Did NASA use something more efficient than a Hohmann Transfer?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DuckAmuck
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nasa
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the efficiency of different orbital transfer methods used for lunar missions, specifically comparing the Hohmann transfer to trans-lunar injection (TLI) and bi-elliptic transfers. Participants explore the implications of these trajectories on transit times and fuel efficiency, as well as the specific maneuvers employed during the Apollo missions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that a Hohmann transfer yields a transit time of 5 days to the Moon, while NASA's TLI appears to result in a shorter time of about 3 days, prompting questions about the differences between these trajectories.
  • Another participant suggests that bi-elliptic transfer orbits may be more fuel-efficient than Hohmann transfers in some situations, but does not clarify their transit time relative to Hohmann transfers.
  • A different participant asserts that bi-elliptic transfers are actually slower than Hohmann transfers and emphasizes that Apollo missions used free-return trajectories, which are not simple Hohmann transfers.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of free-return trajectories, with one participant suggesting they are faster due to requiring minimal burns for a return, while another seeks to understand the time discrepancy between Hohmann transfer calculations and actual mission times.
  • Mathematical calculations are presented to support claims about transit times, with one participant providing a formula for Hohmann transfer time and noting that it does not account for the Moon's gravity.
  • Another participant describes the trajectory of Apollo missions as crossing the Earth-Moon centerline in a figure-8 pattern, indicating a more complex path than simple transfers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the efficiency and speed of bi-elliptic transfers compared to Hohmann transfers, as well as the nature of the trajectories used in the Apollo missions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relative efficiencies and transit times of these various methods.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations presented do not account for all gravitational influences, and the applicability of patched conics in the Earth-Moon system is debated. The discussion highlights the complexity of trajectory calculations and the limitations of simplified models.

DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
It's common knowledge that it takes about 3 days to get to the moon. With a Hohmann transfer, I get a transit time of 5 days, not 3. I see NASA used something called "trans-lunar injection". Is this distinct from a Hohmann transfer, and more time efficient? What makes this trajectory different? More burns?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For a maneuver that in some situation may be more fuel efficient than Hohmann transfer you may want to take a look at Bi-elliptic transfer orbits.

Regarding the TLI "designation", I remember it as just the maneuver needed to insert the vehicle from Earth parking orbit into a "free return" orbit around the Moon.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
Thanks. Are Bi-elliptic transfer orbits quicker than Hohmann transfers as well? Are they more akin to what the apollo missions used?
 
No, the bi-elliptic transfer are slower than Hohmann transfers and its "just" a general maneuver.

For Apollo, the orbits were (as far as I know) based on the concept of free-return trajectory and as such not "just" simple Hohmann.
 
I see. Free return trajectories are faster then? Since they have enough energy to return a craft with minimal/no burns? I’m just trying to account for the discrepancy in time between the Hohmann transfer time of 5 days and the actual 3 day time.
 
DuckAmuck said:
With a Hohmann transfer, I get a transit time of 5 days, ...
Show your work.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
$$t = \pi \sqrt{\frac{(r_1+r_2)^3}{8GM}}$$

$$r_1 + r_2 = 4e8 m$$
$$M = 6e24 kg$$

$$t=4.9 days $$
 
The trajectory for a Hohmann transfer will only match well in situations that are approximately two-body. For initial interplanetary mission designs one can for instance use Hohmann transfer "between" planets where the primary mass is the Sun. The start and end of the Hohmann can then be patched into an escape and capture orbit using method of patched conics [1].

The Earth-Moon system, however, is so coupled that to my knowledge even patched conics are a poor approximation. I would think you find slightly better approximation by patching an Earth escape trajectory directly into a Moon capture trajectory, but even then the later part will still be influenced a lot by Earth gravity.

The only "reliable" way to calculate trajectories in the Earth-Moon system is by using numerical integration that includes enough effects to achive desired precision, e.g. just Earth and Moon in circular orbit for rough estimate, full elliptic Earth and Moon orbit and with Sun for better estimate. Bate et. al [2] has a chapter on calculating lunar orbits as it was done at the time Apollo missions was designed. Here it is mentioned that patched conics can be used as a first approximation for Moon capture orbits, but the method is only good for the capture part and not a good approximation for the free-return orbit actually used. They use a sphere of influence for the Moon (the distance from Moon center where the Earth escape trajectory is patched to the Moon arrival trajectory) of around 66300 km.

[1] https://ai-solutions.com/_freeflyeruniversityguide/patched_conics_transfer.htm (I haven't read this page in detail).
[2] "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics", Bate et. al., Dover, 1971.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
  • #10
DuckAmuck said:
$$t = \pi \sqrt{\frac{(r_1+r_2)^3}{8GM}}$$

$$r_1 + r_2 = 4e8 m$$
$$M = 6e24 kg$$

$$t=4.9 days $$
Keep in mind, that they didn't want to get into the same orbit as the Moon, but into an orbit around the Moon. Also the formula above neglects the gravity of the Moon itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, DuckAmuck and etotheipi
  • #11
I remember those flights and the trajectory they took. You may remember (or note) an interesting trajectory.

Draw the Earth and the Moon and the line through their centers (the centerline). The trajectories they took crossed the centerline once on the way to the moon and once on the way back making a figure 8.
 
  • #12
mpresic3 said:
I remember those flights and the trajectory they took. You may remember (or note) an interesting trajectory.

Draw the Earth and the Moon and the line through their centers (the centerline). The trajectories they took crossed the centerline once on the way to the moon and once on the way back making a figure 8.
I also think they initially got into a elliptical moon orbit, and then circularized it at the closest point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
15K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K