Author Topic: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI  (Read 8696 times)

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 4945
  • Likes Given: 1179
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #20 on: 07/21/2017 10:22 PM »
ARM had a docking port for Orion. PPE would just need the one. Right?

The RFP specifies 2 IDSS-compatible interfaces.  The single ARM one was on the "rear" of the spacecraft (from which the SEP engines are offset) and the new one is in the "nose" where the grabber mechanism would've been. 

Offline Propylox

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #21 on: 07/22/2017 01:14 AM »
"Near rectilinear halo orbit" is a non-starter. [...] Dump the circus act for a useful LLO and the electric power and propulsion requirements evaporate, as does funding requirements.
Is part of it about wanting a big SEP project in a post-ARM world?  Back-solving from the tech they want to fund?
I'm all for "a big SEP" to transport propellant and infrastructure from (commercial) LEO to (DSG) LLO, but nothing about ARM or this DSG RFI addresses that. I define "big" as 800 to 1,000 kW and capable of +25mT in a 6mo roundtrip. The 12kW HETs won't cut it so don't need testing.

What use is DSG at LLO when no one can visit it. Orion could make it to LLO but it would be oneway trip.
The problem is Orion cannot enter and then exit LLO, so no infrastructure using Orion will be built or moved there.
The leftover ATV and Shuttle OME re-purposed as Orion's temporary Service Module contains 9mT propellant for ~ 1,350 m/s delta-v and isn't capable of LLO missions. But increasing propellant by 6mT to a wetmass of 32mT is ~ 2,000 m/s delta-v. This is enough for LLO and return with ample capabilities and margin.

I thought low lunar orbits (LLO) were unstable, requiring between 0-400 m/s of station keeping.

Putting the DSG in LLO would make lunar landing much easier.
Some are highly unstable, others entirely stable due to the Moon's mass/gravity distribution.

There's no point building a rocket and capsule to go to the Moon if we're not landing and the lower the staging orbit, the less propellant is required per trip. But this assumes the propellant is delivered via SEP, not chemically like Orion.

7.5 mT is the weight of each module. The current plan is for 4 modules.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/nasa-goals-missions-sls-eyes-multi-step-mars

IMHO A small spacestation containing 4 tiny modules to be lifted by 4 SLS and assembled by 4 Orions appears excessive.
Especially when a functional 42-day docking berth can be placed in LLO with a single TSTO cargo launch. Just not the design and orbit listed in the RFI - because NASA, of course.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2017 11:53 PM by Propylox »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2810
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #22 on: 07/22/2017 01:50 AM »
4 modules comes to about 30mt total delivered with 4 SLS/Orion flights. It is interesting to note that a single SLS/Cargo flight could deliver all 4 modules at once. If the 5th SLS flight will be in 2026 (New RS25E's) and the 6th flight in 2028. That makes the DSG fully functional for use NET 2026 when the first habitat module is delivered. 2 SLS flights prior to the DSG habitat delivery (5th SLS flight) is the Europa Clipper flights (SLS #2/3 and #4). If the EC Lander is delayed then the Habitat could be 2 years earlier but would also require a human rated habitat to be completed/developed in 6 years from now. That is really pushing it since the habitat has yet to even be on contract, not even close to a PDR point (probably at least 3 years away 2020) , CDR a year latter (2021) then 3 years to build and certify the habitat (2024) then a year later launch (2025). So SLS flt #4 could be as late as 2025 if EC#2 (Lander) development is delayed into second half of 2020's.

But to get all 4 DSG modules in orbit could be as late as 2030.

But this PPE design is useful for other uses than just the DSG. So it may have a life of it's own regardless of SLS/Orion or even DSG.

Offline Propylox

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #23 on: 07/22/2017 02:05 AM »
... But this PPE design is useful for other uses than just the DSG.
So it may have a life of it's own regardless of SLS/Orion or even DSG.
I'd counter this PPE may have a thousand uses, but DSG ain't one.
Manned habitation, docking attempts, or any sort of mission won't be occurring from that orbit. Meaning DSG will be somewhere else while PPE floats about. If/when DSG is planned for a useful orbit, the electric propulsion system this PPE sports won't be necessary or wanted. Meaning this PPE won't be part of DSG, though that's how NASA is selling it. You buying?

