Interesting. In a post-leap-second world, precision values for dUT1 either become more critical or less. Or rather, they become no-less important scientifically but perhaps negligible politically. For example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117719302388 says “Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) are dependent on VLBI as they need dUT1 to maintain its operability”. To the UTC decision-makers does “operability” mean legal constraints or does it mean physical reality / technical infrastructure? (“UTC no longer depends on UT1, so why should we pay for it?”)
For UTC/GPS context, Stephen Malys had a talk at the Exton meeting in 2011: http://hanksville.org/futureofutc/2011/preprints/32_AAS_11-675_Malys.pdf, but I don’t see the question of high precision requirements addressed directly (and much may have changed in 11 years). Which is to ask, I suppose, will redefining UTC imply that activities like VLBI will need to seek different funding streams? Rob Seaman Lunar and Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona On 11/21/22, 6:37 AM, "LEAPSECS" wrote: On 2022-11-20 15:15, Tony Finch asked: > (Do any of > the national broadcast signals actually follow the ITU spec?) Lists of UTC time signals with details about the coding are in the Annual reports of the BIPM time department, at [https://www.bipm.org/en/time-ftp/annual-reports]. A few of them transmit DUT1 (and even dUT1). Michael Deckers. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
