Acta Astronautica Vol. 49, No. 2, pp.

59–71, 2001
? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro PII: S0094-5765(01)00007-8 0094-5765/01/$ - see front matter

OPTIMAL TRAJECTORIES FOR EARTH–MOON–EARTH FLIGHT†

A. MIELE‡
Aero-Astronautics Group, Rice University, 230 Ryon Building, 6100 Main Street, Houston,
Texas 77005-1892, USA

and

S. MANCUSO
AverStar Corporation, Fairmont, WV, USA

(Received 31 March 2000)

Abstract—In this paper, a systematic study of optimization of trajectories for Earth–Moon–Earth
=ight of a spacecraft is presented. The optimization criterion is the total characteristic velocity
and the parameters to be optimized are: the initial phase angle of the spacecraft with respect to
Earth or Moon, =ight time, and velocity impulses at departure and arrival. The problem has been
formulated using a simpli@ed version of the restricted three-body model and has been solved using
the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm for mathematical programming problems.
For given initial conditions, corresponding to a counterclockwise circular low Earth orbit at Space
Station altitude, the optimization problem has been solved for several @nal conditions, corresponding
to either a clockwise or counterclockwise circular low Moon orbit at diCerent altitudes. The same
problem has then been studied for the Moon–Earth return =ight with the same boundary conditions.
The results show that the =ight time obtained for the optimal trajectories (about 4.5 days) is
larger than that of the Apollo missions (about 3 days). In light of these results, a further parametric
study has been performed. For given initial and @nal conditions, the transfer problem has been
solved again for @xed =ight time smaller or larger than the optimal time.
The results show that, if the prescribed =ight time is within 1 day of the optimal time, the penalty
in characteristic velocity is relatively small. For larger time deviations, the penalty in characteristic
velocity becomes more severe. In particular, if the =ight time is greater than the optimal time by
more than 2 days, no feasible trajectory exists for the given boundary conditions.
The most interesting @nding is that optimal Earth–Moon and Moon–Earth trajectories are mirror
images of one another with respect to the Earth–Moon axis. This result extends to optimal trajectories
the theorem of image trajectories formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960. ? 2001
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

1. INTRODUCTION (ii) the image with respect to the Moon orbital

plane, =own in the same sense as the original tra-
In 1960, the senior author developed the theorem
jectory; (iii) the image with respect to the plane
of image trajectories in Earth–Moon space within
containing the Earth–Moon axis and orthogonal to
the frame of the restricted three-body problem [1].
the Moon orbital plane, =own in the opposite sense.
For both the 2D-case and the 3D-case, the theorem
Ref. [1] establishes a relation between outgoing=
states that, if a trajectory is feasible in Earth–Moon
returning trajectories. It is natural to ask whether
space, (i) its image with respect to the Earth–
the feasibility property implies an optimality prop-
Moon axis is also feasible, provided it is =own in
erty. Namely, within the frame of the restricted
the opposite sense. For the 3D-case, the theorem
three-body problem and the 2D-case, we inquire
guarantees the feasibility of two additional images:
whether the image of an optimal Earth–Moon tra-
jectory has the property of being an optimal Moon–
† Paper IAA-99-IAA.13.2.11 presented at the 50th International Earth trajectory.
Astronautical Congress, 4 –8 October 1999, Amsterdam, To supply an answer to the above question, we
The Netherlands.
present in this paper a systematic study of op-
‡ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-713-348-4907; fax:
+1-713-348-5407. timal Earth–Moon and Moon–Earth trajectories
E-mail address: miele@rice.edu (A. Miele). under the following scenario. The optimization

