Relativistic framework for high-precision GNSS processing in GCRS/BCRS with extension to cislunar space

Slava G. Turyshev; William I. Bertiger; Yoaz E. Bar-Sever

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Relativistic framework for high-precision GNSS processing in GCRS/BCRS with extension to cislunar space

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read GNSS orbits match to a few millimeters across two relativistic frames

desk verdict A careful, well-scoped engineering paper with genuinely useful screened transformation forms and an honest internal closure test; the cislunar extension is specified but not yet exercised. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.12058 v3 pith:ILJBQ75E submitted 2025-11-15 gr-qc

Slava G. Turyshev , Yoaz E. Bar-Sever , William I. Bertiger This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc

keywords relativisticreferenceframesGCRSBCRSGNSSorbitdeterminationtimescalesTDB/TTframeclosurecislunarnavigationLCRS/TCL

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that GNSS data can be processed in either the Earth-centered GCRS or the solar-system barycentric BCRS with no loss of accuracy, provided one applies a complete set of relativistic transformations and matched force models. It derives explicit O(c^-2) transformations for position, velocity, and acceleration between TT-compatible GCRS and TDB-compatible BCRS quantities, along with screened operational forms and conservative remainder bounds. It validates the implementation with a 24-hour round-trip GCRS→BCRS→GCRS propagation-and-transform closure test at the few-millimeter level. It extends the same construction to a lunar-centered LCRS with coordinate time TCL and scaled surface time TL, plus a minimal near-rectilinear halo orbit regression test. If correct, the framework supplies the relativistic reference-frame and time-transfer infrastructure for centimeter-level and tens-of-picosecond-level cislunar navigation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the closed-form O(c^-2) transformation chain between TT-compatible GCRS states and TDB-compatible BCRS states, together with its screened operational forms for position, velocity, and acceleration. These maps carry explicit conservative remainder bounds, so truncating terms is a budgeted modeling choice rather than an unknown error. The same construction is repeated for the Moon in the LCRS, defining the time scales TCL and TL and position/velocity/acceleration maps. Around this sits the 1PN metric, the EIH equations of motion in the barycentric frame, and the geopotential/relativistic terms in the geocentric frame, all of which must be matched to make the closure

What would settle it

Run the same 24-hour round-trip closure with deliberately different force models on the geocentric and barycentric sides and watch the few-millimeter residuals grow; alternatively, process common GPS tracking data in both frames and compare both solutions against independent satellite laser ranging residuals. If either test shows systematic differences well above the quoted bounds, the equivalence claim fails. For the lunar side, compare predicted TCL/TL offsets against a published lunar time ephemeris at the tens-of-picoseconds level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single consistent set of relativistic state transformations makes dynamical modeling in the barycentric frame equivalent to the traditional geocentric frame for high-precision GNSS processing. The transformations — closed-form to order c^-2, with screened operational versions for position, velocity, and acceleration — carry conservative remainder bounds (7.01×10^-5 m, 1.29×10^-7 m/s, and 6.68×10^-14 m/s² for a medium-Earth-orbit envelope) that quantify truncation. The paper reports a 24-hour closure experiment in which an orbit propagated in the geocentric frame and an orbit propagated in the barycentric frame agree at the few-millimeter level when the sam

Load-bearing premise

The few-millimeter closure assumes that the geocentric and barycentric dynamical models are exactly the same physics after the transformations—same solar radiation pressure, tides, geopotential truncation, and relativistic terms—so it proves internal consistency, not correctness against external truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A GNSS processor can adopt a barycentric integration frame and still reproduce geocentric-frame orbits to a few millimeters over a day, removing the need for a separate frame for Earth-orbiting and cislunar assets.
The screened transformations provide explicit thresholds; for cm/ps-class work, position, velocity, and acceleration remainders bound the state error introduced by the frame mapping.
Retaining O(c^-4) clock-rate terms is required for 10^-16 fractional-frequency transfer; neglecting them enters the error budget at about -9.5 ps/day.
A lunar clock runs faster than a terrestrial clock by about 56 μs/day after the constant-rate terms are applied, with periodic terms reaching about 0.47 μs, so any cislunar navigation model must include the LCRS time scales.
The same 1PN light-time model with Sun and Earth Shapiro terms, plus the Sagnac correction, is enough for centimeter-level and tens-of-picoseconds-level observables in Earth-Moon geometries.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the closure test uses identical force-model assumptions on both sides, it cannot catch errors common to both frames; the few-millimeter result should be read as consistency of the transformation chain, not as demonstrated absolute accuracy against external measurements.
The screening methodology is parameterized by an orbital envelope, so the same equations can be re-screened for GEO, HEO, lunar transfer, or NRHO regimes; the paper leaves those numerical bounds as future work.
The LCRS construction generalizes to other bodies; a similar Mars-centered reference system with its own scaled time could reuse the identical transformation structure for Mars navigation.
A direct validation path is to compare GCRS-native and BCRS-native processing of real GNSS tracking data against independent satellite laser ranging residuals; agreement at the few-cm level would test the framework outside the closure geometry.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a solid implementation-oriented paper. The core GCRS↔BCRS transformations are standard IAU material, and the authors say so themselves. What is actually new is the screened operational set — Eqs. (36), (42), (51) with conservative remainder bounds — plus the GipsyX frame-closure test at the few-mm level and the concrete lunar time constants and LCRS transformation formulas. The paper is honest about its scope: the closure test demonstrates internal consistency of the implemented dynamical model and transformations, not end-to-end positioning accuracy. That phrasing is in the abstract and in Section III C, which I appreciate.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags: the validation is self-referential. The inverse transformations are sign-inverted versions of the direct forms, and the force models on both sides are deliberately matched. So the few-mm residuals confirm that the code does what the equations say, but they cannot catch a systematic error common to both branches or a mistake in the transformation chain itself. That limits what the results establish. It is still a legitimate regression test for a software implementation — you want to know the round-trip closes at the expected level — but it is not a correctness proof against external measurements. The paper mostly does not oversell this, though the word "validated" in the abstract comes close.

The cislunar part is a real gap. The LCRS definitions, time-scale constants, and transformation formulas are useful, but the NRHO-like regression test is only specified, not executed. No numerical LCRS closure, no constants beyond order-of-magnitude estimates, no thresholds actually exercised. That is fine as a forward-looking appendix, but it means the cislunar claims rest on extrapolation from the MEO closure, which is itself only internal.

Also, no code, data, or regression vectors are shipped. A template table is provided but not filled in. That hurts reproducibility, though the formulas are explicit enough that a motivated group could reimplement them.

Overall, the paper is careful and the derivations are detailed, with explicit truncation bounds and an honest limitation statement. The soft spots are real but proportionate: the central validation is a consistency check, and the cislunar section is a specification. I'd send this to peer review — the operational forms and the lunar time constants are worth scrutiny by people who actually build GNSS and lunar navigation systems. I'd ask the authors to either provide reproducible test vectors or numerically execute the LCRS regression before acceptance, but I wouldn't desk-reject it.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an implementation-oriented relativistic modeling framework for GNSS processing, deriving explicit O(c^-2) transformations for position, velocity, and acceleration between TT-compatible GCRS quantities and TDB-compatible BCRS quantities, with screened operational forms and conservative remainder bounds. It reports a 24 h GCRS→BCRS→GCRS propagation-and-transform closure test in JPL's GipsyX with few-mm residuals, claimed as internal consistency of the dynamical model and state transformations. The paper also defines a Lunicentric Celestial Reference System (LCRS), coordinate time TCL, scaled lunar-surface time TL, and specifies a minimal NRHO-like cislunar regression test, but does not execute it.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful set of analytic state transformations with explicit, conservative truncation bounds that are directly applicable to cm-class GNSS processing and to the design of cislunar navigation infrastructure. The GipsyX implementation and the 24 h round-trip test demonstrate internal self-consistency of the transformation chain and force models, which is a meaningful and nontrivial implementation check. The paper is honest in Section III C that the closure test is not an end-to-end accuracy assessment. The cislunar definitions align with the IAU LCRS/TCL framework and offer a starting point for future validation, but the absence of numerical cislunar results limits the delivered scope.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II E, App. A, Introduction contribution 3] The cislunar extension is specified but not executed: the NRHO-like regression test (Eq. 53, Table IV) is defined, but no numerical BCRS↔LCRS closure results, constants, or thresholds are reported. The title and contribution list claim an "extension to cislunar space," but the delivered content is a specification. Either implement the regression test with the NRHO envelope and report the Δr, Δv statistics, or explicitly state in the title/abstract that cislunar validation is future work.
[Sec. III C, Fig. 1, Abstract] The 24 h closure test is a self-consistency test by construction: the inverse transformations are sign-inverted direct forms and the force models are deliberately matched (Table V). Thus the few-mm residuals cannot detect systematic errors common to both branches or errors in the transformation chain itself. The paper acknowledges this in Sec. III C, but the abstract's "verify it internally" and the conclusion's "enabling high-precision satellite navigation" are stronger than the evidence supports. Recommend rewording to "internally consistent" and adding an explicit statement that absolute accuracy against external standards is not assessed.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The phrase "verify it internally" could be misread as external validation; suggest "test internal consistency" or "demonstrate internal consistency" for clarity.
[Table II] The numerical estimates for the acceleration-dependent terms use the Earth's barycentric acceleration aE, but aE is not listed in Table II. Provide the adopted value or expression so the remainder bounds are reproducible.
[Sec. II E and Eqs. (A25)–(A27)] The recommendation to "retain Eqs. (A25)–(A27) with the same screening thresholds" (Sec. II E) is confusing because the LCRS forms report their own remainder bounds (e.g., 3.34×10^-7 m) that differ from the Earth-MEO bounds. Clarify that the MEO thresholds are conservative upper bounds for the LLO envelope and that NRHO-specific re-screening is required, as noted elsewhere.
[Throughout] Minor typographical errors: title page shows "procesin g"; Sec. II D has "siz e"; "in the analogy to" should be "analogous to." A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transformations are derived from IAU/1PN conventions, the closure test is an honestly labeled internal-consistency check rather than a fitted prediction, and the LCRS extension, though leaning on same-author references, is a specified regression test rather than a claimed validated result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The GCRS/BCRS transformations (1)-(2), (5)-(6), and the screened forms (36), (42), (51) are derived from the IAU 2000/2006 metric conventions and standard 1PN gravity (Refs. [1,5,7]), with no parameter fitted to the closure residuals. The remainder bounds in Table III are analytic estimates of omitted terms computed from the Table II MEO/ground envelopes; they are error budgets, not outputs of the validation. The frame-closure test of Sec. III C compares two independent propagations: a TT-compatible GCRS integration using Eq. (78) and a TDB-compatible BCRS integration using EIH equations (63), with states mapped by the derived transformations. The small residuals are a genuine implementation-consistency result: the test could fail if the BCRS force model, the time-scale handling, or the transformation code were inconsistent. The paper explicitly disclaims external accuracy: 'the resulting closure residuals quantify numerical and modeling consistency of the transformation chain and force models; they are not intended as an assessment of end-to-end user positioning accuracy' (Sec. III C). The fact that inverse transformations are obtained by sign inversion does not by itself force the dynamical closure to be small, because the two branches are integrated with different but theoretically equivalent equations of motion. The LCRS/TL/TCL material in Appendix A follows the same-author Refs. [8,21], but the constants (LL, LH, LM) are evaluated from IAU/lunar parameters (DE440 GM, J2M, RMQ, etc.) and the transformation equations are restated in the paper rather than treated as a black box; no uniqueness theorem or fitted ansatz is imported. The cislunar regression test is explicitly 'specified' (Sec. II E) and not numerically executed, and the paper labels further validation as future work; this is an omitted validation, not a circular reduction. Overall, no claim in the paper reduces by construction to its inputs, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the paper's own target results. The central result rests on the standard IAU BCRS/GCRS metric framework, the accuracy of DE440 states, a matched-force-model assumption in the closure test, and the choice of screening thresholds. The only new named entities are the lunar reference system and time scales, which are coordinate conventions rather than empirical claims.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption BCRS metric in the mass-monopole approximation (Eq. 62) and EIH equations (Eq. 63) are adequate at O(c⁻²) for GNSS and cislunar dynamics.
The entire barycentric dynamics and light-time model are built on this metric and the EIH equations, with asteroid terms and known neglected higher-order terms. The paper states this explicitly in Sec. III A.
domain assumption GCRS metric truncation retaining |δG| ≥ 5×10⁻¹⁸ (Eqs. 68–70) is sufficient; omitted 2PN and tidal metric terms are negligible at cm/ps accuracy.
The GCRS equations of motion and time transformations rely on this truncation, and the paper quotes specific error bounds from omitted terms in Sec. III B 1.
domain assumption Earth and Moon barycentric states (xE, vE, aE and xM, vM) from DE440 ephemeris are accurate enough for the stated remainders.
All numerical transformations and the closure test use DE440 states and the associated TDB-consistent GM values; errors in the ephemeris are not propagated into the transformation error budgets.
ad hoc to paper The force models in GCRS and BCRS integration are matched exactly (same SRP, tides, geopotential, relativity terms).
The closure test in Sec. III C compares two propagations that assume identical force models in both frames. If the force models differed, the residuals would include model mismatch, so the few-mm closure only tests transformation consistency under this matching assumption.
domain assumption IAU defining constants LG, LC, LB and TDB0 are accepted as exact, and lunar constants are derived from published lunar radius, GM, J2, and rotation rate.
Time-scale scalings and lunar constant derivations use these values as inputs rather than fitting them to the claims of the paper.

invented entities (1)

LCRS / TCL / TL
purpose: Provide a Moon-centered relativistic reference frame and time scales (lunar coordinate time and scaled lunar-surface time) for cislunar navigation.
These are conventional coordinate and time-scale definitions introduced in Appendix A, following IAU Resolution II and the authors' own prior work [21]. They are not physical entities with falsifiable predictions outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic framework for high-precision GNSS processing in GCRS/BCRS with extension to cislunar space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ILJBQ75E

@misc{pith2026251112058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic framework for high-precision GNSS processing in GCRS/BCRS with extension to cislunar space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ILJBQ75E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.12058}
}

abstract

We present an implementation-oriented relativistic modeling framework for high-precision {\tt GNSS} processing consistent with the IAU-adopted Barycentric and Geocentric Celestial Reference Systems (BCRS/GCRS) and their associated time scales (TCB/TDB and TCG/TT). We derive explicit ${\cal O}(c^{-2})$ transformations for position, velocity, and acceleration between TT-compatible GCRS quantities and TDB-compatible BCRS quantities, and provide screened operational forms with conservative remainder bounds that quantify state-map truncation errors for cm-class orbit modeling. For $10^{-16}$-class fractional-frequency transfer, the ${\cal O}(c^{-4})$ clock-rate terms identified below must be retained or explicitly included in the observable error budget. We implement a BCRS-native processing option in JPL's GipsyX and verify it internally via a 24~h round-trip GCRS$\rightarrow$BCRS$\rightarrow$GCRS propagation-and-transform closure test at the few-mm level, demonstrating consistency of the implemented dynamical model and state transformations under matched force-model assumptions. To support emerging Earth--Moon applications, we define a Lunicentric Celestial Reference System (LCRS), its coordinate time (TCL), and a scaled lunar-surface time (TL), and specify a minimal near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO)-like regression test that exercises the BCRS$\leftrightarrow$LCRS transformation chain together with the 1PN barycentric light-time model. End-to-end cislunar navigation performance additionally depends on signal availability and estimation strategy; the present work provides the relativistic reference-frame and time-transfer infrastructure needed to model observables at the centimeter and tens-of-picoseconds level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.12058 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

[1]

Direct transformations: TDB → proper time Considering GNSS applications in cislunar environment we may use a truncated version o f the metric tensor of the BCRS (see details in [ 21]). Then, to suﬃcient accuracy, the transformation between the proper time of an observer τ and the coordinate time in the BCRS, TCB, is given as below: dτ dTCB = 1 − 1 c2 { 1 ...
[2]

As such, these terms are too small to account for GNSS applications in cislunar space, thus, they may be neglected

Inverse transformations: proper time → TDB Similarly to ( 54), we determine the inverse transformation from the proper time t o the TCB: dTCB dτ = 1 + 1 c2 { 1 2 v2 0 + ∑ B GMB rB0 ( 1 − JB2 ( RB rB0 ) 2 P20(cos θB) )} τ + O ( 1.37 × 10−16 ) , (57) where then error bound came from the omitted contribution of the c−4-terms in the inverse transformation tha...
[3]

Light time equation To determine the orbits of planets and spacecraft, one must also a ccount for the propagation of EM signals between any two points in space. The corresponding light-time equation is der ived from the metric tensor in ( 62) as follows: t2 − t1 = r12 c + (1 + γ) ∑ B GMB c3 ln [ rB 1 + rB 2 + r12 rB 1 + rB 2 − r12 ] + O(c−5), (64) 15 wher...
[4]

The gravitational constant for body j, denoted as µj, is deﬁned as µj = Gmj, where G is the universal Newtonian gravitational constant, and mj is the isolated rest mass of body j

BCRS metric in the mass monopole approximation For many applications, it suﬃces to consider only the mass monopoles of all solar system bodies, retaining solely the masses which represents the mass monopole approximation of t he BCRS metric, for a system of N point-like gravitational sources in four dimensions is outlined in [ 1]: g00 = 1 − 2 c2 ∑ j̸=i µj...
[5]

These equations form the basis of mod ern solar system ephemerides

Equations of motion in BCRS: point-mass approximation The barycentric metric given by ( 62) may be used to derive the post-Newtonian EIH equations of motion for a system of mass monopoles. These equations form the basis of mod ern solar system ephemerides. The relevant point-mass Newtonian and relativistic perturbative accelerations in the TDB-compatible ...
[6]

S. M. Kopeikin, M. Efroimsky, and G. Kaplan, Relativistic Celestial Mechanics of the Solar System (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2011)

2011
[7]

For GNSS applications the relevant observable is the one-way downlin k

Frequency transfer observable at O(c−3) For one-way transfer from emitter A to receiver B, νA νB = (u0)A (u0)B qA qB + O(c−4), (67) where the ratio qA/qB follows from diﬀerentiating the light-time equation ( 64) with respect to emission time, retaining terms through O(c−3) [ 10, 41]. For GNSS applications the relevant observable is the one-way downlin k. ...
[8]

GCRS: Practically-relevant formulation In practical GCRS implementations, one includes all post-Newtonian terms up to O(c−4) in G00, O(c−3) in G0α, and O(c−2) in Gαβ, but discards any metric perturbations smaller than 5 × 10−18. Accordingly, the metric tensor of 16 GCRS (see [ 8, 21]) retaining only |δGmn| ≳ 5 × 10−18, suﬃcient for high-precision time-kee...

Show all 86 references

[9]

Note that all qua ntities (positions, accelerations, distances, mass parameters) in ( 73) are TT-compatible

Equations of motion in the GCRS The trajectory of an Earth satellite in GCRS is governed by the following equation of motion [ 1, 13, 32, 40, 43]: ¨r = ¨rE + ¨rEJ2 + ¨rtidal + ¨rGR + ¨rSRP + ¨rEelast + ¨rErad + ¨rcustom, (73) where ¨rE is the Newtonian acceleration due to the ...
[10]

Detailed derivations of the GCRS formulation can be found in [ 7, 10, 11, 50]

Transforming equations of motion from GCRS to BCRS The metric tensor ( 68)–(70) along with the gravitational potentials ( 71)–(72) describes spacetime in the GCRS, which we adopt to formulate the relativistic model for timing and frequenc y observables. Detailed derivations of...
[11]

These distortions complicate the accurate computation of accele rations arising from these harmonics within the barycentric system

Considering the gravitational harmonics of the Earth The Earth’s motion around the Sun induces relativistic distortions in t he gravitational spherical harmonics when observed in the BCRS. These distortions complicate the accurate computation of accele rations arising from the...

2010
[12]

GipsyX integrates real-time and post-processing capabilities and is continuously updated to mee t the evolving demands of space geodesy

[position], ( 42) [velocity], ( 51) [acceleration] positioning for various platforms, including low-Earth orbiters and t errestrial stations. GipsyX integrates real-time and post-processing capabilities and is continuously updated to mee t the evolving demands of space geodesy...
[13]

Integrated a GPS orbit within the GCRS to establish a baseline for comparison
[14]

Transformed the orbital state from the GCRS to the BCRS, while maintaining high accuracy in the transformation process
[15]

Re-integrated the GPS orbit in the BCRS, starting from the initial condition transformed from the GCRS
[16]

This testing procedure ensures that the implemented models and tr ansformations meet the requirements for millimeter- level consistency in GNSS-enabled spacecraft navigation

Compared the integrated orbit in the BCRS (from Step 3) with the transformed orbit in the GCRS (from Step 2) to assess the precision and accuracy of the transformations. This testing procedure ensures that the implemented models and tr ansformations meet the requirements for m...

