\u201cWhen it comes to space travel, every meter per second equates to a massive amount of fuel consumption,\u201d Allan Kardec de Almeida J\u00fanior, the study\u2019s lead author and a researcher at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, said in a statement<\/a>.<\/p>\n Trekking the skies <\/p>\n Needless to say, sending a spacecraft to the Moon isn\u2019t as simple as asking Google Maps for the shortest route from your location to the nearest subway station. According to NASA<\/a>, planning the flight path of spacecraft takes careful consideration of many factors, such as\u00a0trajectory design, orbit reconstruction, tracking the spacecraft\u2019s position and velocity, predicting its future path, and the tools navigators use to control the spacecraft once it\u2019s in space.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the latest study isn\u2019t a comprehensive solution to every requirement for spaceflight planning, but it does offer a decent starting point. The team began by mapping out a two-part trajectory from Earth\u2019s orbit to the Moon. First, the spacecraft leaves Earth and enters the Moon\u2019s orbit around the L1 Lagrange point<\/a>, where the gravitational pull of the two bodies cancels out. That enables the spacecraft to naturally drift along a \u201cvariate,\u201d a \u201cnatural trajectory\u201d leading toward the L1 orbit while conserving fuel, the researchers explained.<\/p>\n Contrarian solutions <\/p>\n The team\u2019s simulations showed that the most economical route contradicts existing models of the most efficient path. Current models assume that it\u2019s better to enter the variate at a branch closest to Earth, but the new simulations suggest otherwise: that it was better to enter from a route closer to the Moon.<\/p>\n In fact, this route lowers the chances of interruptions in communication, said Vitor Martins de Oliveira, the study\u2019s co-author and a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Coimbra. \u201cThe Artemis 2 mission, for example, lost communication with Earth for a while because it was directly behind the moon,\u201d he added. \u201cThe orbit we propose is a solution that maintains uninterrupted communication.\u201d<\/p>\n More work to be done <\/p>\n Again, planning for a real mission would require more complex procedures. To be clear, the researchers aren\u2019t claiming that their model can single-handedly decide everything. For one, the simulations only took into account the gravity of the Moon and Earth, not other celestial bodies. Their proposed route also isn\u2019t necessarily the cheapest, although it is the most cost-efficient.<\/p>\n That said, the team is still confident that this method could be leveraged by mission planners in performing large numbers of simulations to get an idea of what the best trajectory could be. Of course, each trajectory would have to be tailored to the details of that particular launch.<\/p>\n \u201cFor example, if we simulate the mission\u2019s launch date as December 23, we\u2019ll obtain results valid only for a mission launched on that date,\u201d Almeida said. At the same time, this also means that the method is quite flexible; it\u2019s \u201csomething that could be adopted more widely going forward,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n![\"Moon](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/moon-trajectory-almeida-astrodynamics.jpg\")
Trajectory of the complete journey between the Earth and Moon orbits. \u00a9 Almeida et al., 2026 <\/p>\n