the same difference for the prediction of the orbital model. This is shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. We see that the agreement is very good but the model systematically underestimates the altitude of the spacecraft as if some outwards anomalous radial acceleration were acting upon Juno during its approximation to the perijove.

![Difference among the radial coordinate (in the ideal keplerian approximation) and the data (solid line) compared with the same substraction evaluated for the orbital model (dashed line). Notice that the agreement among the data and the model is good except for small, but noticeable discrepancies, that build up before or after the perijove.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Figure4.eps){width="\columnwidth"}

This result requires further investigation so we have shown in Fig. \[fig5\] the difference of the model predictions directly with the data for the first and second iteration of the algorithm described in Sec. \[sec:2\]. As we will see later, the third and subsequent iterations yield only very small corrections to this picture.

![Difference among the data for the radial coordinate and the orbital model: first approximation (dashed line) and second approximation (solid line). Distances are measured in km and time in minutes from the perijove.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Figure5.eps){width="\columnwidth"}

The discrepancy is around several tens of kms and, consequently, 