Diversity and Validity of Stable-Unstable Transitions in the Algorithmic Weak Stability Boundary *

Priscilla A. Sousa Silva Maisa O. Terra

Departamento de Matemtica, Instituto Tecnolgico de Aeronutica, a o a Praa Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, 12.228-900, So Jos dos Campos, SP, Brazil c a e maisa@ita.br

Abstract This paper is devoted to verify the consistency of the algorithmic Weak Stability Boundary denition concerning the achievement of capture-escape detection, through examining the transitions produced by the implementation of this denition. Our main goal is to show that many types of spurious transitions concerning capture-escape behavior are found besides the expected transitions due to the separatrix role of the hyperbolic invariant manifolds of the central manifold of the collinear equilibria of the Planar Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem. We identify and characterize authentic and spurious transitions and discuss their spatial distribution along the boundary for sets of initial conditions with high eccentricity, showing the frequent occurrence of spurious transitions and of collisional trajectories. Also, we investigate smooth and fractal-like portions of the boundary. Finally, we propose an alternative stability boundary denition based on the eective detection of capture-escape transitions. Keywords Weak Stability Boundary; Restricted Three-Body Problem; Earth-to-Moon Transfers; Capture-Escape Transitions

Introduction

The Weak Stability Boundary (WSB) concept was heuristically proposed by E. Belbruno (Belbruno, 1987) as an initiative to establish regions of eective stability related to temporary capture orbits around the Moon aiming to reduce fuel consumption at the arrival portion of Earth-to-Moon transfer trajectories. At least three distinct denitions share this nomenclature: (i) a qualitative region dened in the phase space where gravitational forces cancel each other (Belbruno, 1987; Belbruno and Miller, 1993; Circi and Teolatto, 2001), (ii) an algorithmic denition based on the dynamical evolution of a specic set of initial conditions which are classied according to a prescribed stability criterion (Belbruno and Miller, 1993; Belbruno, 2004; Garc and Gmez, 2007), and (iii) a o an analytical approximation dened just as the intersection of three subsets of
* Additional contact information: Priscilla A. Sousa Silva - priandss at maia.ub.es.

the phase space (Belbruno, 2004; Belbruno et al, 2008). For the time being, no precise mathematical correspondence has been established among the stability boundaries generated by these three denitions. So, although they share the same name, they do not necessarily share the same properties and characteristics. This work deals with the algorithmic version of the WSB. In its current construction, sets of initial conditions are dened around the Moon, xing null radial velocity and the oscullating ellipse eccentricity. Then, these sets of initial conditions are evolved under the dynamics of the Planar Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem (PCR3BP) and classied according to a certain stability denition based on the measurement of the Kepler energy, which is inherent in a two-body dynamics, such that the WSB corresponds to the stable-unstable transitions. Accordingly, the stable subset of initial conditions is expected to generate captured orbits around the Moon. Recently, many authors have built the algorithmic WSB, introducing modications in the algorithm and using several dynamical models and dierent subsystem of the Solar System to exploit specic aspects of interest in the context of space mission design (see, for instance Topputo and Belbruno (2009); Romagnoli and Circi (2009); Belbruno et al (2010); Mak et al (2010)). However, an uno restricted and general verication of the correspondence of the stable-unstable transitions produced by the algorithmic denition with actual capture-escape transitions of trajectories in the PCR3BP is still lacking. This issue was rst addressed by Garc and Gmez (2007) which presented a o numerical results that show the relation of the WSB set with the invariant hyperbolic manifolds associated to the central manifolds of the collinear libration points L1 and L2 of the PCR3BP. However, their numerical investigation was not general, but was restricted to only one chosen energy value for an alternative version of the algorithm which used a dierent set of initial conditions, obtained by xing the energy constant of the PCR3BP instead of the osculating ellipse eccentricity1 . Also they employed an extended stability denition that considered n-turns around the Moon instead of only one turn. Later, Belbruno et al (2010) gave a geometric argument for the fact that, for some energy range, the points of the WSB are the points with zero radial velocity that lie on the stable manifolds of Lyapunov orbits, provided that these manifolds satisfy some topological conditions. Their argument is supported by numerical experiments for a restricted subset of WSB points with moderate eccentricity, namely e = 0.4. Given that the topological conditions considered by Belbruno et al (2010) are sucient but not necessary, it may occur that the invariant manifolds are responsible for the transitions even when these conditions fail. These authors have conjectured that the algorithmic WSB can provide a
1 In Garc and Gmez (2007), Section 1 presents a revision of the algorithmic denition a o proposed by Belbruno (2004) to obtain regions of weak stability around the Moon. Following, Section 2 presents the stable regions obtained through an implementation of this denition. Section 3 deals with the possibility of obtaining rough estimations of the stable zones using Jacobis rst integral of the PCR3BP. Finally, Section 4 gives evidence of the connection between the weak stability regions and the invariant manifolds of the central manifold of the collinear equilibria of the PCR3BP for just one energy value (C = 3.09998). However, the set of initial conditions used in this last numerical experiments is built xing the energy level, while the eccentricity is kept free. Moreover, an extended stability criterion for n-turns is applied. Thus, in fact, the stability boundaries regarded in this verication dier from those of the stable sets presented in Section 2.

good substitute for the hyperbolic invariant manifolds of a considered mathematical model, even when these objects are no longer well dened, such as in time-dependent Hamiltonian systems (Haller, 2001; Gawlick et al, 2009; Short et al, 2011). However, their approach is not suited to identify or to treat transitions that may appear due to other mechanisms nor when unrestricted ranges of energies are considered and their topological conditions fail. Our contribution aims a broad investigation of the nature of the stability boundary generated by the algorithmic denition, considering no energy restriction, in order to verify the consistency of the classication procedure regarding the detection of capture-escape transitions. We present examples of dierent types of stability transitions, identifying dynamical and constructional agents that may act individually or in association to determine a stable-unstable pair detection. We show that, besides the hyperbolic manifolds of Lyapunov orbits, there exist other mechanisms that generate stability transitions, namely, the proximity of the Moon and constructional elements of the algorithmic denition. Also, we show that spurious transitions caused by the constructional mechanisms are not rare but constitute a very signicant part of the boundary, specially for high eccentricity values. In addition, through a rened detection procedure, we characterize the fractal-like structure of the boundary, showing that it also appears due to the combination of dynamical and constructional mechanisms, and consists in both authentic and spurious transitions. Our results imply that the WSB generated by the current algorithmic denition cannot substitute the hyperbolic invariant manifolds unrestrictedly. Throughout our investigation, various vulnerable aspects of the algorithmic denition regarding the adequate detection of capture-escape transitions are identied, leading to the proposition of necessary modications of the stability denition to avoid these inconsistencies. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the dynamical model (the PCR3BP) and state the revised version of the WSB algorithmic denition as in Garc and Gmez (2007). In Section 3, we report two implea o mentations of the WSB algorithmic denition, extracting the stability boundary for sets of initial conditions with clockwise and counterclockwise initial velocities, and discussing its relation with trajectories that collide with the surface of the Moon. In Section 4 we present and characterize several types of transitions. The broad distribution of these types of transitions is illustrated in Section 5 for sets of initial conditions with a high value of eccentricity and with both clockwise and counterclockwise initial velocities. In addition, a renement procedure for the detection of the boundary is presented, allowing the investigation of smooth and fractal-like portions of the boundary. In this section, we also propose an alternative stability boundary denition based on the eective detection of capture-escape transitions. The last section is devoted to the conclusions.

