Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Lambert's problem — where it appears

Finding the orbit that joins two given positions in a given time, whose solution turns a pair of dates into a transfer and a cost. Its solution is unique only if the transfer completes no whole revolutions; allowing revolutions gives 2N+1 answers, of which a root-finder returns one.

Named by 8 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Ceres from five directions and no distance. Ceres seen five times over 41 days, from an Earth on a circular orbit, reduced in the plane. Each sighting gives a direction and no range, so the object is somewhere on its sight line; the five lines here span 1.37° of geocentric arc altogether, and Earth's own motion supplies the only baseline there is — 0.403 AU of its 0.691 AU of travel lies across the sight lines. A planar orbit is four numbers, so five angles over-determine it and one orbit comes out: a = 2.7658 AU, e = 0.0785. That is the answer and not an input — the sightings were generated at a = 2.7658 AU and e = 0.0785, and the solve, which sees only the directions and the dates, returns them to 3e-12. The two shaded sectors are what closes the determination: between the first and middle sightings the radius vector sweeps 0.2993 AU² in 21.0 days and between the middle and last 0.2853 AU² in 20.0 days, a ratio of 1.04918 against a time ratio of 1.04918. Slide all three crossings out along their sight lines together and that equality fails at once, so it fixes the distance by itself, with no propagation anywhere in the argument — and it gives a = 2.7658 AU over again. The two dashed curves are candidates that thread the same three sight lines at 85% and 108% of the recovered distance: a = 1.86 AU at e = 0.35, sweeping its areas in a ratio 4.5% wrong; and a = 5.61 AU at e = 0.49, sweeping its areas in a ratio 2.9% wrong. A few per cent in the distance is an orbit of another kind, which is the same fact the conditioning panel measures: one arcsecond of angle error moves a by 0.60% on this arc.

Five directions and no distance among them

An image of a moving point records an angle and throws the range away, so an orbit has to be assembled out of angles alone. How many angles are needed is not a detail of the method — it is the whole of what a determination is.

orbits · Orbit determination Flight time against semi-major axis, for a fixed 135° sweep. Lambert's theorem drawn: the time to fly between two points 1 and 1.524 AU out and 135° apart, against the semi-major axis of the orbit that does it. Nothing else about the orbit enters — not its eccentricity, not where its periapsis is, not how it is oriented — which is the content of the theorem and the reason a two-point transfer is a one-dimensional search rather than a six-dimensional one. Two branches: the lower one is the ellipse whose arc stays short of apoapsis, falling towards the parabolic floor at 103.2 days as a grows without limit; the upper one is the ellipse of the same size whose arc runs through apoapsis, rising without limit. They meet at a = s/2 = 1.2161 AU, 244.2 days, which is the minimum-energy transfer and the slowest ellipse available — every faster one is bigger. Each branch is monotone, checked point by point across the drawn range, so a horizontal line cuts each at most once: for a given pair of points and a given time there is exactly one ellipse, and at 260 days it is a = 1.2189 AU on the upper branch. The freedom a mission designer has is not in this picture: it is the choice of the two points, which is what a porkchop plot sweeps.

Two places and a clock decide the path

The time to fly between two points depends on the semi-major axis, the chord between them, and the sum of their distances — and on nothing else about the orbit. Not the eccentricity, not where periapsis is, not the orientation. Lambert's theorem is why an interplanetary launch date is the root of one equation.

orbits · Lambert's problem 5 transfers through the same two points in the same 1400 days. Time of flight against semi-major axis for every transfer through two points 135° apart at 1 and 1.524 AU, with the revolution count running from 0 to 2. Each count contributes two branches, and for N ≥ 1 the pair folds: the time has a minimum at a = 1.2426 AU for one revolution — only 2.2 per cent above the minimum-energy value of 1.2161, which is why the horizontal axis is the excess over that value and logarithmic — so a flight time above it is met twice and below it not at all. Reading the crossings of the 1400-day line off the drawn curves gives 5 of them — 0 revs high, 1 rev low, 1 rev high, 2 revs low, 2 revs high — which is 2N + 1 with N = 2, and the count is a property of the time rather than of the geometry. That is the practical content: a root-finder started from a single guess returns one of these 5 and gives no sign that the other 4 exist, and the cheapest of them is often not the one nearest the guess.

One time of flight and five ways round

Lambert's theorem says two positions and an interval fix the transfer. Allow the transfer to complete whole revolutions and that stops being true: the flight time folds, one number admits five arcs, and the cheapest of them is usually not the one a solver started nearest to.

orbits · Lambert's problem The cost of going to Mars, against when to leave and how long to take. Contours of departure energy C₃ over a grid of 64 × 56 solved Lambert problems: each point is a departure date, a flight time, and the unique single-revolution conic that connects the two planets between them. The cheapest transfer on this grid costs 5.1 km²/s², leaving in Mar 2001 with a flight time of 220 days, against 8.7 for the idealised Hohmann transfer between circular orbits of the same radii. A launch window is a region on this plane, not a moment, and its shape is what a launch period is negotiated against.

Two dates decide a mission

Given where a spacecraft leaves from, where it is going, and how long it may take, there is exactly one orbit joining the two. Solving that problem over every pair of departure and arrival dates produces a contour map, and the shape of the contours is what a launch window actually is.

spaceflight · Launch windows The same porkchop with Mars's orbit tilted, and the ridge that appears. Contours of departure energy C₃ for transfers from the Earth to Mars, over departure date and flight time, with Mars's orbit inclined by its real 1.85° to the ecliptic and every point a solved three-dimensional Lambert problem. The dashed line is where the transfer angle is exactly 180°. Along it the contours pile up into a ridge reaching C₃ of 346 km²/s² and more, against 7.9 at the cheapest point: a transfer half-way round the Sun has to lie in a plane through the Sun and two nearly opposite points, and reaching a target a fraction of a degree out of the ecliptic tilts that plane towards the pole. The ridge splits the plot into two basins — Type I transfers, less than half-way round, below and to the left, and Type II, more than half-way, above — and the cheapest transfers sit in one basin or the other, never on the line between them.

A wall across the porkchop

Draw the cost of going to Mars with Mars's orbit in the Earth's plane and the porkchop plot is a smooth pair of basins. Tilt Mars's orbit by its real 1.85 degrees and a wall appears between them, hundreds of times higher than the valley floor, along the line where the transfer goes exactly half-way round the Sun. The wall is a plane change forced by geometry, its height changes from one launch window to the next, and a single burn half-way to Mars removes it.

spaceflight · Launch windows Lambert's time of flight in the semi-major axis and in Lancaster and Blanchard's variable. The non-dimensional time of flight T = t√(2μ/s³) of the transfer between radii 1 and 1.524 through 135 degrees, against two variables that label the same family of orbits. Left: against the semi-major axis in units of the minimum-energy ellipse's. The family is two curves — the fast branch, which passes the empty focus on one side, and the slow branch, on the other — joined at a = aₘ with T = 1.566, where both have a vertical tangent: the time changes infinitely fast with the semi-major axis there, and every a above aₘ corresponds to two times. Right: against x, the variable of Lancaster and Blanchard, in which a = aₘ/(1 − x²). The same family is one smooth, decreasing curve through T = 1.566 at x = 0 to the parabolic time 0.662 at x = 1, with no tangent vertical and every time given by exactly one x. Nothing about the orbits differs between the panels; only the label on them does.

The variable that makes Lambert's problem easy

Written in the semi-major axis, the time-of-flight equation has two branches joined by a vertical tangent, and a solver near the join struggles. Written in a variable Lancaster and Blanchard chose in 1969, it is one smooth curve — and every trajectory library now solves it that way.

orbits · Lambert's problem A two-body arc flown in the real field. How far from its target a spacecraft arrives when it flies the velocity Lambert's two-body problem gives, through the Earth's real field with its equatorial bulge, against the angle of the transfer, from a 400 km orbit to a point on a 420 km orbit, on a logarithmic scale. In a pure two-body field every solution arrives within a metre of the target; exactly 180° is left out, where the two points and the Earth's centre are in line and the transfer's plane is not determined. In the real field the miss grows with the transfer: at 51.6° inclination, 4.2 km after 60° and 43.0 km after 300°. An equatorial orbit misses most, because the bulge's extra pull is strongest over the equator and acts on it all the way round; an inclined orbit feels it only part of the time but also has its plane turned.

An answer from two bodies, flown through a flattened Earth

Lambert's problem gives the exact velocity that carries a spacecraft between two points in a given time — exactly, for a spherical Earth. The real Earth bulges at the equator, by a thousandth of its central pull, and a spacecraft flying the exact two-body answer between two points in low orbit arrives tens of kilometres from where it was sent. The repair is to keep the two-body solver and lie to it about the target, and the lie converges by a factor of a hundred each time it is told.

orbits · Lambert's problem An iteration that slows toward the straight-through transfer. The contraction ratio of the corrected-target iteration — how much each pass shrinks the miss — against the transfer angle, for a transfer between orbits of 51.6° inclination at 400 and 420 km, with the Earth's bulge at its real strength and at 10 and 30 times it, on a logarithmic scale. The iteration converges where the ratio is below 1 (dashed). At the real strength it shrinks the miss 1857-fold per pass at 150°, 83-fold at 178° and 8-fold at 181°: always convergent, ever slower. At 10 times the strength it fails between 181° and 184°; at 30 times it fails between 182.5° and 192°. The slowing is geometric: near 180° the transfer's plane is set by a sideways shift of the aim point, so correcting the bulge's sideways miss tilts the whole arc.

A correction that tilts the arc it meant to aim

A transfer designed with Lambert's two-body solution and flown through the Earth's flattened field misses its target, and the standard repair is to aim at the target minus the miss and solve again. That converges fast — until the transfer angle approaches 180°. There the two end points and the Earth's centre are nearly in line, the arc's plane is decided by a sideways shift of the aim, and correcting the bulge's sideways miss rotates the whole arc. The iteration slows by a factor of a hundred, and with a larger perturbation it runs away. Correcting only within the plane fixes it, at the cost of a plane change paid at arrival.

orbits · Lambert's problem

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Porkchop plotLaunch windowMinimum-energy transferTime of flightCharacteristic energyCorrected target iterationDeparture energyDifferential correctionHohmann transferJ2Kepler's equationOblateness

All concepts