Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Peter Thomas Senese - Fly Boarding - I Can Fly!

video

      Fly Boarding - The Most Amazing Sport Ever

                                              Live life to the fullest . . . learn to fly!

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Heroes, Miracles, Children, and Abduction: A Heroic Rescue

I am pleased to be able to finally share the wonderful news that my good friend Kalli Atteya has safely reunited with her young son, who was previously internationally snatched by the child's father during a despicable and cunning scheme that lured Kalli and her son to revolutionary Egypt two years ago (the abduction took place on August 1st, 2011) under the guise of the extremist father, Mohamed's, claims that his mother was dying and that she wanted to see her grandson before her death.

Kalli's efforts are nothing short of heroic.  The love she holds for her son is what is right about our world.

This is what occurred in short form.

Kalli had met Mohamed (an Egyptian national reported to be part of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) in 1999 while he worked in a restaurant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. A year later they married. And a year later, Niko was born (2001).

"Three months after our boy was born, he left,” Kalli Atteya told FoxNews.com. “He moved back to Harrisburg, and he dated many, many women. I tried to save my marriage but it didn’t work. Basically, he married me for a visa."

Finally, in 2005 Kalli was granted a divorce from the child's father, who quickly moved from the United States to China, leaving Kalli - who is a few classes short of receiving her Masters in Education, alone to raise her young son.

During the next six years, Kalli kept in touch with Mohamed in order for her child to know his estranged father under remote circumstances.

Then, in 2011, Kalli and her son's nightmare occurred.

Mohamed was able to convince Kalli to travel with their son to Egypt in order to see his alleged dying mother.  What was really going on unknown to Kalli was that Mohamed was planning to snatch his son, and bring him into the world of the Muslim Brotherhood.  

Shortly upon Kalli and her son's arrival, Mohamed's long-planned scheme went into place and culminated with him tossing out of the car Kalli and her sister Maria (who traveled with her sister and nephew from Pennsylvania to Egypt), while they were on a desolate road while in route from Alexandria to Port Said on August 1st, 2011.

Kalli stated that Mohamed had complained of car trouble and forced herself and her sister (Maria Panagos) out of the car in extreme heat, leaving Niko, himself and a driver to speed away. "Mohamed threw me off on the side and ran to the car. I remember seeing Maria dragging behind the car as my son pounded on the windows. It was so unreal to me. At that very moment, I knew this was all preplanned."

And so, Mohamed, disappeared into the turbulent sea of the Egyptian Revolution, leaving Kalli and Maria (what am amazing sister) looking into the foreboding eye of the cyclone of abduction. 

Unfortunately, at the very same time in Egypt, the Spring Uprising also essentially tossed out any rule of law, and despite the fact that Kali was able to obtain an array of national court orders and arrest warrents against Mohamed, the political atmosphere resulted in nothing being done against Mohamed for his act of abduction. 

In the meantime, Kalli was rightfully petrified for her life, as threats by Mohamed were not to be taken as hot-winded words, but a reality. 

Still she persisted. How could she not? She had a child to protect: one whom she loved with all of who she is. 

Perhaps that's the one thing about being a targeted parent of international parental child abduction that most others don't really know: as a parent you know you're about to chase the cyclones of the biggest storms conceivable - you know you're going to get battered if you are lucky enough to simply walk out of it - but you do it anyway because love is worth risking everything for. 

Welcome to the world of international parental child abduction where schemes such as Mohamed's are the norm, not the atypical.

In fact, young Niko is quoted by Fox News as saying, "“My Dad forced me to be Muslim, which I did not want to do."

“My son told me [it was] to make him a Muslim,” Atteya stated when asked why she thought her ex-husband snatched the boy. “He said that we lack the morality and the values that their system has. And he said that Americans were so violent, he said we are a rotting society.”

So just how did Kalli regain her son?

Well, she traveled to Egypt on three separate occasions, only letting her most trusted friends familiar with her intent to know what she was doing.

Along the way, she sadly paid over $100,000.00 to a company that helps recover internationally abducted children.  According to Kalli that company took her money but did nothing.  Fox News added, "Kalli turned to a Norwegian company for help. With each new bit of hope came a new charge until she had spent more than $100,000, depleting her savings and funds borrowed from relatives. Still, she seemed no closer to reuniting with her son."

As you may imagine, Kalli's despair and concern for her son grew as her funds quickly depleted. 

But there was one thing that Mohamed did not bank on: the unbowed love Kalli had for her son, and her will to bring her son home. 

Along the way, Kalli kept certain government non-government organizations abreast of her plans, always making sure that whatever she was doing, was in fact, legal and in accordance to international law (I applaud this act at the highest level).

As to the exact details of how Kalli was able to find and reunite with Niko, needless to say, she walked a hire-wire act that included finding, watching, and planning on when and how to approach her son, who was being carefully guarded - yes guarded (remember, the reality is that children of abduction are in fact 'prisoners'). 

In fact, there were a few times that Kalli actually got to close to Mohamed for comfort. Fortunately, he did not recognize her underneath the veil of the Burqa she was required to wear in Muslim-controlled fundamentalist Egypt.

With careful timing and awareness of Mohamed's whereabouts, Kalli had a limited opportunity to rescue her son.  

Her plan came together as Niko was exiting the school he was attending that Kalli had successfully tracked him to.

Seeing her son on the street as school was letting out the children, Kalli quickly approached her son while she wore her Burqa.  Eyeing him, she said, "Niko. Its mommy. Come with me quickly."

Under the dark veil, the child saw his mother's piercing blue eyes. He knew it was his mother. He listened.

“My first reaction was [to wonder] if that was my mom or not, and then I saw her eyes,” Niko said. “I thought, ‘Thank God. I’m going to finally get out of here. I’m going to be free."

Quickly walking to a rickshaw, Kalli put her on on the back seat seat of the three-wheel bike commonly found in Egypt, and peddled as fast as she could away from the town where the child had been detained. 

Once the school was a distance away, Kalli changed Niko's clothing.  "I dressed him up as a girl. We made it back to a safe house," she told Public Opinion. 

But the journey was far from over. 

Now alone in Egypt with her son, and knowing that the father would soon be looking for her and her child, Kalli needed assistance from home, while trying to create a plan that would cause Mohamed to misdirect his own fanatical search.  


United State Department of State officials have publicly stated that they are aware of Atteya’s case, but declined to provide further details due to privacy concerns.

“One of the Department’s highest priorities is the welfare of U.S. citizens overseas,” the statement reads. “This is particularly true for children, who our most vulnerable citizens.”

Read what you will into this statement, but one thing was certain: Kali was going to operate within the rules of international law. And today, with the assistance of her friends combined with the unbowed love and courage she has for her son - both mother and son are home. 


How lucky are they?

Well, according to heavily reliable sources, Mohamed Atteya and his henchmen have attempted to track down anyone who assisted Kalli bring her son home, leaving a trail of heavy violence in his path, as he and his goons have attacked anyone he thinks may have helped his ex-wife. 

Mohamed Atteya, 38, who speaks Arabic, English and Chinese, and is wanted by the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security Service for making false statements and providing forged documents to obtain a U.S. passport, amongst a series of criminal complaints against him.  Should he attempt to enter the United States, he will be immediatley detained. 

In the meantime, the friends of Kalli celebrate openly her and Niko's return.  It has been a long road for mother and child, but for all those who have supported them.  

When Fox News shared part of the story today of how Kalli reunited with Niko, it was time to finally share the news we have guarded carefully to our vest.  

With reflection on Kalli's story, the question must be asked: How far are extremist parental kidnappers willing to go?

Below is a portion of a story I shared yesterday concerning this very topic. I am including it here for further reading.


There is a significant and growing side of international parental child abduction that makes me shudder at the very notion of kidnapping I am too familiar with: the alarming act of cross-border parental child kidnappings committed by political extremist and religious zealots.

It has taken a while for society to grasp the notion that when one parent illegally removes a child from the child's country of habitual residency, this is a cruel criminal act of kidnapping.  And the abducted child is not simply with one of their parents, but instead, is a hostage held by an abductor who generally does not have the child's best interest in mind.

Tragically, and most alarming is the reality that children of abduction are being put into extraordinarily dangerous situations.

Previously, I have shared the reality that felicide - child murder by a parent - along with suicide amongst child abduction victims is a real issue.

So where does the use of a child come into play amongst political extremest, social revolutionaries, and religious zealots?

What I am about to share should not be classified as a rare occurrence. They are not.

Let this image sit with you for a moment: a young girl is internationally kidnapped by one of her parents: a parent who possesses extreme religious beliefs that all things born from the West are evil, including his daughter.  In that parent's religious zealot fever, he thinks that the only way to have penance is to do the unthinkable. Meanwhile, the young girl's mother, frantic at knowing the truth of the monster who took their child, along with knowledge of his intent, seeks any way to rescue a child now taken to a world where women have no rights, and foreign women have even less.

But here is an innocent child now delegated to becoming a sacrifice.

Welcome to the unforgivable world of international parental child abduction.

Now imagine a young boy abducted to the nation, if you can call it that, in the midst of a bloody civil war in impoverished Africa. The child was taken by his mother, who left him behind, as a bargaining chip in the conflict between two of that nation's leading militant tribes. As bombs exploded and casualties rose, the child is taught to think that his left-behind parent not only did not love him and that he was an evil man; while the brainwashing ordeal unfolded, war's bloodshed continued to fall.  And for the father who searched, he knew that returning back to the country his child was held hostage could lead to his immediate death, and further harm to his family that remained in his country of origin.

So here is another innocent child delegated to becoming a pawn in a nation's civil war.

Welcome to the brutal world of international parental child abduction.

A young child just learning how to ride a bicycle is snatched from a Norman Rockwellesque mid-
America town and taken to a nation of zealot fundamentalist revolutionaries who preach intolerance for the West.  The child is taught to hate the peaceful world he was taken from.  Gone is the loving, peaceful, and gentle world he was born and raised in. In its place is a world filled with daily bombings and gunfights, violent protests that lead to deadly stampedes, and an unforgivable God (the God the kidnapper teaches his child is not a loving God, nor does it represent the kind God taught in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths).  As this child lives an imprisoned life terrified by everything around him, his left behind parent knows that entering the world of the brutal abductor in order to find her child if caught means entering a world so brutal, that your imagination's notion of brutal punishment and torture, simply could not conjure the realities that would await her if caught.

Sadly, another defenseless child imprisoned into the worst of nightmares. Except it is his reality.

Welcome to the world where the God worshipped is a God filled with hatred.

And do not think that a child is not at risk of death. They are.

Perhaps this reality is the one singular thing that drives all child abduction prevention advocates the most: the hope to prevent the death of a child either at the hands of their parent abductor, or at their own hands later in life due to the brutal psychological trauma they endured during the time of their abduction.  I know my own activism in this arena is greatly due to my desire to help protect children from all forms of harm.

As you can see, the common denominator in the scenarios I presented above is that the child was used as a pawn to advance the abductor's own agenda.

This is something that occurs in every international parental child abduction case.

For the taken child, they are indeed brought into a harsh world that emotionally and spiritually resembles the lonely, wind swept barrier prison known as Alcatraz.  Short-term and long-term trauma is real. So too are the challenges the majority of children face going forward.

One of the things that appears to not have been spoken about in the dialogue concerning international parental child abduction is the general view by the abducting parent that life in the country of the child's habitual residency is one that they often dislike, or in some cases, despise.

In these types of situations, the abductor's (who is nearly always a foreign born national living in another country) resentment toward most things in the country they are residing in prior to the act of kidnapping grows significantly.

Eventually, some of these parents sermonize their view to the child: preaching - and brainwashing - their views to a child is a necessity for all abductors since they need to justify the act of kidnapping to the child under the guise of 'liberation'.

And extreme cases of 'liberators' does exist, creating a potentially greater danger to society than what anyone is talking about.

The question needs to be asked: What are the long-term social risks if a zealot abductor kidnaps a child born in the West, removes that child to a nation of political and religious extremism which the abductor is an active part of, and who evangelizes the messages of hatred and intolerance toward the child's country of previous habitual residency to the point that the child buys into the parent abductor's sermons as 'liberator' that is preached in order to justify the international abduction?

Well, we have a potentially serious problem on our hands.

Make no mistake, all forms of international parental child abduction are severe forms of child abuse.  Under no circumstance should child abduction be tolerated.  Fortunately, this notion is beginning to take hold by society due to the stewardship of the realities of abduction by concerned parents and advocates alike.

In fact, by raising awareness of international parental child abduction the cross-border kidnapping rate has declined in the United States by 15% per year for two years in a row, after nearly thirty years of steady growth.

So our voices are making a difference in the United States.  And unquestionably, the United States Department of States' Office of Childrens Issues has to be given a great deal of credit in their outreach efforts attempting to increase the threat of abduction amongst targeted parents.

Nevertheless, our children remain at great risk. For example, imagine being a mother who living in the United States trying to prevent your daughters from being abducted to Saudi Arabia - a nation where women have essentially no rights. Or a father trying to find your child is Japan or South Korea - nations known to not return abducted children. The realities and hard-truths are disheartening: between the reported and unreported cases on international parental child abduction, it is estimated that only 10% of all kidnapped children ever come home.

In ending this article I would like to share this message: as the summer approaches, now is the time thatwarning signs of abduction are so important.  Parents involved in multi-cultural relationships are particularly at risk of abduction.  The last thing any parent wants to do is find themselves Chasing The Cyclone of abduction.  The best defense against abduction is to educate yourself.
would-be abductors are planning their scheme to illegally snatch their child.  Raising awareness of the risk factors and knowing the

One final note: as the Founding Director of the I CARE Foundation, I am pleased to share with you that the children I mentioned above in the examples I provided are all now at safely home.  Since inception, the I CARE Foundation has assisted a large and growing number of children and their families at risk of abduction. Our work continues.

Click here to read more about The I CARE Foundation.
Click here to read more about Chasing The Cyclone.
Click here to visit the official website of Peter Thomas Senese. 





Orion Unveils Space Crew Module

Without a heat shield or wiring, and with only welded metal panels to see, NASA's new spacecraft designed to take astronauts out beyond Earth and into the solar system doesn't look like much yet.

    Peter Senese: Orion Space Exploration


    Orion with Orion Service ModuleWith great intention to travel into space one day in the future via one of the LEO (Low Earth Orbit) flights that are being offered by a host of commercial cosmonaut companies, combined with an infinite love and curiousity for space exploration, I have been following diligently the developments of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle for some time.
    Realizing just how important Orion is to mankind's future, I have decided to share Orion's updated activities as a series of spacecraft under the Orion label make its way into production, and eventually into the cosmos.

    Below is a historical summary of Orion.  I will follow this up with a host of interviews, news reports, etc. But for now - take it all in!

    Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) is a planned beyond-low-earth-orbit manned spacecraft that is being built by Lockheed Martin for NASA and Astrium for European Space Agency[6] for crewed missions to the Moon, asteroids and Mars. It is planned to be launched by the Space Launch System.[7] Each Orion spacecraft is projected to carry a crew of four or more astronauts.[2] It is also planned as a backup for ISS cargo and/or crew delivery,[8]
    The MPCV was announced by NASA on 24 May 2011,[9] aided by designs and tests already completed for a spacecraft of the cancelled Constellation program, development for which began in 2005 as the Crew Exploration Vehicle. It was formerly going to be launched by the tested-but-cancelled Ares I launch vehicle.[10]
    The MPCV's debut unmanned multi-hour test flight, known as Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1), is scheduled for a launch aboard aDelta IV Heavy rocket in 2014.[4][11][12] The first manned mission is expected to take place after 2020.[13] In January 2013, ESA and NASA announced that the Orion Service Module will be built by European space company Astrium for European Space Agency.[14]
    Orion
    Description
    Role:Beyond LEO, back-up for commercial cargo and crew to the ISS[1]
    Crew:2–6[2]
    Carrier rocket:Space Launch System[3](planned-deep space),
    Delta IV (test flight),
    Ares I (cancelled)
    Launch date:December 2013 or later (uncrewed test launch)[4]
    Dimensions
    Height:
    Diameter:5 m (16.5 ft)
    Pressurized volume:19.56 m3 (691 cu ft) [5]
    Habitable volume:8.95 m3 (316 cu ft) [5]
    Capsule mass:8,913 kg (19,650 lb)
    Service Module mass:12,337 kg (27,198 lb)
    Total mass:21,250 kg (46,848 lb)
    Service Module propellant mass:7,907 kg (17,433 lb)
    Performance
    Total delta-v:1,595 m/s
    Endurance:21.1 days[2][5]


    The MPCV is being developed for crewed missions to the Moon, to an asteroid, and Mars. In addition, it is a backup vehicle for cargo and crewed missions to the International Space Station. It is intended to be launched by the Space Launch System.[7][15] A modified Advanced Crew Escape Suit is planned to be worn by the crew during the launch and re-entry of the mission.[16]

    [edit]Mission

    The spacecraft is named for for the famous Orion constellation.[17]

    [edit]History

    On 14 January 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush announced the Orion spacecraft, known then as the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), as part of the Vision for Space Exploration:
    Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module.[18]
    The proposal to create the Orion spacecraft was partly a reaction to the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, the subsequent findings and report by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), and the White House's review of the American space program. The Orion spacecraft effectively replaced the conceptual Orbital Space Plane (OSP), which itself was proposed after the failure of the Lockheed Martin X-33 program to produce a replacement for the space shuttle.
    The name is derived from the constellation of Orion, and was also used on the Apollo 16 Lunar Module that carried astronauts John W. Young and Charlie Duke to the lunar surface in April 1972.

    After the replacement of Sean O'Keefe, NASA's procurement schedule and strategy completely changed, as described above. In July 2004, before he was named NASA administrator, Michael Griffin participated in a study called "Extending Human Presence Into the Solar System"[19] for The Planetary Society, as a co-team leader. The study offers a strategy for carrying out Project Constellation in an affordable and achievable manner. Since Griffin was one of the leaders of the study, it can be assumed that he agrees with its conclusions, and the study may show insight into possible future developments of the CEV. Griffin's actions as administrator supported the goals of the plan.
    According to the executive summary, the study was built around "a staged approach to human exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO)."[19] It recommends that Project Constellation be carried out in three distinct stages. These are:
    • Stage 1 – "Features the development of a new crew exploration vehicle (CEV), the completion of the International Space Station (ISS), and an early retirement of the shuttle orbiter. Orbiter retirement would be made as soon as the ISS U.S. Core is completed (perhaps only 6 or 7 flights) and the smallest number of additional flights necessary to satisfy our international partners’ ISS requirements. Money saved by early orbiter retirement would be used to accelerate the CEV development schedule shorten the hiatus in U.S. capability to reach and return from LEO."[19]
    • Stage 2 – "Requires the development of additional assets, including an updated CEV capable of extended missions of many months in interplanetary space. Habitation, laboratory, consumables, and propulsion modules, to enable human flight to the vicinities of the Moon and Mars, the Lagrange points, and certain near-Earth asteroids."[19]
    • Stage 3 – "Development of human-rated planetary landers is completed in Stage 3, allowing human missions to the surface of the Moon and Mars beginning around 2020."[19]
    A number of changes to the original CEV acquisition strategy were explained in a NASA study called the Exploration Systems Architecture Study. The results were presented at a news conference held on 19 September 2005.[20] The ESAS recommends strategies for flying the manned Orion by 2014, and endorses a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous approach to the Moon. The LEO versions of Orion were intended carry crews of four to six to the ISS. The lunar version of the Orion would carry a crew of four and the Mars Orion would carry six.[citation needed] Cargo would also be carried aboard an unmanned version of Orion, similar to the Russian Progress cargo ships. The contractor for the Orion is Lockheed Martin, which was selected by NASA in September, 2006 and is the current contractor for the Space Shuttle's External Tank and the Atlas V EELV.
    Orion is Apollo-like, not a lifting body or winged vehicle like the now retired Shuttle. Like the Apollo Command Module, Orion would be attached to a service module for life support and propulsion. It is intended to land in water but past versions had included plans for it to land on land. Landing on the west coast would allow the majority of the reentry path to be flown over the Pacific Ocean rather than populated areas. Orion will have an AVCOAT ablative[21] heat shield that would be discarded after each use.
    The Orion spacecraft (CEV) will weigh about 25 tons (23 tonnes), slightly less than the mass of the Apollo Command/Service Module at 33 tons (30 tonnes). The Orion Crew Module will weigh about 9.8 tons (8.9 tonnes), greater than the equivalent Apollo Command Module at 6.4 tons (5.8 tonnes). With a diameter of 16.5 feet (5 metres) as opposed to 12.8 feet (3.9 metres), it will provide 2.5 times greater volume.[22]
    Accelerated lunar mission development was slated to start by 2010, once the Shuttle was retired. The Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) and heavy-lift boosters were to be developed in parallel and would both be ready for flight by 2018. The eventual goal is to achieve a lunar landing by 2020. The LSAM would be much larger than the Apollo Lunar Module and is anticipated to be capable of carrying up to around 23 tons (21 tonnes) of cargo to the lunar surface to support a future lunar outpost. This weight in cargo is greater than the mass of the entire Apollo Lunar Module.
    Like the Apollo Lunar Module, the LSAM would include a descent stage for landing and an ascent stage for returning to orbit. The crew of four would ride in the ascent stage. The ascent stage would be powered by a methane/oxygen fuel for return to lunar orbit (later changed to liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, due to the infancy of oxygen/methane rocket propulsion). This would allow a derivative of the same lander to be used on later Mars missions, where methane propellant can be manufactured from the Martian soil in a process known as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). The LSAM would support the crew of four on the lunar surface for about a week and use advanced roving vehicles to explore the lunar surface. The huge amount of cargo carried by the LSAM would be extremely beneficial for supporting a lunar base and for bringing large amounts of scientific equipment to the lunar surface.

    [edit]Design revisions and updates


    Comparison of 604, 605 and 606 versions
    July 2006 design revisions

    In late July 2006 NASA's second design review resulted in major changes to the spacecraft design.[23] Originally, NASA wanted to use liquid methane (LCH4) as the SM fuel, but due to the infancy of oxygen/methane-powered rocket technologies and the need to launch the Orion by 2012, the switch to hypergolic propellants was mandated in late July 2006. This switch will allow NASA to man-rate the Orion and Ares I stack by no later than 2011,[citation needed] and eliminate one potential cause of the gap between the shuttle's retirement in 2010 and the first manned Orion flight.[24]
    April 2007 contract revision
    On 20 April 2007 NASA and Lockheed-Martin signed a modification to the Orion contract. The updated contract adds two years to the Orion project design phase, adds two test flights of Orion's launch abort system, and deletes from the initial design phase production of a pressurized cargo carrier for the International Space Station.[25]
    May 2007 design update
    An article in "Aerospace Daily & Defense Report" indicates that in the latest Orion design revision, called configuration "606" byLockheed Martin, the service module will have exterior panels that are jettisoned shortly after the second stage engine of the Ares I ignites. This configuration will save 1,000 pounds of the mass compared with the prior "605" configuration.[26]
    August 2007 design update
    On 5 August, a report surfaced stating that the airbag landing system was removed from the next Orion design cycle ("607") in a weight saving measure, opting to return to an Apollo-style splashdown for the vehicle's end of mission.[27]

    [edit]2009 Human Space Flight Plans Committee

    Rollout of Ares I-X at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 secured by four bolts on a mobile launcher platform.
    On 8 September 2009, the Human Space Flight Plans Committee was scheduled to release a report proposing a short list of different long term plans for the US Government's human space flight program. The review was commissioned by the Obama Administration to take into account several objectives. These include support for the International Space Station, development of missions beyond low Earth orbit (including the Moon) and use of commercial space industry. These objectives must fit within a defined budget profile.[28]
    Among the parameters to be considered in the course of the review are "crew and mission safety, life-cycle costs, development time, national space industrial base impacts, potential to spur innovation and encourage competition, and the implications and impacts of transitioning from current human space flight systems". The review considered the appropriate amounts of research and development and "complementary robotic activity necessary to support various human space flight activities". It also "explores options for extending International Space Station operations beyond 2016".[29]

    [edit]2010

    On 11 October 2010, with the cancellation of the Constellation Program, the Ares program ended and development of the original Orion vehicle was renamed as the MPCV, planned to be launched on top of an alternative Space Launch System. Following cost overruns and schedule delays caused by insufficient funding, the Obama Administration proposed cancellation of the Constellation program in February 2010 which was signed into law 11 October.[30] However, the Orion spacecraft continued to be developed because it supported new presidential goals.

    [edit]2012

    An inflatable seal between the clean room and the Orion space capsule which is superior to the ones used on Apollo and the shuttle was tested on December 3, 2012.[31]

    [edit]Design



    An expanded view of Orion and its spacecraft adapter and launch escape system (2009).
    The Orion Crew and Service Module (CSM) stack consists of two main parts: a conical Crew Module (CM), and a cylindrical Service Module (SM) holding the spacecraft's propulsion system and expendable supplies. Both are based substantially on the Apollo Command and Service Modules (Apollo CSM) flown between 1967 and 1975, but include advances derived from the space shuttle program. "Going with known technology and known solutions lowers the risk," according to Neil Woodward, director of the integration office in the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.[32]
    The MPCV resembles its Apollo-era predecessors, but its technology and capability are more advanced. It is designed to support long-duration deep space missions of up to six months. The spacecraft's life support, propulsion, thermal protection and avionics systems are designed to be upgradeable as new technologies become available.
    The MPCV spacecraft includes both crew and service modules, and a spacecraft adaptor.
    The MPCV's crew module is larger than Apollo's and can support more crew members for short or long-duration spaceflight missions. The service module fuels and propels the spacecraft as well as storing oxygen and water for astronauts. The service module's structure is also being designed to provide locations to mount scientific experiments and cargo.

    [edit]Crew Module

    Test of Orion's parachute system in July 2012.
    The Orion CM will hold four crew members, compared to a maximum of three in the smaller Apollo CM or seven in the larger space shuttle. Despite its conceptual resemblance to the 1960s-era Apollo, Orion's CM will use several improved technologies, including:
    • "Glass cockpit" digital control systems derived from that of the Boeing 787.[33]
    • An "autodock" feature, like those of Russian Progress spacecraft and the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, with provision for the flight crew to take over in an emergency. Previous American spacecraft (Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle) have all required manual piloting for docking.
    • Improved waste-management facilities, with a miniature camping-style toilet and the unisex "relief tube" used on the space shuttle (whose system was based on that used on Skylab) and the International Space Station (based on the Soyuz, Salyut, and Mir systems). This eliminates the use of the much-hated plastic "Apollo bags" used by the Apollo crews.
    • A nitrogen/oxygen (N2/O2) mixed atmosphere at either sea level (101.3 kPa or 14.69 psi) or slightly reduced (55.2 to 70.3 kPa or 8.01 to 10.20 psi) pressure.
    • Much more advanced computers than on previous manned spacecraft.
    Another feature will be the partial reusability of the Orion CM.[dated info] Both the CM and SM will be constructed of the aluminium lithium(Al/Li) alloy like that was used on the shuttle's external tank, and is in use on the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets. The CM itself will be covered in the same Nomex felt-like thermal protection blankets used on parts on the shuttle not subject to critical heating, such as the payload bay doors. The reusable recovery parachutes will be based on the parachutes used on both the Apollo spacecraft and the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, and will also use the same Nomex cloth for construction. Water landings will be the exclusive means of recovery for the Orion CM.[27][34]
    To allow Orion to mate with other vehicles it will be equipped with the NASA Docking System, which is somewhat similar to the APAS-95 docking mechanism used on the Shuttle fleet. Both the spacecraft and docking adapter will employ a Launch Escape System (LES) like that used in Mercury and Apollo, along with an Apollo-derived "Boost Protective Cover" (made of fiberglass), to protect the Orion CM from aerodynamic and impact stresses during the first 12 minutes of ascent.
    The Orion Crew Module (CM) is a 57.5° frustum shape, similar to that of the Apollo Command Module. As projected, the CM will be 5.02 meters (16 ft 6 in) in diameter and 3.3 meters (10 ft 10 in) in length,[35] with a mass of about 8.5 metric tons (19,000 lb). It is to be built by the Lockheed Martin Corporation.[36] It will have more than 2.5 times the volume of an Apollo capsule, which had an interior volume of 5.9 m3 (210 cu ft), and will carry four to six astronauts.[37] After extensive study, NASA has selected the Avcoatablator system for the Orion crew module. Avcoat, which is composed of silica fibers with a resin in a honeycomb made of fiberglass and phenolic resin, was previously used on the Apollo missions and on select areas of the space shuttle for early flights.[38]
    The crew module is the transportation capsule that provides a habitat for the crew, provides storage for consumables and research instruments, and serves as the docking port for crew transfers. The crew module is the only part of the MPCV that returns to Earth after each mission.
    The crew module will have 316 cubic feet (8.9 m3) and capabilities of carrying four astronauts for 21 day flights itself which could be expanded through additional service modules.[39] Its designers claim that the MPCV is designed to be 10 times safer during ascent and reentry than the Space Shuttle.[15]

    [edit]Service Module

    Edoardo Amaldi ATV approaches the International Space Station
    Orion Service Module serves as the primary power and propulsion component of the spacecraft system, but is discarded at the end of each mission. In January 2013, the European ATV based service module was announced.[14]

    [edit]ATV-based Service module

    Orion spacecraft including the ATV derived Service Module with a propulsion stage attached at the back
    In May 2011 the ESA director general announced a possible collaboration with NASA to work on a successor to the ATV.[40] On 21 June 2012, Astrium announced that they had been awarded two separate studies, each worth €6.5 million, to evaluate the possibilities of using technology and experience gained from ATV and Columbus related work for future missions. The first looked into the possible construction of a service module which would be used in tandem with the Orion capsule.[41] The second examined the possible production of a versatile multi purpose orbital vehicle.[42]
    On November 21, 2012, the ESA decided they will construct an ATV derived Service Module ready to support the Orion capsule on the maiden flight of the Space Launch System in 2017.[43] service module will likely be manufactured by EADS Astrium in Bremen, Germany.[44]
    "ESA’s contribution is going to be critical to the success of Orion’s 2017 mission"
    —NASA Orion Program manager[14]
    NASA announced on January 16, 2013, that ESA will construct the service module for Exploration Mission-1 in 2017.[14]The European Space Agency will use hardware from their current Automated Transfer Vehicle to construct a compatible service module to the spacecraft.

    [edit]Launch Abort System

    In the event of an emergency on the launch pad or during ascent, a launch escape system called the Launch Abort System (LAS) will separate the Crew Module from the launch vehicle using a solid rocket-powered launch abort motor (AM), which is more powerful than the Atlas 109-D booster that launched astronautJohn Glenn into orbit in 1962.[45] There are two other propulsion systems in the LAS stack: the attitude control motor (ACM) and the jettison motor (JM). On 10 July 2007, Orbital Sciences, the prime contractor for the LAS, awarded Alliant Techsystems (ATK) a $62.5 million sub-contract to, "design, develop, produce, test and deliver the launch abort motor." ATK, which had the prime contract for the first stage of the Ares I rocket, intended to use an innovative "reverse flow" design for the motor.[46] On 9 July 2008 NASA announced that ATK had completed a vertical test stand at a facility inPromontory, Utah to test launch abort motors for the Orion spacecraft.[47] Another long-time space motor contractor,Aerojet, was awarded the jettison motor design and development contract for the LAS. As of September 2008 Aerojet has, along with team members Orbital Sciences, Lockheed Martin and NASA, successfully demonstrated two full-scale test firings of the jettison motor. This motor is important to every flight in that it functions to pull the LAS tower away from the vehicle after a successful launch. The motor also functions in the same manner for an abort scenario.

    [edit]Testing

    [edit]Environmental testing

    NASA performed environmental testing of Orion from 2007 to 2011 at the Glenn Research Center Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio. The Center's Space Power Facility is the world's largest thermal vacuum chamber.[48]

    [edit]Pathfinder

    On March 2nd 2009, the LAS Pathfinder began its transfer from the Langley Research Center to the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, for launch tests. The Pathfinder is a combination of the Orion Boilerplate and LAS module. The 45 ft (14 m)-long rocket assembly will begin its first Pad Abort 1 Test on the Missile Range.[49]

    [edit]Abort Flight Test (AFT)

    Test-firing of Orion LAS jettison motor (shock diamonds are clearly visible in the exhaust plumes)
    NASA planned to perform a series of six Abort Flight Tests between the fall of 2008 and the end of 2011 at the United States Army'sWhite Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico.[dated info] The Orion AFT subproject includes two pad abort tests and four ascent abort tests. Three of the four ascent aborts are planned to be flown from a special test launch vehicle, the Orion Abort Test Booster, the fourth one being performed with Ares I-Y. The Orion Abort Flight Tests are similar in nature to the Little Joe II tests performed at WSMR between September 1963 and January 1966 in support of the development of the Apollo program's Launch Escape System.[50][51][52]The LAS Pathfinder boilerplate is being used.
    ATK successfully completed the first Orion launch-abort test on 20 November 2008. The abort motor will provide 500,000 lbf (2,200 kN) of thrust for an emergency on the launch pad or during the first 300,000 feet (91 km) of the rocket's climb to orbit. The test firing was the first time a motor with reverse flow propulsion technology at this scale has been tested.
    This abort test firing brought together a series of motor and component tests conducted in 2008 as a preparation for the next major milestone, a full-size mock-up or boilerplate test scheduled for the spring of 2009.[53]
    On May 10th, 2010, NASA successfully executed the PAD-Abort-1 test at White Sands New Mexico, launching a boilerplate Orion capsule to an altitude of approximately 6000 feet. The test used three solid-fuel rocket motors - a main thrust motor, an attitude control motor and the jettison motor. [54]

    [edit]Post-landing Orion Recovery Test (PORT)

    The PORT Test is to determine and evaluate what kind of motions the astronaut crew can expect after landing. This will include conditions outside the capsule for the recovery team. The evaluation process will support NASA's design of landing recovery operations including equipment, ship and crew necessities.
    The Port Test will use a full-scale boilerplate of NASA's Orion crew module and will be tested in water under simulated and real weather conditions. Tests began 23 March 2009 with a Navy-built, 18,000-pound boilerplate. It will be placed in a test pool at the Naval Surface Warfare Center's Carderock Division in West Bethesda, Md. Full sea testing will begin 6 April 2009, in a special location off the coast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center with media coverage.[55]

    [edit]Missions

    List only includes relatively near missions, more missions are planned than are listed below.
    AcronymMission nameLaunch DateRocketDurationRemarks
    EFT-1Exploration Flight Test-1Early 2014Delta IV HeavyUncrewed high apogee trajectory test flight of the Orion Crew Module in Earth Orbit.
    EM-1Exploration Mission-1[56]2017[56]SLS Block I[56]7–10 days[57]Send an uncrewed Orion on a circumlunar trajectory.[57]
    EM-2Exploration Mission-2[56]2019-2021[56]SLS Block I[56]10–14 days[57]Send Orion with a crew of four into Lunar elliptical orbit (typically 100 x 5000 km).[57]
    EM-3Exploration Mission-3[56]2022[58]SLS Block IA[56]Destination TBA[58]

    [edit]Existing craft and mockups

    • The Boilerplate Test Article (BTA) underwent splashdown testing at the Hydro Impact Basin of NASA's Langley Research Center.[59] The BTA contains over 150 sensors to gather data on its test drops.[60] Testing of the 18,000 pound mockup ran from July 2011 to 6 January 2012.[61]
    • The Ground Test Article (GTA) stack, located at Lockheed Martin in Denver, is undergoing vibration testing.[62] It is made up by the Orion Ground Test Vehicle (GTV) combined with its Launch Abort System (LAS). Further testing will see the addition of Service Module simulator panels and Thermal Protection System (TPS) to the GTA stack.[63]
    The Orion Drop Test Article during a test on 29 February 2012
    • The Drop Test Article (DTA), also known as the Drop Test Vehicle (DTV) is undergoing test drops at the US Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The mock Orion parachute compartment is dropped from an altitude of 25,000 feet from a C-130.[63] Testing began in 2007. Drogue chutes deploy around 15,000 and 20,000 feet. Testing of the reefing staged parachutes includes partial failure instances including partial opening and complete failure of one of the three main parachutes. With only two chutes deployed the DTA lands at 33 feet per second, the maximum touchdown speed for Orion's design.[64] Other related test vehicles include the now-defunct Orion Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) and its replacement the Generation II Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV2). The drop test program has had several failures in 2007, 2008, and 2010.[65] The new PTV was successfully tested 29 February 2012 deploying from a C-17. Ten drag chutes will drag the mock up's pallet from the aircraft for the drop at 25,000 feet. The landing parachute set of eight is known as the Capsule Parachute Assembly System (CPAS).[66] The test examined air flow disturbance behind the mimicked full size vehicle and its effects on the parachute system. The PTV landed at 17 mph to the desert floor.[67] A third test vehicle, the PCDTV3, is scheduled for a drop on 17 April 2012. In this testing “The CPAS team continued preparation activities for the Parachute Compartment Drop Test Vehicle (PCDTV3) airdrop test, scheduled for April 17, which will deploy the two drogue parachutes in the highest dynamic pressure environment to date, and will demonstrate a main parachute skipped second stage.”[68]
    • Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1) Orion (re-designation of OFT-1) constructed at Michoud Assembly Facility,[12] was delivered by Lockheed Martin to the Kennedy Space Center on July 2, 2012.[69]

    [edit]Orion Lite

    Orion Lite was an unofficial name used in the media for a lightweight crew capsule proposed by Bigelow Aerospace in collaboration with Lockheed Martin. It was to be based on the Orion spacecraft that Lockheed Martin was developing for NASA. It would be a lighter, less capable and cheaper version of the full Orion.