Pioneer anomaly

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect was the observed deviation from predicted accelerations of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft after they passed about 20 astronomical units (3×109 km; 2×109 mi) on their trajectories out of the Solar System. The apparent anomaly was a matter of tremendous interest for many years, but has been subsequently explained by an anisotropic radiation pressure caused by the spacecraft's heat loss.

Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small acceleration towards the Sun, of (8.74±1.33)×10−10 m/s2, which is equivalent to a reduction of the outbound velocity by 1 kilometre per hour (0.6 mph), over a period of ten years. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.

Various explanations, both of spacecraft behavior and of gravitation itself, were proposed to explain the anomaly. Over the period 1998–2012, one particular explanation became accepted. The spacecraft, which are surrounded by an ultra-high vacuum and are each powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), can shed heat only via thermal radiation. If, due to the design of the spacecraft, more heat is emitted in a particular direction—what is known as a radiative anisotropy—then the spacecraft would accelerate slightly in the direction opposite of the excess emitted radiation due to radiation pressure. Because this force is due to the recoil of thermal photons, it is also called the thermal recoil force. If the excess radiation and attendant radiation pressure were pointed in a general direction opposite the Sun, the spacecraft's velocity away from the Sun would be decelerating at a greater rate than could be explained by previously recognized forces, such as gravity and trace friction, due to the interplanetary medium (imperfect vacuum).

By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this explains the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."[4]


Pioneer 10 and 11 were sent on missions to Jupiter and Jupiter/Saturn respectively. Both spacecraft were spin-stabilised in order to keep their high-gain antennas pointed towards Earth using gyroscopic forces. Although the spacecraft included thrusters, after the planetary encounters they were used only for semiannual conical scanning maneuvers to track Earth in its orbit,[5] leaving them on a long "cruise" phase through the outer Solar System. During this period, both spacecraft were repeatedly contacted to obtain various measurements on their physical environment, providing valuable information long after their initial missions were complete.

Because the spacecraft were flying with almost no additional stabilization thrusts during their "cruise", it is possible to characterize the density of the solar medium by its effect on the spacecraft's motion. In the outer Solar System this effect would be easily calculable, based on ground-based measurements of the deep space environment. When these effects were taken into account, along with all other known effects, the calculated position of the Pioneers did not agree with measurements based on timing the return of the radio signals being sent back from the spacecraft. These consistently showed that both spacecraft were closer to the inner Solar System than they should be, by thousands of kilometres—small compared to their distance from the Sun, but still statistically significant. This apparent discrepancy grew over time as the measurements were repeated, suggesting that whatever was causing the anomaly was still acting on the spacecraft.

As the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected. Measurements of the spacecraft's speed using the Doppler effect demonstrated the same thing: the observed redshift was less than expected, which meant that the Pioneers had slowed down more than expected.

When all known forces acting on the spacecraft were taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remained. It appeared to cause an approximately constant sunward acceleration of (8.74±1.33)×10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft. If the positions of the spacecraft were predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they were actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year. This anomaly is now believed to be accounted for by thermal recoil forces.

Explanation: thermal recoil force

Starting in 1998, there were suggestions that the thermal recoil force was under-estimated,[6][7] and perhaps could account for the entire anomaly.[8] However, accurately accounting for thermal forces was hard, because it needed telemetry records of the spacecraft temperatures and a detailed thermal model, neither of which was available at the time. Furthermore, all thermal models predicted a decrease in the effect with time, which did not appear in the initial analysis.

One by one these objections were addressed. Many of the old telemetry records were found, and converted to modern formats.[9] This gave power consumption figures and some temperatures for parts of the spacecraft. Several groups built detailed thermal models,[3][10][11] which could be checked against the known temperatures and powers, and allowed a quantitative calculation of the recoil force. The longer span of navigational records showed the acceleration was in fact decreasing.[12]

In July 2012, Slava Turyshev et al. published a paper in Physical Review Letters that explained the anomaly (abstract) (emphasis added):

We investigate the possibility that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft is due to the recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal radiation off the vehicles. To this end, relying on the project and spacecraft design documentation, we constructed a comprehensive finite-element thermal model of the two spacecraft. Then, we numerically solve thermal conduction and radiation equations using the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions. We use the results of this model to evaluate the effect of the thermal recoil force on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft at various heliocentric distances. We found that the magnitude, temporal behavior, and direction of the resulting thermal acceleration are all similar to the properties of the observed anomaly. As a novel element of our investigation, we develop a parameterized model for the thermal recoil force and estimate the coefficients of this model independently from navigational Doppler data. We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.[4]

Although the above reference has the most detailed analysis to date, the explanation based on thermal recoil force has the support of other independent research groups, using a variety of computational techniques. Examples include "thermal recoil pressure is not the cause of the Rosetta flyby anomaly but likely resolves the anomalous acceleration observed for Pioneer 10."[3] and "It is shown that the whole anomalous acceleration can be explained by thermal effects".[13]

Indications from other missions

The Pioneers were uniquely suited to discover the effect because they have been flying for long periods of time without additional course corrections. Most deep-space probes launched after the Pioneers either stopped at one of the planets, or used thrusting throughout their mission.

The Voyagers flew a mission profile similar to the Pioneers, but were not spin stabilized. Instead, they required frequent firings of their thrusters for attitude control to stay aligned with Earth. Spacecraft like the Voyagers acquire small and unpredictable changes in speed as a side effect of the frequent attitude control firings. This 'noise' makes it impractical to measure small accelerations such as the Pioneer effect; accelerations as large as 10−9 m/s2 would be undetectable.[14]

Newer spacecraft have used spin stabilization for some or all of their mission, including both Galileo and Ulysses. These spacecraft indicate a similar effect, although for various reasons (such as their relative proximity to the Sun) firm conclusions cannot be drawn from these sources. The Cassini mission has reaction wheels as well as thrusters for attitude control, and during cruise could rely for long periods on the reaction wheels alone, thus enabling precision measurements. It also had radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) mounted close to the spacecraft body, radiating kilowatts of heat in hard-to-predict directions.[15]

After Cassini arrived at Saturn, it shed a large fraction of its mass from the fuel used in the insertion burn and the release of the Huygens probe. This increases the acceleration caused by the radiation forces because they are acting on less mass. This change in acceleration allows the radiation forces to be measured independently of any gravitational acceleration.[16] Comparing cruise and Saturn-orbit results shows that for Cassini, almost all the unmodelled acceleration was due to radiation forces, with only a small residual acceleration, much smaller than the Pioneer acceleration, and with opposite sign.[17]

Potential issues with the thermal solution

There are two features of the anomaly, as originally reported, that are not addressed by the thermal solution: periodic variations in the anomaly, and the onset of the anomaly near the orbit of Saturn.

First, the anomaly has an apparent annual periodicity and an apparent Earth sidereal daily periodicity with amplitudes that are formally greater than the error budget.[18] However, the same paper also states this problem is most likely not related to the anomaly: "The annual and diurnal terms are very likely different manifestations of the same modeling problem. [...] Such a modeling problem arises when there are errors in any of the parameters of the spacecraft orientation with respect to the chosen reference frame."

Second, the value of the anomaly measured over a period during and after the Pioneer 11 Saturn encounter had a relatively high uncertainty and a significantly lower value.[18][19] The Turyshev, et al. 2012 paper compared the thermal analysis to the Pioneer 10 only. The Pioneer anomaly was unnoticed until after Pioneer 10 passed its Saturn encounter. However, the most recent analysis states: "Figure 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported "onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of mis-modeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data".[4]

Previously proposed explanations

Before the thermal recoil explanation became accepted, other proposed explanations fell into two classes — "mundane causes" or "new physics". Mundane causes include conventional effects that were overlooked or mis-modeled in the initial analysis, such as measurement error, thrust from gas leakage, or uneven heat radiation. The "new physics" explanations proposed revision of our understanding of gravitational physics.

If the Pioneer anomaly had been a gravitational effect due to some long-range modifications of the known laws of gravity, it did not affect the orbital motions of the major natural bodies in the same way (in particular those moving in the regions in which the Pioneer anomaly manifested itself in its presently known form). Hence a gravitational explanation would need to violate the equivalence principle, which states that all objects are affected the same way by gravity. It was therefore argued[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] that increasingly accurate measurements and modelling of the motions of the outer planets and their satellites undermined the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly is a phenomenon of gravitational origin. However, others believed that our knowledge of the motions of the outer planets and dwarf planet Pluto was still insufficient to disprove the gravitational nature of the Pioneer anomaly.[30] The same authors ruled out the existence of a gravitational Pioneer-type extra-acceleration in the outskirts of the Solar System by using a sample of Trans-Neptunian objects.[31][32]

The magnitude of the Pioneer effect a_p ((8.74±1.33)×10−10 m/s2) is numerically quite close to the product ((6.59±0.075)×10−10 m/s2) of the speed of light c and the Hubble constant H_0, hinting at a cosmological connection, but this is now believed to be of no particular significance. In fact the latest Jet Propulsion Laboratory review (2010) undertaken by Turyshev and Toth[14] claims to rule out the cosmological connection by considering rather conventional sources whereas other scientists provided a disproof based on the physical implications of cosmological models themselves.[33][34]

Gravitationally bound objects such as the Solar System, or even the Milky Way, are not supposed to partake of the expansion of the universe—this is known both from conventional theory[35] and by direct measurement.[36] This does not necessarily interfere with paths new physics can take with drag effects from planetary secular accelerations of possible cosmological origin.

The deceleration model

It has been viewed as possible that a real deceleration is not accounted for in the current model for several reasons.


It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter. However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below). Likewise, the anomaly does not appear in the orbits of Neptune's moons, challenging the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly may be an unconventional gravitational phenomenon based on range from the Sun.[28]


The cause could be drag from the interplanetary medium, including dust, solar wind and cosmic rays. However, the measured densities are too small to cause the effect.

Gas leaks

Gas leaks, including helium from the spacecraft's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) have been thought as possible cause.[citation needed]

Observational or recording errors

The possibility of observational errors, which include measurement and computational errors, has been advanced as a reason for interpreting the data as an anomaly. Hence, this would result in approximation and statistical errors. However, further analysis has determined that significant errors are not likely because seven independent analyses have shown the existence of the Pioneer anomaly as of March 2010.[37]

The effect is so small that it could be a statistical anomaly caused by differences in the way data were collected over the lifetime of the probes. Numerous changes were made over this period, including changes in the receiving instruments, reception sites, data recording systems and recording formats.[9]

New physics

Because the "Pioneer anomaly" does not show up as an effect on the planets, Anderson et al. speculated that this would be interesting if this was new physics. Later, with the Doppler shifted signal confirmed, the team again speculated that one explanation may lie with new physics, if not some unknown systemic explanation.[38]

Clock acceleration

Clock acceleration is an alternate explanation to anomalous acceleration of the spacecraft towards the Sun. This theory takes notice of an expanding universe, which creates an increasing background 'gravitational potential'. The increased gravitational potential then accelerates cosmological time. It is proposed that this particular effect causes the observed deviation from predicted trajectories and velocities of Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11.[38]

From their data, Anderson's team deduced a steady frequency drift of 1.5 Hz over 8 years. This could be mapped on to a clock acceleration theory, which means all clocks would be changing in relation to a constant acceleration. In other words, that there would be a non-uniformity of time. Moreover, for such a distortion related to time, Anderson's team reviewed several models in which time distortion as a phenomenon is considered. They arrived at the "clock acceleration" model after completion of the review. Although the best model adds a quadratic term to defined International Atomic Time, the team encountered problems with this theory. This then led to non-uniform time in relation to a constant acceleration as the most likely theory.[note 1][38]

Definition of gravity modified

The Modified Newtonian dynamics or MOND hypothesis proposes that the force of gravity deviates from the traditional Newtonian value to a very different force law at very low accelerations on the order of 10−10 m/s2.[39] Given the low accelerations placed on the spacecraft while in the outer Solar System, MOND may be in effect, modifying the normal gravitational equations. The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment combined with data of LAGEOS satellites refutes that simple gravity modification is the cause of the Pioneer anomaly.[40] The precession of the longitudes of perihelia of the solar planets[22] or the trajectories of long-period comets[41] have not been reported to experience an anomalous gravitational field toward the Sun of the magnitude capable of describing the Pioneer anomaly.

Definition of inertia modified

MOND can also be interpreted as a modification of inertia, perhaps due to an interaction with vacuum energy, and such a trajectory-dependent theory could account for the different accelerations apparently acting on the orbiting planets and the Pioneer craft on their escape trajectories.[42] A model of inertia using Unruh radiation and a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, which, unlike MOND, has no adjustable parameters, has been proposed to explain the Pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomaly.[43][44] A possible terrestrial test for evidence of a different model of modified inertia has also been proposed.[45]

Parametric time

Another theoretical explanation is based on a possible non-equivalence of the atomic time and the astronomical time, which can give the same observational fingerprint as the anomaly.[46]

Celestial ephemerides in an expanding universe

A rather straightforward explanation of Pioneer anomaly can be achieved if one takes into account that the background spacetime is described by cosmological Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that is not Minkowski flat.[47] In this model of spacetime manifold, light moves uniformly with respect to the conformal cosmological time whereas physical measurements are performed with the help of atomic clocks that count the proper time of observer coinciding with the cosmic time. The difference between the conformal and cosmic times yields exactly the same numerical value and signature of the anomalous, blue Doppler shift effect that was measured in the Pioneer experiment. A small discrepancy between this theoretical prediction and the measured value of the Pioneer effect is a clear evidence of the presence of the thermal recoil that accounts up only to 10–20 percent of the overall effect. If the origin of the Pioneer effect is cosmological, it gives a direct access to measuring the numerical value of the Hubble constant independently of observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation or supernova explosions in distant galaxies (Supernova Cosmology Project).

Further research avenues

It is possible, but not proven, that this anomaly is linked to the flyby anomaly, which has been observed in other spacecraft.[48] Although the circumstances are very different (planet flyby vs. deep space cruise), the overall effect is similar—a small but unexplained velocity change is observed on top of a much larger conventional gravitational acceleration.

The Pioneer spacecraft are no longer providing new data (the last contact having been on 23 January 2003)[49] and Galileo was deliberately burned up in Jupiter's atmosphere at the end of its mission. So far, attempts to use data from current missions such as Cassini have not yielded any conclusive results. There are several remaining options for further research:

  • Further analysis of the retrieved Pioneer data. This includes not only the data that was first used to detect the anomaly, but additional data that until recently was saved only in older, inaccessible computer formats and media. This data was recovered in 2006, converted to more modern formats, and is now available for analysis.[50]
  • The New Horizons spacecraft to Pluto is spin-stabilised for much of its cruise, and there is a possibility that it can be used to investigate the anomaly. New Horizons may have the same problem that precluded good data from the Cassini mission—its RTG is mounted close to the spacecraft body, so thermal radiation from it, bouncing off the spacecraft, may produce a systematic thrust of a not-easily predicted magnitude, several times as large as the Pioneer effect. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to study the non-gravimetric accelerations on the spacecraft, in the hopes of having them well modeled for the long cruise to Pluto after the Jupiter fly-by that occurred in February 2007. In particular, despite any large systematic bias from the RTG, the 'onset' of the anomaly at or near the orbit of Saturn might be observed.[51]
  • A dedicated mission has also been proposed.[52] Such a mission would probably need to surpass 200 AU from the Sun in a hyperbolic escape orbit.
  • Observations of asteroids around 20 AU may provide insights if the anomaly's cause is gravitational.[31][53]

Meetings and conferences about the anomaly

A meeting was held at the University of Bremen in 2004 to discuss the Pioneer anomaly.[54]

The Pioneer Explorer Collaboration was formed to study the Pioneer Anomaly and has hosted three meetings (2005, 2007, and 2008) at International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland, to discuss the anomaly, and discuss possible means for resolving the source.[55]


  1. non-uniform time in relation to a constant acceleration is a summarized term derived from the source or sources used for this sub-section.


  1. Nieto, M. M.; Turyshev, S. G. (2004). "Finding the Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 21 (17): 4005–4024. arXiv:gr-qc/0308017. Bibcode:2004CQGra..21.4005N. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/17/001.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  2. "Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique". The Physics arXiv Blog. 31 March 2011. Retrieved 2015-05-05.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Rievers, B.; Lämmerzahl, C. (2011). "High precision thermal modeling of complex systems with application to the flyby and Pioneer anomaly". Annalen der Physik. 523 (6): 439. arXiv:1104.3985. Bibcode:2011AnP...523..439R. doi:10.1002/andp.201100081.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Turyshev, S. G.; Toth, V. T.; Kinsella, G.; Lee, S.-C.; Lok, S. M.; Ellis, J. (2012). "Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly". Physical Review Letters. 108 (24): 241101. arXiv:1204.2507. Bibcode:2012PhRvL.108x1101T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101. PMID 23004253.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  5. "Pioneer 10". Weebau Spaceflight Encyclopedia. 9 November 2010. Retrieved 2012-01-11.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. Murphy, E. M. (1999). "A Prosaic explanation for the anomalous accelerations seen in distant spacecraft". Physical Review Letters. 83 (9): 1890. arXiv:gr-qc/9810015. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83.1890M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1890.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  7. Katz, J. I. (1999). "Comment on "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses data, of an apparent anomalous, weak, long-range acceleration"". Physical Review Letters. 83 (9): 1892–1892. arXiv:gr-qc/9809070. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83.1892K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1892.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  8. Scheffer, L. (2003). "Conventional forces can explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10". Physical Review D. 67 (8): 084021. arXiv:gr-qc/0107092. Bibcode:2003PhRvD..67h4021S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.084021.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  9. 9.0 9.1 See pp. 10–15 in Turyshev, S. G; Toth, V. T.; Kellogg, L.; Lau, E.; Lee, K. (2006). "A study of the pioneer anomaly: new data and objectives for new investigation". International Journal of Modern Physics D. 15 (01): 1–55. arXiv:gr-qc/0512121. Bibcode:2006IJMPD..15....1T. doi:10.1142/S0218271806008218.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  10. Bertolami, O.; Francisco, F.; Gil, P. J. S.; Páramos, J. (2008). "Thermal analysis of the Pioneer anomaly: A method to estimate radiative momentum transfer". Physical Review D. 78 (10): 103001. arXiv:0807.0041. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78j3001B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103001.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  11. Toth, V. T.; Turyshev, S. G. (2009). "Thermal recoil force, telemetry, and the Pioneer anomaly". Physical Review D. 79 (4): 043011. arXiv:0901.4597. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..79d3011T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  12. Turyshev, S. G.; Toth, V. T.; Ellis, J.; Markwardt, C. B. (2011). "Support for temporally varying behavior of the Pioneer anomaly from the extended Pioneer 10 and 11 Doppler data sets". Physical Review Letters. 107 (8): 81103. arXiv:1107.2886. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107h1103T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.081103.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  13. Bertolami, O.; Francisco, F.; Gil, P. J. S.; Páramos, J. (2012). "The Contribution of Thermal Effects to the Acceleration of the Deep-Space Pioneer Spacecraft". Physical Review Letters. 107 (8): 081103. arXiv:1107.2886. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107h1103T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.081103.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  14. 14.0 14.1 Turyshev, S. G.; Toth, V. T. (2010). "The Pioneer Anomaly". Living Reviews in Relativity. 13: 4. arXiv:1001.3686. Bibcode:2010LRR....13....4T. doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-4.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  15. Turyshev, S. G.; Nieto, M. M.; Anderson, J. D. (2005). "A Route to Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly". In Chen, P.; Bloom, E.; Madejski, G.; Petrosian, V. (eds.). The XXII Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics. 2004. pp. 13–17. arXiv:gr-qc/0503021. Bibcode:2005tsra.conf..121T. Stanford e-Conf #C04, paper #0310.CS1 maint: display-editors (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>In particular, Appendix C.
  16. Di Benedetto, M.; Iess, L.; Roth, D. C. (2009). "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft" (PDF). Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics. International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  17. Iess, L. (January 2011). "Deep-Space Navigation: a Tool to Investigate the Laws of Gravity" (PDF). Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  18. 18.0 18.1 Anderson, J. D.; et al. (2002). "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11". Physical Review D. 65 (8): 082004. arXiv:gr-qc/0104064. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65h2004A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.082004.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  19. Nieto, M. M.; Anderson, J. D. (2005). "Using early data to illuminate the Pioneer anomaly". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 22: 5343. arXiv:gr-qc/0507052. Bibcode:2005CQGra..22.5343N. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/24/008.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  20. Tangen, K. (2007). "Could the Pioneer anomaly have a gravitational origin?". Physical Review D. 76 (4): 042005. arXiv:gr-qc/0602089. Bibcode:2007PhRvD..76d2005T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.042005.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  21. Iorio, L.; Giudice, G. (2006). "What do the orbital motions of the outer planets of the Solar System tell us about the Pioneer anomaly?". New Astronomy. 11 (8): 600–607. arXiv:gr-qc/0601055. Bibcode:2006NewA...11..600I. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2006.04.001.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  22. 22.0 22.1 Iorio, L. (2007). "Can the Pioneer anomaly be of gravitational origin? A phenomenological answer". Foundations of Physics. 37 (6): 897–918. arXiv:gr-qc/0610050. Bibcode:2007FoPh...37..897I. doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9132-x.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  23. Iorio, L. (2007). "Jupiter, Saturn and the Pioneer anomaly: a planetary-based independent test". Journal of Gravitational Physics. 1 (1): 5–8. arXiv:0712.1273. Bibcode:2007JGrPh...1....5I.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  24. Standish, E. M. (2008). "Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides: testing alternate gravitational theories". AIP Conference Proceedings. 977: 254–263. doi:10.1063/1.2902789.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  25. Iorio, L. (2008). "The Lense–Thirring Effect and the Pioneer Anomaly: Solar System Tests". Proceedings of the Marcel Grossmann Meeting. 11: 2558–2560. arXiv:gr-qc/0608105. doi:10.1142/9789812834300_0458.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  26. Iorio, L. (2009). "Can the Pioneer Anomaly be Induced by Velocity-Dependant Forces? Tests in the Outer Regions of the Solar System with Planetary Dynamics". International Journal of Modern Physics D. 18 (6): 947–958. arXiv:0806.3011. Bibcode:2009IJMPD..18..947I. doi:10.1142/S0218271809014856.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  27. Fienga, A.; et al. (2009). Gravity tests with INPOP planetary ephemerides (PDF). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics. pp. 105–109. Bibcode:2009sf2a.conf..105F.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Also published in Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union. 5: 159–169. 2010. arXiv:0906.3962. Bibcode:2010IAUS..261..159F. doi:10.1017/S1743921309990330.CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  28. 28.0 28.1 Iorio, L. (2010). "Does the Neptunian system of satellites challenge a gravitational origin for the Pioneer anomaly?". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 405 (4): 2615–2622. arXiv:0912.2947. Bibcode:2010MNRAS.405.2615I. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16637.x.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  29. Pitjeva, E. V. (2010). EPM ephemerides and relativity. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union. 5. pp. 170–178. Bibcode:2010IAUS..261..170P. doi:10.1017/S1743921309990342.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  30. Page, G. L.; Wallin, J. F.; Dixon, D. S. (2009). "How Well do We Know the Orbits of the Outer Planets?". The Astrophysical Journal. 697 (2): 1226–1241. arXiv:0905.0030. Bibcode:2009ApJ...697.1226P. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1226.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  31. 31.0 31.1 Page, G. L.; Dixon, D. S.; Wallin, J. F. (2006). "Can Minor Planets Be Used to Assess Gravity in the Outer Solar System?". The Astrophysical Journal. 642 (1): 606–614. arXiv:astro-ph/0504367. Bibcode:2006ApJ...642..606P. doi:10.1086/500796.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  32. Wallin, J. F.; Dixon, D. S.; Page, G. L. (2007). "Testing Gravity in the Outer Solar System: Results from Trans-Neptunian Objects". The Astrophysical Journal. 666 (2): 1296–1302. arXiv:0705.3408. Bibcode:2007ApJ...666.1296W. doi:10.1086/520528.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  33. Mizony, M.; Lachièze-Rey, M. (2005). "Cosmological effects in the local static frame". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 434 (1): 45–52. arXiv:gr-qc/0412084. Bibcode:2005A&A...434...45M. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042195.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  34. Lachièze-Rey, M. (2007). "Cosmology in the solar system: the Pioneer effect is not cosmological". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 24 (10): 2735–2742. arXiv:gr-qc/0701021. Bibcode:2007CQGra..24.2735L. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/10/016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  35. Noerdlinger, P. D.; Petrosian, V. (1971). "The Effect of Cosmological Expansion on Self-Gravitating Ensembles of Particles". Astrophysical Journal. 168: 1. Bibcode:1971ApJ...168....1N. doi:10.1086/151054.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  36. Williams, J. G.; Turyshev, S. G.; Boggs, D. H. (2004). "Progress in Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of Relativistic Gravity" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 93 (26): 261101. arXiv:gr-qc/0411113. Bibcode:2004PhRvL..93z1101W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.261101.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  37. Turyshev, S. G. (28 March 2007). "Pioneer Anomaly Project Update: A Letter From the Project Director". The Planetary Society. Retrieved 2011-02-12.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 Rañada, A. F. (2004). "The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks". Foundations of Physics. 34 (12): 1955. arXiv:gr-qc/0410084. Bibcode:2004FoPh...34.1955R. doi:10.1007/s10701-004-1629-y.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  39. Bekenstein, J. D. (2006). "The modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) and its implications for new physics". Contemporary Physics. 47 (6): 387. arXiv:astro-ph/0701848. Bibcode:2006ConPh..47..387B. doi:10.1080/00107510701244055.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  40. Exirifard, Q. (2010). "Constraints on f(RijklRijkl) gravity: Evidence against the co-variant resolution of the Pioneer anomaly". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 26 (2): 025001. arXiv:0708.0662. Bibcode:2009CQGra..26b5001E. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/2/025001.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  41. Nieto, M. M.; Turyshev, S. G.; Anderson, J. D. (2005). "Directly measured limit on the interplanetary matter density from Pioneer 10 and 11". Physics Letters B. 613 (1–2): 11. arXiv:astro-ph/0501626. Bibcode:2005PhLB..613...11N. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.03.035.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  42. Milgrom, M. (1999). "The Modified Dynamics as a vacuum effect". Physics Letters A. 253 (5–6): 273. arXiv:astro-ph/9805346. Bibcode:1999PhLA..253..273M. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00077-8.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  43. McCulloch, M. E. (2007). "Modelling the Pioneer anomaly as modified inertia". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 376 (1): 338–342. arXiv:astro-ph/0612599. Bibcode:2007MNRAS.376..338M. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11433.x.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  44. McCulloch, M. E. (2008). "Modelling the flyby anomalies using a modification of inertia". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters. 389 (1): L57–60. arXiv:0806.4159. Bibcode:2008MNRAS.389L..57M. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00523.x.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  45. Ignatiev, A. Yu. (2007). "Is violation of Newton's second law possible?". Physical Review Letters. 98 (10): 101101. arXiv:gr-qc/0612159. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..98j1101I. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.101101.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  46. Rañada, A. F.; Tiemblo, A. (2012). "Parametric invariance and the Pioneer anomaly". Canadian Journal of Physics. 90: 931–937. arXiv:1106.4400. Bibcode:2012CaJPh..90..931R. doi:10.1139/p2012-086.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Antonio Fernández-Rañada and Alfredo Tiemblo-Ramos propose "an explanation of the Pioneer anomaly that is a refinement of a previous one and is fully compatible with the cartography of the solar system. It is based on the non-equivalence of the atomic time and the astronomical time that happens to have the same observational fingerprint as the anomaly."
  47. Kopeikin, S. M. (2012). "Celestial Ephemerides in an Expanding Universe". Physical Review D. 86: 064004. arXiv:1207.3873. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..86f4004K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.064004.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  48. Choi, C. Q. (3 March 2008). "NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes". Retrieved 2011-02-12.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  49. "The Pioneer Missions". NASA. 26 July 2003. Retrieved 2015-05-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  50. "Data Saved!". Planetary Society. 1 June 2006. Archived from the original on 2012-04-18.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  51. Nieto, M. M. (2008). "New Horizons and the Onset of the Pioneer Anomaly". Physics Letters B. 659 (3): 483. arXiv:0710.5135. Bibcode:2008PhLB..659..483N. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.11.067.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  52. "Pioneer anomaly put to the test". Physics World. 1 September 2004. Retrieved 2009-05-17.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  53. Clark, S. (10 May 2005). "Lost asteroid clue to Pioneer puzzle". New Scientist. Retrieved 2009-01-10.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  54. "Conference on The Pioneer Anomaly - Observations, Attempts at Explanation, Further Exploration". Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity. Retrieved 2012-02-12.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  55. "The Pioneer Explorer Collaboration: Investigation of the Pioneer Anomaly at ISSI". International Space Science Institute. 18 February 2008. Retrieved 2015-05-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Further reading

The original paper describing the anomaly
A lengthy survey of several years of debate by the authors of the original 1998 paper documenting the anomaly. The authors conclude, "Until more is known, we must admit that the most likely cause of this effect is an unknown systematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether 'gas leaks' or 'heat' is this 'most likely cause.')"

The ISSI meeting above has an excellent reference list divided into sections such as primary references, attempts at explanation, proposals for new physics, possible new missions, popular press, and so on. A sampling of these are shown here:

Further elaboration on a dedicated mission plan (restricted access)

External links