Cool paper. No propulsion, stable, cyclic orbits between the moon and Earth, with times of 45 days (1,1), 84 days (2,1), 64 days (3,1), and 74 days (3,2). Also, (3,3) were identified with no findable timeframes shown.
All the orbits are also somewhat relaxed, with relatively large windows of acceptable trajectories and distances for the later families. Perilune altitudes ranging from 750 km to over 6,000 km. The (1,1) and (2,1) are somewhat restrictive (0.1 km).
Makes a lot of interactions with the moon, exploration, resupply much less severe. It looks like you can leave Earth, at ~0.4 or ~0.6 moon orbit radius, doing some relatively low velocity, and hit a stable resonance orbit. You just have to stay out of GEO satellite orbit window where Earth is the dominant gravitation.
Also, may imply that such orbits exist with pretty much every single moon around every single planet. Implies there's a Sun-Earth orbit family group that's very similar. Probably some multi-moon orbits with places like Mars and Jupiter.
Also, implies that there may also be a bunch of objects (rocks, meteoroids, dust, asteroids, comet remains, ect...) already orbiting in these types of cyclers, since they're relatively accepting of variations on a basic theme. (3,1) is a ~250 km window, (3,3) is a 2000+ km window.
I was just about to add that last point you raise, must be some great stuff floating around in one of these that we haven't yet discovered. I wonder if there's a rich horde of dust all in a narrower place.
Good summary, by the way. This paper could lead to an eternal reference to their name! We have Lagrange orbits, like L2, now we will have RRT orbits.
I really don't understand why you'd use these instead of direct ascent. The practical orbits here are in the scale of months, while the moon is 3 days away if you just go there directly.
Unless you have a massive space habitat to hang out in, a cycler is worse for logistics than just direct ascent. For interplanetary transits cyclers might some day make sense if you want to move a lot of people around and want to make a huge artificial gravity habitat for the journey. But the moon is just 3 days away, you can just go direct.
Cool paper. No propulsion, stable, cyclic orbits between the moon and Earth, with times of 45 days (1,1), 84 days (2,1), 64 days (3,1), and 74 days (3,2). Also, (3,3) were identified with no findable timeframes shown.
All the orbits are also somewhat relaxed, with relatively large windows of acceptable trajectories and distances for the later families. Perilune altitudes ranging from 750 km to over 6,000 km. The (1,1) and (2,1) are somewhat restrictive (0.1 km).
Makes a lot of interactions with the moon, exploration, resupply much less severe. It looks like you can leave Earth, at ~0.4 or ~0.6 moon orbit radius, doing some relatively low velocity, and hit a stable resonance orbit. You just have to stay out of GEO satellite orbit window where Earth is the dominant gravitation.
Also, may imply that such orbits exist with pretty much every single moon around every single planet. Implies there's a Sun-Earth orbit family group that's very similar. Probably some multi-moon orbits with places like Mars and Jupiter.
Also, implies that there may also be a bunch of objects (rocks, meteoroids, dust, asteroids, comet remains, ect...) already orbiting in these types of cyclers, since they're relatively accepting of variations on a basic theme. (3,1) is a ~250 km window, (3,3) is a 2000+ km window.
I was just about to add that last point you raise, must be some great stuff floating around in one of these that we haven't yet discovered. I wonder if there's a rich horde of dust all in a narrower place.
Good summary, by the way. This paper could lead to an eternal reference to their name! We have Lagrange orbits, like L2, now we will have RRT orbits.
Grad students, it's not all discovered!
I really don't understand why you'd use these instead of direct ascent. The practical orbits here are in the scale of months, while the moon is 3 days away if you just go there directly.
Unless you have a massive space habitat to hang out in, a cycler is worse for logistics than just direct ascent. For interplanetary transits cyclers might some day make sense if you want to move a lot of people around and want to make a huge artificial gravity habitat for the journey. But the moon is just 3 days away, you can just go direct.