2
2.1

Theoretical framework
Dynamical model

The Planar Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem (PCR3BP) provides the dynamical framework in which the algorithmic WSB has been dened. This

mathematical model describes the motion of a particle P3 of negligible mass in the gravitational eld of two main bodies, called primaries, P1 and P2 , of masses m1 and m2 , which move in circular orbits around their mutual center of mass (Szebehely, 1967). The motion of P3 is restricted to the orbital plane of the primaries. This dynamical model is expressed in non-dimensional variables, in such a way that the distance between P1 and P2 , the sum of their masses and their angular velocity around the barycenter are normalized to one. Thus, the only parameter of the model is the mass ratio = m2 /(m1 + m2 ), m1 > m2 . For the Earth-Moon (EM) system, = 0.0121506683. In the synodic barycentric reference frame, P1 and P2 are located at (, 0) and ( 1, 0), respectively. In that coordinate system, (x, y, x, y) represents the state of P3 and the particles equations of motion are given by x 2y = x , y + 2x = y , where (x, y) = 1 2 1 (1 ) (x + y 2 ) + + + , 2 r1 r2 2 (1)

(2)

is the eective potential and r1 = [(x)2 +y 2 ]1/2 and r2 = [(x+1)2 +y 2 ]1/2 are the distances from P3 to P1 and P2 , respectively. This system has an integral of motion given by J(x, y, x, y) = 2(x, y) (x2 + y 2 ) = C, (3)

where C is the Jacobi constant. The conservation associated to J denes a three-dimensional invariant manifold immersed in the four-dimensional phase space by M(, C) = (x, y, x, y) R4 |J(x, y, x, y) = C . (4) The regions obtained by the projection of the M surface onto the position space x-y are called the Hill regions, which constitute the accessible areas to the trajectories for each given C value. The dynamical model has ve equilibrium points, Lk , k = 1,2,3,4,5, also called libration or Lagrangian points, for which the Jacobi constant values are given by Ck . For a given , the energy values associated to Ck dene ve possible Hill regions congurations which correspond to particular transport possibilities through the phase space. For the Earth-Moon system, we have C1 = 3.20034490, C2 = 3.18416414, C3 = 3.02415026, and C4 = C5 = 3.0. For future reference, we refer as Moon realm to the accessible region of the position space contained in the circle centered at P2 with radius equal to the distance from L1 to P2 , where L1 is the Lagrangian point between P1 and P2 . Analogously, Earth realm refers to the accessible region of the position space contained in the circle centered at P1 with radius equal to the distance from L3 to P1 , excluding the Moon realm. Finally, the accessible region of the position space outside these two delimited areas will be called the exterior realm. There is a uniparametric family of periodic orbits, called Lyapunov orbits, around each collinear Lagrangian point Lk , k = 1,2,3, (Moser, 1958). The unstable and stable invariant manifolds associated to a Lyapunov orbit are locally homeomorphic to two-dimensional cylinders and act as separatrices of the energy

shell, dening four categories of trajectories in the neck region near each equilibrium, namely, transit, nontransit and asymptotic orbits (hyperbolic invariant manifolds), besides the periodic orbit itself (Conley, 1969). These invariant manifolds constitute transport channels (Koon et al, 2000) in the solar system and have been exploited in modern mission design, such as in the Petit Grand Tour to the Galilean Jovian moons (Gomez et al, 2001).

2.2

The WSB algorithmic denition

The current numerical algorithmic denition was stated in Belbruno (2004) (Chapter 3.2.1) and the construction procedure was reviewed and extended in Garc and Gmez (2007). a o Let l() be the radial segment connecting the positions of P2 and P3 , where is the counterclockwise angle measured from the x-axis, for x > 1 + , to l(). Sets of initial conditions are constructed for which P3 is assumed to start its motion on the periapsis of an osculating ellipse around P2 with the modulus of the sidereal initial velocity, , given by 2 = (1 + e) , r2 (5)

where e is the eccentricity of the osculating ellipse. The initial Kepler energy of P3 with respect to P2 is negative for e [0, 1) since the two-body energy computed at the periapsis (Bate et al, 1971) is hK = (e 1)/2r2 . For a xed position on l(), prograde osculating motions about P2 are generated by initial conditions with counterclockwise (positive) velocity given by x = 1 + + r2 cos , x = r2 sin sin , y = r2 sin , y = r2 cos + cos , (6)

while retrograde osculating motions about P2 are generated by initial conditions with clockwise (negative) velocity given by x = 1 + + r2 cos , x = r2 sin + sin , y = r2 sin , y = r2 cos cos . (7)

For the trajectories generated by these initial conditions, the following denition of stable behavior was proposed by Belbruno (2004): Denition 1 The motion of a particle is said to be stable about P2 , under the PCR3BP dynamics, if after leaving l() it makes a full cycle about P2 without going around P1 and returns to l() at a point with negative Kepler energy with respect to P2 . Otherwise, the motion will be unstable. This stable behavior is said to be related to a type of capture, called ballistic capture 2 , which was analytically dened by Belbruno (2004) as: Denition 2 P3 is ballistically captured by P2 at time t = tc if, for a solution (t) = (x(t), y(t), x(t), y(t)) of the R3BP, hK ((tc )) < 0, where hK is the two body energy of P3 with respect to P2 .
2 We remark that this denition for ballistic capture is not unique. For instance, we refer to Koon et al (2001) and Marsden and Ross (2005) for alternative denitions.

The Kepler energy, hK , is hK = 1 2 2 Gm2 x +y , 2 r2 (8)

where (, y , x, y ) is the state of P3 in an inertial reference frame with origin x in P2 ; r2 = x2 + y 2 is the distance between P3 and P2 ; m2 is the mass of the primary; and G stands for the universal gravitational constant (Bate et al, 1971). The stability classication associated to this type of capture generates stable and unstable subsets (see Sousa Silva and Terra (2010, 2011) for extensive investigations of these subsets) and leads to the denition of regions in phase space known as boundaries of stability (Belbruno, 2004; Garc and Gmez, a o 2007; Topputo and Belbruno, 2009; Belbruno et al, 2010). Denition 3 The Weak Stability Boundary is given by the set W = {r | [0, 2), e [0, 1)} , (9)

where r (, e) are the points along the radial line l() for which there is a change of stability in the sense of Denition 1. The subset obtained by xing the eccentricity e of the osculating ellipse is W e = {r | [0, 2), e = constant} . (10)

In this algorithmic approach, for space mission design, it is implicit that the initial conditions dened by Equations 6 and 7 correspond to states which are candidate solutions for the nal portion of a transfer trajectory. Indeed, the stable subset should correspond to temporary captured orbits around the Moon.

