Saturday, December 14, 2019

Clarification given by Pentagon re that AATIP $M10 or $M22?

In my last post, I noted that there was an apparent discrepancy as to the amount of dollars spent on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP.) Was it US$M10 or US$M22? I now have an answer, which came out of the Pentagon, in May of this year.

Roger Glassel

Swedish researcher Roger Glassel has shared a series of email communications between himself, and Pentagon spokesperson Susan L Gough. Part of that series was one particularly relevant email. I thank Roger for his permission to cite the contents of that email. The email was dated 25 May 2019 and was sent from Gough (Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Relations) to Roger Glassel, in response to Roger requesting a copy of the statement which the DoD had given to Steven Greenstreet (see Greenstreet's New York Post article dated 22 May 2019.) I quote the email in its entirety.

" The purpose of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapons system applications with future technology projections over the next 40 years and to create a center of expertise on advanced aerospace technologies. The goal was to help understand the threat posed by unconventional or leap ahead aerospace vehicles/technology that could have national security implications for the United States.

The program commenced in FY2008 with $10 million appropriated in the Defense Supplemental Appropriations Act. DIA awarded a contract to a sole bidder [Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, LLC.]

The contract goal was to study 12 technical areas, lift, propulsion, control, armament, signatures reduction, materials, configuration, power generation, temporal translation, human effects, human interface and technology integration.

The contractor identified and worked with academics and scientists to produce technical reports.

The first 26 reports were compiled in late 2008. The FY2010 Defense Appropriations Act (NDAA) included an additional $12 million for the program and 12 additional reports were produced. A total of 38 technical reports were delivered.

After an OSD/DIA review in late 2009, it was determined the reports were of limited value to DIA and there was a recommendation that upon completion of the contract the project could be transited to an agency or component better suited to oversee it. Funding for the program at the DIA ended in 2012 and DoD elected not to continue the program after the work contracted under the FY2010 NDAA was completed."

A comment:

I am not aware of anyone who has found the budget line relevant to the AATIP in either the FY2008 Defense Supplemental Appropriations Act or the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Act. I have spent quite a bit of time looking for this budget line, but have never found it. A challenge for blog readers?

1 comment:

  1. It's interesting to look at those 12 additional reports to see what the US government considered worth studying.

    Also, why did the contract price go up from 26 for $10M, to 12 for $12M in a year's time?

    ReplyDelete

Bob McGwier provides further information about his knowledge of the Wilson/Davis notes

Background On 5 July 2020 , U.S. researcher Joe Murgia, drew our attention to a comment made by Dr. Bob McGwier, on the Facebook page o...