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.

  • p. 5 …much the issue, as exemplified by the Lockheed A-12/SR-71. When asked about space…
  • p. 12 …the AFFDL at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC), and the Lockheed…
  • p. 20 …This was similar to the Lockheed Star Clipper (see Figure 38). FDL-7 CID &a e…
  • p. 42 …So both Lockheed Aircraft and McDonnell Douglas proposed a self-sustained operational system using recoverable lateral…
  • p. 51 …and logistics requirements, Lockheed, NAS-9-1422. • Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), Lockheed, NAS-9-1688. • Manned…
UNCLASSIFIED/ /FOR: 0rr1e1J1tt Y!H: 8HLY
forced HTO mode would instead have a gross weight in excess of 1,000 tons. so the
resulting observation was "See! Air breathers are not lighter than all-rocket!" And so
the rocket proponents have defeated an air-breathing solution since the first aerospace
plane in 1958.
Launch Options
Previously, an option was presented for a mobile launch platform that was limited to an
11- to 12-metric ton (24,225- to 26,460-lb) payload . This section presents a
conventional vertical launch site that provides for frequent, scheduled launches and no
intrinsic payload weight. In a discussion with the author, Lozino-Lozinski questioned
the practicality of the NASP, describing it as nothing more than a very large orbital
entry-protected propellant tank. His approach was to minimize the volume of
propellant tanks that required orbital-entry protection. Prior to meetin g DARPA's
Robert Williams, the MDC had the same philosophy, as shown in Figure 35.
2,370,000 lb 814,500 lb 580,000 lb
301,000 lb
512,000 lb
80,000 lb
SSTO 1 1/2 Stage 2 Stage
Figure 35. Propellant Tanks That Are Not Reentry Vehicles Greatly Reduce System Weight. Venture star
orbital maneuver rules.
This was the MDC manned aerospace vehicle approach we briefed before the NASP.
The size, thermal protection system surface area, and weight of the SSTO vehicle to
just a stage-and-a-half concept is significant. All of the booster segments were fully
recoverable and reusable with rebuilding. The cargo capsule was not recoverable. This
operational concept envisioned frequent, scheduled launches at least equal in number
to those of the 1964 MOL support launcher-that is, 100 to 150 launches a year.
UNCLASSIFIED/ tEOR OFFICIO! 1!SE Alli Y
33

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.