Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Launch window — where it appears

The interval during which a departure produces an acceptable transfer to the destination. It repeats at the synodic period rather than at either orbital period, which for Mars is 780 days, and missing one is a schedule cost rather than a technical one.

Named by 7 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 A Hohmann transfer, 2.6 to 1 in radius. Two circular orbits and the ellipse that touches both. The first burn raises the far point to the outer orbit; the second, half an orbit later, circularises. The costs are computed from the vis-viva relation.

The cheapest way between two orbits, and why it is so slow

Two burns and a long coast is the least fuel that will move a spacecraft between two circular orbits. It is also, for anything beyond the Moon, an unreasonably long wait.

spaceflight · Orbital transfer Catching a target 40° ahead. A phasing manoeuvre. Dropping into an orbit 6% lower shortens the period to 0.9553 of the target's, so the chaser gains 16.1° each lap and closes 40° in 3 revolutions. Speeding up would have lost ground instead.

Catching up by slowing down, which cost Gemini 4 its fuel

To reach something ahead in the same orbit, a spacecraft must fire backwards. Pointing at the target and thrusting makes the gap grow, and a crew found that out in orbit before anyone had flown the correct manoeuvre.

spaceflight · Rendezvous Total Δv against the radius ratio. Total transfer Δv, in units of the starting circular speed, against the ratio of the two circular radii. The Hohmann transfer is cheapest at small ratios; the bi-elliptic transfers overtake it, and the limiting one — an intermediate apoapsis taken to infinity — crosses at a ratio of 11.94. Above about 15.6 every bi-elliptic transfer beats the Hohmann.

Going too far in order to arrive cheaply

The Hohmann transfer is the cheapest two-burn route between circular orbits. Past a radius ratio of 11.94 the cheapest route is three burns, and it goes far beyond the destination first.

spaceflight · Orbital transfer How small a sphere of influence is. Each planet's sphere of influence as a fraction of its own orbital radius, against that radius, both logarithmic. The largest belongs to Jupiter at 6.19% and the smallest to Mercury at 0.194%. The patched-conic method treats a trajectory as heliocentric everywhere outside these, and the figure is the argument for why that costs so little: they are thousandths of the journey.

One trajectory, stitched from three two-body problems

An interplanetary flight is a problem with no closed solution. It is flown by cutting it into pieces that each have one, and the seams are places where the model is knowingly false.

spaceflight · Patched conics 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 Windows every 780 days, costing between 5 and 13. The cheapest departure energy available in each of 8 consecutive launch opportunities, each found by solving a grid of Lambert problems around the window and taking the minimum. Opportunities recur every 780 days — the synodic period of Earth and Mars, which is exact and which is why the interval between missions is always about twenty-six months. Their cost is not periodic on that interval. The cheapest here is 5.0 km²/s² and the dearest 12.9, a factor of 2.59, and the pattern repeats on a period of about fifteen years rather than on the synodic one. The cause is Mars's eccentricity of 0.093: a transfer that arrives near Mars's perihelion has less distance to cover and meets a faster-moving planet, and whether an opportunity does that depends on where Mars is in its own orbit — which drifts relative to the synodic cycle by a fixed amount each time and comes back into phase after seven windows. In launch mass the factor is larger than it looks: departure energy enters the rocket equation through an exponential, so a C₃ of 13 rather than 5 costs roughly 1.08 times the propellant at departure.

The window that comes back and the cost that does not

Launch opportunities to Mars recur every 780 days exactly, because that is the synodic period and a synodic period is arithmetic. What they cost does not repeat on that interval at all — the cheapest window is a factor of two and a half below the dearest, and the pattern comes back every fifteen years rather than every two.

spaceflight · Launch windows

Named alongside it

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

Hohmann transferCharacteristic energySynodic periodΔvGravity assistLambert's problemOberth effectOrbital rendezvousPatched conicsPorkchop plotVis-vivaConic sections

All concepts