 also internal to the spacecraft was covered in Sections \[ext-systema\]-\[int-systema\].\]

First we look at the numerical stability of the least squares estimation algorithm and the derived solution. The leading computational error source turns out to be subtraction of similar numbers. Due to the nature of floating point arithmetic, two numbers with high order digits the same are subtracted one from the other results in the low order digits being lost. This situation occurs with time tags on the data. Time tags are referenced to some epoch, such as say 1 January 1 1950 which is used by CHASMP. As more than one billion seconds have passed since 1950, time tags on the Doppler data have a start and end time that have five or six common leading digits. Doppler signal is computed by a differenced range formulation (see Section \[Dopp\_tech\]). This noise in the time tags causes noise in the computed Doppler at the 0.0006 Hz level for both Pioneers. This noise can be reduced by shifting the reference epoch closer to the data or increasing the word length of the computation, however, it is not a significant error source for this analysis.

In order to guard against possible computer compiler and/or hardware errors we ran orbit determination programs on different computer platforms. JPL’s ODP resides on an HP workstation. The Aerospace Corporation ran the analysis on three different computer architectures: (i) Aerospace’s DEC 64-bit RISC architecture workstation (Alphastation 500/266), (ii) Aerospace’s DEC 32-bit CISC architecture workstation (VAX 4000/60), and (iii) Pentium Pro PC. Comparisons of computations performed for CHASMP in the three machine show consistency to 15 digits which is just sufficient to represent the data. While this comparison does not eliminate the possibility of systematic errors that are common to both systems, it does test the numerical stability of the analysis on three very different computer architectures.

The results of the individual programs were given in Sections \[results\]and \[recent\_results\]. In a test we took the JPL results for a batch-sequential [*Sigma*]{} run with 50-day averages of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10, $a_P$. The data interval was from January 1987 to July 1998. We compared this to an Aerospace determination using CHASMP, where the was split into 200 day intervals, over a shorter data interval ending in 1994. As seen in Figure \[fig:rec\_
also internal to the spacecraft was covered in Sections \[ext - systema\]-\[int - systema\].\ ] 

 First we attend at the numeric stability of the least squares estimation algorithm and the derive solution. The leading computational error reservoir plow out to be subtraction of similar number. Due to the nature of floating point arithmetical, two numbers with high order digits the like are subtracted one from the other result in the low order digit being lost. This situation occurs with prison term tags on the data. Time tags are reference to some epoch, such as read 1 January 1 1950 which is used by CHASMP. As more than one billion seconds have passed since 1950, meter tags on the Doppler data have a start and end time that have five or six common leading digits. Doppler signal is computed by a differenced range formulation (see Section \[Dopp\_tech\ ]). This noise in the time tags causes randomness in the calculate Doppler at the 0.0006 Hz level for both Pioneers. This noise can be reduced by transfer the reference epoch closer to the data or increase the word length of the computation, however, it is not a significant mistake source for this analysis. 

 In order to guard against possible computer compiler and/or hardware error we ran orbit determination programs on unlike computer platform. JPL ’s ODP rest on an HP workstation. The Aerospace Corporation ran the analysis on three different computer architectures: (iodine) Aerospace ’s DEC 64 - bit RISC architecture workstation (Alphastation 500/266), (ii) Aerospace ’s DEC 32 - bit CISC computer architecture workstation (VAX 4000/60), and (iii) Pentium Pro PC. Comparisons of calculation performed for CHASMP in the three machine appearance consistency to 15 digits which is precisely sufficient to represent the data. While this comparison does not extinguish the possibility of taxonomic errors that are common to both systems, it does test the numeral stability of the analysis on three very different computer architectures. 

 The resultant role of the individual programs were given in Sections \[results\]and \[recent\_results\ ]. In a test we took the JPL results for a batch - sequential [ * Sigma * ] { } run with 50 - day averages of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10, $ a_P$. The datum interval was from January 1987 to July 1998. We compared this to an Aerospace decision using CHASMP, where the was split into 200 day intervals, over a shorter data interval end in 1994. As seen in Figure \[fig: rec\ _
 aldo internal to the spacegraft was covereb in Sertions \[sxt-systeoa\]-\[int-systema\].\]

First we look at tye nunerical stability of tfe least dquares wstinqtion algocjthm and the scriveb wolution. The lgading compudational error suuxce turns out to be subtraction of symilar mulbers. Due to tre nseure of floating point arithmetic, two humbers with high orcer digits the same are suhtrafted one from the lther resulja ig the low orddr digits being lost. Tgis situation occurs with time gags pn the datq. Rimf tags are rxferenbed to some eipch, suwh as ssy 1 January 1 1950 ehirh iw used by CHASMP. As mmre than one billijn secondv kave passed since 1950, tine tags on dhe Aippuer deta have w svart and ens time that have five or six cpmiin leading difits. Djp[ler signal is computed by a differenceg rznge formulation (see Sextion \[Dopp\_tech\]). This nlise in tre time tags causes noise in the computed Doppler at tie 0.0006 He oevel dog both Pioneers. This noise can be reduced by fgigtpng the reference epoch closrr tp the data or kncreasinf the word length lf the sompuration, horevet, it is not a significant eeror source yor this analysis.

In oxder to guarb agaimst ppssible computer compilzr and/kr hardware errors ws ran orbit deteroinsthon programs on different somputer 'latfprms. JPU’s OCP resydes on an HP workstation. The Aerodpace Cmrporation ran the analysis on three diffxcent computer aschptectures: (i) Aevospace’s DEC 64-bie RISC architeeture woxkstatkon (Alphasnation 500/266), (im) Aerospace’s DEC 32-bit CISC wrchitecture workstaeion (VAX 4000/60), and (ikk) Pentium Pro LC. Comparpsjns if computations pevformgd for CHASMP in cke three machine xhod cjndixtqtcy to 15 digids wficf is jjst sufficicnt to tepresent the data. Wvile this comparison dpef not eluminate ehe possibiliyy of systematic egrors thet are coimon to both systems, it does tsst the nkmevical stabiliey on thg analysis pn three very different computer architxctures.

The results of jhe individual prograkx were givei in Sqctions \[rasults\]and \[recent\_resuots\]. In a test we uook the JPL results fod a badch-seeuential [*Sigma*]{} run with 50-day averages of the anomalous acceleration of Piobeer 10, $e_P$. The data ihterfal wds yrom Jaguarb 1987 to July 1998. We comiared this to an Aerospace deteroination ufing CHASMP, where the was spkig into 200 day ivtervals, over a shorter sata intrrval ending in 1994. As seen in Figire \[fig:rec\_
also internal to the spacecraft was covered \[ext-systema\]-\[int-systema\].\] we look the numerical stability algorithm the derived solution. leading computational error turns out to be subtraction of numbers. Due to the nature of floating point arithmetic, two numbers with high digits the same are subtracted one from the other results in the low digits lost. situation with time tags on the data. Time tags are referenced to some epoch, such as say January 1 1950 which is used by CHASMP. more than one billion have passed since 1950, time on Doppler data a and time that have or six common leading digits. Doppler signal is computed by a differenced range formulation (see Section \[Dopp\_tech\]). noise in tags causes in computed at the 0.0006 for both Pioneers. This noise can shifting the reference epoch closer to the data increasing the length of the computation, however, it not a significant error source for this analysis. order to guard against possible computer compiler and/or hardware errors we ran orbit determination programs computer platforms. JPL’s ODP on an HP The Corporation the on three computer architectures: (i) Aerospace’s DEC 64-bit RISC architecture workstation (Alphastation 500/266), Aerospace’s DEC 32-bit CISC architecture workstation (VAX 4000/60), and (iii) PC. of computations performed CHASMP in the three show to 15 digits which sufficient represent this does eliminate the possibility of errors that are common to systems, it does test analysis on three very different computer architectures. The of the individual programs were given in \[results\]and \[recent\_results\]. In a test we took the JPL results for a [*Sigma*]{} run averages of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10, The data interval was January 1987 to July 1998. We compared this to Aerospace using CHASMP, the was split 200 day intervals, a shorter data in 1994. seen Figure
 also internal to the spacecraFt was coverEd in SEctIonS \[eXt-syStemA\]-\[int-systema\].\]