59
60 A. Miele and S. Mancuso
criterion is the total characteristic velocity; the
class of two impulse trajectories is considered; the
parameters being optimized are four: initial phase
angle of spacecraft with respect to either Earth or
Moon, =ight time, velocity impulse at departure,
velocity impulse at arrival.
We study the transfer from a low Earth orbit
(LEO) to a low Moon orbit (LMO) and back, with
the understanding that departure from LEO is coun-
terclockwise and return to LEO is counterclock-
wise. Concerning LMO, we look at two options: (a)
clockwise arrival to LMO, with subsequent clock-
wise departure from LMO; (b) counterclockwise
arrival to LMO, with subsequent counterclockwise
departure from LMO. We note that option (a) has
characterized all the =ights of the Apollo program,
and we inquire whether option (b) has any merit.
Finally, because the optimization study reveals
that the optimal =ight times are considerably larger
than the =ight times of the Apollo missions, we
perform a parametric study by recomputing the
LEO-to-LMO and LMO-to-LEO transfers for @xed
=ight time smaller or larger than the optimal time.
For previous studies related directly or in-
directly to the subject under consideration, see
[1–9]. [10,11] are general interest papers.
[12–15] investigate the partial or total use of
electric propulsion or nuclear propulsion for
Earth–Moon =ight. For the algorithms employed to
solve the problems formulated in this paper; see
[16,17].
2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
the spacecraft velocity relative to Moon
[Earth], is considered.
2.1. Dierential system
Let the subscripts E, M, P denote the Earth cen-
ter, Moon center, and spacecraft. Consider an in-
ertial reference frame Exy contained in the Moon
orbital plane: its origin is the Earth center; the
x-axis points toward the Moon initial position; the
y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and is directed
as the Moon initial inertial velocity. With this un-
derstanding, the motion of the spacecraft is de-
scribed by the following diCerential system for the
position coordinates xP ; yP and components uP ; wP
of the inertial velocity vector VP :
ẋP = uP ; (1a)
ẏ P = wP ; (1b)
3 3
u̇ P = −(E =rPE )xP − (M =rPE )(xP − xM ); (1c)
3
ẇP = −(E =rPE 3
)yP − (M =rPM )(yP − yM ) (1d)
with
√
VP = [uP2 + wP2 ]: (1e)
Here E ; M are the Earth and Moon gravitational
constants, rPE ; rPM are the radial distances of the
spacecraft from Earth and Moon, xM ; yM are the
Moon inertial coordinates, the dot superscript de-
notes derivative with respect to the time t, with
0 6 t 6 , where 0 is the initial time and  the
The present study is based on a simpli@ed version @nal time. The above quantities satisfy the follow-
of the restricted three-body problem. ing relations:
More precisely, with reference to the motion of √
rPE = [xP2 + yP2 ]; (2a)
a spacecraft in Earth–Moon space, the following
assumptions are employed:
√
rPM = [(xP − xM )2 + (yP − yM )2 ]; (2b)
(A1) the Earth is @xed in space;
(A2) the eccentricity of the Moon orbit around xM = rME cos
M ; (2c)
Earth is neglected;
(A3) the =ight of the spacecraft takes place in
yM = rME sin
M ; (2d)
the Moon orbital plane;
(A4) the spacecraft is subject to only the gravi-
tational @elds of Earth and Moon;
M = !M t: (2e)
(A5) the gravitational @elds of Earth and Moon Here, rME is the radial distance of the Moon cen-
are central and obey the inverse square ter from the Earth center,
M is an angular coordi-
law; nate associated with the Moon position, more pre-
(A6) the class of two impulse trajectories, de- cisely the angle which the vector EM forms with
parting with an accelerating velocity im- the x-axis; !M is the angular velocity of the Moon,
pulse tangential to the spacecraft velocity assumed constant. Note that, by de@nition
relative to Earth [Moon] and arriving with
a braking velocity impulse tangential to
M (0) = 0; xM (0) = rME ; yM (0) = 0: (3)
 Earth–Moon–Earth Trajectories
2.2. Basic data
The following data are used in the numerical
experiments described in this paper:
Earth gravitational constant
E = 3:986E + 05 km3 =s2 ; (4a)
Moon gravitational constant
M = 4:903E + 03 km3 =s2 ; (4b)
Moon radial distance from Earth center
rME = 3:844E + 05 km; (4c)
Moon angular velocity
!M = 2:6491E − 06 rad=s; (4d)
Moon inertial velocityVM = 1:0183 km=s; (4e)
Earth radius RE = 6378 km; (4f)
Moon radius RM = 1738 km: (4g)
3. EARTH–MOON FLIGHT
We study the LEO-to-LMO transfer of the space-
craft under the following conditions: (i) tangential,
accelerating velocity impulse from circular veloc-
ity at LEO; (ii) tangential, braking velocity impulse
to circular velocity at LMO.
3.1. Departure conditions
Because of Assumption (A1), Earth @xed in
space, relative-to-Earth coordinates xPE ; yPE ; uPE ;
wPE are the same as inertial coordinates xP ; yP ; uP ;
wP . As a consequence, corresponding to counter-
clockwise departure from LEO with tangential,
accelerating velocity impulse, the initial conditions
(t = 0) can be written as follows:
xP (0) = xPE (0) = rPE (0) cos
61
where
rPE (0) = rLEO = RE + hLEO ; (7a)
VPE (0) = VLEO + NVLEO
√
= [E =rLEO ] + NVLEO : (7b)
Here, rLEO is the radius of the low Earth orbit and
hLEO is the altitude of the low Earth orbit over the
Earth surface, VLEO is the spacecraft velocity in
the low Earth orbit (circular velocity) before ap-
plication of the tangential velocity impulse, NVLEO
is the accelerating velocity impulse, VPE (0) is the
spacecraft velocity after application of the tangen-
tial velocity impulse.
Equation (6c) is an orthogonality condition for
the vectors EP(0) and VPE (0), meaning that the
accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LEO.
3.2. Departure data
The following departure data are used in the nu-
merical computations:
hLEO = 463 km; (8a)
rLEO = 6841 km; (8b)
corresponding to
VLEO = 7:633 km=s: (8c)
The values (8a) and (8b) are the Space Station
altitude and corresponding radial distance; the
value (8c) is the circular velocity at Space Station
altitude.
3.3. Arrival conditions
Because Moon is moving with respect to Earth,
relative-to-Moon coordinates xPM ; yPM ; uPM ; wPM
are not the same as inertial coordinates xP ; yP ; uP ; wP .
As a consequence, corresponding to clockwise
or counterclockwise arrival to LMO with tangen-
tial, braking velocity impulse, the @nal conditions
PE (0); (5a) (t = ) can be written as follows:
xPM () = xP () − xM ()
yP (0) = yPE (0) = rPE (0) sin
PE (0); (5b)
= rPM () cos
PM (); (9a)
uP (0) = uPE (0) = −VPE (0) sin
PE (0); (5c)
yPM () = yP () − yM ()
wP (0) = wPE (0) = VPE (0) cos
PE (0); (5d) = rPM () sin
PM (); (9b)
or alternatively,
√ uPM () = uP () − uM ()
rPE (0) = {[xP (0)]2 + [yP (0)]2 }; (6a)
= ±VPM () sin
PM (); (9c)
√ 2 2
VPE (0) = {[uP (0)] + [wP (0)] }; (6b)
wPM () = wP () − wM ()
xP (0)uP (0) + yP (0)wP (0) = 0; (6c) = ∓VPM () cos
PM (); (9d)
62 A. Miele and S. Mancuso

