Documents / Official release
This Defense Intelligence Reference Document, dated 1 November 2010 and numbered DIA-08-1011-002, was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency's Defense Warning Office. It is one of a series of advanced technology reports produced under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications program. It draws mainly on the book Frontiers of Propulsion Science and speculates about breakthroughs such as control of gravity and inertia and faster-than-light travel. It then proposes a provisional cockpit design with six-degree-of-freedom controls, virtual displays and no windows.
From the source: Release of 2026-09-18 Incident: 11/1/10, 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 examines how cockpit design might change if future aerospace vehicles were ever to achieve major propulsion breakthroughs such as control over gravity and inertia, “propellantless” flight, or faster-than-light travel. The report does not describe an existing or emerging vehicle class. Instead, it asks what such hypothetical capabilities would mean for piloting, displays, controls, and human factors, and it argues that the biggest design challenges would come from full six-degree-of-freedom motion, operation across multiple flight regimes from near-surface flight to orbit and deep space, and the possible separation between the craft’s actual motion and the crew’s internal physical sensations. It combines those assumptions with established human-machine-interface principles and with maturing inputs such as gesture, voice, and brain-machine control to outline a provisional cockpit centered on intuitive displays, stress-tolerant physical controls, and a virtual surround display.
UNCLASSIFIED/ ,'FOR OFFI@IAI:: WSE ONl::Y Crew Size Considerations The last aspect to t ake into account as a conseq uence of m ixed ope rational regimes is that of the crew size. For short-durati on missions (less than a few hours), it is reasonable to conceive of vehi cles with only one pil ot. For more complex missions, add it ional crew will be required, and thus addit ional displays and controls specific to thei r tasks wil l be req uired . Finally, for long-duration missions, sufficient crew will be required to carry out its mission and maintain optimal vehicle performa nce. These changes-for accommodating the roles and responsibilities of crew in relation to the overall mission-are likely to be the same as those disti nctions in trad itional vehicles (e.g. , cars versus cruise ships). Those changes typica lly incl ude a hierarchica l orga nization, wh ich is independent of the issues of propulsion physics . Essential elements wi ll include monitoring and controll ing the 1-g internal life-support environment as wel l as ensuri ng the long-t erm health of t he crew . Full Span of Speeds I n add ition to inertial effects previously addressed, t he implicat ions due to high speed remain. Accommodating the reaction t ime of the pilot is critical. The extreme high speed of breakthrough spacecraft will demand that aut omated flight controls take precedence over the pilot's manual flig ht control. Automated controls for aircraft and even for automobiles are an ever-improving technology. For breakthrough fli ght, these technolog ies will be mandatory and will also have to include options for maneuvering near ground, into orbits, and t hrough deep space. This should come as no surp rise, since the advantages of having automated flight controls warrant their use even if pilot reaction times were not an issue. Table 1. Comparing Reaction Time to Distance Traversed at Various Speeds 1 Speed Distance Traversed in l Second mph km/h C Feet Meters Miles Km Walking 2 3 3 1 Driving Around Town 40 64 60 18 Commercial Air Flight 500 800 730 220 Hyperson ic Flight Low Earth Orbit 4,000 17,500 6,400 28,000 0.00001 0.00003 5,900 26,000 1,800 7,800 1 5 2 8 Deep-Space Probe 35,000 56,000 0.00005 51,000 16,000 10 16 Non relativist ic Flight 60 Million 97 Million 0.09 89 Million 27 Million 17,000 27,000 Relativist ic Flight 400 Million 650 Million 0.60 590 Mi llion 180 Million 110 Thousand 180 Thousand 1 The distances traversed while waiting for the pilot to react are reasonable for speeds slower than hypersonic fl ight. If traveling at hypersonic speeds near the ground, however, the situation is different. At some point, regardless of the skill of the pilot, an automated system will be needed . Also note the huge disparity between the fastest achieved speeds (deep-space probe) in comparison to nonrelativistic flight. This disparity of three orders of magnitude is a clear statement about the state of our technology when contemplating deep-space flight. UNC LASSIFIE D/fFOA. OFFICIO ls. Plili ONls.¥ 13
Not linked to a story yet.
Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 57 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.