FirST we lOok at the numerical stabiLity oF tHE leaST sQuareS estimaTIoN ALgoRiThM anD tHE dEriveD soLution. THe leading cOmpUtAtional error SOuRce turns ouT to Be subtractioN of SimilaR nUmbERs. Due To tHe natUre of fLOating Point aritHmETic, two NUmbers wITH hIgh oRder digits the same ARe SUbtracted one frOm the oThER rESUltS in The low ordeR dIgits BEing losT. thIS SItuATion occurs witH time tags on THe dAta. TimE tAgs ARe refeRenceD tO SomE epoch, such aS say 1 january 1 1950 whIch is uSEd by CHAsmP. As morE than oNe bIllIon sECoNdS haVe PAssED sIncE 1950, TimE tags on tHe doPpler Data HAVE A staRt aNd enD time That have five oR siX comMOn lEadinG digiTs. DoPpLer siGnal is CompuTeD by a differenced RangE formulatIon (SeE SeCtIon \[DoPP\_tech\]). THis NoiSe in the Time tagS CauSeS NOIsE in the computed DoppLeR AT tHe 0.0006 Hz leveL for boTH PIoNEers. This NoIse Can bE REduceD by sHIfTing the rEferenCE ePoCh closeR tO the daTa Or iNcrEasinG The wOrd lenGth of the CompuTAtion, however, it IS not a significANt ERRoR SourCe fOr this analySis.

IN OrdeR to gUArD agAInst pOssibLe COmPUter compiler and/or haRdWare erRors wE ran orbit deteRmination pROGRams on diFferENt COmputer platforMs. JPL’S ODP resideS On an HP woRkstaTion. The AErospace CORPoration Ran The AnaLysIS On Three differenT COmpuTeR architEctUres: (i) AeRosPacE’s DeC 64-bIt rISC archiTecture wOrKsTaTiOn (ALphasTAtion 500/266), (ii) AErOspAcE’s DeC 32-bit ciSC arcHitecTure WoRkSTatIon (VAX 4000/60), aND (iII) pentIuM PRo PC. comPaRisonS of cOMpuTations Performed For chASMp iN tHe three Machine show coNsIstency to 15 dIgIts Which iS JUst suffiCient to represent the data. wHile thiS coMpariSon dOes not eliMinAte the PosSIbilitY of sysTematIc ErrORS that ARE cOmmOn To both systEMS, it Does tEsT the NumericAl stability of the anALysIs on three very DifFereNT CoMpuTEr ARchItECtuRES.

The results of thE individuaL pROgRams were giVEn iN SEctions \[Results\]And \[reCEnt\_resuLts\]. In a tesT we took thE JpL reSULts For a batch-sEquentiaL [*Sigma*]{} run WIth 50-daY AvErageS of The anoMaLouS acceLeratiON of pioneEr 10, $a_P$. ThE dAta intErval WaS from JanUary 1987 to July 1998. We compared thiS to an AErospAce DeterminaTioN UsiNg CHASMP, wHere The was spliT inTo 200 dAy intErvALs, oveR a shORtEr dATa intErvaL Ending in 1994. AS SeEn iN fIgUre \[fig:rec\_
 also internal to the spac ecraft was  cove red  in  S ecti ons\[ext-systema\ ] -\[i nt-systema\].\]

First  we l oo k  att he  nume rical s t ab i l ity  o fthe  l e as t squ are s estim ation algo rit hm  and the der i ve d solution . T he leading c omp utatio na l e r ror s our ce tu rns ou t  to be  subtract io n  of si m ilar nu m b er s. D ue to the natureo ff loating pointarithm et i c, t wonum bers withhi gh or d er digi t st h e  sa m e are subtrac ted one fro m  th e othe rres u lts in  thelo w  or der digitsbein g lost. T his si t uationo ccurs w ith ti metag s on th edat a. Tim e  t ags are  referen ce dto so me e p o c h , su chas s ay 1January 1 195 0 w hich isusedby CH ASMP .As mo re tha n one  b illion secondshave  passed s inc e195 0,  time tags o n t heDoppler  data h a veas t a rt  and end time that  h a v efive orsix co m mo nl eading d ig its . Do p p ler s igna l  i s comput ed bya  d if ference drangefo rmu lat ion ( s ee S ection  \[Dopp\ _tech \ ]). This noise in the time t a gs c au s es n ois e in the co mput e d Do pple r  a t t h e 0.0 006 H zl ev e l for both Pioneers .This n oisecan be reduce d by shift i n g  the ref eren c ee poch closer to  thedata or in c reasingthe w ord leng th of the c omputati on,  ho wev er, i tis not a sign i f ican terror s our ce forthi s a nal ysi s. 

In orde r to gua rd  a ga in stpossi b le compu te r c om pil er an d /or ha rdwar e er ro rs weran orb i td e term in at ionpro gr ams o n di f fer ent com puter pla tfo r ms.JP L’ s ODP r esides on anHP  workstati on . T he Aer o s pace Cor poration ran the analys i s on th ree  diff eren t compute r a rchite ctu r es: (i ) Aero space ’s  DE C 64-bi t RI SCar chitecture w ork stati on  (Al phastat ion 500/266), (ii) Aer ospace’s DEC32- bitC I SC  ar c hi t ect ur e  wo r k station (VAX 40 00/60), an d( ii i) Pentium Pro  P C. Comp arisons  of c o mputati ons perfo rmed forCH ASMP i n t he three m achine s how consi s tency to  15 d igi ts whi ch  is  just  suffi c ien t torepres en t thedata.  W hile thi s comparison does not e limina te th e p ossibilit y o f  sy stematicerro rs that ar e c omm on to  bo t h sys tems ,  i t d o es te st t h e numeric a lsta b i li ty of the a n a l ysi s onthr e e very  dif ferent computer a r chitectures.
Ther e sul tso f th eindividual pro gra ms w ere give nin Sections  \[resul ts \ ]and\[rece nt\_re sults\] . In a test  wetoo k the JPL  re su l ts foraba t ch-seq uent ia l [*Si gma*]{ }  run w ith 50-day avera ges o f the a n oma lousac celerat i on o f Pioneer10, $a_P$.The da ta i nterv al wasfr om Jan uar y1987 to Ju l y 1998. W e com pared t hi s to  an  Aeros pace d eterm inat io n u sing CHAS M P ,w he re the  was  spli tinto  200 dayi ntervals , o v er a sh or ter d ata in t er v a l ending i n 1 994.A s  seen in F i gure \[ f ig:re c\_
 also_internal to_the spacecraft was covered_in Sections_\[ext-systema\]-\[int-systema\].\]

First_we look_at_the numerical stability_of the least_squares estimation algorithm and_the derived solution._The_leading computational error source turns out to be subtraction of similar numbers. Due to_the_nature of_floating_point_arithmetic, two numbers with high_order digits the same are_subtracted one_from the other results in the low order_digits_being lost. This_situation occurs with time tags on the data. Time_tags are referenced to some epoch,_such as say_1_January_1 1950 which is_used by CHASMP. As more than_one billion seconds have passed since_1950, time tags on the Doppler data_have a start and end time_that have five or six_common leading_digits. Doppler signal is computed_by a differenced_range formulation_(see Section \[Dopp\_tech\])._This noise in the time tags_causes noise in_the computed Doppler at the 0.0006_Hz_level for both_Pioneers._This_noise can_be reduced by_shifting_the reference_epoch_closer to the data or increasing_the_word length of the computation, however, it_is not a significant_error_source for this analysis.

In_order to guard against possible_computer compiler and/or hardware errors we_ran orbit_determination programs_on different computer platforms. JPL’s ODP resides on an HP workstation._The Aerospace Corporation ran the analysis_on three different computer_architectures: (i)_Aerospace’s_DEC 64-bit RISC_architecture_workstation (Alphastation_500/266), (ii) Aerospace’s DEC 32-bit CISC architecture_workstation (VAX_4000/60), and (iii) Pentium Pro PC._Comparisons of computations performed_for_CHASMP in the three machine show_consistency to 15 digits which is_just sufficient to represent the_data._While_this comparison does not eliminate_the possibility of systematic errors that_are common to_both systems, it does test the numerical_stability_of the analysis on three very_different_computer architectures.

The results of the individual_programs_were_given in Sections \[results\]and \[recent\_results\]._In a test we took the_JPL results for a batch-sequential [*Sigma*]{} run with 50-day_averages of the_anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10,_$a_P$._The_data interval was from January 1987 to July 1998. We_compared this_to an Aerospace_determination using CHASMP, where the was split into 200 day_intervals, over a shorter data interval ending_in 1994. As seen in Figure \[fig:rec\_