1: \documentclass[showpacs,twocolumn,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{dcolumn}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{\bf TDIR: Time-Delay Interferometric Ranging \\
8: for Space-Borne Gravitational-Wave Detectors}
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 Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}
15:
16: \author{Michele Vallisneri}
17: \email{Michele.Vallisneri@jpl.nasa.gov}
18: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}
19:
20: \author{J. W. Armstrong}
21: \email{John.W.Armstrong@jpl.nasa.gov}
22: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
23: Pasadena, CA 91109}
24:
25: \date{\today}
26: \begin{abstract}
27: Space-borne interferometric gravitational-wave detectors, sensitive
28: in the low-frequency (mHz) band, will fly in the next decade. In
29: these detectors, the spacecraft-to-spacecraft light-travel times
30: will necessarily be unequal and time-varying, and (because of
31: aberration) will have different values on up- and down-links. In
32: such unequal-armlength interferometers, laser phase noise will be
33: canceled by taking linear combinations of the laser-phase
34: observables measured between pairs of spacecraft, appropriately
35: time-shifted by the light propagation times along the corresponding
36: arms. This procedure, known as time-delay interferometry (TDI),
37: requires an accurate knowledge of the light-time delays as functions
38: of time. Here we propose a high-accuracy technique to estimate these
39: time delays and study its use in the context of the Laser
40: Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) mission. We refer to this
41: ranging technique, which relies on the TDI combinations themselves,
42: as Time-Delay Interferometric Ranging (TDIR). For every TDI
43: combination, we show that, by minimizing the rms power in that
44: combination (averaged over integration times $\sim \, 10^4$ s) with
45: respect to the time-delay parameters, we obtain estimates of the
46: time delays accurate enough to cancel laser noise to a level well
47: below the secondary noises. Thus TDIR allows the implementation of
48: TDI without the use of dedicated inter-spacecraft ranging systems,
49: with a potential simplification of the LISA design. In this paper
50: we define the TDIR procedure formally, and we characterize its
51: expected performance via simulations with the \textit{Synthetic
52: LISA} software package.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \pacs{04.80.Nn, 95.55.Ym, 07.60.Ly}
56: \maketitle
57:
58: %\section{Introduction and Notation}
59:
60: The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) \cite{benderetal} is a
61: planned NASA--ESA mission to detect and study gravitational waves
62: (GWs) in the $10^{-4}$--1 Hz band, by exchanging coherent laser beams
63: between three widely separated spacecraft. Each spacecraft contains
64: two drag-free proof masses, which provide freely falling references
65: for the GW-modulated relative spacecraft distances; these are measured
66: by comparing the phases of the incoming and local lasers. It has been
67: shown that the time series of the phase differences can be combined,
68: with suitable time delays, to cancel the otherwise overwhelming laser
69: phase noise, while preserving a GW response. This technique is known
70: as time-delay interferometry (TDI; see \cite{STEA03,TEA2004} and
71: references therein).
72:
73: In the case of a stationary LISA spacecraft array, it was estimated
74: \cite{TSSA2003} that the time delays need to be known with an accuracy
75: of about $100$ ns, if the various TDI combinations are to work
76: effectively, suppressing the residual laser phase fluctuations to a
77: level below the secondary noises (such as the proof-mass and
78: optical-path noises). For an array of spacecraft in relative motion
79: along realistic Solar orbits, more complicated
80: (\emph{second-generation}) TDI combinations are needed; these require
81: an even more accurate knowledge of the time delays \cite{VTA04}. The
82: most direct implementation of TDI consists in triggering the phase
83: measurements at the correct delayed times (within the required
84: accuracy), as suggested in Ref.\ \cite{TSSA2003}. This approach
85: requires the real-time, onboard knowledge of the light-travel times
86: between pairs of spacecraft, which determine the TDI time delays.
87: Although the triggering approach is feasible in principle, it
88: complicates the design of the optical phasemeter system, and it
89: requires an independent onboard ranging capability. Recently, it was
90: pointed out \cite{SWSV2004} that the phase measurements at the
91: specific times needed by the TDI algorithm can be computed \emph{in
92: post-processing} with the required accuracy, by the fractional-delay
93: interpolation (FDI) \cite{SWSV2004,laakso} of regularly sampled data
94: (with a sampling rate of 10 Hz for a GW measurement band extending to
95: 1 Hz).
