Documents / Official release

AAWSAP DIRD, Space Access: Where We’ve Been and Where We Could Go, March 2010

U.S. Department of War · 2010-03-08 · 56 pages · text from the file's own layer

This Defense Intelligence Reference Document, dated 8 March 2010, was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency's Defense Warning Office under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program. It is one of a series of advanced technology reports. It surveys the history of space access concepts, covering hypersonic gliders, air-breathing and rocket propulsion, materials, launch options and operating costs. The report argues that reliable, schedulable access to low Earth orbit is mainly a hardware and organizational problem rather than a technology problem.

From the source: Release of 2026-09-18 Incident: 3/8/10, Las Vegas, Nevada. Released with redactions. This document is a Defense Intelligence Reference Document (DIRD), a technical reference format used by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to capture baseline knowledge on a specific topic for later analytic use. DIRDs are best understood as reference and synthesis products rather than as original research. It is one of 38 DIRDs produced under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) between 2009 and 2011. Because AAWSAP’s scope permitted a broad range of supporting topics, not every DIRD in the series directly concerns aerospace systems or future threat assessment. The following summary reflects the DIRD’s scope and framing at the time of writing and should not be read as implying current validation of the concepts discussed. This DIRD is a historical and conceptual survey of space access systems, contending that the main barrier to routine access to space is a failure to build durable, reliable, operational hardware and the supporting infrastructure needed for regular service to and from low Earth orbit. The report reviews earlier launch and aerospace concepts, especially reusable and aircraft-like approaches, and suggests that U.S. space access development became too strongly centered on expendable rockets derived from ballistic missiles rather than bespoke systems designed for repeated space access and payload delivery. Its central claim is that meaningful future progress will depend on creating a purpose-built space transportation infrastructure, including frequent round-trip capability and orbital support networks, rather than continuing to rely on one-off launch vehicles. Overall, the document presents a forceful case for infrastructure-first space development, though its characterization of past technological choices is more assertive than a fully neutral account of past U.S. space programming.

UNCLASSIFIED/ ;5P81l Offl@IAL YSli QPU,¥
transpiration cooled with a low-rate water-porous spherical nose. The sharp leading
edges (the same leading edge radius was used for the nose tip) were liqu id-metal heat
pipes. This approach was tested successfully during the 1964-68 timeframe and was
found to be equal in weight and far more durable than a comparable ceram ic
tile/carbon-carbon system. The AFFDL's experience with carbon-carbon leading edges
on the ASSET test vehicle convinced the Air Force it needed a more durable solution.
Figure 12 compares the FDL-7C/D and the McDonnell Douglas Model 176. The Model
176 had a power law nose that was essentially a curved spatular nose and a higher
sweep angle, resulting in the same usable volume but with a higher hypersonic L/D.
Sacrificed were the flat-panel thermal-protection shingles over part of the fore body.
Both configurations retained the X-tail configuration developed by Gil Gaumer of
McDonnell Douglas. At the time, the launch vehicle would have been a Martin Titan
IIIC. Had an engine with the performance of the Pratt & Whitney XLR-129 been
available, there would have been lateral recoverable, fuel/oxidizer tanks on either side
of the vehicle, with all of the engines installed in the hypersonic glider. This was similar
to the Lockheed Star Clipper (see Figure 38).
FDL-7 CID
&a e a e&a
circa 1962 Modified5 met ers
..,., Gffl Wd1
circa 1964
5 mete rs
Model 176
Modified
Figure 12. Comparison of FDL-7C/D (top) and Model 176 {bottom)
UNCLASSIFIED/ ,«FOil OPFISl.t.L Y&liii 0PIL¥
13

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 56 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.