2025
[17]

Lunar GNSS Pathﬁnder Missions: Integrate a compact GNSS receiver and atomic clock payload (e.g. NASA’s Deep Space Atomic Clock DSAC–II or JPL’s Next-Gen On-Orbit Naviga tor) aboard a Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) lander or Lunar Gateway module to measur e real-time ...
[18]

This will exercise the LCRS transformations under large Sun–Moon gravitational gradients a nd characterize residual frame-bias errors below 1 cm

Lunar Relay Satellite Demonstrations: Deploy a smallsat in a halo orbit about the Earth–Moon L2 point, equipped with dual-frequency GNSS antennas synchronized to a space-qualiﬁed hydrogen maser. This will exercise the LCRS transformations under large Sun–Moon gravitational gra...
[19]

Clock-Experiment Campaigns: Perform precision time-transfer tests between DSAC-class clock s on Earth- orbiting GNSS platforms and LCRS-referenced clocks on lunar orbiters, quantifying relativistic scale factors and assessing long-term stability at the 10 −17 level using exten...
[20]

T. D. Moyer, Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space N etwork Data Types for Navigation , JPL Deep-Space Communications and Navigation Series (John Wil ey & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2003)

2003
[21]

Montenbruck and E

O. Montenbruck and E. Gill, Satellite Orbits. Models, Methods, and Applications. (3-r d ed.) (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005)

2005
[22]

M. H. Soﬀel and W.-B. Han, Applied General Relativity: Theory and Applications in Ast ronomy, Celestial Mechanics and Metrology (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2019)

2019
[23]

R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, and D. H. Boggs, T he JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE440 and DE441, Astron. J. 161, 105 (2021)

2021
[24]

IERS Conventions (2010)

G. Petit and B. Luzum (eds.), IERS Technical Note #36 (“IERS Conventions (2010)”, Frankfurt am Main: Verlag des Bundesamts fur Kartographie und Geodasie, 2010. 179 pp., IS BN 3-89888-989-6”, 2010)

2010
[25]

J. G. Williams and D. H. Boggs, The JPL Lunar Laser Range M odel (2015), JPL Interoﬃce Memorandum, IOM 335- JGW,DHB-20150701-32

2015
[26]

Soﬀel, S

M. Soﬀel, S. A. Klioner, G. Petit, P. Wolf, S. M. Kopeikin, P. Bretagnon, V. A. Brumberg, N. Capitaine, T. Damour, T. Fukushima, B. Guinot, T.-Y. Huang, L. Lindegren, C. Ma, K. Nordtvedt, J. C. Ries, P. K. Seidelmann, D. Vokrouhlick´ y, C. M. Will, and C. Xu, The IAU 2000 Reso...

2000
[27]

S. G. Turyshev, J. G. Williams, D. H. Boggs, and R. S. Park, Relativistic Time Transformations between the Solar Syste m Barycenter, Earth, and Moon, ApJ 985, 140 (2025) , arXiv:2406.16147 [astro-ph.EP]

2025 arXiv
[28]

G. H. Kaplan, The IAU resolutions on astronomical refere nce systems, time scales, and earth rotation models: explan ation and implementation, U.S. Naval Observatory Circulars 179 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0602086

2005 arXiv
[29]

S. G. Turyshev, V. T. Toth, and M. V. Sazhin, General rela tivistic observables of the GRAIL mission, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024020 (2013) , arXiv:1212.0232 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[30]

S. G. Turyshev, M. V. Sazhin, and V. T. Toth, General rela tivistic laser interferometric observables of the GRACE-F ollow- On mission, Phys. Rev. D 89, 105029 (2014) , arXiv:1402.7111 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[31]

So´ snica, G

K. So´ snica, G. Bury, R. Zajdel, K. Kazmierski, J. Ventu ra-Traveset, R. Prieto-Cerdeira, and L. Mendes, General re lativistic eﬀects acting on the orbits of Galileo satellites, CMDA 133, 14 (2021)

2021
[32]

S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, Spherical harmonics repre sentation of the gravitational phase shift, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104031 (2023) , arXiv:2303.07270 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[33]

So´ snica and F

K. So´ snica and F. Gayn, Orbital relativistic correcti on resulting from the Earth’s oblateness term, J. Geod. 99, 52 (2025)

2025
[34]

J. F. Zumberge, M. B. Heﬂin, D. C. Jeﬀerson, M. M. Watkins , and F. H. Webb, Precise point positioning for the eﬃcient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks, JGR: Solid Earth 102, 5005 (1997)

1997
[35]

Kouba and P

J. Kouba and P. H´ eroux, Precise point positioning usin g IGS orbit and clock products, GPS Solutions 5, 12 (2001)

2001
[36]

In this regression test we adopt the same trunca tion budgets as for the Earth MEO screening (Table III) to bound the error introduced solely by the screened state tran sformations

and ( 42), respectively. In this regression test we adopt the same trunca tion budgets as for the Earth MEO screening (Table III) to bound the error introduced solely by the screened state tran sformations. This ensures that 12 TABLE IV. Conﬁguration for the cislunar check in ...
[37]

P. J. G. Teunissen and O. Montenbruck, eds., Springer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (Springer, 2017)

2017
[38]

B. D. Tapley, B. E. Schutz, and G. H. Born, Statistical Orbit Determination (Elsevier Academic Press, 2004)

2004
[39]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1973)

1973
[40]

Bertiger, Y

W. Bertiger, Y. Bar-Sever, A. Dorsey, B. Haines, N. Harv ey, D. Hemberger, M. Heﬂin, W. Lu, M. Miller, A. W. Moore, D. Murphy, P. Ries, L. Romans, A. Sibois, A. Sibthorpe, B. Szi lagyi, M. Vallisneri, and P. Willis, GipsyX/RTGx, a new tool set for space geodetic operations and...

2020
[41]

S. G. Turyshev, High-Precision Relativistic Time Scales for Cislunar Navi gation (2025), arXiv:2507.22145 [gr-qc]

2025
[42]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (in Russian), 7th ed. (Nauka, Moscow, 1988)

1988
[43]

R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, A. S. Konopliv, J. G. Williams, D. E. Smith, and M. T. Zuber, Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER Spacecraft, ApJ 153, 121 (2017)

2017
[44]

Mecheri and M

R. Mecheri and M. Meftah, Updated values of solar gravit ational moments j2n using hmi helioseismic inference of internal rotation, MNRAS 506, 2671 (2021) . 23

2021
[45]

B. Guinot, R´ esolution A4 (1991), Union Astronomique I nternationale, sur les syst` emes de r` eferenc´ e: echellesde temps., in Journ´ ees 1992: Syst´ emes de r´ ef´ erence spatio-temporels (1992) pp. 12–21

1991
[46]

Groten, Fundamental Parameters and Current (2004) B est Estimates of the Parameters of Common Relevance to Astronomy, Geodesy, and Geodynamics by Erwin Groten, IPGD, Darmstadt, J

E. Groten, Fundamental Parameters and Current (2004) B est Estimates of the Parameters of Common Relevance to Astronomy, Geodesy, and Geodynamics by Erwin Groten, IPGD, Darmstadt, J. of Geodesy 77, 724 (2004)

2004
[47]

V. A. Brumberg and E. Groten, IAU resolutions on referen ce systems and time scales in practice, Astron. Astrophys. 367, 1070 (2001)

2001
[48]

42, Proc

IAU, Resolution b.3 (Cambridge University Press, New Y ork, 2009) p. 42, Proc. of the 26th General Assembly (Prague, Czech Republic, 2006)

2009
[49]

E. M. Standish, JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides, DE405/LE405 , Interoﬃce Memorandum JPL IOM 312.F-98-048 (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Techn ology, 1998)

1998
[50]

Fairhead and P

L. Fairhead and P. Bretagnon, An analytical formula for the time transformation TB-TT., Astron. Astrophys. 229, 240 (1990)

1990
[51]

Huang, J

C. Huang, J. C. Ries, B. D. Tapley, and M. M. Watkins, Rela tivistic Eﬀects for Near Earth Satellite Orbit Determinati on, CMDA 48, 167 (1990)

1990
[52]

W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, D. H. Boggs, R. S. Park, and P. Kuchynka, The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431 , The Interplanetary Network Progress Report 42-196 (Jet Pr opulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 2014)

2014
[53]

Del´ epaut, P

A. Del´ epaut, P. Giordano, J. Ventura-Traveset, D. Blonski, M. Sch¨ onfeldt, P. Schoonejans, S. Aziz, and R. Walker , Use of GNSS for lunar missions and plans for lunar in-orbit develop ment, Adv. Space Res. 66, 2739 (2020)

2020
[54]

United Nations Oﬃce for Outer Space Aﬀairs, The Interoperable Global Navigation Satellite Systems Spa ce Service Volume, Tech. Rep. ST/SPACE/75 (United Nations, 2018) date of issue : 2018-10-30

2018
[55]

C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993)

1993
[56]

Kopeikin and I

S. Kopeikin and I. Vlasov, Parametrized post-Newtonia n theory of reference frames, multipolar expansions and equ ations of motion in the N-body problem, Phys. Rep. 400, 209 (2004)

2004
[57]

E. M. Standish and J. G. Williams, Orbital ephemerides o f the sun, moon, and planets, in Explanatory Supplement to the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac , edited by P. K. Seidelmann (Mill Valley: University Scienc e Books, 2008) Chap. 8

2008
[58]

A. Hees, S. Bertone, and C. Le Poncin-Laﬁtte, Relativis tic formulation of coordinate light time, Doppler, and astr ometric observables up to the second post-Minkowskian order, Phys. Rev D 89, 064045 (2014)

2014
[59]

Ashby, Relativity in the Global Positioning System, LRR 6, 1 (2003)

N. Ashby, Relativity in the Global Positioning System, LRR 6, 1 (2003)

2003
[60]

Blanchet, C

L. Blanchet, C. Salomon, P. Teyssandier, and P. Wolf, Re lativistic theory for time and frequency transfer to order c −3, Astron. Astrophys. 370, 320 (2001)