96:
97: In this communication, we show that FDI allows the implementation of a
98: numerical variational procedure to determine the TDI time delays from
99: the phase-difference measurements themselves, eliminating the need for
100: an independent onboard ranging capability. Since this variational
101: procedure relies on the TDI combinations, we refer to it as Time-Delay
102: Interferometric Ranging (TDIR).
103:
104: %\section{Time-Delay Interferometric Ranging}
105:
106: Conventional spacecraft ranging is based on the measurement of either
107: one-way or two-way delay times. In one-way ranging, two or more tones
108: are coherently modulated onto the transmitted carrier; the phases of
109: these tones are measured at the receiver, differenced, and divided by
110: the spanned bandwidth to yield the group delay and hence the time
111: delay (up to an ambiguity of $c$ divided by the spanned bandwidth of
112: the ranging tones). In two-way ranging, a known ranging code is
113: modulated on the transmitted carrier, which is transponded by a
114: distant spacecraft back to the originator; the received signal is then
115: cross-correlated with the ranging code to determine the two-way time
116: of flight.
117:
118: TDIR differs from these methods in that it uses the unmodulated laser
119: noises in a three-element array, which are canceled in TDI
120: combinations assembled with the correct inter-spacecraft light-travel
121: times. This means that TDI can be used to estimate the light-travel
122: times by minimizing the laser noise power in the TDI combinations as a
123: function of the postulated light-travel times: this process defines
124: TDIR. As an example of how TDIR works, we shall here consider one of
125: the second-generation TDI combinations, the unequal-armlength
126: Michelson combination $X_1$ \cite{TEA2004},
127: %
128: \begin{widetext}
129: %
130: \begin{multline}
131: X_1 = \left[(\eta_{31} + \eta_{13;\hat2}) + (\eta_{21} +
132: \eta_{12;\hat3'})_{;\hat2'\hat2} + (\eta_{21} + \eta_{12;\hat3'})_{;\hat3\hat3'\hat2'\hat2} + (\eta_{31} +
133: \eta_{13;\hat2})_{;\hat3\hat3'\hat3\hat3'\hat2'\hat2} \right] \\
134: - \left[(\eta_{21} + \eta_{12;\hat3'}) + (\eta_{31} +
135: \eta_{13;\hat2})_{;\hat3\hat3'} + (\eta_{31} + \eta_{13;\hat2})_{;\hat2'\hat2\hat3\hat3'} +
136: (\eta_{21} + \eta_{12;\hat3'})_{;\hat2'\hat2\hat2'\hat2\hat3\hat3'} \right].
137: \label{eq:1}
138: \end{multline}
139: %
140: \end{widetext}
141: %
142: Here we use the notation of Ref.\ \cite{TEA2004}, where the
143: $\eta_{ij}$ (for spacecraft indices $i,j = 1, 2, 3, \ i \ne j$) are
144: linear combinations of the inter-spacecraft phase measurements
145: $s_{ij}$ and of the inter-bench measurements $\tau_{ij}$ made aboard
146: the spacecraft,
147: %
148: \begin{equation}
149: \label{eq:2}
150: \begin{aligned}
151: \eta_{21} & \equiv s_{21} - {1 \over 2} \ [\tau_{32} - \tau_{12}]_{;\hat 3'}\,,
152: & \eta_{31} & \equiv s_{31} + {1 \over 2} \ [\tau_{21} - \tau_{31}]\,, \\
153: \eta_{12} & \equiv s_{12} + {1 \over 2} \ [\tau_{32} - \tau_{12}]\,,
154: & \eta_{32} & \equiv s_{32} - {1 \over 2} \ [\tau_{13} - \tau_{23}]_{;\hat 1'}\,, \\
155: \eta_{13} & \equiv s_{13} - {1 \over 2} \ [\tau_{21} - \tau_{31}]_{;\hat 2'}\,,
156: & \eta_{23} & \equiv s_{23} + {1 \over 2} \ [\tau_{13} - \tau_{23}]\,,
157: \end{aligned}
158: \end{equation}
159: %
160: and where indices prefixed by a semicolon delay observables by the
161: corresponding light-travel times $L_k$, in the sequential order given
162: (with the index $k=1$ denoting the light travel time for the beam
163: emitted from spacecraft 2 and received at spacecraft 3, and likewise
164: indices $\{2, 3, 1', 2', 3'\} \equiv \{3 \rightarrow 1,1 \rightarrow
165: 2,3 \rightarrow 2,1 \rightarrow 3,2 \rightarrow 1\}$).