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #24 on: 07/22/2017 02:52 AM »
If the EC Lander is delayed then the Habitat could be 2 years earlier but would also require a human rated habitat to be completed/developed in 6 years from now. That is really pushing it since the habitat has yet to even be on contract, not even close to a PDR point (probably at least 3 years away 2020) , CDR a year latter (2021) then 3 years to build and certify the habitat (2024) then a year later launch (2025). So SLS flt #4 could be as late as 2025 if EC#2 (Lander) development is delayed into second half of 2020's.

Boeing was selected as ISS prime contractor in 1993 and Unity was launched 5 and a half years later in December 1998. If they select one or two of the NextStep Hab partners(Boeing, SNC, Bigelow, Lockheed Martin or Orbital) in 2018, they have a reasonable shot of launching it is 2024 which would be 6 years later. Probably helps the schedule that we have basically been through this rodeo before.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 4945
  • Likes Given: 1179
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #25 on: 07/22/2017 02:58 AM »
... But this PPE design is useful for other uses than just the DSG.
So it may have a life of it's own regardless of SLS/Orion or even DSG.
I'd counter this PPE may have a thousand uses, but DSG ain't one.
Manned habitation, docking attempts, or any sort of mission won't be occurring from that orbit. Meaning DSG will be somewhere else while PPE floats about. If/when DSG is planned for a useful orbit, the electric propulsion system this PPE sports won't be necessary or wanted. Meaning this PPE won't be part of DSG, though that's how NASA is selling it. You buying?

Calm down, NASA will still be around for you to hate for some time.   ::)  Also I'm not sure "Any sort of mission won't be occurring from that orbit" just because you feel that way and dislike the idea.  There are a few missions planned so far, theres no physical reason why they won't happen.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2017 06:08 AM by okan170 »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8077
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #26 on: 07/22/2017 08:46 PM »
... But this PPE design is useful for other uses than just the DSG.
So it may have a life of it's own regardless of SLS/Orion or even DSG.
I'd counter this PPE may have a thousand uses, but DSG ain't one.
Manned habitation, docking attempts, or any sort of mission won't be occurring from that orbit. Meaning DSG will be somewhere else while PPE floats about. If/when DSG is planned for a useful orbit, the electric propulsion system this PPE sports won't be necessary or wanted. Meaning this PPE won't be part of DSG, though that's how NASA is selling it. You buying?

Supplying a 30-40 tonne spacestation with 400 m/s of station keeping per year is going to require a significant amount of thrusting. A propellant depot and lander will significantly increase the mass.

Turning a second PPE into an Isp 4,190 space tug is fairly easy. Low thrust LEO to LLO is a delta-v of 8.0 km/s one way.

A Masten and ULA Xeus reusable lander should be able to land Moon base modules, rovers and with a capsule people.

Offline Propylox

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #27 on: 07/22/2017 10:52 PM »
I'd counter this PPE may have a thousand uses, but DSG ain't one.
Calm down, NASA will still be around for you to hate for some time.   ::)
I adore NASA, but the fish rots at the head. ie; I live in CO and like baseball, but this team's leadership is incompetent and has been for years (decades?). Still love the team, but all they have are bad ideas (piggyback rotation, anyone?) resulting in listless ineptitude and failure. Go Rockies!

NASA has been in a funk for around a decade with nothing but bad ideas, no accomplishments and a glaring lack of competent leadership. This PPE and DSG plans are prime examples. PPE is based on ARM, a notion of throwing rocks at the most important glass house - Earth. And not even in the name of science, but corporatism?! This NRHO proposal is entirely useless, even moreso that L1 gateways which were to finance gas stations and impede actual missions. So let's drift PPE around nowhere to validate prior decisions?! NASA isn't a problem. It's their top-brass, decision making and direction that is.

If the leftovers of ARM, now proposed as PPE really needs a job - may I suggest garbage disposal?
I suggested elsewhere on an international agreement not to litter the Moon. Future missions and programs cannot leave stages, tanks, etc in Lunar orbit, lest it end up like Earth's.
ARM/PPE and any large'ish-scale SEP tests should focus on removal of existing lunar garbage, development of a SEP tug and intent to clean Earth's debris. The available mass on EM-1&2 could instead deploy small sats into Lunar orbit as com relays and location beacons (the beginnings of a Lunar Positioning System).
« Last Edit: 07/23/2017 03:43 AM by Propylox »

Offline JazzFan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Florida
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #28 on: 07/22/2017 11:19 PM »
Will the Power/Propulsion module be a clean sheet design or use an existing bus or propulsion module as a foundation to build upon?

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 520
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #29 on: 07/23/2017 08:04 AM »
Don't feed the troll...

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2810
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #30 on: 07/23/2017 03:20 PM »
Literally this PPE is a "DEEP SPACE TUG". It has advanced docking adapters for in-space attachment of any "payload" and sufficient DV to push some significant sized items around. As I said before and probably is the reason NASA wants to build it in the first place is that this PPE has a multitude of uses outside of just the SLS/Orion/DSG program. Also with its fore and aft docking it can be stacked with multiple PPE to create a very large outer planetary DV delivery system. Think of mating this PPE to a dedicated Europa Lander. This then makes the EC Lander a simpler design such that the power and propulsion is designed leaving only the communication and experiment packages. Also if this vehicle was to also have a significant communication relay capability then the payload no longer need that either. This module then becomes if used to send stuff to Mars a orbital communication relay with its very high power solar arrays capable of multiple high data rate channels for multiple ground assets and links to Earth. 24KW is 2X the power used on HTS comm sats.

Added:
A question then is the intent to make this PPE have a diameter when stowed such that it could fit in a 5m fairing? If so then it definitely has a future for use in the planetary programs. Much less any HSF programs that eventually get approved regardless of SHLV that is used in that program.

I like this vehicle. It shows some forethought into a "LEGO" in-space methodology. Many have thought that the customized each vehicle method has always been the wrong way to go for shortening the development time and development costs. A more "LEGO" approach where stuff is just docked together on the ground at launch or even in-space docking using smaller LV's gives a large set of options for programs to choose quicker and lest costly development paths. This will also help the DSG in that it offloads much of the design problems of the DSG into logical "LEGO" pieces that can be individually tested and improved/replaced if needed.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2017 03:33 PM by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #31 on: 07/23/2017 06:25 PM »
"Near rectilinear halo orbit" is a non-starter. If you'd like to know more about the impossibility of station keeping, manned habitation and severe constraints on every mission plan it creates, NASA has plenty of papers - oddly pointing this out and concluding we should do it anyways. Much like the terrible idea of "Lagrange Gateways" that's been floated for years, now NASA pushes an even worse idea.

Cislunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit for Human Space Exploration - Sept 2016
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160003078

I was only able to read the abstract of that paper but from what I read it doesn't seem that the authors are declaring NRO orbits impossible or worthless. They are pointing out that NROs have never been used for human exploration and that different orbital models will be required. It's a challenge but not an impossible one.

Attached is another paper that I ran across in NSF a while ago that is quite positive on the usage of NROs for human exploration.

I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2810
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #32 on: 07/23/2017 07:33 PM »
"Near rectilinear halo orbit" is a non-starter. If you'd like to know more about the impossibility of station keeping, manned habitation and severe constraints on every mission plan it creates, NASA has plenty of papers - oddly pointing this out and concluding we should do it anyways. Much like the terrible idea of "Lagrange Gateways" that's been floated for years, now NASA pushes an even worse idea.

Cislunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit for Human Space Exploration - Sept 2016
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160003078

I was only able to read the abstract of that paper but from what I read it doesn't seem that the authors are declaring NRO orbits impossible or worthless. They are pointing out that NROs have never been used for human exploration and that different orbital models will be required. It's a challenge but not an impossible one.

Attached is another paper that I ran across in NSF a while ago that is quite positive on the usage of NROs for human exploration.
The one distinct advantage of L2 is that launch windows to that destination are not overly complex. But NRO's require specific timing of the object in the NRO with the Earth's rotation which could be highly restrictive. But for SLS that is unlikly to launch more than once a year that is not really a concern. But for an active continuously manned DSG where commercial services are resupplying and possibly even delivering crews such orbits would represent significant launch scheduling conflicts and other possible lengthy delays when a window is missed.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8077
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #33 on: 07/24/2017 02:41 AM »
Literally this PPE is a "DEEP SPACE TUG". It has advanced docking adapters for in-space attachment of any "payload" and sufficient DV to push some significant sized items around. As I said before and probably is the reason NASA wants to build it in the first place is that this PPE has a multitude of uses outside of just the SLS/Orion/DSG program. Also with its fore and aft docking it can be stacked with multiple PPE to create a very large outer planetary DV delivery system. Think of mating this PPE to a dedicated Europa Lander. This then makes the EC Lander a simpler design such that the power and propulsion is designed leaving only the communication and experiment packages. Also if this vehicle was to also have a significant communication relay capability then the payload no longer need that either. This module then becomes if used to send stuff to Mars a orbital communication relay with its very high power solar arrays capable of multiple high data rate channels for multiple ground assets and links to Earth. 24KW is 2X the power used on HTS comm sats.

Added:
A question then is the intent to make this PPE have a diameter when stowed such that it could fit in a 5m fairing? If so then it definitely has a future for use in the planetary programs. Much less any HSF programs that eventually get approved regardless of SHLV that is used in that program.

I like this vehicle. It shows some forethought into a "LEGO" in-space methodology. Many have thought that the customized each vehicle method has always been the wrong way to go for shortening the development time and development costs. A more "LEGO" approach where stuff is just docked together on the ground at launch or even in-space docking using smaller LV's gives a large set of options for programs to choose quicker and lest costly development paths. This will also help the DSG in that it offloads much of the design problems of the DSG into logical "LEGO" pieces that can be individually tested and improved/replaced if needed.

I cannot see any mention of the fairing size in the RFI. So if an aerospace firm can design the PPE to fit into a 5m fairing they may get NASA to pay for development of their SEP tug.

Offline Propylox

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #34 on: 07/24/2017 07:53 AM »
I cannot see any mention of the fairing size in the RFI. So if an aerospace firm can design the PPE to fit into a 5m fairing they may get NASA to pay for development of their SEP tug.
A lot will fit in a 5m fairing, like 900kW of SEP. Consider HiPEP (or many other ion thrusters) with thin-film arrays;

HiPEP will operate at 40-50kW and around 9,000s isp in a 41cm x 91cm form factor. There are plans to de-rate it to 25kW for 10yr missions, but that's not important here. Twenty-four HiPEP thrusters will fit roughly 4m diameter (even closely packed, some corners hang out).
-- At 29.6kW each, it's a 710.4kW array @ 8900s , 80% efficiency and 12.96N
-- At 39.6kW each, it's a 950.4kW array @ 9620s , 80% efficiency and 16.08N
2004 HiPEP tests - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040139476.pdf
2006 Efficiency study - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060008936.pdf

A 20m diameter hexagonal thin-film array (with a space in the center) produces around 150kW in cis-Lunar space. Six of these, each independently operated, could be arranged around a 20m hexagonal void where the tug resides. Around 900kW is enough to deliver 30mT to LLO and return in 6mos.
An old SEP study - http://www.astronautix.com/s/septug.html
-- Spiraling out at 0 degree inclination the arrays will last 3-4 round trips due to Van Allen proton degradation.
-- Spiraling out at 51.6 degree reduces radiation 4x and will last 10-12 round trips.

After 10-12 round trips (5-6yrs at constant operation) the lightweight, inexpensive solar arrays would be toast -- as would their electronics -- as would the lightweight HiPEP thrusters if run at ~40kW.
The best designs match component failures and this short-term, almost disposable design is superior (IMO) to a robust, heavy and expensive one like hardened solar and VASIMR engines.
« Last Edit: 07/24/2017 07:57 AM by Propylox »

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #35 on: 07/24/2017 05:43 PM »
"Near rectilinear halo orbit" is a non-starter. If you'd like to know more about the impossibility of station keeping, manned habitation and severe constraints on every mission plan it creates, NASA has plenty of papers - oddly pointing this out and concluding we should do it anyways. Much like the terrible idea of "Lagrange Gateways" that's been floated for years, now NASA pushes an even worse idea.

Cislunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit for Human Space Exploration - Sept 2016
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160003078

I was only able to read the abstract of that paper but from what I read it doesn't seem that the authors are declaring NRO orbits impossible or worthless. They are pointing out that NROs have never been used for human exploration and that different orbital models will be required. It's a challenge but not an impossible one.

Attached is another paper that I ran across in NSF a while ago that is quite positive on the usage of NROs for human exploration.
The one distinct advantage of L2 is that launch windows to that destination are not overly complex. But NRO's require specific timing of the object in the NRO with the Earth's rotation which could be highly restrictive. But for SLS that is unlikly to launch more than once a year that is not really a concern. But for an active continuously manned DSG where commercial services are resupplying and possibly even delivering crews such orbits would represent significant launch scheduling conflicts and other possible lengthy delays when a window is missed.

Not true...

Quote
We found that in order to minimize Orion propellent usage, the optimizer was adjusting the outbound
trip times to keep the arrival in and departure from the NRHO near the favorable regions of
the NRHO for those maneuvers. In terms of Orion propellant used, the rendezvous missions would
approach the performance of the free-phase missions once per NRHO period. At these points near
the phase match, there would typically be from 3 to 5 consecutive feasible rendezvous mission
opportunities, with the best approaching the performance of the free-phase cases (see Figure 13).
For the short stay missions examined, this means that there would be multiple sets of launch opportunities
each month
, with each set spanning 3 to 5 consecutive days. The results also indicate
that, at least broadly, the previous free-phase results can be used to gain insight into the general
performance situation for fixed-phase trajectories.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170001352

These are launch opportunities with Orion towing a 10 ton module to rendezvous with another object already in that orbit.
« Last Edit: 07/24/2017 05:51 PM by ncb1397 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31028
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9187
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #36 on: 07/24/2017 06:05 PM »

I cannot see any mention of the fairing size in the RFI. So if an aerospace firm can design the PPE to fit into a 5m fairing they may get NASA to pay for development of their SEP tug.

NASA is paying for the development of a SEP tug, that is what PPE is.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Home
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #37 on: 07/24/2017 11:32 PM »
Isn't it a rather *small* SEP tug at 7500 kg? Launching it together with an Orion puts some severe limitations on it.

Also, isn't the whole point of a SEP tug to move payloads around? I'd expect a real tug to continuously carry payloads from LEO, perhaps synchronized with cargo flights. But it seems the plan is for this to sit in the same orbit for years.

I'd rather describe this as a small space-station core module, providing power and station-keeping.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 4945
  • Likes Given: 1179
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #38 on: 07/24/2017 11:36 PM »
Isn't it a rather *small* SEP tug at 7500 kg? Launching it together with an Orion puts some severe limitations on it.

Also, isn't the whole point of a SEP tug to move payloads around? I'd expect a real tug to continuously carry payloads from LEO, perhaps synchronized with cargo flights. But it seems the plan is for this to sit in the same orbit for years.

I'd rather describe this as a small space-station core module, providing power and station-keeping.

It has to be able to move between different orbits to support different objectives.

Offline Propylox

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Deep Space Gateway Power/Propulsion RFI
« Reply #39 on: 07/25/2017 01:28 AM »
Quote
We found that in order to minimize Orion propellent usage, the optimizer was adjusting the outbound
trip times to keep the arrival in and departure from the NRHO near the favorable regions of
the NRHO for those maneuvers. In terms of Orion propellant used, the rendezvous missions would
approach the performance of the free-phase missions once per NRHO period.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170001352
These are launch opportunities with Orion towing a 10 ton module to rendezvous with another object already in that orbit.
Fantastic. This implies there are a few opportunities each month to descend to the surface or to schedule a return from the surface. If there's a surface emergency, they'll just have to die waiting for orbital alignment. If an emergency arises while in orbit, can we safely say only half the orbit allows direct to Earth-return. The other half is also death? Great plan.

Tags: