Novel Stable and Low-Energy Earth-Moon Cycle Orbits [pdf]
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
ross.aoe.vt.eduResearchstory
calmpositive
Debate
20/100
AstrodynamicsSpace ExplorationOrbital Mechanics
Key topics
Astrodynamics
Space Exploration
Orbital Mechanics
Researchers have discovered novel stable and low-energy Earth-Moon cycle orbits, which could have significant implications for space mission planning and execution. The discussion revolves around the potential applications and significance of this discovery.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
6h
Peak period
3
6-7h
Avg / period
1.7
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 6, 2025 at 10:51 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 6, 2025 at 4:36 PM EDT
6h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 6-7h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 6, 2025 at 5:59 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45492055Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 4:29:25 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
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.
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.
Persistent shuttle / subway / bus that you can meet somewhere with lower fuel and then tag along for the rest of the ride is another. Sure, its faster to drive somewhere direct with your car, yet its convenient if there's already a known cycling bus / subway route. Go to a known location, tag along. Like a bus / subway, it's also enabling. Maybe you don't want to / can't pay for a Saturn V project.
Cyclic activities that require more than just a one-way or a single round trip. Trash / waste, and similar activities on Earth are an example. Put your trash at some known meeting spot, it gets picked up and taken away.
The entire satellite economy is another, since it's a completely different orbital regime with completely different coverage, vantage points, and observational characteristics. Example, long term telescope that does a constant Earth-Moon cycle every 64 days and has baseline coverage star pattern footprint of ~500,000 miles in a relatively short time frame for observations (along with observations over the entire yearly orbit)
You can also add slowly and keep adding, cause it won't fall out of orbit.
Also works with stuff like slow LEO to GEO transfers using high ISP engines and long orbit raising spirals. (You have to go to 100,000 vs 22,000 miles, yet similar idea).
Speed's not the only metric. No fuel / no propulsion is rather compelling. Low energy, low cost, long term stability.
Again, cyclers make sense when you have something heavy you want to perpetually travel between the endpoints, and do relatively light transfers at the ends. But you don't need anything like that for the moon. For the moon, you can just take the stage that would have matched orbits with the cycler and fly to the moon with it, it's just 3 days, you can pack people like sardines for 3 days.
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!