Implementations of the WSB algorithmic definition

We implemented two versions of the WSB algorithmic denition. In implementation A, we considered the usual punctual mass idealization for the primaries, while in implementation B, the Moon was regarded as a nite body with mean radius of approximately 1,738 km. Both implementations generate stable and unstable sets, S and U, respectively, according to Denition 1. The unstable set was subclassied according to ve instability criteria: E: instability due to non-negative Keplerian energy, when trajectories return to l() after one turn around the Moon; G 1 : primary interchange through the neck around L1 with C > C3 ; G 2 : primary interchange through the neck around L2 with C > C3 ; G 3 : generic geometric escape with C < C3 ; T: instability due to exceeding the maximum integration time, without returning to l() or going around the Earth. In the second, third and fourth unstable cases, P3 is required to complete a full revolution around P1 . The threshold value C3 separates the cases for which the exits through L1 or L2 are easily distinguishable or not. 6

As it will be further explored, the existence of dierent unstable behaviors leads us to expect dierent types of transitions. We will denote the dierent types of transitions by: S-E: when the transition pair is composed of elements of S and E; S-G1: when the transition pair is composed of elements of S and G 1 ; S-G2: when the transition pair is composed of elements of S and G 2 ; S-G3: when the transition pair is composed of elements of S and G 3 ; S-T: when the transition pair is composed of elements of S and T . When implementation B is performed, in addition to the stable and unstable sets, this modied WSB algorithmic denition generates a lunar collisional set, C, of trajectories that collide with the surface of the Moon before they perform a full turn around that primary. Following the nomenclature used by Romagnoli and Circi (2009), we will say that a WSB transition extracted from implementation A is unsafe if the stable orbit goes inside the nite size of Moon (i.e., collides with the surface of the Moon in implementation B) before completing a full turn around that primary. Otherwise, the stable-unstable pair constitutes a safe transition. The generation of the initial condition sets for each eccentricity value was accomplished with a discrete grid of points in conguration space using P2 centered polar coordinates, r2 and . The chosen radial range corresponds to altitudes above the surface of the Moon ranging from 50 to 80,000 km, that 0 is, 0.00465140 r2 < 0.21263787, with r2 = 7.80437044 104 . We took 0 < 2 with = /1000. We chose to work within the lunar sphere of inuence (SOI), the region where the P2 -P3 subsystem can be approximated by a two-body system allowing to treat the gravitational eects of other bodies as a perturbation. According to Laplaces denition (Prussing and Conway, 1993), the Moons SOI radius is equal to 6.619 104 km, which will be approximated from now on by the distance from the Moon to the L1 Lagrangian point of the EM-system, rH 6.4 104 km ( 0.1678 EM-system dimensionless units). The number of initial conditions generated in the lunar SOI for each grid of constant eccentricity was N0 = 420, 000. In this work, the numerical integration of the equations of motion of P3 was achieved using a Runge-Kutta-Felhberg 7-8 method with automatic step size control and local truncation error less than 1014 . When the particle moved inside a region of radius 102 around any primary, the equations of motion were regularized using Lema tres global regularization method (Szebehely, 1967). Following Garc and Gmez (2007), the maximum integration time for the a o classication procedure was set equal 80 dimensionless time units (d.t.u.).

3.1

Extraction of the stability boundary

We proceed with the extraction of the stability boundaries W e associated to the stability classication of implementation A. The boundary points are shown in black in Figure 1 for the sets of initial condition with e = 0.9 and both positive and negative initial velocity. We remark that a large stable core of initial con-

Figure 1: Boundary of stability (black) obtained through implementation A for initial conditions with e = 0.9 and (a) positive and (b) negative initial velocities. The safe stable (green), unsafe stable (red), and unsafe unstable (brown) subsets of initial conditions obtained through implementation B are also shown. The equilibrium points are represented by blue +. The grey circle delimits the approximated lunar SOI. More details about the stability boundaries are found in Figures 10 and 12. ditions prevails around the Moon for low to medium values of the eccentricity3 , in such a way that the rst stable-unstable transitions occur far away from the Moon. This stable core shrinks as e increases, so the stability boundary is at low altitudes from the surface of the Moon only for high eccentricity values. Particularly, for the cases shown in Figure 1, the rst transitions occur below 500 km of altitude. As an initial approach, the boundary was built as the set of stable initial conditions which had at least one neighboring unstable point. In this extraction of the boundary we considered rst neighbors both in the radial and the angular directions. This is an approximation of the actual boundary set and is conditioned to the grid employed in the discretization of the -r2 plane. Moreover, isolated stable points, surrounded only by unstable initial conditions, appear due to the discrete nature of the grid. In such cases, these initial conditions were also extracted as boundary points. As a second approach of extraction, we considered a renement procedure to be presented and further discussed in Section 5.2. In agreement with Garc and Gmez (2007), it is common to have more a o than one r where stable-unstable transitions occur along a radial line.

3.2

Collision along the stability boundary

Comparing implementations A and B, we nd that many boundary points extracted from the stable set of implementation A collide with the Moon when
3 Examples for lower eccentricity values are Figures 1 and 2 of Garc and Gmez (2007), a o Figures 6 to 9 of Sousa Silva and Terra (2010), and Figure 1 of Sousa Silva and Terra (2011).

Figure 2: Safe (black) and unsafe (red) stability boundary points for initial conditions with e = 0.9 and (a) positive and (b) negative initial velocities. implementation B is performed. Particularly, for e = 0.9 and positive initial velocity, 53.84% of the boundary points obtained through implementation A belong to the C subset generated by implementation B. In the case of negative initial velocity, 40.33% of the boundary points correspond to collisional orbits. In Figure 2, the red points depict the initial conditions of the stability boundary which collide with the surface of the Moon when implementation B is performed, while the black points correspond to non-collisional boundary points. The large presence of collisional trajectories in the boundary set is explained by the fact that the close approach to the primary causes divergence of neighboring trajectories in the phase space, implying distinct nonlinear behaviors and dierent stability classication. As seen in Figure 1 (a), for the set with positive initial velocity and e = 0.9, the Moon collisional set accompanies a large part of the stability boundary, implying that these transitions are unsafe, therefore not appropriate for practical applications. This is a typical feature for sets with positive initial velocity in the lunar SOI associated to other eccentricity values (see Sousa Silva and Terra (2010) for the associated sets of initial conditions with lower eccentricity values). In the case of initial conditions with negative velocity and e = 0.9, the Moon collisional set spreads along thin subsets of stable points and also over other regions of sparse boundary points, as seen in Figure 1 (b). In this case, we observe regions where the boundary of the stable set does not coexist with the collisional set. Collisional transitions will be further explored in Section 4.3.

Diversity and validity of transitions

In this Section, we perform a detailed characterization of several pairs of stableunstable trajectories in order to elucidate how the algorithm criteria generate WSB solutions. We also inspect if these transitions correspond to actual capture-escape behavior. 9

We start presenting spurious transitions regarding capture-escape behavior, that is, transitions that are solely due to the fulllment of the algorithm criteria, although no divergence of trajectories is observed. Then, we proceed to cases where divergence of trajectories indeed occurs. The dynamical agents accounting for this eective separation are the primary P2 and the Lyapunov orbits around L1 and L2 with their stable and unstable invariant manifolds. In these cases, both spurious and authentic capture-escape transitions appear. In the following subsections, we present scenarios at which a single decisive factor determines a stability transition. However, we remark that there are transitions along the stability boundary produced by the combination of two or more factors. In the examples shown, all the initial conditions have e = 0.9. Details about each transition are given in Table 1.

4.1

Measurements of the Kepler energy

Although the Kepler energy hK is not an invariant for the PCR3BP dynamics, it is used as an indicator of ballistic capture state in Denition 2 in analogy with the characteristic bounded and unbounded conic solutions of the two-body problem. As known, in the Kepler problem, hK is constant at all points of the orbit and depends only on the semi-major axis a. For all closed orbits (ellipses or circles), hK is negative; for the limiting case of parabolic orbits with a = , hK equals zero; and for the case when the solutions of the Kepler equation are unbounded (hyperbolas), hK is positive (Bate et al, 1971). When P3 returns to l() at t = tf , the trajectory is classied as stable if rf ((xf + 1 + yf )2 + (xf yf )2 ) < 2, (11)

2 where rf = [(xf + 1 )2 + yf ]1/2 and (xf , yf , xf , yf ) is the state of P3 at tf . Given that the interaction of P2 and P3 cannot be approximated by a twobody subsystem outside the lunar SOI, by denition, the validity of the measurement of hK is questionable in this region. Indeed, it is possible to verify that Eq. 11 can be satised far away from the lunar SOI, even when P3 is orbiting P1 . Following, we will present two examples showing that the measurement of the Kepler energy at l() alone is not always consistent as a capture indicator for a solution of the PCR3BP, both if it is measured inside or outside the lunar SOI. Case 1: In Figure 3, we show two neighbor orbits that return to l() almost simultaneously outside the lunar SOI. Then, the measurement of hK determines a S-E transition according to Denition 1, although the trajectories are indistinguishable. After the classication, these trajectories remain together in the phase space for a long time, wandering in the exterior realm. So, this erroneous stable-unstable pair does not correspond to an actual capture-escape transition. Case 2: Figure 4 shows another pair of trajectories detected as a S-E transition. Both orbits resemble tadpole orbits (Murray and Dermott, 1999), wandering through the Earth and the exterior realms for a long time before they return to the Moon realm and are classied almost simultaneously by the measurement of the Kepler energy inside the lunar SOI. Then, both trajectories escape together from the Moon realm to the Earth realm soon after their classication. So, clearly, no capture-escape behavior occurs, given that the dynamical behaviors of the stable and unstable orbits do not dier. Moreover, the trajectory

10

Figure 3: (a) Projection onto the x-y plane of the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) orbits of the S-E transition described in Case 1. The inset shows a magnication of the trajectories around the initial conditions (indicated by ICs). The grey dotted area depicts the lunar SOI and the black + represent the equilibrium points. (b) hK of P3 w.r.t P2 as a function of the dimensionless time for the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories. The blue labeled with S,U indicates where the stable and the unstable trajectories are classied.

11

Figure 4: (a) Projection onto the x-y plane of the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) orbits of the S-E transition described in Case 2. The initial conditions are indicated by ICs, the grey dotted area depicts the lunar SOI and the black + represent the equilibrium points. (b) hK of P3 w.r.t P2 and (c) r2 as a function of the dimensionless time for the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories. The blue labeled with S,U indicates where the stable and the unstable trajectories are classied. said to be stable by Denition 1 is not consistent with qualitative aspects of the full cycle orbits that may be required or appropriate for a temporary capture orbit in practical applications. Once again, the stability criteria of Denition 1, namely, the association of the geometrical criterion (return to l() after a full turn around the Moon) with the energy threshold dened by hK = 0, imply that similar dynamical behaviors are articially separated as stable and unstable. We remark that when an escaping trajectory returns to l() before completing a full turn around the Earth, and this returning point of the phase space is such that Eq. 11 is satised, the algorithm produces a articial stable classication, in the sense that a capture behavior is assigned to a transit trajectory through L1 or L2 that wanders through the exterior or the Earth realms before its classication.

4.2

Geometrical criteria

Case 3: A stability transition can appear when the return to l() criterion implies that the classication of similar trajectories in the phase space is performed at very dierent characteristic times. As an example, consider the S-G2 transition shown in Figure 5. In this case, the trajectories classied as stable and unstable have very similar long-term behaviors. However, one trajectory returns to l() transversally at T s = 2.237 d.t.u. and is classied as stable, while its rst outer radial neighbor is only almost tangent to the radial line, so it continues up until it completes a full turn around the Earth at T u = 11.160 d.t.u. and is classied as unstable due to primary interchange through L2 . Both the stable and the unstable solutions transit through L2 to the exterior realm soon after the stable orbit is classied and the trajectories remain together in 12

Figure 5: (a) Projection onto the x-y plane of the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) orbits of the S-G2 transition described in Case 3. The forbidden region for C s is shown in grey, the approximated lunar SOI is depicted by the grey dotted area, and the equilibria are marked with +. (b) Magnication of (a) showing the l() line segment (brown straight line) and the point at which the stable trajectory is classied. (c) hK of P3 w.r.t P2 and (d) r2 as a function of the dimensionless time for the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories. The blue labeled with S indicates where the stable trajectory is classied. phase space for a long interval of time after that. Also, the time histories of hK of the two trajectories are almost indistinguishable. As expected, we also nd that this mechanism produces transitions of type S-E and S-G1, and observe pairs for which the stable and the unstable orbits transit together through L1 into the Earth realm soon after the stable orbit is classied. Case 4: The requirement of a complete turn around the Earth can also cause inappropriate transitions. Take, for example, the G2-S transition shown in Figure 6. Both trajectories leave the Moon realm through the neck region around L2 and visit the exterior realm before their classications. A capture behavior is erroneously assigned to one of the trajectories at T s = 15.022 d.t.u., when it returns to l() inside the lunar SOI, just before completing 360 around the Earth. Conversely, its neighbor, although presenting a remarkably similar behavior, completes a full turn around the Earth just before returning to l(), thus being classied as unstable. This incorrect transition appears because the requirement of completing a full turn around the Earth postpones the classication of orbits which clearly present escaping behavior. Additionally, the stable

13

Figure 6: Projection onto the x-y plane of trajectories of the transition of type G2-S described in Case 4. The stable trajectory is shown as a black solid curve, while the unstable trajectory is shown as a red dashed curve. The forbidden region for C s is shown in grey, the approximated lunar SOI is depicted by the grey dotted area, and the points of equilibrium are marked with +. classication inconveniently neglects the large distance from P3 to P2 as the time goes by.

4.3

Collision and close approach to P2

The force acting on P3 , as well as the particles velocity, increases as P3 approaches the vicinity of one of the primaries, going to innity as the distance between the bodies goes to zero. Considering the punctual mass idealization of the PCR3BP, collision with the primaries occurs when r1 or r2 is zero. So, the equations of motion present non-essential singularities that can be eliminated through regularization. We nd that a close approach to P2 can produce a stable-unstable transition due to the divergence of two close orbits in the phase space, mainly of their velocities, as they approach the singularity. Particularly, there are cases in which the orbit at the WSB obtained at the limiting case (r2 0) collides with the center of mass of P2 , playing the role of an eective dynamical separatrix. Case 5: Figure 7 displays a S-E transition observed for implementation A, which involves collisional orbits in implementation B. In this example, as shown in frames (b) and (c), we observe that the trajectories diverge in the phase space when they approach the Moon. However, both trajectories leave the lunar SOI almost simultaneously and through the same exit, soon after the classication of the stable orbit. Thus, once again, the stable-unstable classication is not associated to actual capture-escape behavior. Moreover, given that the initial conditions generate collisional orbits in implementation B, the stability boundary is unsafe. Specically, one orbit is classied as stable

14

because it completes one turn around the Moon at T s = 5.538 d.t.u., and the Kepler energy is measured inside the lunar SOI (to be more precise, inside the nite size of the Moon). Conversely, the other orbit fails to complete a turn in this region and only satises this requirement at T u = 12.108 d.t.u. in the exterior realm of the Earth-Moon system with hk > 0. The graph of hk as a function of t shows that both trajectories would be classied as stable if the measurement of the Kepler energy was performed before t 5 d.t.u. Otherwise, both would be unstable. The extensive investigation of transitions along the r2 plane shows that transitions of types S-G1 and S-G2 are also determined because of collision.

4.4

Invariant manifolds

Stable-unstable transitions can be determined by the proximity of trajectories to s the stable manifold Wk of a Lyapunov orbit k , k = 1, 2, around the collinear equilibria Lk . In the desired capture-escape situation, for the corresponding energy levels, the unstable orbit is a transit solution inside the j-th Poincar e s cut of Wk of k , while the stable orbit is a solution outside of the 1-st, . . ., j-th s Poincar cuts of Wk (non-transit for these specic cuts). Note that the stable e s orbit can be a transit solution for a m-th Poincar cut of Wk , with m > j. e Although the Jacobi constant C is not kept xed along l(), by xing and rening the radial step between a given stable initial condition ps , with Jacobi constant C s , and its rst unstable neighbor pu , with Jacobi constant C u , we have that |C s C u | 0 (or C s,u C ) as r2 0. So, for the ideal transitnon-transit transition, we can infer that the orbit asymptotic to k (C ) lies at the stability boundary. We call T s the interval of time after which the trajectory generated by ps returns to l() with hK < 0. As r2 diminishes, the successive initial conditions ps generate trajectories that approach the orbit asymptotic to k (C ) and, as a result, T s increases. Some aspects of this type of transition have already been explored in recent literature when some topological conditions are satised, restricted to the Jacobi constant interval 3.15 < C < C2 = 3.18416414 (Belbruno et al, 2010). Here, we will treat and exemplify it unrestrictedly. So, besides the typical well-behaved capture-escape situation, our investigation contemplates cases with the occurrence of collisions, homoclinic and heteroclinic connections, and also stability classication inconsistent with actual capture-escape behavior. Case 6: In Figure 8 (a), we present a S-G1 transition determined by the proximity of the stable manifold of 1 (C ), C = 3.17323193, |C s C u | 108 . For the sake of visualization, the rst Poincar cuts of the neighboring stable e 0 and unstable trajectories are shown in Figure 8 (b) for r2 >> r2 , such that s u C = 3.17432874 and C = 3.17227383. The rst Poincar cuts of the stable e s s manifolds W1 (C s ) and W1 (C u ) associated to 1 (C s ) and 1 (C u ), respectively, 0 are also shown. For r2 , we nd that T s = 2.139 d.t.u., while T s increases to 6.172 d.t.u. for r2 . This kind of transition implies that the stable capture orbits approach the Lyapunov orbit around L1 or L2 , which means that P3 is taken to the limits of the lunar SOI before completing a full turn around the Moon. Case 7: When the invariant manifolds of Lyapunov orbits are no longer homeomorphic to two-dimensional cylinders due to the occurrence of homoclinic and heteroclinic connections (Llibre and Sim, 1980; Koon et al, 2000; Gidea o 15

Figure 7: (a) Projection onto the x-y plane of the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories of the S-E collisional transition described in Case 5. The forbidden region for C s is shown in grey and the equilibrium points are marked with +. (b) Magnication of (a) in a region near the Moon (grey ball). ICs labels the initial conditions and the numbered arrows indicate the sense of the motion in temporal sequence along the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories. (c) Projection onto the x-y plane of the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories. The arrows indicate the sense of the motion along the trajectories. (d) hK of P3 w.r.t P2 and (e) r2 as a function of the dimensionless time for the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories. In each frame, the blue labeled with S (U ) indicates where the stable (unstable) trajectory is classied.

16

Figure 8: (a) Projection onto the x-y plane of the stable (black solid) and the unstable (red dashed) trajectories of the S-G1 transition described in Case 6. The stable-unstable separation is determined by the left branch of the stable manifold (green) of 1 (C ) for r2 = 2.60148651 109 . The forbidden region for C is shown in grey and the approximated lunar SOI is depicted by the curve labeled with rH . (b) Now, the stable-unstable transition is shown for 0 r2 at the Poincar section x = 1 + , x > 0. The rst Poincar cuts of the e e stable manifolds of 1 (C s ) (black solid curve) and 1 (C u ) (red dashed curve) are shown along with the Poincar cut of the non-transit stable orbit (black x) e s located outside the cut of W1 (C s ) (black dotted area) and the Poincar cut of e s the transit unstable orbit (red +) located inside the cut of W1 (C u ) (red dashed area).

17

and Masdemont, 2007), these separatrices become non-smooth, in such a way that small variations in the initial conditions can lead to uncertainty in the exit of escaping orbits between the necks around L1 and L2 (Alligood et al, 1996). For some regions in the set of initial conditions, we observe that consecutive trajectories along a radial segment leave the Moon realm alternately through L1 or L2 as the grid of initial conditions is rened. In such a scenario, if an orbit is able to fulll the stability requirements of the algorithm before escaping, a temporary capture state is assigned to this orbit, producing a stability transition. An example of such a transition is illustrated by Figure 9 (a), where a triad of G1-S-G2 orbits is observed. The orbit detected as stable has higher energy than the stable orbit of Case 6 and is between an escaping orbit through L2 and an escaping orbit through L1 . We observe that the stable trajectory also transits through L1 soon after its classication and that its spatial extension previous to the classication exceeds the lunar SOI. We will refer again to this transition in Section 5.2, where we investigate successive renements of the grid of initial conditions.

Figure 9: (a) Projection onto the x-y plane of the triad of G1-S-G2 orbits of Case 7. The stable trajectory is shown as a solid black curve and the point of classication is marked by a blue . The dashed red and the dot-dashed green curves correspond to the G1 and the G2 trajectories, respectively. (b) Projection onto the x-y plane of the S-G1 pair of Case 8. The stable trajectory is shown as a black solid curve until its classication and as a dot-dashed black curve after the point of classication. The unstable trajectory is shown as a dashed red curve. In both frames, the forbidden region at the energy level of the stable trajectory is shown in grey and the lunar SOI is depicted as a grey dotted area. The points of equilibrium are indicated by black +. In frame (b), the arrows along the trajectories indicate the sense of the motion in temporal sequence. Case 8: The stable-unstable transitions due to the separatrix characteristic of the invariant manifolds of Lyapunov orbits often involve collisional trajectories. Thus, these unsafe transitions are not applicable, even when, contrasting with the Case 5, the transitions now correspond to actual capture-escape behavior. Figure 9 (b) displays the S-G1 transition observed for implementation 18

A, which involves collisional orbits in implementation B. Both trajectories enter the nite size of the Moon before their classication (in this case, a collisional orbit with the center of mass of the Moon exists between this stable-unstable pair). Then, one orbit transits to the Earth realm and is classied as unstable, while the other completes a full turn around the Moon and is classied as stable. The stable trajectory circles the Moon a second time before escaping through L1 . Case 9: Even if two neighbor orbits belong to the j-th Poincar cut of e s Wk (both transit in the j-th Poincar iteration), in the corresponding energy e levels, the proximity to k can cause divergence of these trajectories in the phase space. This fact combined with other eects (possibly some constructional mechanisms) can also lead to the classication of one orbit as stable and the other as unstable, although both orbits may have the same long term behavior and neither correspond to a captured state, thus rendering a articial transition. Table 1: Specic information about the stability transitions described in Section 4. The second column indicates if the initial conditions have clockwise () or counterclockwise (+) velocities. The third column gives the transition position in the -r2 plane of initial conditions. The fourth column indicates the radial step used to visualize the transition. The fth and the last columns show, respectively, the classication time and the Jacobi constant value of the stable trajectory. Both r2 and T s are given in dimensionless units of the EM-system. Set Case 1 S-E Case 2 S-E Case 3 S-G2 Case 4 G2-S Case 5 S-E Case 6 S-G1 Case 7 G1-S-G2 Case 8 S-G1 + + + +
(, r2 )

r2
0 r2 /1000

Ts 3.105 25.270 2.237 15.022 5.538 6.172 8.308 6.172

Cs 2.95179476 2.95637094 3.05912120 3.07051220 3.01263962 3.17323193 3.05744295 3.10204647

(0.640, 0.02966207) (1.941, 0.02853277) (0.931, 0.02814255) (0.196, 0.07879292) (1.753, 0.01425078) (1.229, 0.00656586) (0.909, 0.04042663) (0.760, 0.00738293)

0 r2 /1000

0 r2 /10

0 r2 /10

0 r2 /10

2.60148651 109
0 r2 /100

0 r2 /10

19

The global structure of the algorithmic WSB and the detection of capture-escape behavior

In this section we show how abundant are the transitions presented in Section 4. Then, we investigate smooth and fractal-like portions of the stability boundary. These analyses reveal that large portions of the algorithmic WSB have no meaning concerning capture-escape behavior and identies the portions which correspond to authentic transitions. Additionally, we indicate necessary modications to the stability denition and outline a procedure to provide the doubtless detection of pairs of trajectories that correspond to capture-escape transitions.

5.1

Spatial distribution of transitions along the boundary

Following, we discuss the spatial distribution of the predominant factors causing the stability classication for the sets of initial conditions with e = 0.9 and both positive and negative velocities. We have identied portions of each boundary where the stability classication is mainly due to common factors and labeled these regions with italic roman numbers in Figures 9 and 11. Boundary set with negative initial velocity: The stability boundary for the set of initial conditions with negative velocity and e = 0.9 is represented in Figure 10 in the -r2 plane, which allows a better identication of the various portions where dierent mechanisms occur. In Figure 10, the three portions labeled with I correspond mostly to the transitions described in Cases 6, 7, and 8. Approximately half of the stableunstable pairs in region I correspond to unsafe transitions. Most transitions in this region are of type S-E with the Kepler energy of the unstable trajectories usually measured outside the lunar SOI (sometimes even in the exterior realm). As discussed in Section 4.1, by construction, this measurement is articial because the two-body approximation is no longer valid and can lead to incorrect detection of transitions. In region I, besides S-E transitions, there are also transitions of type S-G1 (for some values of in [0, /4] and [7/4, 2)) and S-G2 (for some values of in [3/4, 3/2]). For e = 0.9 and negative initial velocity, we observe that the WSB subset for which the stable-unstable transitions are authentic capture-escape transitions is mostly in region I. In this case, the transitions present two characteristics: (1) are the rst stability transitions along each radial line, and (2) occur at low altitudes (typically 300 to 600 km)4 . These authentic transitions usually correspond to the trajectories with the lowest energy values which allow inner
4 Our observations that rst transitions correspond to capture-escape behavior due to manifold separatrix behavior are qualitatively corroborated by Romagnoli and Circi (2009). The rst part of their work refers to a version of the WSB algorithmic denition for the PCR3BP implemented for the set of initial conditions with e = 0.0 and positive initial velocity using a shorter integration time of 35 days (reminding that one month corresponds to approximately 2 d.t.u.) in which they consider only rst transitions. We note that orbits which could be classied as stable by our implementation are classied as unstable due to exceeding the maximum integration time in this particular implementation of Romagnoli and Circi (2009), consequently the shortened integration time causes the stable set to shrink, shifting and diminishing the stability boundary.

20

Figure 10: The stability boundary for e = 0.9 and negative initial velocity represented in the -r2 plane of initial conditions. The colors identify portions of the boundary where the classication is mainly due to a common mechanism. The grey points indicate the collisional set of implementation B. (through L1 ) or outer (through L2 ) transfers. We remind that, for lower eccentricity values, they occur at higher altitudes, while for higher values of e they occur closer to the Moon. Now, we look at the elongated pieces of the boundary labeled with II, which correspond to S-E transitions. However, unlike S-E transitions in region I, now the stable-unstable pairs correspond to the spurious transitions described in Cases 1 and 2. As seen in Figure 10, region II corresponds to large portions of the stability boundary. So, the current stability denition imposes a cuto condition which generates an incorrect large subset of the boundary. The third observed region, labeled with III, corresponds to the two portions of the boundary that are at the base of the elongated pieces labeled with II. Again, most transitions in this region are of type S-E. Many transitions are due to the geometrical criteria (Cases 3 and 4), and also due to close approach to the Moon (Case 5). In this last case, typically, the stable trajectories stay inside the lunar SOI until the instant of classication, often being classied within the nite size of the Moon. Some transitions like the ones described in Cases 7 and 8 can be found in this region as well. Now we move to the thin strips labeled with IV . These subsets of the boundary are accompanied by the collisional subset and extend from low to high altitudes. Most of the transitions are of type S-G3. Both the stable and the unstable trajectories correspond to high energy orbits that wander far away from the lunar SOI. Usually it takes a long time span before each trajectory is classied. Even though the stable and the unstable orbits dier considerably in

21

the phase space, both of them present escape behaviors. Moreover, the stability classication is highly conditioned to the fulllment of the geometrical criteria of Denition 1. Finally, we look at the portions labeled with V . In this case, both stable and unstable trajectories have long classication time and present highly nonlinear behavior. In this region, we nd several cases of trajectories that wander in the exterior realm, before returning to l() and being erroneously classied as stable due to the measurement of the Kepler energy (combination of Cases 1 to 4). Again no capture behavior is observed for the stable orbits. In Figure 11 (a) and (b), respectively, we see the dependence of the Jacobi constant with and with r2 . From frame (a), it is possible to associate lower values of C with regions II, IV , and V of Figure 10. These initial conditions correspond to high energy trajectories for which a broad extension of the phase space is accessible. In Figure 11 (b) we clearly see that the energy increases with r2 . Also, only the low altitude portions of the boundary (regions I and III) correspond to high values of C, that is, low energy levels for which the necks around L1 and L2 are well dened. In Figure 11 (c), we plot the classication time of the stable-unstable pair versus . Regions III, IV , and V correspond to pairs with long classication time, while region I corresponds to stable trajectories that are classied after a short time with unstable neighbors that have longer classication time. Also, it is possible to identify region II, for which the classication time of the stable and of the unstable trajectories match. Boundary set with positive initial velocity: Now, we discuss the stability boundary for the set of initial conditions with positive initial velocity and e = 0.9 shown in Figure 12. We start considering the portions of the boundary labeled with I and II. While most of the transitions in region I are of type S-G2, most of the transitions in region II are of type S-G1. In these portions, the transitions are due to the separatrix behavior of the invariant manifolds of the Lyapunov orbits around L1 or L2 , however, a large amount of stable-unstable pairs corresponds to unsafe transitions. For e = 0.9 and positive initial velocity, the WSB subset for which the stable-unstable transitions are authentically related to capture-escape behavior corresponds mostly to regions I and II, i.e., the rst stability transitions along each radial line and that occur at low altitudes. The elongated arms, labeled with III, present transitions of type S-E, S-G1 and S-G2. Again, many stable-unstable pairs correspond to unsafe transitions. For transitions of type S-E that occur at the bases of the arms, the classication occurs as described in Case 3. Other transitions of type S-E along the arms are similar to Cases 5. In these cases and also for transitions of type S-G1 and S-G2, although the trajectories may dier considerably in the phase space, the classication does not often refers to actual capture-escape behavior. However, some authentic transitions like the ones described in Cases 7 and 8 can also be found in region III. Finally, the two portions labeled with IV correspond to transitions of type S-G1 and S-G2 for which both stable and unstable trajectories have long classication time and are spatially extended, presenting highly nonlinear behavior (like the trajectories shown in Figures 4 and 6). In Figure 13 (a) and (b), respectively, we present the distribution of the 22

Figure 11: The distribution of the Jacobi constant at the stability boundary as a function of (a) , and (b) r2 ; for initial conditions with negative initial velocities and e = 0.9. The colors refer to the portions of the boundary identied in Figure 10. In frame (b), the lines labeled with C3 and C4,5 indicate the value of C at L3 and L4,5 , respectively. (c) Classication time in dimensionless units of stable (black) and unstable (cyan) trajectories of boundary transitions as a function of .

23

Figure 12: The stability boundary for e = 0.9 and positive initial velocity represented in the -r2 plane of initial conditions. The colors identify portions of the boundary where common predominant factors cause the stability classication. The grey points indicate the collisional set of implementation B. Jacobi constant with and with r2 . Comparing it with Figure 11 (a) and (b), we see that, initial conditions with positive velocity along the stability boundary belong to lower energy levels than initial conditions with negative velocity. The low altitude portions of the boundary, regions I and II in Figure 12, correspond to the lowest energy levels. In Figure 13 (c) we plot the classication time of all boundary trajectories versus along with the classication time of its outer radial neighbor. We see that rst transitions at low altitudes correspond to stable trajectories that are classied after a very short time with unstable neighbors that have a slightly longer classication time, while the distribution of the classication time along the arms is scattered. Finally, it is possible to identify region IV , for which the classication time of the stable and the unstable trajectory are comparable.

5.2

Rened extraction

Some of the transitions shown in the examples of Section 4 and many of the transitions inspected along the boundary to identify the regions presented the Subsection 5.1 were characterized using a grid of initial conditions ner than 0 the original one built with r2 . This was needed to get a better identication of the elements which are determinant in each transition. In order to extract a ner boundary set, a renement procedure was performed in the radial segment between the stable and unstable points of a detected transition, considering a smaller radial step r2 /n and classifying the new subset of n 1 initial conditions. Such a procedure was found to be more 24

Figure 13: The distribution of the Jacobi constant at the stability boundary as a function of (a) , and (b) r2 ; for initial conditions with positive initial velocities and e = 0.9. The colors refer to the portions of the boundary identied in Figure 12. In frame (b), the lines labeled with C1 and C2 indicate the value of C at L1 and L2 , respectively. (c) Classication time in dimensionless units of stable (black) and unstable (cyan) trajectories of boundary transitions as a function of .

25

eective than a simple bisection process, which allows the tracking of only one transition. By implementing the renement procedure, we distinguish between smooth and fractal-like grid-dependent portions of the weak stability boundary. For smooth portions of the boundary, the renement procedure between the stable-unstable pair leads just to a ner solution of the same type. Take, for example, = rad, e = 0.9 and positive initial velocity. For a radial increment 0 r2 , the rst stable-unstable transition along l() occurs at r = 5.4318 103 and is of type S-G1. In this case, only new points belonging to S or G 1 appear 0 with the renement. Then, up to a resolution of r2 = r2 104 , we nd 3 r = 5.9261 10 , which corresponds to an altitude of approximately 540 km. Typically, smooth portions of the boundary are associated with large stable regions and related both to collisional and non-collisional orbits. They are very common in the boundary set with negative initial velocity, especially along region II and pieces of region I of Figure 10. For the boundary set with positive initial velocity, smooth portions are common in regions I, II and pieces where S-E transitions occur within region III of Figure 12. The second situation refers to grid-dependent portions of the boundary. In this case, new stable-unstable pairs appear between the original transition when a renement procedure is performed, so these fractal-like portions cannot be resolved by a simple bisection process and are conditioned to the grid resolution. Usually, both dynamical and constructional eects are combined to generate the fractal-like structure of the boundary. These fractal-like portions are not necessarily related to the sparse regions of boundary points obtained with an unique grid of initial conditions. Take, for example, the case of initial conditions with positive initial velocity, 0 e = 0.9 and = 0.909 rad. For r2 , we detect a S-E transition at r2 = 2 3.8991 10 . The next unstable neighbor of the isolated E point is an initial condition that belongs to the unstable subset G 2 . Figure 14 displays the stability conguration on the radial segment between the original S and the G 2 points for 0 the three radial steps considered besides r2 . Figure 14 (a) presents the original S-E-G2 sequence. Here, both S and E are collisional orbits of implementation B. With the rst renement (Figure 14 (b)), one new stable state appears along with new G1 unstable points, dening a new transition sequence of type G1-SG2 with just one new boundary point. This transition occurs as described in Case 7. In the second renement (Figure 14 (c)), other two isolated stable states appear, along with several other unstable points, leading to four new stability transitions. Particularly, the new transition sequence G1-S-G2 corresponds to the triad of solutions shown in Figure 9 (a). At this level of renement, we also nd transitions which do not correspond to capture-escape behavior. For example, the rst transition from left to right, which of type S-G1, is similar to Case 5. In addition the E-S pair corresponds to two similar escaping orbits which are classied outside the lunar SOI (Case 1). In the last renement (Figure 14 (d)) no new stability transitions appear. As the energy of the initial conditions grows, the zero velocity curves depart from the lunar region, allowing a larger spatial extension of the trajectories. When submitted to the stability classication, the spatially extended nonlinear behavior of trajectories produces a large diversity of classications as nner grids are considered in a small region of initial conditions, accounting for the fractal-like characteristic of the algorithmic WSB. 26

Figure 14: Successive renement of a radial segment containing a stable-unstable transition in the set of initial conditions with positive initial velocity and e = 0.9 0 0 0 0 for (a) r2 , (b) r2 /10, (c) r2 /100, and (d) r2 /1000. The circles represent stable initial conditions, while the polygons depict dierent types of unstable initial conditions as indicated by the label. The numbers inside each gure indicate the amount of consecutive initial states with the same classication. Grid-depended transitions are common along regions III and V , and along the highest altitudes of region I of Figure 10. In Figure 12, these transitions appear at highest altitudes of regions I and II, and along region III. With these observations, we conclude that the stability denition must be reviewed in order to avoid undesirable spurious transitions, allowing a better comprehension and possible applications of grid-dependent transitions which are authentic in the sense of capture-escape.

5.3

Proposal of alternative stability criteria for the detection of capture-escape transitions

The previous results show that the stability Denition 1 is not suited to solely detect capture-escape behavior around the Moon. Specically, Cases 2 and 4 illustrate that, even inside the lunar SOI, the measurement of hK does not guarantee that the behavior of the stable trajectory corresponds to a temporary capture if the time history between the initial condition and the nal state is neglected. Also, the threshold provided by null hK renders articial stable-unstable transitions that do not correspond to actual capture-escape behavior. We propose an alternative stability boundary denition based on the eective detection of capture-escape transitions, as stated below: Sets of initial conditions with null radial velocity and xed Jacobi constant must be considered. We veried that authentic capture-escape transitions correspond to the lowest altitudes above the energy threshold for escape through

27

L1 and L2 . This indicates that there is an ideal range of the Jacobi constant values that allow well dened capture-escape behavior. The measurement of hK must be replaced by the distance of the trajectory to the Moon after a complete revolution around that primary. The tracking of r2 (t), the distance from P3 to P2 as a function of the time, must be used as an instability criterion instead of the requirement of a complete lim turn around the Earth. Namely, a threshold value r2 can be established, such lim that if r2 (t) exceeds r2 , the trajectory must be classied as unstable. This new condition xes, for example, the inadequate classication of the trajectory said to be stable in Case 4 and also shortens the time needed to classify the unstable one. The maximum integration time of the stability classication must be diminished. If the maximum integration time is diminished or if the distance of the trajectory to the Moon is monitored, most of the large region of spurious transitions labeled as V in Figure 10 will disappear. Then, once the stability classication of single orbits is performed, pairs of trajectories that are candidate to capture-escape transitions must be certied by tracking the distance between these trajectories from the instant at which the rst of them is classied up to the classication of the second one. If these orbits remain together in the phase-space they do not correspond to a captureescape transition. Otherwise, an authentic transition is obtained. This avoids the inconsistent detection of transitions like the ones shown in Cases 1, 3 and 5, for example. Also, we remark that the length of time between the instants at which the captured and the escaping trajectories return to l(), although not conclusive, provides a good indication of capture-escape behavior. Finally, in order to select just safe solutions, transitions involving a stable orbit that enters the nite size of the Moon before its classication must be neglected too. The investigation of this new denition is the goal of a future contribution.

Conclusions

In this paper, a detailed characterization of stable-unstable transitions produced by the Weak Stability Boundary algorithmic denition was carried out with no energy restrictions to verify the eectiveness of the stability classication regarding capture-escape behavior detection. We described several types of transitions which occur due to other mechanisms besides the separatrix role of the invariant manifolds of periodic orbits around L1 and L2 . Specically, we showed how spurious transitions (not related to capture-escape) are produced when the nonlinear behavior of the dynamical system is submitted to the current stability classication procedure. Then, we showed that these spurious transitions are not rare, but constitute a very significant part of the boundary. In order to illustrate this statement, we examined how these diverse transitions are predominantly distributed along the stability boundary for a high eccentricity value, namely, e = 0.9. In addition, a renement procedure was implemented, showing that fractal-like structures can appear due to the combination of several possible mechanisms, and not only due to the dynamical separatrix eect. Thus, we conclude that the current algorithmic WSB does not provide an

28

unrestricted substitute for the hyperbolic invariant manifold structure, and that the constructive procedure should be revised in order to solely extract adequate capture-escape separatrices. Finally, in order to avoid the extraction of spurious boundary transitions from the initial condition sets, we proposed an alternative stability boundary denition and discussed the accurate detection of capture-escape behavior. The investigation of the eectiveness of the new stability criteria is the goal of a future work. Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by CAPES. The authors are grateful to Prof. Carles Sim for valuable discussions and for his o suggestions for the presentation of this paper.

References
Alligood K, Sauer T, Yorke J (1996) Chaos: An Introduction to Dynamical Systems. Springer, New York Bate R, Mueller D, White J (1971) Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. Dover Publications, New York Belbruno E (1987) Lunar capture orbits, a method of constructing Earth Moon trajectories and the lunar GAS mission. In: Proceedings of AIAA/DGLR/JSASS International Eletric Propulsion Conference, Paper No. AIAA 87-1054 Belbruno E (2004) Capture Dynamics and Chaotic Motions in Celestial Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton Belbruno E, Miller J (1993) Sun-perturbed Earth-to-Moon transfers with ballistic capture. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 16:770775 Belbruno E, Topputo F, Gidea M (2008) Resonance transitions associated to weak capture in the restricted three-body problem. Advances in Space Research 42:13301351 Belbruno E, Gidea M, Topputo F (2010) Weak stability boundary and invariant manifolds. SIAM Journal of Applied Dynamical Systems 9:10611089 Circi C, Teolatto P (2001) On the dynamics of weak stability boundary lunar tranfers. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 79:4172 Conley C (1969) On the ultimate behavior of orbits with respect to an unstable critical point. Journal of Dierential Equations 5:136158 Garc F, Gmez G (2007) A note on weak stability boundary. Celestial Mea o chanics and Dynamical Astronomy 97:87100 Gawlik E, Marsden J, du Toit P, Campagnola S (2009) Lagrangian coherent structures in the planar elliptic restricted three-body problem. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 103:227249

29

Gidea M, Masdemont J (2007) Geometry of homoclinic connections in a planar circular restricted three-body problem. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 17:11511169 Gomez G, Koon W, Lo M, Marsden J, Masdemont J, Ross S (2001) Invariant manifolds, the spatial three-body problem and space mission design. In: Proceedings of AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Meeting, Paper No. AAS 01-301 Haller G (2001) Distinguished material surfaces and coherent structures in threedimensional uid ows. Physica D 149:248277 Koon W, Lo M, Marsden J, Ross S (2000) Heteroclinic connections between periodic orbits and resonance transitions in celestial mechanics. Chaos 10:427 469 Koon W, Lo M, Marsden J, Ross S (2001) Low energy transfer to the Moon. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 81:6373 Llibre J, Sim C (1980) Some homoclinic phenomena in the three-body problem. o Journal of Dierential Equations 37:444465 Mak Z, Szenkovits F, Salamon J, Olh-Gl R (2010) Stable and unstable orbits o a a around Mercury. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 108:357370 Marsden J, Ross S (2005) New methods in celestial mechanics and mission design. Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical Society 43:43 73 Moser J (1958) On the generalisation of a theorem of A. Liapuno. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 11:257271 Murray C, Dermott S (1999) Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, New York Prussing J, Conway B (1993) Orbital Mechanics. Oxford University Press, New York Romagnoli D, Circi C (2009) Earth-Moon weak stability boundaries in the restricted three and four body problem. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 103:79103 Short C, Howell K, Tricoche, X (2011) Lagrangian Coherent Structures in the Restricted Three-Body Problem. In: Proceedings of 21st AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 2011, Paper No. AAS 11-250 Sousa Silva P, Terra M (2010) Dynamical properties of the Weak Stability Boundary and associated sets. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 246, 012007 Sousa Silva P, Terra M (2011) Applicability and dynamical characterization of the associated sets of the algorithmic Weak Stability Boundary in the lunar SOI, submitted.

30

Szebehely V (1967) Theory of Orbits. Academic Press, New York Topputo F, Belbruno E (2009) Computation of weak stability boundaries: SunJupiter system. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 105:317

31