166:
167: The main contributions to the phase measurements $s_{ij}$ and
168: $\tau_{ij}$ are given by
169: %
170: \begin{equation}
171: \label{eq:3}
172: \begin{aligned}
173: s_{31} & = \phi_{13;2} - \phi_{31} + \Sigma_{31} \, , \\
174: s_{21} & = \phi_{12;3'} - \phi_{21} + \Sigma_{21} \, , \\
175: \tau_{31} & = \phi_{21} - \phi_{31} + \Lambda_{31} \, , \\
176: \tau_{21} & = \phi_{31} - \phi_{21} + \Lambda_{21}
177: \end{aligned}
178: \end{equation}
179: %
180: (and by cyclical permutations thereof), where the $\phi_{ij}$ denote
181: the sum of laser phase fluctuations and of optical-bench motions (the
182: former three to four orders of magnitude larger than the latter), and
183: where the $\Sigma_{ij}$ and the $\Lambda_{ij}$ denote the sum of all
184: other fluctuations affecting the measurements, such as the secondary
185: noise sources (proof mass and optical path) and GWs.
186:
187: The time-delay indices that appear in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:3} represent the
188: actual delays caused by the physical propagation of the laser signals
189: across the LISA arms. By contrast, the hatted delays of Eq.\
190: \eqref{eq:1} need to be provided by the data analyst (or, in the
191: triggering approach, by the onboard ranging subsystem) with the
192: accuracy required for effective laser noise cancellation. Thus, the
193: $X_1$-based implementation of TDIR works by \emph{minimizing the power
194: in $X_1$ with respect to the hatted delays $\hat{L}_k$}. Since the
195: TDI combinations constructed with the actual delays cancel laser phase
196: noise to a level $10^8$ below the secondary noises \cite{STEA03}, it
197: follows that if we neglect all non-laser sources of phase noise (i.e.,
198: if we set $\Sigma_{ij} = \Lambda_{ij} = 0$), the minimum of the power
199: integral
200: %
201: \begin{equation}
202: I^{(0)}(\hat{L}_k) = \frac{1}{T} \,\int_0^T [X^{(0)}_{1}(\hat{L}_k)]^2 \, dt
203: \label{LSQ0}
204: \end{equation}
205: %
206: will occur for $\hat{L}_k = L_k$ (with $k = 1,2,3,1',2',3'$; here the
207: superscript ${}^{(0)}$ denotes \emph{laser-noise--only} quantities).
208: The search for this minimum can be implemented in post processing,
209: using FDI \cite{SWSV2004} to generate the needed $s_{ij}$ and
210: $\tau_{ij}$ samples at the delayed times corresponding to any choice
211: of the $\hat{L}_k$.
212:
213: In reality, the presence of non-laser phase noises (possibly including
214: GWs) will displace the location of the minimum from $L_k$. Writing
215: $X_1 = X_1^{(0)} + X_1^{(n)}$ (with $X_1^{(n)}$ obtained by setting
216: all $\phi_{ij} = 0$), the power integral becomes
217: %
218: \begin{equation}
219: I^{(n)}(\hat{L}_k) = \frac{1}{T} \, \int_0^T [X_{1}(\hat{L}_k)]^2 \, dt \,,
220: \label{LSQ1}
221: \end{equation}
222: %
223: or explicitly,
224: %
225: \begin{equation}
226: \begin{aligned}
227: I^{(n)}(\hat{L}_k) = I^{(0)}(\hat{L}_k) &+ \frac{1}{T} \, \int_0^T [X_1^{(n)}]^2 \, dt \\
228: & + \frac{2}{T} \, \int_0^T X_1^{(n)} X_1^{(0)}(\hat{L}_k) \, dt \, .
229: \end{aligned}
230: \label{LSQ2}
231: \end{equation}
232: %
233: Here we have written the non-laser phase noise $X_1^{(n)}$ as
234: independent of the delays $\hat{L}_k$: this holds true for a search
235: conducted sufficiently close to the true minimum, since the
236: $\phi_{ij}$ are much larger than the $\Sigma_{ij}$ and $\Lambda_{ij}$,
237: and so are their variations. The minimum of $I^{(n)}(\hat{L}_k)$ can
238: be displaced from $\hat{L}_k = L_k$ because the third term of Eq.\
239: \eqref{LSQ1} [the cross-correlation integral of $X_1^{(n)}$ and
240: $X_1^{(0)}(\hat{L}_k)$] can be negative and offset a concurrent
241: increase in $I^{(0)}(\hat{L}_k)$. The achievable time-delay
242: accuracies will depend on the level of the residual laser noise, the
243: levels of the secondary noises in $X_1$, and the integration time $T$.
244: We expect the arm-length errors to be determined by the interplay of
245: the first and third terms in Eq.\ \eqref{LSQ2}. By equating the
246: variance from the imperfect cancellation of the laser with the
247: estimation-error variance of the cross-term in Eq.\ \eqref{LSQ2}, we
248: can roughly estimate how well the time delays will be determined with
249: TDIR: $\delta L_k \sim
250: (\sigma_{X_{1}^{(n)}}/{\sigma_{\dot{X}_{1}^{(0)}}}) \
251: \sqrt{{\rho}/{T}}$, where $\sigma_{X_{1}^{(n)}}$ and
252: $\sigma_{\dot{X}_{1}^{(0)}}$ are the root-mean-squares of the
253: secondary noises and of the time derivative of the laser noise in
254: $X_1$, and $\rho$ is the temporal width of the secondary-noise
255: autocorrelation function. For nominal LISA noises and $T \simeq$
256: 10,000 s we thus expect $\delta L_k$ of 30 ns or better to be
257: achievable.
258:
259: An analogous technique was proposed by G\"ursel and Tinto \cite{GT89}
260: for the problem of determining the parameters of a GW burst observed
261: in coincidence by a network of ground-based GW interferometers. In
262: that case, a ``phase-closure'' condition was imposed on a family of
263: linear combinations of the responses of three GW detectors. A GW
264: burst would produce a zero response in the particular phase-closed
265: combination corresponding to the source's position in the sky; the
266: position could then be estimated by implementing a least-squares
267: minimization procedure. In that case as well as for TDIR, the
268: least-squares minimization procedure can be shown to be optimal if the
269: secondary noises have Gaussian distribution.
270:
271: %\section{Simulations}
272:
273: We test TDIR for a realistic model of the LISA orbits and instruments
274: by performing simulations with the \emph{Synthetic LISA} software
275: package \cite{MV04}. Because the present version of \emph{Synthetic
276: LISA} works in terms of frequencies rather than phases, we perform
277: an analogue of the procedure outlined above where all the phase
278: variables are replaced by the corresponding fractional-frequency
279: fluctuations. We generate a number of \emph{chunks} of contiguous
280: data for the $s_{ij}$ and $\tau_{ij}$ measurements, sampled at
281: intervals of 0.25 s, and containing pseudo-random laser, proof-mass,
282: and optical-path noises at the nominal level set by the LISA pre-phase
283: A specification \cite{benderetal,MV04}. We consider chunk durations of
284: 8,192, 16,384, and 32,768 s.
285:
286: The 18 noise processes (corresponding to the six lasers, proof masses,
287: and optical paths) are assumed to be uncorrelated, Gaussian, and
288: stationary, with (respectively) white, $f^{-2}$, and $f^{2}$ PSDs,
289: band-limited at 1 Hz. The frequency-fluctuation measurements contain
290: also the responses due to GWs from two circular binaries with
291: $f_\mathrm{GW} \simeq$ 1 and 3 mHz, located respectively at the vernal
292: equinox and at ecliptic latitude $45^\circ$ and longitude $120^\circ$.
293: The strength of the two sources is adjusted to yield an optimal S/N of
294: $\sim$ 500 over a year (for $X_1$), guaranteeing that there will be
295: times of the year when each source will be clearly visible above the
296: noise in an observation time $\sim$ 10,000 s.
297:
298: We put the three LISA spacecraft on realistic trajectories, modeled as
299: eccentric, inclined solar orbits with angular velocity $\Omega =
300: 2\pi/$yr, average radius $R/c \simeq 499$ s, and eccentricity $e
301: \simeq 9.6 \times 10^{-3}$ \cite{CR03}. The resulting time and
302: direction dependence \cite{STEA03} of the light travel times is then
303: \cite{CR03,MV04}
304: %
305: \begin{equation}
306: \begin{aligned}
307: L_{k}(t)
308: = L & + \frac{1}{32} (e L) \sin(3 \Omega t - 3 \xi_0) \\
309: & - [\frac{15}{32}(e L) \pm (\Omega R L)] \sin(\Omega t - \delta_k)\,,
310: \end{aligned}
311: \label{eq:lfunc}
312: \end{equation}
313: %
314: where the plus (minus) refers to unprimed (primed) indices. In Eq.\
315: \eqref{eq:lfunc} $L/c \simeq 16.68$ s is the average light travel
316: time, and
317: %
318: \begin{equation}
319: (\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3) =
320: (\xi_0,\xi_0+\frac{4\pi}{3},\xi_0+\frac{2\pi}{3})\,,
321: \end{equation}
322: %
323: with $\xi_0$ an arbitrary constant (set to 0 in our simulations)
324: giving the phase of the spacecraft motion around the guiding center of
325: the LISA array. The starting times of the chunks are spread across a
326: year to sample the time dependence of the $L_k$ and the directionality
327: of the GW responses.
328:
329: Separately for each chunk, we minimize $I^{(n)}[\hat{L}_k(t)]$ [Eq.\
330: \eqref{LSQ1}] starting from guesses for the $\hat{L}_k$ affected by
331: errors $\gtrsim$ 50 $\mathrm{km}/c$, very much larger than typical
332: accuracy of radio tracking from Earth \cite{Folkner}. The minimization
333: is carried out using a Nelder--Mead simplex-based algorithm \cite{NM}.
334: The effective cancellation of laser noise with TDI requires modeling
335: the time dependence of the travel times \emph{within} the chunks. In
336: our simulations, we use two such models:
337: %
338: \begin{enumerate}
339: %
340: \item An orbital-dynamics model (ODM) given by Eq.\ \eqref{eq:lfunc}, with
341: $\widehat{eL}$, $\widehat{\Omega R L}$, and $\widehat{\xi_0}$ taken
342: as the independent search parameters with respect to which $I^{(n)}$
343: is minimized. We exclude $L$ and $\Omega$ from the search because
344: the dependence of the $L_k(t)$ on such an extended parameter set is
345: degenerate on time-scales $\sim$ 10,000 s.
346: %
347: \item A linear model (LM) given by $\hat{L}_k(t) = \hat{L}^0_k +
348: \hat{L}^1_k (t - t_0)$ [with $t_0$ set to the beginning of each
349: chunk]. Because the expression for $X_1$ does not contain the travel
350: times $L_1$ and $L_{1'}$, our independent search parameters are the
351: constants $\hat{L}^0_k$ and $\hat{L}^1_k$ for $k = 2, 2', 3, 3'$
352: (eight numbers altogether).
353: %
354: \end{enumerate}
355: %
356: \begin{figure}
357: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Fig1.eps}
358: \caption{Distribution of errors $\Delta L$ [see Eq.\ \eqref{eq:errL}
359: and the main text above it] in the determination of light travel
360: times, using $X_1$-based TDIR with chunk durations of 8,192 s
361: (for the LM and ODM models), and 16,384 and 32,768 s (for the ODM
362: model only). As expected, the errors are lower for longer integration
363: times $T$; for the LM model, the larger errors are due to the
364: unmodeled curvature in the time dependence of the light-travel times.
365: The distributions shown correspond to samples of 512, 256, and 128
366: chunks for $T = $ 8,192, 16,384, and 32,768 s respectively, spread
367: across a year.
368: \label{fig:errs}}
369: \end{figure}
370: %
371: Figures \ref{fig:errs} and \ref{fig:spectra} show the results of our
372: simulations. The average travel-time errors $\Delta L$ displayed in
373: Fig.\ \ref{fig:errs} are defined as $\Delta L = (\Delta L_2 + \Delta
374: L_{2'} + \Delta L_3 + \Delta L_{3'})/4$, with
375: %
376: \begin{equation}
377: \Delta L_k = \sqrt{\frac{1}{T} \int_{t_0}^{t_0+T}
378: \left( \hat{L}_k(t) - L_k(t) \right)^2 \, dt}.
379: \label{eq:errL}
380: \end{equation}
381: %
382: Because the noises have different realizations in each chunk and
383: because the local behavior of the $L_k(t)$ [Eq.\ \eqref{eq:lfunc}]
384: changes along the year, the average error $\Delta L$ of each chunk is
385: a random variable. Its distribution is approximated by the histograms
386: of Fig.\ \ref{fig:errs}, which refer to populations of respectively
387: 512 (for T = 8,192 s), 256 (for T = 16,384 s), and 128 (for T = 32,768
388: s) chunks (hence the roughness of the curves).
389:
390: It turns out that the linear model is not quite sufficient to model
391: the changes of the time-delays during the chunk lengths considered,
392: since the \emph{minimum} $\Delta L$s [computed by least-squares
393: fitting the parameters $\hat{L}^0_k$ and $\hat{L}^1_k$ to the
394: $L_k(t)$] are in the range 0.25--2.60 m (for T = 8,192 s), 1--10 m
395: (for T = 16,384 s), and 4--40 m (for T = 32,768 s). Thus, in Figs.\
396: \ref{fig:errs} and \ref{fig:spectra} we show results only for the
397: linear model with T = 8,192 s. [The minimization of $I^{(n)}$ over the
398: LM parameters is delicate, because for $X_1$ the laser-noise residuals
399: turn out to depend strongly on $\Delta L_2$, $\Delta L_{3'}$, and
400: $\Delta L_{2'} - \Delta L_3$, but only weakly on $\Delta L_{2'} +
401: \Delta L_3$. In this case, the Nelder--Mead algorithm can be made to
402: return accurate results by using the search parameters $\hat{L}^0_2$,
403: $\hat{L}^0_{3'}$, $\widehat{L^0_{2'}-L^0_{3}}$, and
404: $\widehat{L^0_{2'}+L^0_{3}}$, plus the corresponding $\hat{L}^1_k$
405: parameters.]
406: %
407: \begin{figure*}
408: \includegraphics[width=6.4in]{Fig2.eps}
409: \caption{Spectra of frequency laser noise (bottom curves) and of GW
410: plus secondary noises (top curve) at the end of TDIR minimization
411: using chunk durations of 8,192 s (for the LM and ODM models), and
412: 16,384 and 32,768 s (for the ODM model only). We show averages of
413: the spectra computed separately for each chunk using a
414: triangle-windowed periodogram; the averages are taken over
415: populations of of 512, 256, and 128 chunks for $T = $ 8,192,
416: 16,384, and 32,768 s respectively, spread across a year. In all cases,
417: laser noise is suppressed to levels several orders of magnitude below
418: the secondary noises: the cutout graph on the right shows that the
419: typical laser-noise suppression factor with respect to secondary
420: noise is $\sim 5 \times 10^3$ for the worst case considered
421: (8,192-s LM); it improves by a factor $\sim 2$ for 8,192-s ODM,
422: and by factors of $\sim \sqrt{2}$ for each successive doubling
423: of $T$. The GWs from the two circular binaries stand clearly
424: above the noise at 1 and 3 mHz.
425: \label{fig:spectra}}
426: \end{figure*}
427:
428: Figure \ref{fig:spectra} shows the spectra of the \emph{residual}
429: laser noise [i.e., of $X^{(0)}_1$ at the minimum of
430: $I^{(n)}(\hat{L}_k)$], as compared with spectra of GWs and secondary
431: noises [i.e., of $X^{(n)}_1$]. The spectra are computed separately for
432: each chunk using triangle-windowed periodograms, and then averaged
433: over the chunk populations. The two GW sources stand clearly above the
434: secondary noises at 1 and 3 mHz. We see that the TDI cancellation of
435: laser noise with TDIR-determined time-delays is essentially complete,
436: with the residual laser noise several orders of magnitude below the
437: secondary noises. We conclude that for $T \sim 10,000$ s, with the
438: nominal LISA noises, and even in the presence of very strong GW
439: signals, TDIR can easily reach the time-delay accuracy required for
440: second-generation TDI. For frequencies below 10 mHz, the residual
441: laser-noise power decays as $f^6$, while the secondary noises decrease
442: only as $f^2$. We attribute the flattening near 0.1 mHz (which is
443: insignificant with respect to the LISA performance) to a combination
444: of leakage and aliasing in the numerical estimation of the spectra and
445: of real effects due to the first non-constant terms in the travel time
446: errors across the chunks.
447:
448: Finally, we estimate the power in the Fourier bins containing the
449: simulated signals using two different time series: in the first $X_1$
450: was formed using perfectly known time delays, in the second using the
451: TDIR-determined time delays. Analyzing the 32,768-s chunks at the
452: times along the simulated year where the signal amplitudes were
453: maximum, we find that the signal powers in the two time series agree
454: to the numerical precision of the calculation (about a part in
455: $10^5$).
456:
457: %\section{Discussion/Summary}
458:
459: In summary, we propose a method that uses TDI and the intrinsic phase
460: noise of the lasers in a three-element array to determine the
461: inter-spacecraft light travel times. This method, Time-Delay
462: Interferometric Ranging (TDIR), relies on the fact that TDI nulls all
463: the laser noises when the time delays are chosen to match the travel
464: times experienced by the laser beams as they propagate along the sides
465: of the array. Simulations performed using the nominal LISA noises
466: indicate that, for integration times $\sim 10,000$ s, TDIR determines
467: the time delays with accuracies sufficient to suppress the laser phase
468: fluctuations to a level below the LISA secondary noises, while at the
469: same time preserving GW signals. Our simulations assume synchronized
470: clocks aboard the spacecraft, but we anticipate that TDIR may be
471: extended to achieve synchronization, by minimizing noise power also
472: with respect to clock parameters.
473:
474: TDIR has the potential of simplifying the LISA design, allowing the
475: implementation of TDI without a separate inter-spacecraft ranging
476: subsystem. At the very least, TDIR can supplement such a subsystem,
477: allowing the synthesis of TDI combinations during ranging dropouts or
478: glitches. TDIR may be applicable in other forthcoming space science
479: missions that rely on spacecraft formation flying and on
480: inter-spacecraft ranging measurements to achieve their science
481: objectives.
482:
483: The TDIR technique presented in this paper was based on the TDI
484: combination $X_1$. Since the accuracy in the estimation of the time
485: delays achievable by TDIR depends on the magnitudes of the secondary
486: noises entering the specific TDI combination used, it is clear that it
487: should be possible to optimize the effectiveness of TDIR over the
488: space of TDI combinations \cite{PTLA2002}.
489: We will investigate this problem in a more extensive future article.
490:
491: \acknowledgments
492: We thank F.\ B.\ Estabrook for his long-time
493: collaboration and for many useful conversations during the development
494: of this work. M.\ V.\ was supported by the LISA Mission Science Office
495: at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This research was performed at the
496: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under
497: contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
498:
499: \begin{references}
500: %
501: \bibitem{benderetal} P. L. Bender, K. Danzmann, and the LISA Study Team, \emph{Laser Interferometer Space Antenna for the Detection of
502: Gravitational Waves, Pre-Phase A Report}, 2nd ed.,
503: doc. MPQ 233 (Max-Planck-Instit\"ut f\"ur Quantenoptik, Garching, Germany, 1998).
504: %
505: \bibitem{STEA03} D. A. Shaddock, M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 061303(R) (2003).
506: %
507: \bibitem{TEA2004} M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 082001 (2004).
508: %
509: \bibitem{TSSA2003} M. Tinto, D. A. Shaddock, J. Sylvestre, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 122003 (2003).
510: %
511: \bibitem{VTA04} M. Vallisneri, M. Tinto, and J. W. Armstrong, in preparation (2004).
512: %
513: \bibitem{SWSV2004} D. A. Shaddock, B. Ware, R. E. Spero, and M. Vallisneri,
514: Phys. Rev. D, in print (2004); gr-qc/0406106.
515: %
516: \bibitem{laakso} T. I. Laakso et al., IEEE Signal Processing Magazine {\bf 13}, 30 (1996).
517: %
518: \bibitem{JenkinsWatts} G. M. Jenkins and D. G. Watts, \emph{Spectral Analysis and Its Applications} (Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1968).
519: %
520: \bibitem{GT89} Y. G\"ursel and M. Tinto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 40}, 3884 (1989).
521: %
522: \bibitem{MV04} M. Vallisneri, gr-qc/0407102.
523: %
524: \bibitem{CR03} N. Cornish and L. Rubbo, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 022001 (2003).
525: %
526: \bibitem{Folkner} W. Folkner, private communication (2004).
527: %
528: \bibitem{NM} J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, Computer Journal \textbf{7}, 308 (1965).
529: %
530: \bibitem{PTLA2002} T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{66}, 122002 (2002).
531: %
532: \end{references}
533:
534: \end{document}
535: