Parking Orbit

In article .com,
"Will McLean" wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 10:12:33 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Will McLean"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

How practical is it to tailor a parking orbit for lunar missions that
is reasonably efficent to reach from KSC and precesses at 180 degrees a
lunar month?

What's wrong with 360?


Nothing. Any multiple of 180 will do. 180 seemed more doable, based on
the orbits I've been able to find information on.

Will McLean

Why would anybody *want* such a long-duration parking orbit? The craft
could go stale if it is kept in orbit that long -- besides, the only
reason for an earth parking orbit is to extend the launch window from
some 3 minutes to several hours. It costs propellant to insert into park
and then inject into translunar.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:37:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Orval
Fairbairn made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Why would anybody *want* such a long-duration parking orbit? The craft
could go stale if it is kept in orbit that long -- besides, the only
reason for an earth parking orbit is to extend the launch window from
some 3 minutes to several hours. It costs propellant to insert into park
and then inject into translunar.

Presumably to establish a propellant depot, which could pay for itself
in terms of the extra propellant for the insertion.