I have been considering if it would be possible to place a satellite in a Sun-synchronous orbit in one of the lunar frozen orbits at 86°. According to NASA scientists there are four inclinations for orbits wherein a satellite can stay in low lunar orbit indefinitely:

"There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º"—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles.


My question is whether precession would still be possible in a frozen orbit. An orbit over the lunar poles could potentially allow a continuous supply of solar energy. I believe this orbit might be possible with zero eccentricity at a bit above 200 km altitude. This is provided that the satellite can remain in the frozen orbit and would still precess due to the oblateness of the moon. However I am unsure if there might be some reason that this kind of orbital precession might not work as well since I am not very familiar with frozen orbits. I'm also unaware how long it might take for the Earth to perturb this orbit. Is a lunar Sun-synchronous orbit possible when using a frozen orbit?

I also did find an interesting way of reaching a lunar polar orbit on Hop's blog (who had directed me to this site): http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2013/08/lunar-ice-vs-neo-ice.html

Kind regards,



The Moon's $J_2$ of $2.0330530\times 10^{-4}$ gives only very low, not very inclined retrograde orbits. The inclinations start at 130° at a zero altitude orbit, and go up to 180° at about 200 km altitude. See this answer for more details.

  • $\begingroup$ Could Lunar slight orbital eccentricity be used to achieve orbital precession required? Perhaps in higher Lunar orbits? $\endgroup$ – TildalWave Sep 18 '14 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ No. You need to keep periapsis above the surface. Increasing $e$ also requires you to increase $a$ to hold periapsis. Overall, the rotation rate of the node goes down as you increase eccentricity. $\endgroup$ – Mark Adler Sep 18 '14 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ That makes sense, Mark. I think I was using the wrong J2 value in my calculations. Is the one listed in this chart some other coefficient? mathworks.com/help/aeroblks/zonalharmonicgravitymodel.html $\endgroup$ – Peter Sep 18 '14 at 19:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ack. No, I was using the wrong $J_2$ value! I just checked and the number I found was from a table of normalized coefficients, instead of unnormalized. The value you found is the right one to use. The most recent estimate is $2.0330530\times 10^{-4}$. I will update the answer. $\endgroup$ – Mark Adler Sep 18 '14 at 20:24
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Er. For the less mathematically inclined such as I ... is answer to the question then a 'No'? $\endgroup$ – Everyone Sep 21 '14 at 13:10

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.