or alternatively, 3.5. Optimization problem

√ 2
rPM () = {[xP () − xM ()] For Earth–Moon =ight, the optimization problem
can be formulated as follows:
+[yP () − yM ()]2 }; (10a)
min J = NV = NVLEO + NVLMO ; (13a)
√
VPM () = {[uP () − uM ()]2
s:t: (1) – (2); (5) – (8); (9) – (12); (13b)
+[wP () − wM ()]2 }; (10b)
where NV is the total characteristic velocity.
xPM ()uPM () + yPM ()wPM () = 0; (10c) The unknowns include the state variables xP (t);
where yP (t); uP (t); wP (t) and the parameters NVLEO ;
NVLMO ;
PE (0); .
rPM () = rLMO = RM + hLMO ; (11a) While this problem can be treated as either a
mathematical programming problem or an opti-
VPM () = VLMO + NVLMO mal control problem, the former point of view is
√ employed here because of its simplicity. In the
= [M =rLMO ] + NVLMO ; (11b)
mathematical programming formulation, the main
xM () = rME cos
M () = rME cos(!M ); (11c) function of the diCerential system (1) – (2) is that
of connecting the initial point with the @nal point
yM () = rME sin
M () = rME sin(!M ); (11d) and in particular supplying the gradients of the
@nal conditions with respect to the initial condi-
uM () = −VM sin
M () = −VM sin(!M ); (11e) tions and=or problem parameters. In the particular
case, because the problem parameters determine
wM () = VM cos
M () = VM cos(!M ): (11f) completely the initial conditions, the gradients
are formed only with respect to the problem
Here, rLMO is the radius of the low Moon orbit and parameters.
hLMO is the altitude of the low Moon orbit over the To sum up, we have a mathematical program-
Moon surface, VLMO is the spacecraft velocity in ming problem in which the minimization of the
the low Moon orbit (circular velocity) after appli- performance index (13a) is sought with respect
cation of the tangential velocity impulse, NVLMO is to the values of NVLEO ; NVLMO ;
PE (0);  which
the braking velocity impulse, VPM () is the space-
craft velocity before application of the tangential
velocity impulse.
In eqns. (9c) and (9d), the upper sign refers to
clockwise arrival to LMO; the lower sign refers to
counterclockwise arrival to LMO. Equation (10c)
satisfy the radius condition (10a)–(11a), circular-
ization condition (10b) – (11b), and tangency con-
dition (9)– (10c). Since we have n = 4 parameters
and q = 3 constraints, the number of degrees of
freedom is n − q = 1. Therefore, it is appropriate to
employ the sequential gradient-restoration algo-
is an orthogonality condition for the vectors MP() rithm (SGRA) for mathematical programming
and VPM (), meaning that the braking velocity im-
pulse is tangential to LMO.
3.4. Arrival data
The following arrival data are used in the nu-
merical computations:
hLMO = 100; 200; 300 km;
rLMO = 1838; 1938; 2038 km
corresponding to
VLMO = 1:633; 1:590; 1:551 km=s:
The values (12a) and (12b) are the LMO alti-
tudes and corresponding radial distances; the
values (12c) are the circular velocities at the
chosen arrival altitudes.
problems [16].
3.6. Results
Two groups of optimal trajectories have been
obtained. The @rst group is formed by trajectories
for which the arrival to LMO is clockwise; the
(12a) second group is formed by trajectories for which the
arrival to LMO is counterclockwise. The results are
(12b) shown in Tables 1– 6 and Figs. 1– 6. The major
parameters of the problem, phase angles at de-
parture, and phase angles at arrival are shown in
Tables 1–3 for clockwise LMO arrival and Ta-
(12c)
bles 4 – 6 for counterclockwise LMO arrival. For
hLMO = 100 km, the trajectory in Earth–Moon
space, near-Earth space, and near-Moon space is
shown in Figs. 1–3 for clockwise LMO arrival
and Figs. 4 – 6 for counterclockwise LMO arrival.
 Earth–Moon–Earth Trajectories 63

Table 1. Earth–Moon =ight, clockwise LMO arrival, major

parameters
hLMO NV NVLEO NVLMO PE (0) 
(km) (km=s) (km=s) (km=s) (deg) (days)

100 3.882 3.068 0.814 −116:88 4.50

200 3.868 3.068 0.800 −116:88 4.50
300 3.855 3.068 0.787 −116:88 4.50

Table 2. Earth–Moon =ight, clockwise LMO arrival, phase

angles at departures†
hLMO PE (0) M (0) PE (0)
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)

100 −116:88 0.00 −116:88

200 −116:88 0.00 −116:88 Fig. 1. Earth–Moon trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
300 −116:88 0.00 −116:88
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO departure,
†See Eq. (23a). clockwise LMO arrival.

Table 3. Earth–Moon =ight, clockwise LMO arrival, phase

angles at arrival†
hLMO PM () M () PM ()
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)

100 14.37 59.04 −44:67

200 15.24 59.04 −43:80
300 16.07 59.04 −42:97
†See Eq. (23b).

Table 4. Earth–Moon =ight, counterclockwise LMO arrival,

major parameters
hLMO NV NVLEO NVLMO PE (0) 
(km) (km=s) (km=s) (km=s) (deg) (days)

100 3.876 3.065 0.811 −118:98 4.37

200 3.862 3.065 0.797 −119:00 4.37
300 3.849 3.065 0.784 −119:03 4.37 Fig. 2. Earth–Moon trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO departure,
clockwise LMO arrival, near-Earth space.
Table 5. Earth–Moon =ight, counterclockwise LMO arrival,
phase angles at departures†
hLMO PE (0) M (0) PE (0)
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)

100 −118:98 0.00 −118:98

200 −119:00 0.00 −119:00
300 −119:03 0.00 −119:03
†See Eq. (23a).

Table 6. Earth–Moon =ight, counterclockwise LMO arrival,

phase angles at arrival†
hLMO PM () M () PM ()
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)

100 −60:87 57.28 −118:15

200 −61:71 57.28 −118:99
300 −62:52 57.28 −119:80
†See Eq. (23b). Fig. 3. Earth–Moon trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO departure,
clockwise LMO arrival, near-Moon space.
Major comments are as follows:
(i) the accelerating velocity impulse NVLEO is
nearly independent of the orbital altitude (iii) for both groups of trajectories, the =ight
over the Moon surface hLMO ; time is considerably larger than that of the
(ii) the braking velocity impulse NVLMO Apollo missions;
decreases as the orbital altitude over the (iv) the group of trajectories with counterclock-
Moon surface hLMO increases; wise arrival to LMO is slightly superior to
64 A. Miele and S. Mancuso

4. MOON–EARTH FLIGHT

We study the LMO-to-LEO transfer of the space-

craft under the following conditions: (i) tangential,
accelerating velocity impulse from circular velocity
at LMO; (ii) tangential, braking velocity impulse
to circular velocity at LEO.

4.1. Departure conditions

Fig. 4. Earth–Moon trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO departure,
counterclockwise LMO arrival.
PM (0); (14a)
Because Moon is moving with respect to Earth,
relative-to-Moon coordinates xPM ; yPM ; uPM ; wPM
are not the same as inertial coordinates xP; yP; uP; wP .
As a consequence, corresponding to clockwise or
counterclockwise departure from LMO with tan-
gential, accelerating velocity impulse, the initial
conditions (t = 0) can be written as follows:
xPM (0) = xP (0) − xM (0)
= rPM (0) cos

yPM (0) = yP (0) − yM (0)

= rPM (0) sin PM (0); (14b)

uPM (0) = uP (0) − uM (0)

= ±VPM (0) sin PM (0); (14c)

wPM (0) = wP (0) − wM (0)

Fig. 5. Earth–Moon trajectory, inertial coordinate sys- = ∓VPM (0) cos PM (0); (14d)
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO departure,
or alternatively,
counterclockwise LMO arrival, near-Earth space.
√
rPM (0) = {[xP (0) − xM (0)]2

+[yP (0) − yM (0)]2 }; (15a)

√
VPM (0) = {[uP (0) − uM (0)]2

+[wP (0) − wM (0)]2 }; (15b)

xPM (0)uPM (0) + yPM (0)wPM (0) = 0; (15c)

where
rPM (0) = rLMO = RM + hLMO ; (16a)

VPM (0) = VLMO + NVLMO

√
Fig. 6. Earth–Moon trajectory, inertial coordinate sys- = [M =rLMO ] + NVLMO ; (16b)
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO departure,
counterclockwise LMO arrival, near-Moon space. xM (0) = rME cos M (0)
= rME cos(!M 0) = rME ; (16c)
the group of trajectories with clockwise ar-
yM (0) = rME sin M (0)
rival to LMO in terms of characteristic ve-
locity and =ight time. = rME sin(!M 0) = 0; (16d)
 Earth–Moon–Earth Trajectories 65

√
uM (0) = −VM sin
M (0) VPE () = {[uP ()]2 + [wP ()]2 }; (19b)
= −VM sin(!M 0) = 0; (16e)
xP ()uP () + yP ()wP () = 0; (19c)
wM (0) = VM cos
M (0) where
= VM cos(!M 0) = VM : (16f) rPE () = rLEO = RE + hLEO ; (20a)
Here, rLMO is the radius of the low Moon orbit and
hLMO is the altitude of the low Moon orbit over the
Moon surface, VLMO is the spacecraft velocity in
the low Moon orbit (circular velocity) before appli-
cation of the tangential velocity impulse, NVLMO
is the accelerating velocity impulse, VPM (0) is the
spacecraft velocity after application of the tangen-
tial velocity impulse.
In eqns. (14c) and (14d), the upper sign refers
VPE () = VLEO + NVLEO
√
= [E =rLEO ] + NVLEO : (20b)
Here, rLEO is the radius of the low Earth orbit and
hLEO is the altitude of the low Earth orbit over the
Earth surface, VLEO is the spacecraft velocity in the
low Earth orbit (circular velocity) after application
of the tangential velocity impulse, NVLEO is the
to clockwise departure from LMO; the lower sign braking velocity impulse, VPE () is the spacecraft
refers to counterclockwise departure from LMO. velocity before application of the tangential veloc-
Equation (15c) is an orthogonality condition for ity impulse.
the vectors MP(0) and VPM (0), meaning that the Equation (19c) is an orthogonality condition for
accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LMO. the vectors EP() and VPE (), meaning that the
braking velocity impulse is tangential to LEO.
4.2. Departure data
4.4. Arrival data
The following departure data are used in the
numerical computations: The following arrival data are used in the nu-
hLMO = 100; 200; 300 km; (17a) merical computations:
hLEO = 463 km; (21a)
rLMO = 1838; 1938; 2038 km (17b)
corresponding to rLEO = 6841 km; (21b)
VLMO = 1:633; 1:590; 1:551 km=s: (17c) corresponding to
The values (17a) and (17b) are the LMO alti- VLEO = 7:633 km=s: (21c)
tudes and corresponding radial distances; the val-
ues (17c) are the circular velocities at the chosen The values (21a) and (21b) are the Space Sta-
departure altitudes. tion altitude and corresponding radial distance; the
value (21c) is the circular velocity at Space Station
4.3. Arrival conditions altitude.
Because of Assumption (A1), Earth @xed in
space, relative-to-Earth coordinates xPE ; yPE ; uPE ; 4.5. Optimization problem
wPE are the same as inertial coordinates xP ; yP ; uP ; wP . For Moon–Earth =ight, the optimization problem
As a consequence, corresponding to counterclock- can be formulated as follows:
wise arrival to LEO with tangential, braking ve-
locity impulse, the @nal conditions (t = ) can be min J = NV = NVLEO + NVLMO ; (22a)
written as follows:
s:t: (1)–(2); (14)–(17); (18)–(21);
xP () = xPE () = rPE () cos
PE (); (18a)
(22b)
yP () = yPE () = rPE () sin
PE (); (18b) where NV is the total characteristic velocity.
The unknowns include the state variables xP (t);
uP () = uPE () = −VPE () sin
PE (); (18c) yP (t); uP (t); wP (t) and the parameters NVLEO ;
NVLMO ;
PM (0); .
wP () = wPE () = VPE () cos
PE (); (18d) Similarly to what is stated in Section 3.5, we
are in the presence of a mathematical programming
or alternatively,
√ problem in which the minimization of the perfor-
rPE () = {[xP ()]2 + [yP ()]2 }; (19a) mance index (22a) is sought with respect to the
66 A. Miele and S. Mancuso

Table 7. Moon–Earth =ight, clockwise LMO departure, major

parameters
hLMO NV NVLEO NVLMO PM (0) 
(km) (km=s) (km=s) (km=s) (deg) (days)

100 3.882 3.068 0.814 44.67 4.50

200 3.868 3.068 0.800 43.80 4.50
300 3.855 3.068 0.787 42.97 4.50

Table 8. Moon–Earth =ight, clockwise LMO departure, phase

angles at departures†
hLMO PM (0) M (0) PM (0)
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)
100 44.67 0.00 44.67
200 43.80 0.00 43.80
300 42.97 0.00 42.97 Fig. 7. Moon–Earth trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
tem, hLMO = 100 km, clockwise LMO departure, coun-
†See Eq. (23b). terclockwise LEO arrival.

Table 9. Moon–Earth =ight, clockwise LMO departure, phase

angles at arrival†
hLMO PE () M () PE ()
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)

100 175.92 59.04 116.88

200 175.92 59.04 116.88
300 175.92 59.04 116.88
†See Eq. (23a).

Table 10. Moon–Earth =ight, counterclockwise LMO depar-

ture, major parameters
hLMO NV NVLEO NVLMO PM (0) 
(km) (km=s) (km=s) (km=s) (deg) (days)
Fig. 8. Moon–Earth trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
100 3.876 3.065 0.811 118.15 4.37
200 3.862 3.065 0.797 118.98 4.37 tem, hLMO = 100 km, clockwise LMO departure, coun-
300 3.849 3.065 0.784 119.79 4.37 terclockwise LEO arrival, near-Moon space.

Table 11. Moon–Earth =ight, counterclockwise LMO depar-

ture, phase angles at departures†
hLMO PM (0) M (0) PM (0)
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)

100 118.15 0.00 118.15

200 118.99 0.00 118.99
300 119.80 0.00 119.80
†See Eq. (23b).

Table 12. Moon–Earth =ight, counterclockwise LMO depar-

ture, phase angles at arrival†
hLMO PE () M () PE ()
(km) (deg) (deg) (deg)

100 176.26 57.28 118.98 Fig. 9. Moon–Earth trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
200 176.28 57.28 119.00 tem, hLMO = 100 km, clockwise LMO departure, coun-
300 176.31 57.28 119.03 terclockwise LEO arrival, near-Earth space.
†See Eq. (23a).

and q=3 constraints, so that the number of degrees

values of NVLEO ; NVLMO ;
PM (0);  which sat- of freedom is n − q = 1. Therefore, it is appro-
isfy the radius condition (19a)–(20a), circulariza- priate to employ the sequential gradient-restoration
tion condition (19b)–(20b), and tangency condition algorithm (SGRA) for mathematical programming
(18)–(19c). Once more, we have n = 4 parameters problems [16].
 Earth–Moon–Earth Trajectories
Fig. 10. Moon–Earth trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LMO departure,
counterclockwise LEO arrival.
Fig. 11. Moon–Earth trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LMO departure,
counterclockwise LEO arrival, near-Moon space.
PE and
PM , the reference line
-angles to -angles are
PE (t) −
M (t); (23a)
PM (t) −
M (t): (23b)
Fig. 12. Moon–Earth trajectory, inertial coordinate sys-
tem, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LMO departure,
counterclockwise LEO arrival, near-Earth space.
4.6. Results
Two groups of optimal trajectories have been ob-
tained. The @rst group is formed by trajectories for
which the departure from LMO is clockwise; the
67
second group is formed by trajectories for which
the departure from LMO is counterclockwise. The
results are presented in Tables 7–12 and Figs. 7–12.
The major parameters of the problem, phase angles
at departure, and phase angles at arrival are shown
in Tables 7–9 for clockwise LMO departure and Ta-
bles 10 –12 for counterclockwise LMO departure.
For hLMO = 100 km, the trajectory in Moon–Earth
space, near-Moon space, and near-Earth space is
shown in Figs. 7–9 for clockwise LMO departure
and Figs. 10 –12 for counterclockwise LMO depar-
ture. Major comments are as follows:
(i) the braking velocity impulse NVLEO is
nearly independent of the orbital altitude
over the Moon surface hLMO ;
(ii) the accelerating velocity impulse NVLMO
decreases as the orbital altitude over the
Moon surface hLMO increases;
(iii) for both groups of trajectories, the =ight
time is considerably larger than that of the
Apollo missions;
(iv) the group of trajectories with counterclock-
wise departure from LMO is slightly su-
perior to the group of trajectories with
clockwise departure from LMO in terms of
characteristic velocity and =ight time.
5. EARTH–MOON–EARTH FLIGHT
A very interesting observation can be made by com-
paring the results obtained in Sections 3 and 4, in
particular Tables 1– 6 and Tables 7–12. In these
tables, two kinds of phase angles are reported: for
the phase angles
is the initial direction of the Earth–Moon axis; for
the phase angles PE and PM , the reference line is
the instantaneous direction of the Earth–Moon axis.
The relations leading from
given below
PE (t) =
PM (t) =
Thus, PE (t) is the angle which the vector EP
forms with the rotating Earth–Moon axis, while
PM (t) the angle which the vector MP forms with
the rotating Earth–Moon axis.
With the above de@nitions in mind, let the
departure point of the outgoing trip be paired with
the arrival point of the return trip; conversely, let
the departure point of the return trip be paired with
the arrival point of the outgoing trip. For these
paired points, the following relations hold (see
68 A. Miele and S. Mancuso
Fig. 13. Earth–Moon–Earth trajectory, rotating coordi-
nate system, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO,
clockwise LMO.
Fig. 14. Earth–Moon–Earth trajectory, rotating coordi-
nate system, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO,
clockwise LMO, near-Earth space.
Fig. 15. Earth–Moon–Earth trajectory, rotating coordi-
nate system, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO,
clockwise LMO, near-Moon space.
Tables 1–12):
Fig. 16. Earth–Moon–Earth trajectory, rotating coordi-
nate system, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO,
counterclockwise LMO.
Fig. 17. Earth–Moon–Earth trajectory, rotating coordi-
nate system, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO,
counterclockwise LMO, near-Earth space.
Fig. 18. Earth–Moon–Earth trajectory, rotating coordi-
nate system, hLMO = 100 km, counterclockwise LEO,
counterclockwise LMO, near-Moon space.
showing that, for the optimal outgoing=return tra-
jectories and in a rotating coordinate system, cor-
responding phase angles are equal in modulus and
[PE (0)]outgoing + [PE ()]return = 0; (24a) opposite in sign, consistently with the predictions
of the theorem of the image trajectories formulated
[PM (0)]return + [PM ()]outgoing = 0 (24b) by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960 [1].
 Earth–Moon–Earth Trajectories 69

To better visualize this result, the optimal tra- Table 13. Earth–Moon =ight, @xed =ight time, clockwise LMO
jectories of Sections 3 and 4, which were plot- arrival, major parameters, hLMO = 100 km
ted in Figs. 1–12 in an inertial coordinate system  NV NVLEO NVLMO PE (0)
Exy, have been replotted in Figs. 13–18 in a rotat- (days) (km=s) (km=s) (km=s) (deg)
ing coordinate system E; here, the origin is the 1.0 6.804 3.780 3.024 −127:53
Earth center, the -axis coincides with the instanta- 2.0 4.425 3.176 1.249 −136:55
3.0 3.987 3.088 0.899 −131:53
neous Earth–Moon axis and is directed from Earth 4.0 3.892 3.070 0.822 −122:15
to Moon; the -axis is perpendicular to the -axis 5.0 3.882 3.068 0.814 −111:50
6.0 3.894 3.070 0.824 −100:36
and is directed as the Moon inertial velocity.
For clockwise arrival to and departure from
LMO, the optimal outgoing and return trajecto-
ries are shown in Figs. 13–15 in Earth–Moon Table 14. Earth–Moon =ight, @xed =ight time, clockwise LMO
arrival, phase angles at departure, hLMO = 100 km
space, near-Earth space, and near-Moon space.
Analogously, for counterclockwise arrival to and  PE (0) M (0) PE (0)
(days) (deg) (deg) (deg)
departure from LMO, the optimal outgoing and re-
turn trajectories are shown in Figs. 16 –18 in Earth– 1.0 −127:53 0.00 −127:53
2.0 −136:55 0.00 −136:55
Moon space, near-Earth space, and near-Moon 3.0 −131:53 0.00 −131:53
space. These @gures show that the optimal return 4.0 −122:15 0.00 −122:15
5.0 −111:50 0.00 −111:50
trajectory is the mirror image with respect to the 6.0 −100:36 0.00 −100:36
Earth–Moon axis of the optimal outgoing trajec-
tory, and viceversa, once more con@rming the
theorem of image trajectories formulated by Miele
Table 15. Earth–Moon =ight, @xed =ight time, clockwise
for feasible trajectories in 1960 [1]. LMO arrival, phase angles at arrival, hLMO = 100 km†
 PM () M () PM ()
6. FIXED-TIME EARTH–MOON–EARTH FLIGHT (days) (deg) (deg) (deg)

The results of Sections 3 and 4 show that the =ight 1.0 83.79 13.11 70.68
2.0 60.43 26.23 34.20
time of an optimal trajectory (4.50 days for clock- 3.0 34.64 39.34 −4:70
wise arrival to LMO, 4.37 days for counterclock- 4.0 18.22 52.45 −34:23
5.0 12.90 65.57 −52:67
wise arrival to LMO) is considerably larger than 6.0 14.98 78.68 −63:70
that of the Apollo missions. In light of these re- †See Eqs. (23).
sults, the transfer problem has been solved again
for @xed =ight time , smaller or larger than the hLMO = 100 km; rLMO = 1838 km;
optimal =ight time.
If  is @xed, the number of parameters reduces to VLMO = 1:633 km=s (26)
n = 3, namely, NVLEO ; NVLMO ;
PE (0) for an out-
going trajectory and NVLMO ; NVLEO ;
PM (0) for a and these =ight times:
return trajectory. On the other hand, the number of
 = 1:0; 2:0; 3:0; 4:0; 5:0; 6:0 days: (27)
@nal conditions is still q = 3, namely, the radius
condition, tangency condition, and circularization For LEO-to-LMO =ight, the constraints are
condition. This being the case, we are no longer in eqns. (13b) and any of the -values (27). For
the presence of an optimization problem, but of a LMO-to-LEO =ight, the constraints are eqns.
simple feasibility problem, which can be solved for
example with the modi@ed quasilinearization algo-
rithm (MQA, [17]). Alternatively, if SGRA is em-
PE (0) for
ployed [16], the restoration phase of the algorithm
alone yields the solution.
PM (0) for LMO-to-LEO =ight.
(22b) and any of the -values (27). The unknowns
include the state variables xP (t); yP (t); uP (t); wP (t)
and the parameters NVLEO ; NVLMO ;
LEO-to-LMO =ight or the parameters NVLMO ;
NVLEO ;

6.1. Feasibility problem

6.2. Results
The feasibility problem has been solved for the
following LEO and LMO data: The results obtained for LEO-to-LMO =ight
and LMO-to-LEO =ight are presented in Tables
hLEO = 463 km; rLEO = 6841 km; 13–18. For LEO-LMO =ight, Tables 13–15 refer
VLEO = 7:633 km=s; (25) to clockwise LMO arrival; for LMO-LEO =ight,
Tables 16 –18 refer to clockwise LMO departure.
70 A. Miele and S. Mancuso

Table 16. Moon–Earth =ight, @xed =ight time, clockwise altitude must be transferred to either a clockwise
LMO departure, major parameters, hLMO = 100 km or counterclockwise low Moon orbit (LMO) at
 NV NVLEO NVLMO
PM (0) various altitudes over the Moon surface. We study
(days) (km=s) (km=s) (km=s) (deg) a complementary problem for Moon–Earth =ight.
1.0 6.804 3.780 3.024 −70:68 The assumed physical model is a simpli@ed
2.0 4.425 3.176 1.249 −34:20 version of the restricted three-body problem. The
3.0 3.987 3.088 0.899 4.70
4.0 3.892 3.070 0.822 34.23 optimization criterion is the total characteristic ve-
5.0 3.882 3.068 0.814 52.67 locity and the parameters being optimized are four:
6.0 3.894 3.070 0.824 63.70
initial phase angle of the spacecraft with respect to
either Earth (outgoing trip) or Moon (return trip),
Table 17. Moon–Earth =ight, @xed =ight time, clockwise LMO =ight time, velocity impulse at departure, velocity
departure, phase angles at departure, hLMO = 100 km
impulse on arrival.

PM (0)
M (0) PM (0) Major results for both outgoing and return trips
(days) (deg) (deg) (deg)
are as follows:
1.0 −70:68 0.00 −70:68
2.0 −34:20 0.00 −34:20 (i) the velocity impulse at LEO is nearly inde-
3.0 4.70 0.00 4.70
4.0 34.23 0.00 34.23 pendent of the LMO altitude;
5.0 52.67 0.00 52.67 (ii) the velocity impulse at LMO decreases as
6.0 63.70 0.00 63.70
the LMO altitude increases;
(iii) the =ight time of an optimal trajectory is
Table 18. Moon–Earth =ight, @xed =ight time, clockwise LMO considerably larger than that of an Apollo
departure, phase angles at arrival, hLMO = 100 km† trajectory, regardless of whether the LMO

PE ()
M () PE () arrival=departure is clockwise or counter-
(days) (deg) (deg) (deg) clockwise;
1.0 140.64 13.11 127.53 (iv) optimal trajectories with LMO counter-
2.0 162.77 26.22 136.55 clockwise arrival=departure are slightly
3.0 170.87 39.34 131.53
4.0 174.60 52.45 122.15 superior to optimal trajectories with LMO
5.0 177.06 65.56 111.50 clockwise arrival/departure in terms of
6.0 179.04 78.68 100.36
both characteristic velocity and =ight time.
†See Eqs. (23).
In light of (iii), a further parametric study has been
performed for both the outgoing and return trips.
Major comments are as follows:
The transfer problem has been solved again for
(i) if the prescribed =ight time is within 1 day @xed =ight time. Major results are as follows:
of the optimal time, the penalty in charac-
(v) if the prescribed =ight time is within 1 day
teristic velocity is relatively small;
of the optimal =ight time, the penalty in
(ii) if the prescribed =ight time is greater than
characteristic velocity is relatively small;
the optimal time by more than 1 day, the
(vi) for larger time deviations, the penalty
penalty in characteristic velocity becomes
in characteristic velocity becomes more
more severe;
severe;
(iii) if the prescribed =ight time is greater than
(vii) if the prescribed =ight time is greater than
the optimal time by more than 2 days,
the optimal time by more than 2 days,
no feasible trajectory exists for the given
no feasible trajectory exists for the given
boundary conditions;
boundary conditions.
(iv) for given =ight time, the outgoing and re-
turn trajectories are the mirror images of While the present study has been made in inertial
one another with respect to the Earth–Moon coordinates, conversion of the results into rotating
axis, thus con@rming again the theorem of coordinates leads to the most interesting @ndings
image trajectories [1]. of this paper, namely:
(viii) optimal LEO-to-LMO trajectories and
7. CONCLUSIONS
optimal LMO-to-LEO trajectories are the
We present a systematic study of optimal mirror images of one another with respect
trajectories for Earth–Moon =ight under the fol- to the Earth–Moon axis;
lowing scenario: A spacecraft initially in a counter- (ix) the above result extends to optimal trajec-
clockwise low Earth orbit (LEO) at Space Station tories the theorem of image trajectory for-
 Earth–Moon–Earth Trajectories
mulated by Miele for feasible trajectories
in 1960 [1].
REFERENCES
1. Miele, A., Theorem of image trajectories in
the Earth–Moon space. Astronautica Acta, 1960,
6(51), 225 –232.
2. Mickelwait, A. B. and Booton, R. C., Analytical and
numerical studies of three-dimensional trajectories
to the Moon. Journal of the Aerospace Sciences,
1960, 27(8), 561–573.
3. Clarke, V. C., Design of lunar and interplanetary
ascent trajectories. AIAA Journal, 1963, 5(7),
1559 –1567.
4. Reich, H., General characteristics of the launch
window for orbital launch to the Moon. In Celestial
Mechanics and Astrodynamics, Vol. 14, ed. V. G.
Szebehely. 1964, pp. 341–375.
5. Dallas, C. S., Moon-to-Earth trajectories. In
Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics, Vol. 14,
ed. V. G. Szebehely. 1964, pp. 391– 438.
6. Bazhinov, I. K., Analysis of =ight trajectories
to Moon, Mars, and Venus, Post-Apollo Space
Exploration. In Advances in the Astronautical
Sciences, Vol. 20, ed. F. Narin. 1966, pp. 1173–
1188.
7. Shaikh, N. A., A new perturbation method for
computing Earth–Moon trajectories. Astronautica
Acta, 1966, 12(3), 207–211.
8. Rosenbaum, R., Willwerth, A. C. and Chuck, W.,
Powered =ight trajectory optimization for lunar and
interplanetary transfer, Astronautica Acta, 1996,
12(2), 159 –168.
9. Miner, W. E. and Andrus, J. F., Necessary
conditions for optimal lunar trajectories with
71
discontinuous state variables and intermediate
point constraints. AIAA Journal, 1968, 6(11),
2154 –2159.
10. D’Amario, L. A. and Edelbaum, T. N., Minimum
impulse three-body trajectories. AIAA Journal,
1974, 12(4), 455 – 462.
11. Pu, C. L. and Edelbaum, T. N., Four-body trajectory
optimization. AIAA Journal, 1975, 13(3), 333–336.
12. Kluever, C. A. and Pierson, B. L., Optimal
low-thrust Earth-Moon transfers with a switching
function structure. Journal of the Astronautical
Sciences, 1994, 42(3), 269 –283.
13. Rivas, M. L. and Pierson, B. L., Dynamic boundary
evaluation method for approximate optimal lunar
trajectories. Journal of Guidance, Control; and
Dynamics, 1996, 19(4), 976 –978.
14. Kluever, C. A. and Pierson, B. L., Optimal Earth–
Moon trajectories using nuclear electric propulsion.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
1997, 20(2), 239 –245.
15. Kluever, C. A., Optimal Earth–Moon trajectories
using combined chemical–electric propulsion.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
1997, 20(2), 253–258.
16. Miele, A., Huang, H. Y. and Heideman, J.
C., Sequential gradient–restoration algorithm for
the minimization of constraint functions: ordinary
and conjugate gradient versions. Journal of
Optimization Theory and Applications, 1969, 4(4),
213–243.
17. Miele, A., Naqvi, S., Levy, A. V. and Iyer, R.
R., Numerical solutions of nonlinear equations
and nonlinear two-point boundary-value problems.
In Advances in Control Systems, Vol. 8, ed. C.
T. Leondes Academic Press, New York, NY, 1971,
189 –215.