2001
[61]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions: with Formulas, Graphs , and Mathematical Tables. (Dover Publications, New York; revised edition, 1965)

1965
[62]

Godard, F

B. Godard, F. Budnik, T. Morley, and L. A. Lopez, Relativistic acceleration of planetary orbiters (2012), Proc. 23rd Intern. Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Pasadena, California, Oct. 29 - Nov. 2, 2012

2012
[63]

V. A. Brumberg and S. M. Kopeikin, Relativistic referen ce systems and motion of test bodies in the vicinity of the Ear th., Nuovo Cimento, B Serie 103, 63 (1989)

1989
[64]

K. Schwarzschild, ¨Uber das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Ein steinschen Theorie, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften , 189 (1916)

1916
[65]

Schwarzschild, On the gravitational ﬁeld of a mass po int according to Einstein’s theory, GRG 35, 951 (2003)

K. Schwarzschild, On the gravitational ﬁeld of a mass po int according to Einstein’s theory, GRG 35, 951 (2003)

2003
[66]

Lense and H

J. Lense and H. Thirring, On the inﬂuence of the proper ro tation of a central body on the motion of the planets and the moon, according to Einstein’s theory of gravitation, Zeit. Phys. 19, 156 (1918)

1918
[67]

de Sitter, Einstein’s theory of gravitation and its a stronomical consequences

W. de Sitter, Einstein’s theory of gravitation and its a stronomical consequences. Third paper, MNRAS 78, 3 (1917)

1917
[68]

Damour, M

T. Damour, M. Soﬀel, and C. Xu, General-relativistic ce lestial mechanics. I. Method and deﬁnition of reference sys tems, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3273 (1991)

1991
[69]

S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, New perturbative method fo r solving the gravitational N-body problem in the general theory of relativity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1550039-141 (2015) , arXiv:1304.8122 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[70]

M. H. Soﬀel, Relativity in Astrometry, Celestial Mechanics and Geodesy (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1989)

1989
[71]

Bar-Sever, E

Y. Bar-Sever, E. Burt, K.-M. Cheung, T. Ely, J. Hamkins, S. Lichten, M. Sanchez Net, D. Ogbe, R. Tjoelker, Z. Towﬁc, and N. Yu, Architectures and Technology Investmen t Priorities for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing at the Moon and Mars (2024), The Interplanetary Network P...

2024
[72]

D. J. Israel, K. D. Mauldin, C. J. Roberts, J. W. Mitchell , A. A. Pulkkinen, L. V. D. Cooper, M. A. Johnson, S. D. Christe , and C. J. Gramling, LunaNet: a ﬂexible and extensible lunar e xploration communications and navigation infrastructure , in Proc. IEEE Aerospace Confere...

2020
[73]

J. J. K. Parker, F. Dovis, B. Anderson, L. Ansalone, B. As hman, F. H. Bauer, G. D’Amore, C. Facchinetti, S. Fantinato, G. Impresario, S. A. McKim, E. Miotti, J. J. Miller, M. Musmec i, O. Pozzobon, L. Schlenker, A. Tuozzi, and L. Valencia, The Lunar GNSS Receiver Experiment (...

2022
[74]

R. B. Roncoli, Lunar Constants and Models Document (2005), Lunar Constants and Models Document. JPL Technical Document D-32296

2005
[75]

International Astronomical Union, Resolution II: to establish a standard lunar celestial refe rence system (LCRS) and lunar coordinate time (TCL) , IAU XXXII General Assembly (Cape Town), Resolution docume nt dated 15 April 2024 (2024)

2024
[76]

B. A. Archinal, C. H. Acton, M. F. A’Hearn, et al. , Report of the IAU Working Group on Cartographic Coordinate s and Rotational Elements: 2015, CMDA 130, 22 (2018)

2015
[77]

D. E. Smith, M. T. Zuber, G. A. Neumann, E. Mazarico, F. G. Lemoine, I. Head, James W., P. G. Lucey, O. Aharonson, M. S. Robinson, X. Sun, M. H. Torrence, M. K. Barker, J. Oberst , T. C. Duxbury, D. Mao, O. S. Barnouin, K. Jha, D. D. Rowlands, S. Goossens, D. Baker, S. Bauer, ...

2017
[78]

J. G. Williams, A. S. Konopliv, D. H. Boggs, R. S. Park, D. -N. Yuan, F. G. Lemoine, S. Goossens, E. Mazarico, F. Nimmo, R. C. Weber, S. W. Asmar, H. J. Melosh, G. A. Neumann, R. J. Phil lips, D. E. Smith, S. C. Solomon, M. M. Watkins, M. A. Wieczorek, J. C. Andrews-Hanna, J. ...

2014
[79]

A. S. Konopliv, R. S. Park, D.-N. Yuan, S. W. Asmar, M. M. W atkins, J. G. Williams, E. Fahnestock, G. Kruizinga, M. Paik, D. Strekalov, N. Harvey, D. E. Smith, and M. T. Zuber, The JPL lunar gravity ﬁeld to spherical harmonic degree 660 from the GRAIL Primary Mission, JGR: Pl...

2013
[80]

Lu, T.-N

X. Lu, T.-N. Yang, and Y. Xie, Lunar time ephemeris LTE44 0: Deﬁnitions, algorithm, and performance, Astron. Astrophys. 704, A76 (2025)

2025
[81]

Martinec and K

Z. Martinec and K. Pec, A Determination of the Parameter s of the Level Surface of Lunar Gravity, Earth, Moon, and Planets 43, 21 (1988) . Appendix A: Coordinate Transformation for the Moon System

1988
[82]

In this work, we follow that framework and the detailed developmen t in [ 21] to provide implementation-ready coordinate and time transformations betwe en the BCRS and the LCRS

Introducing the LCRS The International Astronomical Union has adopted a standard Lu nar Celestial Reference System ( LCRS) and Lunar Coordinate Time ( TCL) [ 56]. In this work, we follow that framework and the detailed developmen t in [ 21] to provide implementation-ready coor...
[83]

Transformation between TL and TDB Analogous to ( 7), the time transformation from Lunar Time ( TL) at the Moon’s surface to Luni-centric Coordinate Time ( TCL) involves a change in the rate of time (see nomenclature discussion in [8]) dTCL dTL = 1 1 − LL = 1 + LL 1 − LL or dTL...
[84]

Relationships between TL and TT Using expression ( 12) together with ( A13) and considering the Moon-related terms, it is instructive to expre ss the BCRS position vector between a body B and the Moon as rBM = rBE +rEM, where rBE = xE −xB is the position vector from the body B...
[85]

The goal is to express the relationship between X TCL and rMTCB in terms of the TL and TDB timescales

Position transformations To develop the position transformation for the Moon, we deﬁne X TCL as the position vector of a site on the lunar surface in the LCRS and rM as the corresponding vector observed from the BCRS (denoted rMTCB). The goal is to express the relationship bet...
[86]

Using the same approach as in Sec

Expressions to transform position, velocity and acceler ation Based on the analysis above and considering realistic measurement u ncertainties, we use the magnitudes of the terms for a low-lunar-orbit (LLO) orbiter as the basis of our recommenda tion. Using the same approach a...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Direct transformations: TDB → proper time Considering GNSS applications in cislunar environment we may use a truncated version o f the metric tensor of the BCRS (see details in [ 21]). Then, to suﬃcient accuracy, the transformation between the proper time of an observer τ and the coordinate time in the BCRS, TCB, is given as below: dτ dTCB = 1 − 1 c2 { 1 ...

[2] [2]

As such, these terms are too small to account for GNSS applications in cislunar space, thus, they may be neglected

Inverse transformations: proper time → TDB Similarly to ( 54), we determine the inverse transformation from the proper time t o the TCB: dTCB dτ = 1 + 1 c2 { 1 2 v2 0 + ∑ B GMB rB0 ( 1 − JB2 ( RB rB0 ) 2 P20(cos θB) )} τ + O ( 1.37 × 10−16 ) , (57) where then error bound came from the omitted contribution of the c−4-terms in the inverse transformation tha...

[3] [3]

Light time equation To determine the orbits of planets and spacecraft, one must also a ccount for the propagation of EM signals between any two points in space. The corresponding light-time equation is der ived from the metric tensor in ( 62) as follows: t2 − t1 = r12 c + (1 + γ) ∑ B GMB c3 ln [ rB 1 + rB 2 + r12 rB 1 + rB 2 − r12 ] + O(c−5), (64) 15 wher...

[4] [4]

The gravitational constant for body j, denoted as µj, is deﬁned as µj = Gmj, where G is the universal Newtonian gravitational constant, and mj is the isolated rest mass of body j

BCRS metric in the mass monopole approximation For many applications, it suﬃces to consider only the mass monopoles of all solar system bodies, retaining solely the masses which represents the mass monopole approximation of t he BCRS metric, for a system of N point-like gravitational sources in four dimensions is outlined in [ 1]: g00 = 1 − 2 c2 ∑ j̸=i µj...

[5] [5]

These equations form the basis of mod ern solar system ephemerides

Equations of motion in BCRS: point-mass approximation The barycentric metric given by ( 62) may be used to derive the post-Newtonian EIH equations of motion for a system of mass monopoles. These equations form the basis of mod ern solar system ephemerides. The relevant point-mass Newtonian and relativistic perturbative accelerations in the TDB-compatible ...

[6] [6]

S. M. Kopeikin, M. Efroimsky, and G. Kaplan, Relativistic Celestial Mechanics of the Solar System (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2011)

2011

[7] [7]

For GNSS applications the relevant observable is the one-way downlin k

Frequency transfer observable at O(c−3) For one-way transfer from emitter A to receiver B, νA νB = (u0)A (u0)B qA qB + O(c−4), (67) where the ratio qA/qB follows from diﬀerentiating the light-time equation ( 64) with respect to emission time, retaining terms through O(c−3) [ 10, 41]. For GNSS applications the relevant observable is the one-way downlin k. ...

[8] [8]

GCRS: Practically-relevant formulation In practical GCRS implementations, one includes all post-Newtonian terms up to O(c−4) in G00, O(c−3) in G0α, and O(c−2) in Gαβ, but discards any metric perturbations smaller than 5 × 10−18. Accordingly, the metric tensor of 16 GCRS (see [ 8, 21]) retaining only |δGmn| ≳ 5 × 10−18, suﬃcient for high-precision time-kee...