856:  \hline

857: FS&1&6\\

858:  \hline

859:  PR&12&12\\

860: \hline

861:  PM&12&12\\

862: \hline

863: Controllers&6&6\\

864: \hline

865: Observables&4&9\\

866: \hline

867: \end{tabular}\par}

868: \caption{\label{tbl:comp2}Summary of minimum system components

869: required for each scheme. FS: frequency stabilization system, 

870: PM: phasemeter, PR: photoreceiver, Observables: number of data 

871: streams required for processing.}

872: \end{table}

873: 

874: \subsection{Requirements for the One-way Method}

875: 

876: The one-way method employs a very symmetric configuration consisting

877: of three identical spacecraft each containing two identical optical

878: benches. The components needed on each optical bench are shown in the

879: right hand column of Table I. The six lasers are frequency stabilized

880: to their six respective frequency references. The phases of the beat

881: notes of each local laser with the lasers from the adjacent spacecraft

882: and bench are measured by full-range phasemeters to provide twelve

883: data streams.  The data from the phasemeters at the back of the proof

884: masses on adjacent benches can be combined before being recorded

885: without loss of generality. This reduces the total number of data

886: streams to be recorded and processed to nine, as shown in Table II.

887: However, as we will show in section V C the number of data streams to

888: be exchanged between spacecraft will be the same for the one-way and

889: master-slaves configuration.

890: 

891: From Tables I and II it is clear that the one-way and master-slaves

892: configurations are almost identical in terms of the quantity of

893: components required. However, there are several more subtle

894: differences in the hardware requirements of the two schemes. A

895: disadvantage of the one-way method is that the laser frequencies may

896: differ by as much as $\pm300$~MHz if high finesse cavities are used as

897: the frequency references. This maximum frequency offset is determined

898: by the free spectral range of the reference cavity, where a cavity

899: with a round trip optical path of 0.5~m has been assumed. This large

900: frequency offset will place greater demands on the photoreceivers'

901: bandwidth than the master-slave configuration where frequency offsets

902: can be kept to the minimum dictated by the Doppler shifts (less than

903: $\pm 10$~MHz). Not only does the high heterodyne frequency place strict

904: requirements on the photodetector bandwidth, but also on the bandwidth

905: stability. For example, assume that photoreceivers with a bandwidth of

906: $f_{bw}\approx1$~GHz are used for the main signal readouts. Although a

907: heterodyne frequency, $f_{h}$, of 300~MHz is within the 1~GHz

908: photoreceiver bandwidth there will be a 0.05~cycle phase delay at this

909: frequency (the phase shift is equal to -arctan$(f_{h}/f_{bw})$ radians

910: for a simple single-pole type frequency response). If the bandwidth of

911: a photodetector changes, then this phase shift will also change in a

912: way that is indistinguishable from the effects of a gravitational

913: wave. A simple calculation shows that a bandwidth change of a mere

914: $0.023\%$ (or 230kHz) would introduce a phase signal of

915: 10~$\mu$cycles/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ for information at 300~MHz. If the

916: heterodyne frequency is kept to 10~MHz or less, then a photoreceiver

917: bandwidth change of more than $0.6\%$ (or 6~MHz) would be needed to

918: produce a 10~$\mu$cycles/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ phase shift.

919: 

920: In section III it was shown that a total loop gain of $10^{15}$ at 1

921: mHz is required to ensure that the phase locking loop performs

922: correctly. Using the one-way method the phase locking loops are

923: replaced by frequency locking to the reference cavity. The frequency

924: stabilization system is expected to be limited by fluctuations in

925: length of the cavity at a level of the order of 10 Hz/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$

926: at 1 mHz.  Under this condition no advantage is gained by suppressing

927: the measured laser noise below this level and so a loop gain of

928: $\approx10^{6}$ should suffice. The one-way method therefore requires

929: a controller gain of only $2\times10^{-7}$~Volts/cycle at 1~mHz

930: compared to the 200~Volts/cycle needed for the master-slave

931: configuration.

932: 

933: \section{Accuracy and precision requirements}

934: 

935: The limitations on the effectiveness of the TDI technique, either when

936: the one-way or the master-slave configuration is implemented, come

937: not only from all the secondary noise sources affecting the

938: measurements $s_{ij} \ , \ \tau_{ij} \ , \ i,j=1, 2, 3$ (such as

939: proof-mass and optical path noises) but most importantly from the

940: finite accuracy and precision of the quantities needed to synthesize

941: the laser-noise free observables themselves. In order to synthesize

942: the four generators of the space of all interferometric combinations,

943: we need:

944: 

945: \noindent

946: (i) to know the distances between the three pairs of spacecraft;

947: 

948: \noindent

949: (ii) to synchronize the clocks onboard the three spacecraft, which

950: are used in the data acquisition and digitization process;

951: 

952: \noindent

953: (iii) to be able to apply time-delays that are not integer multiples of

954: the sampling time of the digitized phase measurements;

955: 

956: \noindent

957: (iv) to minimize the effects of the jitter of the

958: sampling times themselves; and 

959: 

960: \noindent

961: (v) to have sufficiently high dynamic range in the digitized data in

962: order to be able to recover the gravitational wave signal after

963: removing the laser noise.

964: 

965: In the following subsections we will assume the secondary random

966: processes to be due to the proof masses and the optical path noises

967: \cite{3}. We will estimate the minimum values of the accuracies and

968: precisions of the physical quantities listed above that allow the

969: suppression of the laser frequency fluctuations below the level

970: identified by the secondary noise sources. For each physical quantity

971: the estimate of the accuracy and/or precision needed will be performed

972: by assuming all the remaining errors to be equal to zero.  Our

973: estimates, therefore, will provide only an order of magnitude estimate

974: of the accuracies and/or precisions needed for successfully

975: implementing TDI.

976: 

977: \subsection{Armlength accuracy}

978: 

979: The TDI combinations described in the previous sections rely on the

980: assumption of knowing the armlengths sufficiently accurately to

981: suppress laser noise well below other noises. Since the three

982: armlengths will be known only within the accuracies $\delta L_i \ , \ 

983: i=1, 2, 3$ respectively, the cancellation of the laser frequency

984: fluctuations from the combinations ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \zeta$)

985: will no longer be exact.  In order to estimate the magnitude of the

986: laser fluctuations remaining in these data sets, let us define $\hat

987: L_i \ , \ i=1, 2, 3$ to be the estimated armlengths of LISA.  They are

988: related to the {\it true} armlengths $L_i \ , \ i=1, 2, 3$, and the

989: accuracies $\delta L_i \ , \ i=1, 2, 3$ through the following

990: expressions

991: \begin{equation}

992: \hat L_i = L_i + \delta L_i \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ i=1, 2, 3 \ .

993: \label{eq:19}

994: \end{equation}

995: In what follows we will treat the three armlengths $L_i \ , \ i=1, 2,

996: 3$ as constants equal to $16.7$ light seconds. We will derive later on

997: the time scale during which such an assumption is valid. We will also

998: assume to know with infinite accuracies and precisions all the

999: remaining physical quantities needed to successfully synthesize the

1000: TDI generators.

1001: 

1002: If we now substitute equation (\ref{eq:19}) into equations

1003: (\ref{eq:5}), and expand it to first order in $\delta L_i$, it is easy

1004: to derive the following approximate expression for ${\hat \zeta} (t)$,

1005: which now will show a non-zero contribution from the laser noises

1006: \begin{equation}

1007: {\hat \zeta} (t) \simeq \zeta (t) + 

1008: [{\dot p}_{2,13} - {\dot p}^*_{3,12}] \ \delta L_1

1009: + [{\dot p}_{3,12} - {\dot p}^*_{1,23}] \ \delta L_2

1010: + [{\dot p}_{1,23} - {\dot p}^*_{2,13}] \ \delta L_3 \ ,

1011: \label{eq:20}

1012: \end{equation}

1013: where the ``${\dot \ }$'' denotes time derivative. Time-Delay Interferometry

1014: can be considered effective if the magnitude of the remaining

1015: fluctuations from the lasers are smaller than the fluctuations due to

1016: the other noise sources entering in $\zeta (t)$, namely proof mass and

1017: optical path noises. This requirement implies a limit in the

1018: accuracies of the measured armlengths.

1019: 

1020: Let us assume the six laser phase fluctuations to be uncorrelated to

1021: each other, their one-sided power spectral densities to be equal, the

1022: three armlengths to differ by a few percent, and the three armlength

1023: accuracies also to be equal. By requiring the magnitude of the

1024: remaining laser noises to be smaller than the secondary noise sources,

1025: it is straightforward to derive, from Eq. (\ref{eq:20}) and the

1026: expressions for the proof mass and optical path noises entering into

1027: $\zeta (t)$ given in \cite{3}, the following constraint on the common

1028: armlength accuracy $| \delta L_{\zeta}|$

1029: \begin{equation}

1030: |\delta L_{\zeta}| \le \ {1 \over {2 \pi f}} \ 

1031: \sqrt{ 

1032: {4 \ \sin^2(\pi f L) \ S^{proof \ mass}_p (f) + S^{optical \

1033:     path}_p (f)} \over {S_p (f)}

1034: } \ .

1035: \label{eq:21}

1036: \end{equation}

1037: Here $S_p$, $S^{proof \ mass}_p$, $S^{optical \ path}_p$ are the

1038: one-sided power spectral densities of the phase fluctuations of a

1039: stabilized laser, a single proof mass, and a single-link optical path

1040: respectively \cite{3}. If we take them to be equal to the following

1041: functions of the Fourier frequency $f$ \cite{2,3}

1042: \begin{eqnarray}

1043: S_p (f) & = & 2.3 \times 10^{-1}  \ f^{- 8/3} + 1.4 \times  10^{-9} \ f^{-27/5} \ {\rm

1044:   cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1} \ ,

1045: \label{eq:22}

1046: \\

1047: S^{proof \ mass}_p (f) & = & 5.8 \times 10^{-21} \ f^{-4} \ {\rm

1048:   cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1} \ ,

1049: \label{eq:23}

1050: \\

1051: S^{optical \ path}_p (f) & = & 4.1 \times 10^{-10} \ {\rm

1052:   cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1} \ ,

1053: \label{eq:24}

1054: \end{eqnarray}

1055: (where $f$ is in Hz), we find that the right-hand-side of the

1056: inequality given by equation (\ref{eq:21}) reaches its minimum of

1057: about $16$ meters at the Fourier frequency $f_{min} = 1.0 \ \times

1058: 10^{-4} \ {\rm Hz}$, over the assumed ($10^{-4}, 1$) Hz LISA band.

1059: This implies that, if the armlength knowledge $| \delta L_{\zeta} |$

1060: can be made smaller than $16$ meters, the magnitude of the residual

1061: laser noise affecting the $\zeta$ combination will be below that

1062: identified by the secondary noises.  This reflects the fact that the

1063: armlength accuracy is a decreasing function of the frequency.  For

1064: instance, at $10^{-3}$ Hz the armlength accuracy goes up by almost an

1065: order of magnitude to about $155$ meters.

1066: 

1067: A perturbative analysis similar to the one described above can be

1068: performed for the remaining generators ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma$). We

1069: find that the corresponding inequality for the armlength accuracy

1070: required for the $\alpha$ combination, $| \delta L_{\alpha} |$, is

1071: equal to \cite{3,7}

1072: \begin{equation}

1073: |\delta L_{\alpha}| \le \ {1 \over {2 \pi f}} \ 

1074: {

1075: \sqrt{ 

1076: {[8 \ \sin^2(3 \pi f L) + 16 \ \sin^2(\pi f L)]

1077: \ S^{proof \ mass}_\phi (f) + 6 \ S^{optical \

1078:     path}_\phi (f)} \over {6 \ S_p (f)}

1079: }} \ ,

1080: \label{eq:25}

1081: \end{equation}

1082: with similar inequalities also holding for $\beta$ and $\gamma$.

1083: Equation (\ref{eq:25}) implies a minimum of the function on the

1084: right-hand-side equal to about $31$ meters at the Fourier frequency

1085: $f_{min} = 1.0 \ \times 10^{-4} \ {\rm Hz}$, while at $10^{-3}$ Hz

1086: the armlength accuracy goes up to $180$ meters.

1087: 

1088: Armlength accuracies significantly smaller than the level derived

1089: above can be achieved by implementing laser ranging measurements along

1090: the three LISA arms \cite{1}, and we do not expect this to be a

1091: limitation for TDI.

1092: 

1093: In relation to the accuracies derived above, it is interesting to

1094: calculate the time scales during which the armlengths will change by

1095: an amount equal to the accuracies themselves.  This identifies the

1096: minimum time required before updating the armlength values

1097: in the TDI combinations.

1098: 

1099: It has been calculated by Folkner {\it et al.} \cite{9} that the

1100: relative longitudinal speeds between the three pairs of spacecraft,

1101: during approximately the first year of the LISA mission, can

1102: be written in the following approximate form

1103: \begin{equation}

1104: V_{i,j} (t) = V^{(0)}_{i,j} \ \sin\left({{2 \pi t} \over

1105: T_{i,j}}\right) \qquad \qquad (i,j) = (1,2) \ ; \ (1,3) \ ; \ (2,3) \ ,

1106: \label{eq:26}

1107: \end{equation}

1108: where we have denoted with $(1,2), (1,3), (2,3)$ the three possible

1109: spacecraft pairs, $V^{(0)}_{i,j}$ is a constant velocity, and

1110: $T_{i,j}$ is the period for the pair $(i, j)$.  In reference \cite{9}

1111: it has also been shown that the LISA trajectory can be selected in

1112: such a way that two of the three arms' rates of change are essentially

1113: equal during the first year of the mission.  Following reference

1114: \cite{9}, we will assume $V^{(0)}_{1,2} = V^{(0)}_{1,3} \ne

1115: V^{(0)}_{2,3}$, with $V^{(0)}_{1,2} = 1 $ m/s, $V^{(0)}_{2,3} = 13 $

1116: m/s, $T_{1,2} = T_{1,3} \approx 4 $ months, and $T_{2,3} \approx 1$

1117: year.  From equation (\ref{eq:26}) it is easy to derive the variation

1118: of each armlength, for example $\Delta L_3 (t)$, as a function of the

1119: time $t$ and the time scale $\delta t$ during which it takes place

1120: \begin{equation}

1121: \Delta L_3 (t) = V^{(0)}_{1,2} \ \sin\left({{2 \pi t} \over

1122: T_{1,2}}\right) \delta t \ .

1123: \label{eq:27}

1124: \end{equation}

1125: Equation (\ref{eq:27}) implies that a variation in armlength $\Delta

1126: L_3 \approx 10 \ {\rm m}$ can take place during different time scales,

1127: depending on when during the mission this change takes place.  For

1128: instance, if $t \ll T_{1,2}$ we find that the armlength $L_3$ changes

1129: by more than its accuracy ($\approx 10$ meters) after a time $\delta t = 2.3

1130: \times 10^3$ seconds.  If however $t \simeq T_{1,2}/4$, the armlength

1131: will change by the same amount after only $ \delta t \simeq 10$ seconds

1132: instead.

1133: 

1134: \subsection{Clock synchronization accuracy}

1135: 

1136: The effectiveness of the TDI data combinations requires the clocks

1137: onboard the three spacecraft to be synchronized.  Since the clocks

1138: will be synchronized with a finite accuracy, the laser noises will no

1139: longer cancel out exactly and the fraction of the laser frequency

1140: fluctuations that will remain into the TDI combinations will be

1141: proportional to the magnitude of the synchronization accuracy.  In

1142: order to identify the minimum level of off-synchronization among the

1143: clocks that can be tolerated, we will proceed by treating one of the

1144: three clocks (say the clock onboard spacecraft $1$) as the master

1145: clock defining the time for LISA, and the other two to be synchronized

1146: to it.  The relativistic (Sagnac) time-delay effect due to the fact

1147: that the LISA trajectory is a combination of two rotations, each with

1148: a period of one year, will have to be accounted for in the

1149: synchronization procedure.  This is a procedure well known in the field of

1150: time-transfer, and we refer the reader to the appropriate literature

1151: for discussions on this point \cite{10}. Here we will disregard this

1152: relativistic effect, and assume it can be compensated for with an

1153: accuracy better than the actual synchronization accuracy we

1154: derive below.

1155: 

1156: Let us denote by $ \delta t_2$, $ \delta t_3$, the time accuracies

1157: (time-offsets) for the clocks onboard spacecraft $2$ and $3$

1158: respectively. If $t$ is the time onboard spacecraft $1$, then what is

1159: believed to be time $t$ onboard spacecraft $2$ and $3$ is actually

1160: equal to the following times

1161: \begin{eqnarray}

1162: {\hat t_2} = t + \delta t_2 \ ,

1163: \label{eq:28}

1164: \\

1165: {\hat t_3} = t + \delta t_3 \ .

1166: \label{eq:29}

1167: \end{eqnarray}

1168: If we now substitute equations (\ref{eq:28}, \ref{eq:29}) into the

1169: equation (\ref{eq:5}) for $\zeta$, for instance, and expand it to

1170: first order in $\delta t_i \ , \ i=2, 3$, it is easy to derive the

1171: following approximate expression for ${\hat \zeta} (t)$, which shows

1172: the following non-zero contribution from the laser noises

1173: \begin{equation}

1174: {\hat \zeta} (t) \simeq  \zeta (t) + 

1175: [{\dot p}_{1,23} - {\dot p}^*_{3,12} + {\dot p}^*_{2,13} - {\dot

1176:   p}_{2,13}] \ \delta t_2

1177: + [{\dot p}_{2,13} - {\dot p}^*_{1,23} + {\dot p}^*_{3,12} - {\dot

1178:   p}_{3,12}] \ \delta t_3 \ .

1179: \label{eq:30}

1180: \end{equation}

1181: By requiring again the magnitude of the remaining fluctuations from

1182: the lasers to be smaller than the fluctuations due to the other

1183: (secondary) noise sources affecting $\zeta (t)$, it is possible to

1184: derive an upper limit for the accuracies of the synchronization of the

1185: clocks.  If we assume again the six laser phase fluctuations to be

1186: uncorrelated to each other, their one-sided power spectral densities

1187: to be equal, the three armlengths to differ by a few percent, and the

1188: two time-offsets' magnitudes to be equal, by requiring the magnitude

1189: of the remaining laser noises to be smaller than the secondary noise

1190: sources it is easy to derive the following constraint on the time

1191: synchronization accuracy $| \delta t_{\zeta}|$

1192: \begin{equation}

1193: |\delta t_{\zeta}| \le \ {1 \over {2 \pi f}} \ 

1194: \sqrt{ 

1195: {12 \ \sin^2(\pi f L) \ S^{proof \ mass}_p (f) + 3 \ S^{optical \

1196:     path}_p (f)} \over {4 \ S_p (f)}

1197: } \ ,

1198: \label{eq:31}

1199: \end{equation}

1200: with $S_p$, $S^{proof \ mass}_p$, $S^{optical \ path}_p$ again as

1201: given in equations (\ref{eq:22}-\ref{eq:24}).

1202: 

1203: We find that the right-hand-side of the inequality given by equation

1204: (\ref{eq:31}) reaches its minimum of about $47$ nanoseconds at the

1205: Fourier frequency $f_{min} = 1.0 \ \times 10^{-4} \ {\rm Hz}$. In other

1206: words, clocks synchronized at a level of accuracy better than $47$

1207: nanoseconds will imply a residual laser noise that is smaller than 

1208: the secondary noise sources entering into the $\zeta$ combination.

1209: 

1210: An analysis similar to the one described above can be performed for the

1211: remaining generators ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma$). For them we find that the

1212: corresponding inequality for the accuracy in the synchronization of

1213: the clocks is now equal to

1214: \begin{equation}

1215: |\delta t_{\alpha}| \le \ {1 \over {2 \pi f}} \ 

1216: \sqrt{ 

1217: {[4 \ \sin^2(3 \pi f L) + 8 \ \sin^2(\pi f L)]

1218: \ S^{proof \ mass}_p (f) + 3 \ S^{optical \

1219:     path}_p (f)} \over {4 \ S_p (f)}

1220: } \ ,

1221: \label{eq:32}

1222: \end{equation}

1223: with equal expressions holding also for $\beta$ and $\gamma$.  The

1224: function on the right-hand-side of equation (\ref{eq:32}) has a

1225: minimum equal to $88$ nanoseconds at the Fourier frequency $f_{min} =

1226: 1.0 \ \times 10^{-4} \ {\rm Hz}$. As for the armlength accuracies,

1227: also the timing accuracy requirements become less stringent at higher

1228: frequencies. At $10^{-3}$ Hz, for instance, the timing accuracy for

1229: $\zeta$ and $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ go up to $446$ and $500$ ns

1230: respectively.

1231: 

1232: A $50$ ns accuracy translates into a $15$ meter armlength accuracy,

1233: which we argued earlier to be easily achievable by the use of laser

1234: ranging. We therefore expect the synchronization of the three

1235: clocks to be achievable at the level derived above.

1236: 

1237: \subsection{Telemetered signals and their sampling}

1238: 

1239: To reduce the LISA-to-Earth telemetry requirements, it is expected

1240: that the normal operational mode will not telemeter the phase time

1241: series to the ground directly. Rather, we expect the TDI observables

1242: to be computed at the LISA array, and then only the (relatively low

1243: data rate) laser-noise-free combinations transmitted to Earth. Thus,

1244: both implementations of TDI discussed in this paper (the one-way

1245: method and the master-slave configuration) require phase measurements

1246: data to be exchanged among the spacecraft in order to synthesize the

1247: four generators of the space of all interferometric combinations.

1248: Although it is clear that the master-slave configuration implies a

1249: smaller number of measurements than that required by the one-way

1250: method, the actual number of data that will need to be exchanged among

1251: the spacecraft can be made to be exactly the same for both, making

1252: their inter-spacecraft telemetry requirements identical. This can

1253: easily be understood by rewriting the four generators ($\alpha, \beta,

1254: \gamma, \zeta$) in the following forms

1255: \begin{eqnarray}

1256: \zeta & = & 

1257: [s_{21,1}- s_{31,1}] + {1 \over 2} [

1258: ({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})_{,1}

1259: + ({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})_{,23}

1260: ]

1261: \nonumber \\

1262: & & + [s_{32,2}- s_{12,2}] + {1 \over 2} [

1263: ({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,2}

1264: + ({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,13}

1265: ]

1266: \nonumber \\

1267: & & + [s_{13,3}- s_{23,3}]

1268: + {1 \over 2} [

1269: ({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,3}

1270: + ({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,12}

1271: ] \ ,

1272: \label{eq:33}

1273: \end{eqnarray}

1274: \begin{eqnarray}

1275: \alpha & = & [s_{21} - s_{31}] + {1 \over 2} \ [({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})

1276: + ({\tau_{31}} - {\tau_{21}})_{,123}]

1277: \nonumber \\

1278: & & + [s_{32,12} - s_{12,3}] + {1 \over 2} \ [({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,3}

1279: + ({\tau_{12}} - {\tau_{32}})_{,12}]

1280: \nonumber \\

1281: & & + [s_{13,2} - s_{23,13}] + {1 \over 2} \ [({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,2}

1282: + ({\tau_{23}} - {\tau_{13}})_{,13}] \ .

1283: \label{eq:34}

1284: \end{eqnarray}

1285: Equations (\ref{eq:33}, \ref{eq:34}) show that each generator can be

1286: formed by summing three different linear combinations of the data,

1287: each involving phase measurements performed onboard only a specific

1288: spacecraft. As an example, let us assume without loss of generality

1289: that $\zeta$ will be synthesized onboard spacecraft $1$. This means

1290: that spacecraft $2$ and $3$ will simply need to telemeter to spacecraft

1291: $1$ the particular combinations of the measurements they have made,

1292: which enter into the $\zeta$ combination. Since the space of all the

1293: interferometric combinations can be constructed by using four

1294: generators ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \zeta$) we conclude that

1295: spacecraft $2$ and $3$ will each have to telemeter to spacecraft $1$

1296: four uniquely defined combinations of the measurements they have

1297: performed.

1298: 

1299: The time-delay interferometric combinations require use of phase

1300: measurements that are time-shifted with enough accuracy to bring the

1301: laser phase noise below the secondary noise sources.  The required

1302: time resolution in the time-shifts should be equal to about $\sim 50$

1303: ns for shifts tens of seconds in size.  This is because the correct

1304: sample of the shifted data should be as accurate as the armlength

1305: accuracy itself.  It can be shown that performing the time-shifting,

1306: on data sampled at $\sim 10$ Hz, by using digital interpolation

1307: filters, does not provide the required accuracy to effectively cancel

1308: the laser phase noises (see Appendix B for a detailed calculation).

1309: 

1310: An alternative approach \cite{11} for achieving a timing accuracy of

1311: at least $50$ ns would be to sample each measurement at $\sim 20$ MHz

1312: or higher and store $\sim 2.0 \times 10^9$ samples in a ring buffer

1313: for obtaining the data points of this measurement at the needed times.

1314: The phasemeter would then average these measurements over a fixed time

1315: period (perhaps a tenth of a second) centered around the sampled times

1316: at which the phase measurements are needed.  The data is then

1317: exchanged among the spacecraft and the TDI combinations are formed.

1318: 

1319: This method can however be further refined by actually sampling every

1320: phase difference a few times, each time at $\sim 10$ Hz, but with a

1321: delay between the start time of every sampled version of the same

1322: phase difference. That is, we envision triggering the phasemeter such

1323: that the time series are sampled at the times required to form the TDI

1324: combinations. In this case the limitation of the finite sampling

1325: time in the determination of the delayed phase measurement is replaced

1326: by the timing precision of the phase measurements, which can be many

1327: orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest sampling time of the

1328: phasemeter, as we will show below. 

1329: 

1330: As a concrete example, the ($\alpha_{lo.}, \beta_{lo.}, \gamma_{lo.},

1331: \zeta_{lo.}$) basis in the master-slave configuration requires

1332: measurements $\{s_{21}, s_{21,1}, s_{21,3}, s_{21,13}, s_{31},

1333: s_{31,1}, s_{31,2}, s_{31,12}\}$ from spacecraft 1, measurements $\{

1334: s_{12}, s_{12,2}, s_{12,3}, s_{12,23} \}$ from spacecraft 2, and

1335: measurements $\{s_{13}, s_{13,2}, s_{13,3}, s_{13,23}\}$ from

1336: spacecraft 3. By sampling the data $s_{21}$ at the times $n / f_s, n /

1337: f_s - L_1, n / f_s - L_3, n / f_s - L_1 - L_3$, where $f_s \sim 10$ Hz

1338: is the sampling frequency, and $n = 0, 1, 2, ...$ (and similarly for

1339: $s_{12}, s_{13}$ and $s_{31}$) we can obtain the entire data at the

1340: required times, these being limited only by the timing precision of

1341: the phasemeters, the time synchronization accuracies of the clocks,

1342: and the armlength accuracies. This scheme requires sampling each

1343: signal four times at a sampling frequency ($10$ Hz) much smaller than

1344: what would be needed if sampling the data to the granularity required

1345: by the TDI combinations. Of course to correctly sample at $10$ Hz we

1346: must first ensure that the signal frequency bandwidth is less than $5$

1347: Hz to avoid aliasing problems.

1348: 

1349: In practice, the times at which every sample from a given signal are

1350: taken could be adjusted every $1/f_s$, in order to protect the quality

1351: of the laser noise cancellation against drifting armlengths.  This

1352: requires an adequate model of the spacecraft orbits, which could be

1353: updated as needed from spacecraft ranging data.

1354: 

1355: \subsection{Sampling time jitter}

1356: 

1357: The sampling times of all the measurements needed for synthesizing the

1358: TDI combinations will not be constant, due to the intrinsic timing

1359: jitters of the digitizing systems (USOs and phasemeters). Within the

1360: digitizing system, the USO is expected to be the dominant source of

1361: time jittering in the sampled data. Presently existing, space

1362: qualified, USO can achieve an Allan standard deviation of about

1363: $10^{-13}$ for integration times from $1$ to $10000$ seconds.  This

1364: timing stability translates into a time jitter of about $10^{-13}$

1365: seconds over a period of $1$ second. A perturbative analysis including

1366: the three sampling time jitters due to the three clocks shows that any

1367: laser phase fluctuations remaining in the four TDI generators will

1368: also be proportional to the sampling time jitters. Since the latter

1369: are approximately four orders of magnitude smaller than the armlength

1370: and clocks synchronization accuracies derived earlier, we conclude

1371: that the magnitude of laser noise residual into the TDI combinations

1372: due to the sampling time jitters can be made negligible.

1373: 

1374: \subsection{Data digitization and bit-accuracy requirement}

1375: 

1376: As shown in figure 5, the maximum of the ratio of the laser noise and

1377: of the secondary noises phase fluctuation amplitudes occurs at the

1378: lower end of the LISA bandwidth, and is $\sim 10^{10}$ at 0.1 mHz.

1379: This corresponds to the minimum dynamic range for the phasemeters to

1380: correctly measure the laser fluctuations and the weaker signals

1381: simultaneously. An additional safety factor of $\sim 10$ should be

1382: sufficient to avoid saturation if the noises are well described by

1383: Gaussian statistics.

1384: 

1385: \begin{figure}[httb]

1386: \centering 

1387: \includegraphics[width=6in, angle=0]{Fig5.ps}

1388: \caption{Phase fluctuations spectra are plotted versus Fourier

1389:   frequency for: (upper curve) raw laser noise having spectral density

1390:   $2.3 \times 10^{-1} \ f^{- 8/3} + 1.4 \times 10^{-9} \ f^{-27/5} \ 

1391:   {\rm cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1}$, and (lower curves) residual noises

1392:   entering into the various TDI combinations.  The armlength has been

1393:   assumed to be equal to $ L = 16.67 \ {\rm sec}$.}

1394: \label{DR} 

1395: \end{figure}

1396: 

1397: In terms of requirements on the digital signal processing subsystem,

1398: this dynamic range implies that approximately $36$ bits are needed

1399: when combining the signals in TDI, only to bridge the gap between

1400: laser frequency noise and the other noises and gravitational wave

1401: signals. More bits might be necessary to provide enough information to

1402: efficiently filter the data when extracting weak gravitational wave

1403: signals embedded into noise.

1404: 

1405: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1406: 

1407: A comparative analysis of different schemes for implementing

1408: Time-Delay Interferometry with LISA has been presented. In particular,

1409: we have shown that the master-slave configuration is capable of

1410: generating the entire space of interferometric combinations identical

1411: to that derived by using the one-way scheme. This was done under the

1412: assumption that the noise from the optical transponders was

1413: negligible. Our analysis of the phase-locking control systems forming

1414: the optical transponders shows that this is a valid assumption,

1415: indicating that the noise introduced can be expected to be $\approx 1

1416: \ \mu {\rm cycle}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$.

1417: 

1418: A comparison of the hardware required for each scheme shows that the

1419: subsystems needed are almost identical, with the only difference being

1420: the number of frequency stabilization systems. This difference is

1421: perhaps not significant when redundancy options are considered.  The

1422: main disadvantage of the one-way method is that the laser frequencies

1423: might be offset by several hundred megahertz, given the currently

1424: envisioned optical-cavity-based frequency stabilization systems. This

1425: places challenging constraints on the photoreceiver bandwidth and

1426: bandwidth stability. On the other hand, the master-slave configuration

1427: has no such problem, allowing the beat-note on the photoreceiver to be

1428: the minimum determined by the Doppler shift.  However, there may be

1429: concerns with the non-local nature of the phase locking system, since

1430: its performance could be influenced, for example, by pointing

1431: stability (which also has implications on lock acquisition). Further

1432: studies on these issues should be performed.

1433: 

1434: Given the similarities between the two schemes, in principle either

1435: operational mode could be implemented without major implications on

1436: the hardware configuration. Ultimately detailed engineering studies

1437: will identify the preferred approach.

1438: 

1439: A derivation of the armlengths and clocks synchronization accuracies,

1440: as well as a determination of the precision requirement on the

1441: sampling time jitter, have also been derived. We found that an

1442: armlength accuracy of about 16 meters, a synchronization accuracy of

1443: about $50$ ns, and the time jitter due to a presently existing Ultra

1444: Stable Oscillator will allow the suppression of the frequency

1445: fluctuations of the lasers below the level identified by the secondary

1446: noise sources. A new procedure for sampling the data in such a way to

1447: avoid the problem of having time shifts that are not integer multiples

1448: of the sampling time was also presented, addressing one of the concerns

1449: about the implementation of Time-Delay Interferometry.

1450: 

1451: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1452: 

1453: We would like to thank Dr. Alex Abramovici for useful discussions on

1454: phase locking control systems, and Dr. Frank B. Estabrook for several

1455: stimulating conversations. This research was performed at the Jet

1456: Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under

1457: contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

1458: 

1459: \appendix

1460: \section{Fundamental limit of the LISA phase transponder}

1461: \label{QMC}

1462: 

1463: The following is a derivation of the noise added by the optical phase

1464: measurement. This calculation only considers noise added by the

1465: detection system, it does not include the 20~$\mu$cycles$/\sqrt{\rm

1466:   Hz}$ due to the optical-path noise, and it is purely quantum

1467: mechanical \cite{Bachor}. The reason for performing the calculation in

1468: quantum mechanical terms is to highlight that the measurement process

1469: itself does not add shot noise and that, in principle, a perfect phase

1470: measurement of the field could be made.

1471: 

1472: Let us consider the optical configuration shown in figure

1473: \ref{diag1}(b), which is equivalent to the optical arrangement for the

1474: LISA interferometer (figure \ref{diag1}(a)). Let the annihilation

1475: operators for the local and distant lasers be $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}$

1476: respectively. We can represent these operators as the sum of an

1477: average (complex number) component and an operator component

1478: representing the field fluctuations of zero mean values:

1479: \begin{eqnarray}

1480: \hat{a}&=&\alpha+\delta\hat{a} \ ,

1481: \label{defa1}

1482: \\

1483: \hat{b}&=&\beta+\delta\hat{b} \ .

1484: \label{defb1}

1485: \end{eqnarray}

1486: In Eqs. (\ref{defa1}, \ref{defb1}) we define $\alpha$ and $\beta$ to

1487: be real numbers. We will assume throughout these calculations that

1488: $\delta\hat{a},\delta\hat{b}\ll\alpha,\beta$ and so terms that are of

1489: second order in these quantities will be ignored. This approximation

1490: holds even for the low intensities found in the LISA interferometer.

1491: \begin{figure}[htb]

1492: \vspace{.2in}

1493: \centerline {

1494: \includegraphics[width=4in]{Fig6.ps}

1495: }

1496: \caption{(a) Simplified optical arrangement for phase locking in

1497:   LISA. (b) Equivalent optical layout for modeling purposes.

1498:   $\epsilon$ is the intensity reflectivity of the beam splitter.}

1499: \vspace{.2in}

1500: \label{diag1}

1501: \end{figure}

1502: 

1503: In an offset phase locking system the field $\hat{b}$ is offset from

1504: field $\hat{a}$ by a radial frequency $\omega_{b}$. In this case

1505: equations \ref{defa1} and \ref{defb1} become

1506: \begin{eqnarray}

1507: \hat{a}&=&\alpha+\delta\hat{a} \label{defa2}\\

1508: \hat{b}&=&\beta{\rm e}^{i\omega_{b} t}+\delta\hat{b}{\rm

1509:   e}^{i\omega_{b} t} \label{defb2} \ .

1510: \end{eqnarray}

1511: The annihilation operator for the field at the photoreceiver,

1512: $\hat{c}$, will contain some fraction of $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}$,

1513: \begin{eqnarray}

1514: \hat{c}&=&\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\,\hat{a}+\sqrt{\epsilon}\,\hat{b} \ .

1515: \end{eqnarray}

1516: 

1517: The photoreceiver measures a quantity proportional to the photon

1518: number of this field, $n_c=\hat{c}^\dagger\hat{c}$, 

1519: \begin{eqnarray}

1520: \hat{c}^\dagger\hat{c}

1521: &=&(1-\epsilon) \left[\alpha^2+\alpha(\delta\hat{a}+\delta\hat{a}^\dagger)\right] 

1522: +\epsilon\left[\beta^2+\beta(\delta\hat{b}+\delta\hat{b}^\dagger)\right]   \\

1523: &&

1524: +\sqrt{\epsilon}\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\left[\alpha\beta({\rm e}^{i\omega_{b} t}+{\rm e}^{-i\omega_{b} t}) 

1525: +\alpha(\delta\hat{b}{\rm e}^{i\omega_{b} t}+\delta\hat{b}^\dagger{\rm e}^{-i\omega_{b} t})

1526: +\beta(\delta\hat{a}{\rm e}^{-i\omega_{b} t}+\delta\hat{a}^\dagger{\rm e}^{i\omega_{b} t})\right] \nonumber\\

1527: &=&

1528: (1-\epsilon) \left[\alpha^2+\alpha(\delta\hat{a}+\delta\hat{a}^\dagger)\right] 

1529: +\epsilon\left[\beta^2+\beta(\delta\hat{b}+\delta\hat{b}^\dagger)\right] 

1530: \nonumber  \\

1531: &&

1532: +2\sqrt{\epsilon}\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\Big[ (\alpha\beta +

1533: \alpha(\delta\hat{b}+\delta\hat{b}^\dagger)+\beta(\delta\hat{a}+\delta\hat{a}^\dagger))\cos(\omega_{b} t) \nonumber \\

1534: &&+

1535: (\alpha(i\delta\hat{b}-i\delta\hat{b}^\dagger)-\beta(i\delta\hat{a}-i\delta\hat{a}^\dagger))\sin(\omega_{b}

1536: t)\Big] \ . 

1537: \label{complex1}

1538: \end{eqnarray}

1539: To simplify the notation, we define the quadrature operators which

1540: represent the fluctuations in the amplitude ($\delta\hat{X}^{+}$) and

1541: phase ($\delta\hat{X}^{-}$) quadratures of the operators $\hat{a}$ and

1542: $\hat{b}$,

1543: \begin{eqnarray}

1544: \delta\hat{X}^{+}_{a}&=&(\delta\hat{a}+\delta\hat{a}^\dagger) \ , \\

1545: \delta\hat{X}^{+}_{b}&=&(\delta\hat{b}+\delta\hat{b}^\dagger) \ ,  \\

1546: \delta\hat{X}^{-}_{a}&=&i(\delta\hat{a}-\delta\hat{a}^\dagger) \ ,  \\

1547: \delta\hat{X}^{-}_{b}&=&i(\delta\hat{b}-\delta\hat{b}^\dagger) \ .

1548: \end{eqnarray}

1549: Each of these quantities is an observable of unit variance for a

1550: coherent state (idealized laser). Substituting these expressions into

1551: equation \ref{complex1} we obtain,

1552: \begin{eqnarray}

1553: \hat{c}^\dagger\hat{c}&=&

1554: (1-\epsilon)\left[\alpha^2+\alpha\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{a}\right]+\epsilon\left[\beta^2+\beta\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{b}\right] 

1555: \nonumber \\

1556: &&+ 2\sqrt{\epsilon}\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\left[(\alpha\beta 

1557: +\alpha\delta{X}^{+}_{b}+\beta\delta{X}^{+}_{a})\cos(\omega_{b}

1558: t)+(\alpha\delta{X}^{-}_{b}-\beta\delta{X}^{-}_{a})\sin(\omega_{b}

1559: t)\right] \ . 

1560: \end{eqnarray}

1561: This equation contains three terms which can now be identified. The

1562: first two terms arise from the intensities of fields $\hat{a}$ and

1563: $\hat{b}$ respectively. These terms are non-interferometric in nature

1564: and contain the intensity fluctuations of the individual input beams

1565: scaled by the efficiency of coupling to the photoreceiver (beam

1566: splitter ratio). The third term represents the interference between

1567: the two fields and provides a beat note at frequency $\omega_{b}$, the

1568: difference frequency of the two fields. This beat note itself has two

1569: parts, an intensity noise part oscillating as $\cos(\omega_b t)$, and

1570: a phase difference part oscillating as $\sin(\omega_b t)$.

1571: 

1572: The phase difference can be obtained, for example, by using a mixer to

1573: demodulate the beat note down to zero. Mathematically, this is a

1574: multiplication by $\sin(\omega_{b} t)$. Terms with a cosine multiplier

1575: will only exhibit higher harmonics whereas terms with a sine

1576: multiplier will mixed down to base band frequencies.

1577: 

1578: After low-pass filtering the mixer output, we obtain the following

1579: expression for the error signal

1580: \begin{eqnarray}

1581: V_{e}& \equiv & \frac{(1-\epsilon)}{2}   \alpha\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{a,\omega_{b}} 

1582: + \frac{\epsilon}{2} \beta\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{b,\omega_{b}}

1583: +

1584: \sqrt{\epsilon}\sqrt{1-\epsilon}(\alpha\delta{X}^{-}_{b}-\beta\delta{X}^{-}_{a})

1585: \ ,

1586: \end{eqnarray}

1587: where we have ignored the noise of the oscillator used in the mixing

1588: process. The quantities $\hat{X}^{+}_{a,\omega_{b}}$ and

1589: $\hat{X}^{+}_{b,\omega_{b}}$ are the amplitude quadrature operators

1590: evaluated at the offset frequency. The factor of 1/2 in the

1591: coefficients of these terms arises as we have only taken the sine

1592: component of the intensity noise at the heterodyne frequency. For

1593: heterodyne frequencies of 10~MHz and greater the intensity noise is

1594: shot noise limited thus

1595: $\langle(\hat{X}^{+}_{a,\omega_{b}})^2\rangle\approx

1596: \langle(\hat{X}^{+}_{b,\omega_{b}})^2\rangle\approx 1$. The important

1597: point is that the error signal is proportional to the intensity noise

1598: of each beam and the relative phase noise of the two lasers.

1599: 

1600: Assuming perfect phase locking, the error signal $V_e$ is driven to

1601: zero by actuating on the phase of $\hat{a}$. Setting $V_e=0$ we find

1602: that the controller will attempt to force the phase quadrature

1603: fluctuations to be,

1604: \begin{eqnarray}

1605: \delta{X}^{-}_{a}&=&\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\delta{X}^{-}_{b}+\frac{\sqrt{1-\epsilon}  

1606: \alpha\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{a,\omega_{b}}}{2 \sqrt{\epsilon}\beta}  

1607: + \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{b,\omega_{b}}}{2

1608:   \sqrt{1-\epsilon}} \label{perfectPL} \ .

1609: \end{eqnarray}

1610: 

1611: Ultimately, what is of interest is the difference between the phases

1612: of the fields $\hat{d}$ and $\hat{a}$. The annihilation operator for

1613: the outgoing beam, $\hat{d}$, is also made up of a linear combination

1614: of $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}$

1615: \begin{eqnarray}

1616: \hat{d}&=&\sqrt{\epsilon}\,\hat{a}-\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\,\hat{b} \ ,

1617: \end{eqnarray}

1618: which implies the following phase quadrature fluctuations of $\hat{d}$, $\delta

1619: \hat{X}^-_d$

1620: \begin{eqnarray}

1621: \delta X^-_d&=&\sqrt{\epsilon}\delta \hat{X}^-_a

1622: -\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\delta \hat{X}^-_b \ .

1623: \end{eqnarray}

1624: Under the operational configuration of perfect phase locking, we can

1625: substitute into the equation above the expression for $\delta{X}^{-}_{a}$ given in equation

1626: \ref{perfectPL}

1627: \begin{eqnarray}

1628: \delta

1629: X^-_d&=&(\sqrt{\epsilon}\frac{\alpha}{\beta}-\sqrt{1-\epsilon})\delta\hat{X}^{-}_{b}+\frac{\sqrt{1-\epsilon}

1630:   \alpha\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{a,\omega_{b}}}{2 \beta}

1631: +\frac{\epsilon\delta\hat{X}^{+}_{b,\omega_{b}}}{2\sqrt{1-\epsilon}} \ .

1632: \label{complex}

1633: \end{eqnarray}

1634: Since the power of the laser A (proportional to $\alpha^2$) will be a

1635: factor of $\approx10^{8}$ larger than the power of laser B (

1636: proportional to $\beta^2$), and also that $\langle(\delta

1637: \hat{X}^+_b)^2\rangle\sim 1$, i.e.  the signal laser intensity is

1638: approximately shot noise limited at the heterodyne frequency, we find

1639: that Eq. (\ref{complex}) can be approximated as follows

1640: \begin{eqnarray}

1641: \delta X^-_d&\simeq&\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\left[\sqrt{\epsilon}\delta

1642:   \hat{X}^-_b+\frac{\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\delta

1643:     \hat{X}^+_{a,\omega_{b}}}{2}\right] \ .

1644: \end{eqnarray}

1645: 

1646: The quantity of interest is the phase fluctuations in radians. To

1647: compare the phase fluctuations between the two fields we need to

1648: normalize the phase quadrature operator by the square root of the

1649: average photon number. For $\hat{d}$, this means dividing by

1650: $\sqrt{\epsilon}\alpha$

1651: \begin{eqnarray}

1652: \delta\phi_b&=&\frac{\delta\hat{X}^-_b}{\beta} \ , \\

1653:  \delta\phi_d&=&\frac{\delta\hat{X}^-_b}{\beta}

1654:  +\frac{\sqrt{1-\epsilon}}{2\sqrt{\epsilon}}\frac{\delta

1655:  \hat{X}^+_{a,\omega_{b}}}{\beta} \ .

1656: \end{eqnarray}

1657: Thus the phase of the incoming beam will differ from the phase of the

1658: outgoing beam by the following amount

1659: \begin{eqnarray}

1660:  \delta\phi_d-\delta\phi_b&=&\frac{\sqrt{1-\epsilon}}

1661: {2\sqrt{\epsilon}}\frac{\delta \hat{X}^+_{a,\omega_{b}}}

1662: {\beta} \ ,

1663: \end{eqnarray}

1664: while the root-mean-squared value of the phase error can be written

1665: as

1666: \begin{eqnarray}

1667: \sigma_\phi=\sqrt{\frac{1-\epsilon}{4\epsilon}\frac{\langle|\delta\hat{X}^+_{a,\omega_b}|^2\rangle}{\bar{n}_b}}

1668: \ .

1669: \end{eqnarray}

1670: Here $\bar{n}_b = \beta^2$ is the average number of photons in the

1671: weak signal laser, and $\langle|\delta\hat{X}^+_{a,\omega_b}|^2

1672: \rangle$ is the variance of the local oscillator intensity

1673: fluctuations relative to the variance of quantum noise. Thus the error

1674: depends on two parameters, the beam splitter ratio and the intensity

1675: noise of the local oscillator. Assuming the local laser intensity is

1676: shot noise limited at the modulation frequency and a beam splitter

1677: ratio of approximately 100:1 ($\epsilon=0.99$) gives a phase error

1678: with a standard deviation, $\sigma_\phi$, of approximately $5\%$ of

1679: the shot noise limit or less than 1~$\mu$cycle$/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ error.

1680: This error is therefore much less than the 20~$\mu$cycles$/\sqrt{\rm

1681:   Hz}$ optical path noise.

1682: 

1683: If necessary, this source of error could be removed by altering the

1684: detection system to add a second detector allowing subtraction and

1685: consequent cancellation of the intensity noise of the local oscillator

1686: laser. Cancellation factors of 100 are readily achievable, albeit with

1687: a slight increase in system complexity, effectively removing this

1688: error contribution entirely.

1689: 

1690: \section{Interpolation error for generating shifted data points}

1691: 

1692: Let $g(t)$ be the true signal.  It is sampled at intervals $\Delta t =

1693: 1/f_s$, where $f_s$ is the sampling frequency, to produce the discrete

1694: data $g[n] = g(t + n / f_s)$, $n=...,-1,0,1,...$.  Consider the

1695: problem of estimating $g(t)$ at some time which falls in between two

1696: sampling times, i.e. at time $t$ where $0 < |t - n_0/f_s| < \Delta t$,

1697: for $n_0$ the value of $t/\Delta t$ rounded to the nearest integer.

1698: It is well known that for an infinitely long dataset, this estimation

1699: can be done without error using the Shannon formula \cite{12},

1700: assuming that the signal has zero power above the Nyquist frequency

1701: ($f_s/2$).  The error in the estimation with a finite digital filter

1702: can be approximated using a truncated version of the Shannon formula.

1703: This digital filter might not be the best one for all signals, but it

1704: should be sufficiently close to the optimal filter.  The estimated

1705: function is given by

1706: \begin{equation}

1707: g_N(t) = \sum_{n=-N}^N g[n + n_0] \;{\rm sinc}(f_s t - n - n_0) \ ,

1708: \end{equation}

1709: for a digital filter of length $2N+1$, and where $\;{\rm

1710:   sinc}(x)=\sin(\pi x)/\pi x$. The estimation error is $e_N(t) = g(t)

1711: - g_N(t)$.

1712: 

1713: Changing the sampling frequency will not improve the function

1714: estimator for a fixed digital filter size: a lower sampling frequency

1715: would be insufficient to represent the high frequency signal

1716: components, and a higher sampling frequency would reduce the size of

1717: the interval over which the function is sampled to build the

1718: estimator.

1719: 

1720: Assuming $g(t)$ to be a wide sense stationary stochastic process

1721: \cite{13} with autocorrelation function $R_g(|t_1-t_2|) = R_g(t_1,t_2)

1722: = E[g(t_1) g(t_2)]$ ($E[]$ denotes the expectation value), it follows

1723: that the autocorrelation function of the estimation error is equal to

1724: \begin{eqnarray}

1725: R_{e_N}(t_1,t_2) = R_g(t_1 - t_2) + \nonumber \\

1726: \sum_{m,n=-N}^N R_g\left(\frac{n+n_1-m-n_2}{f_s}\right)\;{\rm

1727:   sinc}(f_s t_1 - n - n_1)

1728: \;{\rm sinc}(f_s t_2 - m - n_2) \nonumber \\

1729: - \sum_{n=-N}^N R_g(t_1 - n/f_s - n_2/f_s)\;{\rm sinc}(f_s t_2 - n - n_2) \nonumber \\

1730: - \sum_{n=-N}^N R_g(t_2 - n/f_s - n_2/f_s)\;{\rm sinc}(f_s t_1 - n - n_1),

1731: \end{eqnarray}

1732: where $n_1$ ($n_2$) is the value of $t_1/\Delta t$ ($t_2/\Delta t$)

1733: rounded to the nearest integer.  This equation shows that $e_N(t)$ is

1734: not wide sense stationary; however, it is wide sense cyclo-stationary,

1735: since $R_{e_N}(t_1,t_2) = R_{e_N}(t_1 + m \Delta t, t_2 + m \Delta t)$

1736: for every integer $m$.  This is just a consequence of the error

1737: varying quasi-periodically with the interpolation time; it is zero

1738: when $t$ matches a sample time, maximum at the middle between two

1739: sample times, etc.

1740: 

1741: A fair estimate of the estimation error magnitude can be obtained by

1742: considering the stochastic process $\bar{e}_N(t) = e_N(t + \theta)$,

1743: where $\theta$ is a random variable uniformly distributed in $[0,

1744: \Delta t]$.  $\bar{e}_N(t)$ is wide sense stationary, and its

1745: autocorrelation function is \cite{13}

1746: \begin{equation}

1747: R_{\bar{e}_N}(\tau) = f_s \int_0^{\Delta t} R_{e_N}(t+\tau,t) dt \ .

1748: \end{equation}

1749: The Fourier transform of $R_{\bar{e}_N}(\tau)$ gives an estimate of

1750: the spectrum of the noise induced by the digital filters interpolation

1751: errors.  In particular, $R_{\bar{e}_N}(0)$ is the broadband standard

1752: deviation of the noise.

1753: 

1754: Taking $g(t)$ to be a laser phase noise with a power spectral density

1755: that scales like $1/f^2$, and restricting attention to the frequency

1756: range 0.1 mHz $< f <$ 1 Hz, one can calculate numerically that

1757: $R_{\bar{e}_N}(0) / R_g(0) = 9\times 10^{-7}$ for $N=10$. Therefore, a

1758: filter with $N=10$ is good enough only to produce a broadband error on

1759: the shifted time series that is $\sim 3$ orders of magnitude smaller

1760: than the laser phase noise amplitude. Changing $N$ in the numerical

1761: integrations shows that $R_{\bar{e}_N}(0)$ scales roughly like $1/N$.

1762: This implies that it would be impossible to use digital filters on a

1763: slowly sampled time series to achieve the levels of noise cancellation

1764: required by the TDI combinations.

1765: 

1766: \begin{thebibliography} {}

1767:   

1768: \bibitem{1} P. Bender, K. Danzmann, \& the LISA Study Team, {\it{Laser

1769:       \ Interferometer \ Space \ Antenna \ for \ the \ Detection \ of

1770:       \ Gravitational \ Waves, \ Pre-Phase \ A \ Report}}, $\bf{MPQ

1771:     233}$ (Max-Planck-Instit\"ut f\"ur Quantenoptik, Garching), July

1772:   1998.

1773:   

1774: \bibitem{2} M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, \& J.W. Armstrong, {\it Phys.

1775:     Rev. D}, {\bf 65}, 082003 (2002).

1776:   

1777: \bibitem{3} F.B. Estabrook, M. Tinto, \& J.W. Armstrong, {\it Phys.

1778:     Rev. D}, {\bf 62}, 042002 (2000).

1779:   

1780: \bibitem{4} J. Gowar, {\it Optical Communication Systems},

1781:   (Prentice/Hall International, 1984), pp. 136-140.

1782:   

1783: \bibitem{5} J.W. Armstrong, F.B. Estabrook, \& M. Tinto, {\it Ap. J.},

1784:   {\bf 527}, 814 (1999).

1785:   

1786: \bibitem{6} S.V. Dhurandhar, K.R. Nayak, \& J.-Y. Vinet {\it Phys.

1787:     Rev. D}, {\bf 65}, 102002 (2002).

1788:   

1789: \bibitem{7} M. Tinto, \& J.W. Armstrong {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 59},

1790:   102003 (1999).

1791:   

1792: \bibitem{8} D.A. Shaddock, {\it Carrier-Sideband USO noise

1793:     cancellation}, available at the following URL address:

1794:     $http://www.srl.caltech.edu/LISA/TDI\_WP/ShaddockUSO.pdf$, 

1795: unpublished.

1796:   

1797: \bibitem{Abramovici} A. Abramovici and J. Chapsky, {\it Feedback

1798:     Control Systems a Fast-Track Guide for Scientists and Engineers},

1799:   Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2000).

1800:   

1801: \bibitem{8bis} O. Jennrich, R.T. Stebbins, P.L. Bender, and S. Pollack

1802:   {\it Clas. Quantum Grav.}, {\bf 18}, 4159, (2001).

1803:   

1804: \bibitem{8SHA} D.A. Shaddock, {\it Digital I-Q Phasemeter by use of

1805:     under-sampling}. In Preparation.

1806:   

1807: \bibitem{McNamaraPL} P.W. McNamara, H. Ward, and J. Hough, {\it Laser

1808:     Phase Locking for LISA: Experimental Status}. In: {\it Proceedings

1809:     of the Second International LISA Symposium on the Detection and

1810:     Observation of Gravitational Waves in Space}, ed. W.M. Folkner,

1811:     AIP Conference Proceedings 456, Woodbury, New York, (1998).

1812:   

1813: \bibitem{Ye} J. Ye and J.L. Hall, {\it Opt. Lett.}, {\bf 24}, 1838,

1814:   (1999)

1815:   

1816: \bibitem{PDH} R.W.P. Drever, J.L. Hall, F.V. Kowalski, J.Hough, 

1817: G.M. Ford, A.J. Munley, and H.Ward, {\it Appl. Phys. B}, {\bf 31},

1818: 97 (1983). 

1819:   

1820: \bibitem{8tris} P.W. McNamara, H. Ward, J. Hough, and D. Robertson,

1821:   {\it Clas. Quantum Grav.}, {\bf 14}, 1543, (1997).

1822:   

1823: \bibitem{9} W.M. Folkner, F. Hechler, T.H. Sweetser, M.A. Vincent, and

1824:   P.L. Bender, {\it Clas. Quantum Grav.}, {\bf 14}, 1405, (1997).

1825:    

1826: \bibitem{10} L. Schmidt, and M. Miranian, {\it Common-View Time

1827:     Transfer Using Multi-Channel GPS Receivers}. In: {\it Proceedings

1828:     of the 29th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) Meeting},

1829:   ed. L.A. Breakiron, United States Naval Observatory, (1997).

1830:   

1831: \bibitem{11} R.W. Hellings, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 64}, 022002

1832:   (2001)

1833:   

1834: \bibitem{Bachor} H.A. Bachor and T.C. Ralph, {\it A guide to

1835:     experiments in Quantum Optics}, John Wiley \& Sons, New York (2003)

1836:   

1837: \bibitem{12} R.J. Marks, {\it Introduction to Shannon sampling and

1838:     interpolation theory}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991).

1839:   

1840: \bibitem{13} A. Papoulis, {\it Probability, Random Variables, and

1841:     Stochastic Processes}, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1991).

1842: 

1843: \end{thebibliography}

1844: 

1845: \end{document}

1846: