Svinkin, D. S. | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2016

The Interplanetary Network Response to LIGO GW150914

We have performed a blind search for a gamma-ray transient of arbitrary duration and energy spectrum around the time of the LIGO gravitational-wave event GW150914 with the six-spacecraft interplanetary network (IPN). Four gamma-ray bursts were detected between 30 hr prior to the event and 6.1 hr after it, but none could convincingly be associated with GW150914. No other transients were detected down to limiting 15-150 keV fluences of roughly 5 x 10(exp -8) -5 x 10(exp -7) erg cm(exp -2). We discuss the search strategies and temporal coverage of the IPN on the day of the event and compare the spatial coverage to the region where GW150914 originated. We also report the negative result of a targeted search for the Fermi-GBM event reported in conjunction with GW150914.

gamma-ray burst general â€“ gravitational waves↗

NASA NTRS2013

The Interplanetary Network Supplement to the Fermi Gbm Catalog of Cosmic Gamma-Ray Bursts

We present Interplanetary Network (IPN) data for the gamma-ray bursts in the first Fermi Gamma-Ray BurstMonitor (GBM) catalog. Of the 491 bursts in that catalog, covering 2008 July 12 to 2010 July 11, 427 wereobserved by at least one other instrument in the nine-spacecraft IPN. Of the 427, the localizations of 149 could beimproved by arrival time analysis (or triangulation). For any given burst observed by the GBM and one otherdistant spacecraft, triangulation gives an annulus of possible arrival directions whose half-width varies betweenabout 0. 4 and 32, depending on the intensity, time history, and arrival direction of the burst, as well as the distancebetween the spacecraft. We find that the IPN localizations intersect the 1 GBM error circles in only 52 of thecases, if no systematic uncertainty is assumed for the latter. If a 6 systematic uncertainty is assumed and added inquadrature, the two localization samples agree about 87 of the time, as would be expected. If we then multiply theresulting error radii by a factor of three, the two samples agree in slightly over 98 of the cases, providing a goodestimate of the GBM 3 error radius. The IPN 3 error boxes have areas between about 1 arcmin2 and 110 deg2,and are, on the average, a factor of 180 smaller than the corresponding GBM localizations. We identify two burstsin the IPNGBM sample that did not appear in the GBM catalog. In one case, the GBM triggered on a terrestrialgamma flash, and in the other, its origin was given as uncertain. We also discuss the sensitivity and calibration ofthe IPN.

INTERPLANET↗