The Wikipedia article on low-energy transfers lists only 4 spacecraft over the past decades that at some point of the mission navigated low-energy trajectories, yet there has been extensive research on space mission applications since the 1990s (as a means to reach Lagrange points, reach the Moon, escape Earth's system, navigate the Jovian system, etc).

What is the main reason that there aren't more (proposed) missions that make use of low-energy astrodynamics?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "This course would result in the probe being captured into temporary lunar orbit using zero delta-v, but required five months instead of the usual three days for a Hohmann transfer." - from the Wikipedia page. Seems like it takes a longer period of time. More time is more potential for failure, which is my guess. Great question though. $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Oct 7 '19 at 15:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you are asking about low energy transfers without electric propulsion. There are however solutions that use three body effects in conjunction with electric propuslion. See for example answers to Going from LEO to lunar using only low-thrust ion propulsion - can it be done? and also Could a cubesat be self propelled to the moon from LEO?. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Oct 8 '19 at 4:50
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's an issue of limited scope, being this trajectory only works for earth-moon, combined with increased LV capability. If a falcon heavy can put 20+ mT on a three day TLI, why would you ever choose anything else? I guess maybe - can we design a mission architecture in which this transfer trades the best? $\endgroup$ – mothman Oct 9 '19 at 7:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy