BAASS Self Assessment of UAP Analysis Capabilities November 2010
⚠ Texto extraído por OCR de la fuente oficial — puede contener errores de reconocimiento. El documento original es la autoridad.
Summary
Report on
BAASS UAP
Analysis
Capabilities
November 23, 2010
Summary
Report on
BAASSUAP
Analysis
Capabilities
November 23, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
pg.
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 4
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 9
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 10
2. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 13
2. 1 HISTORICAL EVENTS AND STUDIES ....................................................................... 13
2.2 BAASS' TWELVE TECHNOLOGY FOCUS AREAS .................................................. 14
2.3 BAASS PERSONNEL, SOFTWARE, EQUIPMENT AND DATA
WAREHOUSE ................................................................................................................. 15
2.3.1 BAASS Personnel .................................................................................................... 15
2.3.2 ANSYS Multiphysics FEA ...................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Equipment ................................................................................................................ 16
2.3.4 Data Warehouse ....................................................................................................... 19
3. TYPES OF UAPS OBSERVED .............................................................................................. 21
4 . ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS FOR UAP INVESTIGATIONS ........... 25
4.1 "TIC TAC" INCIDENT .................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Analytical Solutions of Velocities and Accelerations Associated with
"Tic Tac" Performance ............................................................................................ 32
4.1 .2 Summary of Analytical Velocity and Acceleration Solutions ................................. 32
4.1.3 Numerical Analysis of Compressible Flow ............................................................. 39
4.1.4 Summary and Conclusions of Compressible Numerical Analyses.......................... 46
4.1.5 Numerical Analysis of Incompressible Flow of a UAP Entering Water ................. 47
4.1.6 Numerical Analysis of Incompressible Flow of a UAP Entering Water
Results ...................................................................................................................... 48
4.1.7 Summary and Conclusions ofNumerical Analysis of Incompressible Flow
of a UAP Entering Water Results ............................................................................ 58
4.2 ANALYSES OF SPHERICAL UAPS .............................................................................. 58
4.2. 1 Acoustical Analysis of a Spherical USO ................................................................. 58
4.2.2 ANSYS Multiphysics Electromagnetic Capabilities ............................................... 82
4.2.3 Radar Cross Section Analysis of a Spherical UFO .................................................. 83
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION......................................................................................... 98
6. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... I 00
SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ 102
ATTACHMENT 1-ANSYS INPUT FILES ............................................................................. 105
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 2
November 23, 2010
USO ANSYS Multiphysics Acoustics Input File Example .................................................... 105
UAP ANSYS Multiphysics RCS Input Fi le Example ............................................................ 11 2
ATTACHMENT II - "TIC TAC" CFD CONTOUR PLOTS FOR PRESSURE,
TEMPERATURE AND MACH NUMBER............................................................................... 11 6
ATTACHMENT III - RIGHT CIRCULAR CYLINDER CFD CONTOUR PLOTS
FOR PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE AND MACH NUMBER ................................................ 128
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 3
November 23, 2010
LIST OF FIGURES
pg.
Figure 1. The UFO Pattern: A Condensed Statement of Repeated Observations ........................ 21
Figure 2. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works SR-71 Black Bird ....................................................... 22
Figure 3. Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter ................................................................. 22
Figure 4. Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber ............................................................ 23
Figure 5. Boeing Phantom Works B-2 Stealth X-45A UAV ........................................................ 23
Figure 6. Three Dimensional Rendering of a Cylindrical or "Tic Tac" UAP .............................. 24
Figure 7. Three Dimensional Rendering of a Metallic Spherical UAP ........................................ 24
Figure 8. Location of the AAV during the F/AI 8 Intercept ......................................................... 26
Figure 9. FLIR in 'White Hot' Mode ............................................................................................ 30
Figure 10. FLIR in "Black I-lot" mode .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 11. Tic Tac Parametric Velocities for Selected Times of Event Duration
in ft/sec ......................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 12. Tic Tac Parametric Velocities for Selected Times of Event Duration
in mph ......................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 13. Tic Tac Parametric Accelerations for Selected Times of Event Duration
in ft/sec2 ...................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 14. Tic Tac Parametric Accelerations for Selected Times of Event Duration
in g .............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 15. Tic Tac Pressure at I/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 700 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Supersonic Outlet ..................................................................... 41
Figure 16. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 700 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Supersonic Outlet ..................................................................... 41
Figure 17. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 700 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ................................................................... 42
Figure 18. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1500 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ............................................................ 42
Figure 19. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1500 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet .............................................................. 43
Figure 20. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1500 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ............................................................ 43
Figure 21. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 700 mph
with Mixed lnlet and Supersonic Outlet ..................................................................... 44
Figure 22. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 700 mph
with Mixed lnlet and Supersonic Outlet ..................................................................... 44
Figure 23. Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1500 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ............................................................ 45
Figure 24. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1500 mph
with Supersonic lnlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ............................................................ 45
Figure 25. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1500 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ............................................................ 46
Figure 26. Solid Three Dimensional Geometry of Disc and Water. ............................................. 50
Figure 27. Solid Three Dimensional Geometry Mesh of Disc and Water .................................... 51
Figure 28. Solid Three Dimensional Geometry Mesh ofUAP Disc ............................................ 52
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page4
November 23, 2010
Figure 29. User Generated Cut Analysis Plane ............................................................................ 53
Figure 30. Animated Result, Fluid 2 Volume Fraction................................................................ 54
Figure 31. Total Pressure Around UAP ....................................................................................... 55
Figure 32. Water Surface Effects From Solid Impact.. ................................................................ 56
Figure 33. Water Surface Effects From Solid Impact (Side View).............................................. 57
Figure 34. Mesh Plot for 1,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water......................... 61
Figure 35. Mesh Plot for 1,000 Hz with 50 Elements per Wavelength in Water......................... 62
Figure 36. Contour Plot of Real Component of Pressure (Pa) for t ,000 Hz
with 50 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 63
Figure 37. Contour Plot of Real Component of Pressure (Pa) for 1,000 Hz
with 50 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 64
Figure 38. Contour Plot of Imaginary Component of Pressure (Pa) for 1,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 65
Figure 39. Contour Plot of the Magnitude of Pressure (Pa) for 1,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 66
Figure 40. Steady State Real Component of Pressure (Pa) as a Function of Radial
Distance (m) Plot for 1,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water. ............ 67
Figure 41 . Steady State Imaginary Component of Pressure (Pa) as a Function
of Radial Distance (m) Plot for 1,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength
in Water ....................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 42. Steady State Magnitude of Pressure (Pa) as a Function of Radial
Distance (m) Plot for 1,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water. ............ 69
Figure 43. Contour Plot of Real Component of Pressure (Pa) for 5,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 70
Figure 44. Contour Plot of Imaginary Component of Pressure (Pa) for 5,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 71
Figure 45. Contour Plot of the Magnitude of Pressure (Pa) for 5,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 72
Figure 46. Steady State Real Component of Pressure (Pa) as a Function
of Radial Distance (m) Plot for 5,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength
in Water....................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 47. Steady State Imaginary Component of Pressure (Pa) as a Function
of Radial Distance (m) Plot for 5,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength
in Water ....................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 48. Steady State Magnitude of Pressure (Pa) as a Function of Radial
Distance (m) Plot for 5,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water. ............ 75
Figure 49. Contour Plo t of Real Component of Pressure (Pa) for 10,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 76
Figure 50. Contour Plo t of Imaginary Component of Pressure (Pa) for 10,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 77
Figure 51. Contour Plot of the Magnitude of Pressure (Pa) for I 0,000 Hz
with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ............................................................... 78
Figure 52. Steady State Real Component of Pressure (Pa) as a Function
of Radial Distance (m) Plot for 10,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength
in Water....................................................................................................................... 79
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 5
November 23, 2010
Figure 53. Steady State Imaginary Component of Pressure (Pa) as a Function
of Radial Distance (m) Plot for 10,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength
in Water....................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 54. Steady State Magnitude of Pressure (Pa) as a Function of Radial Distance (m)
Plot for 10,000 Hz with 25 Elements per Wavelength in Water ................................ 81
Figure 55. Factors that Determine the Energy Returned by a Target... ........................................ 83
Figure 56. Effect of Distance from the radar to the Target on the· Power Density ....................... 84
Figure 57. Reduction in the Strength of Target Echoes with Range ............................................ 87
Figure 58. Geometry, Description and Maximum RCS .............................................................. 88
Figure 59. Radar Cross Section Comparison ............................................................................... 89
Figure 60. Mesh of½ Symmetry UFO Sphere with 25 Elements per Wavelength ..................... 90
Figure 61. Mesh of ½ Symmetry UFO Sphere with 50 Elements per Wavelength ..................... 91
Figure 62. Normalized radar Cross Section Plot for a ½ Symmetry IO m Metallic
Sphere with a 1 m Dielectric Coating in Decibels for 300 MHz and 25
Elements per Wavelength ........................................................................................... 93
Figure 63. Normalized radar Cross Section Plot for a½ Symmetry 10 m Metallic
Sphere with a 1 m Dielectric Coating in Decibels for 300 MHz and
50 Elements per Wavelength ...................................................................................... 95
Figure 64. Electric Filed Contour in V/m for a½ Symmetry 10 m Metallic Sphere
with a I m Dielectric Coating in Decibels for 300 MHz and 25 Elements
per Wavelength ........................................................................................................... 96
Figure 65. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 100 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 116
Figure 66. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 100 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet .................................................................. 116
Figure 67. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 100 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 11 7
Figure 68. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 200 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 117
Figure 69. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 200 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet .................................................................. 11 8
Figure 70. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 200 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.................................................................. 118
Figure 71. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 300 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 119
Figure 72. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 300 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet .................................................................. 11 9
Figure 73. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 300 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 120
Figure 74. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 400 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ...................................................................... 120
Figure 75. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 400 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ...................................................................... 121
Figure 76. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 400 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ...................................................................... 121
.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 6
November 23, 2010
Figure 77. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 500 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ...................................................................... 122
Figure 78. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 500 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ...................................................................... 122
Figure 79. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 500 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ...................................................................... 123
Figure 80. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 900 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. .......................................................... 123
Figure 81 . Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 900 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet ............................................................ 124
Figure 82. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 900 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet ............................................................ 124
Figure 83. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1100 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. .......................................................... 125
Figure 84. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1100 mph
with Supersonjc Inlet and Supersonic Outlet ............................................................ 125
Figure 85. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1100 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. .......................................................... 126
Figure 86. Tic Tac Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1300 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. .......................................................... 126
Figure 87. Tic Tac Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1300 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. .......................................................... 127
Figure 88. Tic Tac Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1300 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. .......................................................... 127
Figure 89. Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 100 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 128
Figure 90. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 100 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 128
Figure 91. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 100 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 129
Figure 92. Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 200 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 129
Figure 93. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 200 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 130
Figure 94. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 200 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 130
Figure 95. Cyljnder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Arr Temperature 223K and 300 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 131
Figure 96. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 300 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 131
Figure 97. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 300 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 132
Figure 98. Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 400 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................ 132
Figure 99. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 400 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonjc Outlet.. ................................................................ 133
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 7
November 23, 2010
Figure 100. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 400 mph
with Subsonic Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ............................................................. 133
Figure 101 . Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 500 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet.. ................................................................. 134
Figure 102. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 500 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ................................................................... 134
Figure 103. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 500 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Subsonic Outlet ................................................................... 135
Figure 104. Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 700 mph
with Mixed Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. .............................................................. 135
Figure 105. Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 900 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ....................................................... 136
Figure l 06. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 900 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ....................................................... 136
Figure 107. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 900 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ....................................................... 137
Figure l 08. Cylinder Pressure at l/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1100 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet......................................................... 137
Figure 109. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1100 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet ......................................................... 138
Figure 110. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1100 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet. ........................................................ 138
Figure 111. Cylinder Pressure at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1300 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ....................................................... 139
Figure 112. Cylinder Temperature at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1300 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ....................................................... 139
Figure 113. Cylinder Mach Number at 1/6 Scale, Air Temperature 223K and 1300 mph
with Supersonic Inlet and Supersonic Outlet.. ....................................................... 140
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 8
November 23,2010
LIST OFTABLES
pg.
Table 1. Mach Regimes ................................................................................................................ 32
Table 2. Velocities and Accelerations ofTic Tac for Parametric Time Durations of Event.. ...... 34
Table 3. Properties of Water Used for ANSYS Hannonic Analyses ........................................... 60
Table 4. Normalized radar Cross Section for a 10 m Metallic Sphere with a 1 m
Dielectric Coating in Decibels for 300 MHz and 25 Elements per Wavelength ............ 92
Table 5. Normalized radar Cross Section for a 10 m Metallic Sphere withal m
Dielectric Coating in Decibels for 300 MHz and 50 Elements per Wavelength ............ 94
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 9
November 23, 2010
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this r,eport is to summarize the field data collection, in-house databases and
computational capabilities that currently reside at Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies
(BAASS) for the study of advanced aerospace technology. Between 2008 and 20 IO BAASS was
contracted by the Defense Warning Office of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to create,
staff, and equip a new organization in order to examine and analyze the threat to national
security associated with advanced aerospace technology. By selecting and modeling a few
sentinel cases of encounters with advanced aerospace technology, this report demonstrates the
in-house data collection, data storage and analysis resources built by BAASS under DIA
contract HHM402-08-C-0072.
Throughout the millennia individuals have observed and reported unexplained phenomena in the
sky. Some ofthese reports included bright and flashing lights, objects streaking across the sky or
silently hovering, and multiple colored and flashing structures morphing into one. Cylindrical,
cigar, spherical, lenticular, triangular and ellipsoid shaped structures have been reported hovering
and/or accelerating at rapid rates from a stationary position. Some of these abrupt, high speed
maneuvers have been harder to explain with conventional physics, considering the inherently
poor aerodynamic properties of many ofthese objects. It should be stressed many, but not all, of
these sightings may be explained by natural phenomena, or by unacknowledged aerospace
technology.
Several official government studies were conducted from the late 1940s until around 1970, but
many of these studies were superficial and lacking in rigor. Since 1970, because of an absence
of research funding, the study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) has been characterized
by cursory analysis and amateur, unscientific data collection.
Pilots, both civilian and military, have reported seeing unusual objects in the air, some of which
have been independently confirmed by radar. During the 1960s and 1970s a series of incidents
was reported along the so called Northern Tier of the United States where silent hovering objects
were observed over military facilities housing nuclear weapons. One report in March 1967
involving the simultaneous disabling of multiple missiles for a period of time, while a UAP
allegedly hovered nearby, stimulated considerable public interest when information of the event
began to emerge. The 1967 incident, if true, as well as other Northern Tier incidents, arguably
had national security implications.
Over the years, there have also been numerous reports of Unidentified Submerged Objects
(USO), in all bodies of water. Some USO and UAP reportedly exhibited superior performance
capabilities in velocity and acceleration underwater in the absence of detectable turbulence or
cavitation signatures. While comparing our state of the art military equipment with these
capabilities a reasonable individual may conclude there are national security implications.
Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, LLC (BAASS) is a research organization focused
on the identification, evaluation, and acquisition of novel and emerging future technologies
worldwide as they specifically relate to air and space craft. Cutting edge research areas include
propulsion systems, space applications of nanosensors, piezoelectric and nanowire fabrics,
human performance, plasma stealth technologies, and directed high energy weapons. BAASS
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 10
November 23, 2010
was contracted to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 2008 to investigate and analyze the
possibility of a credible threat posed by UAPs. To accomplish this mission, BAASS over the
past two years has focused on developing three separate resources, each unique to the study of
UAP: 1) to obtain the most comprehensive suite of portable field sensors and personnel
available, 2) to build the most all-inclusive database of UAP performance capabilities and
behavior in the world and 3) to acquire world class computational methodology for analysis of
UAP data. This report touches on all aspects of these resources, but concentrates on the in-house
computational capabilities.
BAASS acquired the ANSYS Multiphysics Finite Element Analysis (FEA) program, for "a first
of a kind" engineering and physics in-house resource devoted to providing a scientifically sound
mathematical analysis and modeling of UAP behavior. Thus BAASS has acquired significant
computational capability to convert field data into mathematical models and three dimensional
simulations.
This report provides theory, analytical and numerical solutions for selected UAP and USO
incidents through engineering and physics analyses. In particular, we examine a sentinel
incident - the "Tic Tac" event - where Fl A-18 aircraft from a United States Carrier Strike Group
were vectored to a nearby unidentified contact in November 2004. The white object observed by
four F/A-18F aircrew was described as 40 feet in length and shaped and colored like a "Tic Tac"
candy.
Many analyses of UAP may use analytical or closed form solutions to solve the equations that
describe the physics of an event. Where analytical solutions do not exist or the geometry is too
complex, ANSYS multiphysics provides a powerful computational platform to solve large
problems numerically, while combining and solving many different physical equations.
Compressible fluid flow analyses were performed to visualize the steady state pressure,
temperature and Mach number contours around two craft shapes. An incompressible fluid flow
problem around a solid disc shaped object descending through the air into a body of liquid was
investigated to observe the disturbance produced on the surface of the water. A successful
analysis of a USO was conducted using a full harmonic acoustics simulation; and computed
values showed good agreement with the expected theoretical solutions. An analysis of a
spherical UAP radar cross section (RCS) was conducted using a full harmonic electromagnetic
simulation. Various other shapes of UAP and USOs may be evaluated by applying boundary
conditions and transient physics equations to obtain a better understanding of the capabilities of
these objects.
BAASS employees and contractors comprise scientists, engineers, analysts, intelligence and
investigative professionals with a wide range of technical capabilities and backgrounds. Many of
the professional staff members are considered national and international experts in their
respective fields. BAASS' personnel have experience in performing work for government
agencies such as the Department of Energy and Department of Defense. A broad mandate to
research and develop future technology platforms pertaining to advanced propulsion, advanced
non- aerodynamic lift capabilities, future material science breakthroughs including
nanofabrication, novel power generation and signature reduction technologies, human interaction
and effects of advanced technologies including field and radiation biological effects exists in
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 11
November 23, 20 I 0
BAASS' work scope. BAASS' vision is to identify and acquire disruptive or discontinuous
technologies that will fonn the basis of aerospace and defense applications through the year
2050, as well as those that pose potential threats to national security.
The company goal is to become a major entity in the research and development of future
aerospace propulsion systems, controls, detection and tracking systems, stealth and directed
energy uses by employing the best and brightest engineers and scientists available. The previous
mentioned capabilities place BAASS in a strong position to provide technical results in both
classified and unclassified endeavors.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 12
November 23, 2010
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 lliSTORICAL EVENTS AND STUDIES
Disc, triangle, cigar and bell- shaped flying objects have been reported and documented on a
global basis for millennia. The sighting by l1843(a)(2) Ion June 24, 1947 in the state of
Washington garnered unprecedented global media attention and began the modern UFO era.
While flying near Mt. Rainier, he observed a chain of nine unusual objects flying from north to
1843(a)(2) __sou.th.! !reported that "two or three of them would dip or change course slightly, just
1
1843(a)(2) ;~:~~;~~~~:~~;.~:~~~:v~r~::~~ l~~le l~or:~~~~~~:~!~t~~t:d~~ ~I~~~-~ s~~i::~7,~~~
described them at the time their flight was like speed boats on rough water or similar to the tail
of a Chinese kite that l once saw blowing in the wind. As l put it to newsmen in Pendleton,
Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water." 1843(a)(2) Thus
the moniker "flying saucer" was born. The terms "flying saucer" and " · used
commonly and interchangeably in the media to describe what are now known as UFOs
(Unidentified Flying Object). Many sightings of UFOs were reported by commercial and
mi litary pilots during the late 1940s and a flying saucer allegedly crashed outside of Roswell,
New Mexico, in early July 1947.
Shortly thereafter, a series of sightings of "green fireballs" began. These reports were almost
exclusively over the state of New Mexico. Increasing significantly in number by December
1948, these sightings typically occurred over sensitive government installations, most notably the
~~~~:.,;i..l,lol.ll,l,...lol.lil£/.dia National Laboratories. An investigation was initiated by meteor expert
After personally witnessing a green fireba ll four to five degrees above the
- on
- zo-n- on_ a__o_n__z..... ontal trajectory on December 12, 19481 !concluded the fireballs were 1~~~(~)(2)
structured, that is, not atmospheric phenomena. InitiaHy they were thought to be of Russian
origin. In April 1950, Project Twinkle was created to be a network of stations with the purpose
of observing, studying, and collecting data on the fireball phenomena. This project did little to
solve the mystery, and was disbanded later that year. Large numbers of UFO sightings
continued in the late 1940s and as a result, some unease about the nature of the objects began to
escalate in military circles, notably in the Air Force. For example, in September 1947, Air Force
l1843(a)(2) lissued a memorandum stating 'The reported operating characteristics
such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roU), and motion which must be
considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the
y some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely. 11
1843(a)(?L recommended a detailed study of the UFO phenomenon. Based on increasing concern
o p rt of the military, the U.S. government initiated official studies of UFOs.
Project Sign was the first official U.S. government study of UFOs performed by the United
States Air Force in early 1948 and concluded in early 1949. Project Sign officials argued UFOs
were likely of extraterrestrial origin, and most of the project's personnel came to favor the
extraterrestrial hypothesis. This hypothesis was rejected by the senior Air Force personnel.
Project Sign eventually came to no oflicial conclusion about UFOs with the final report staling
the existence of flying saucers could neither be confirmed nor denied. Project Sign was
concluded and restarted as Project Grudge in February 1949.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabi lities Page 13
November 23, 20 10
Project Grudge attempted to give each and every case a solution or an identifier tag. Grudge
existed in various form and name until project completion in March 1952. The final Project
Grudge report stated 22% of cases were categorized as unidentified, 69% identified, and 9%
contained insufficient infonnation to categorize.
In March 1952 Project Blue Book replaced Grudge and remained headquartered at the Air
Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Over the next
seventeen years, Project Blue Book recorded approximately 15,000 UFO incidents, and Blue
Book reported 701 of these incidents as "unidentifie " • • • • • in
1952 prompted the CIA to convene a scientific panel, 1843(a)(2 ) m
January 1953 to examine recent UFO data. It is wt e y state among mo ·O
organizations that the I1843(a)(2) I
advocated a campaign to "debunk" UFOs.
Beginning on November l, 1966, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research awarded $313 000
to a research team at the University of Colorado 1843(a)(2)
> - - - - -...........---....... . - - -..........--....-"'"
study the scientific implications of UFOs. The stu y was un erta en on t e matena mis e y
Project Blue Book. The 1843(a)(2) final (and controversial) conclusion stated "we
have recommended agams e moun mg o a ma·or effort for continuing UFO study for
scientific reasons." 1843(a)(2) announced Blue Book
would be closed due to the fact further funding "cannot be justified either on the grounds of
national security or in the interest of science." The last publicly taken report for project Blue
Book operations was December 17, 1969, but officially it closed on January 30, 1970.
Since the end of Blue Book numerous organizations have taken on the role of UFO/UAP
investigations. Few of these groups have been professionally organized, trained, or equipped to
properly investigate the phenomena. In contrast, one purpose of this report is to show BAASS is
on the route to being the leading force in complete investigation and scientific analysis of the
phenomena.
2.2 BAASS' TWELVE TECHNOLOGY FOCUS AREAS
BAASS is a research organization focused on the identification, evaluation, and acquisition of
novel and emerging future technologies worldwide as they specifically relate to air and space
craft. Cutting edge research areas include propulsion systems, space applications of nanosensors,
piezoelectric and nanowire fabrics, human perfonnance, plasma stealth technologies, and
directed high energy technologies.
Research and development necessary for the procurement of the technology required for
advanced space and weapons systems is conducted through use of computational Multiphysics
FEA programs, development of computer code, experimentation, material science testing and
manufacturing of prototypes in BAASS/Bigelow Aerospace in-house and in collaborating
facilities and laboratories. Research areas of interest include Computational Fluid Dynamics,
Heat Transfer, Nuclear Engineering, Electromagnetics and Radio Frequencies, Theoretical and
Computational Physics, Biological Sciences and Chemistry.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 14
November 23, 2010
Research performed through theoretical and computational applications, as well as modeling of
components of non-conventional propulsion systems is under way to provide for future
development of vehicles capable of operating in the atmosphere, under water and in space.
BAASS research intends to provide innovative approaches and concepts for aircraft, propulsion,
and flight technologies demonstrating significant advances in performance and capabilities
beyond those in operation today.
BAASS' twelve key technology areas concentrate on how breakthrough technologies will
provide for the development of advanced spacecraft concepts and weapon technologies through
the year 2050 and beyond. The twelve areas are:
l. Lift
2. Propulsion
3. Control
4. Power Generation
5. Spatial Temporal Translation
6. Materials
7. Configuration, Structure
8. Signature Reduction
9. Human Interface
I0. Human Effects
11. Armament
12. Other Peripheral Areas
2.3 BAASS PERSONNEL, SOFTWARE, EQUIPMENT AND DATA WAREHOUSE
Although the majority of this report is devoted to demonstrating BAASS' capabilities in
mathematical modeling of various UAP performance parameters, the next section provides a
short summary of some of the BAASS personnel, portable data collection sensors, as well as the
current BAASS in-house database architecture.
2.3.1 BAASS Personnel
BAASS employees and contractors comprise scientists, engineers, analysts, intelligence and
investigative professionals from diverse backgrounds. A majority of BAASS personnel have
performed work for government agencies such as the Department of Energy and Department of
Defense.
Research and development necessary for the procurement of the technology required for
advanced space and weapons systems is conducted by numerical computational analysts through
use of computational multiphysics FEA programs. Application and scientific programmers are
involved in development of computer code that drives data mining and scientific applications
used to evaluate historical and present UAP cases. Professionals in all areas conduct
experimentation, material science testing and manufacturing of prototypes in both in-house
facilities and collaborating facilities and laboratories. Areas of concentration include
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 15
November 23, 2010
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFO), Heat Transfer, Nuclear Engineering, Electromagnetics
and Radio Frequencies (RF), Theoretical and Computational Physics, Biological Sciences and
Chemistry.
2.3.2 ANSYS Multiphysics FEA
The ANSYS Workbench platform is a powerful multi-domain simulation environment that
harnesses the core physics from ANSYS, enables their interoperability, and provides common
tools for interfacing with CAD, repairing geometry, creating meshes and post-processing results.
To our knowledge, this powerful computational capability has not been previously utilized in the
64 year history of UFO study. It is hypothesized that through this more broad ranging analysis,
additional theoretical constructs can be generated regarding UAP and USO behavior. These in
tum can provide the scaffolding for advanced engineering concepts.
2.3.3 Equipment
2.3.3.1 Field Investigative Equipment
BAASS has amassed a considerable amount of field investigative equipment. The inventory
includes a variety of iimaging devices, along with Global Positioning Systems (OPS) and range
finding items. Of note are the following:
2.3.3.1.1 Canon 50 MK II Digital SLR Cameras
Two Canon 5D MK 11, 21.1 Megapixel, Digital SLR cameras were selected based on their
capability for low light photography when combined with the Canon EF 300 mm ultrasonic, and
the Canon EF 24-105 mm ultrasonic lenses. The 21. 1 Megapixel size allows for RAW images
suitable for scientific examination and analysis.
2.3.3.1.2 Sony A350 Digital SLR camera
The Sony A350 is a 14.2 Megapixel, digital SLR camera, with a Sony N 50-300 mm, a
Sony N 50-70 mm lens, and a Sony Macro 2.8/50 mm lens. The a350 while a high quality
camera, is compact and portable. It also allows for close-up and one-to-one photography.
2.3.3.1.3 Sony High Definition Video Cameras
Three Sony High Definition Video (HOV) 1080i, High Definition Video cameras, with low light
capability were chosen for video capture in various field conditions.
2.3.3.1.4 Sony Handicam, Digital Video Cameras
Four Sony Handicam, digital video cameras with 80 GB hard drive storage capacity. These
cameras are compact and portable, and using the HOD allow for up to 4 hours of continuous
video recording with no tapes or other external media. They can also capture still images.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 16
November 23, 2010
2.3.3.1.5 ATT PVS-7, Night Vision Devices
Seven ATT PVS-7, Nmght Vision Devices - military quality, state-of-the-art night vision devices.
2.3.3.1.6 Oasys Universal Thermal Monocular (UTM)
This device is a ruggedizcd thermal imaging and designation system. It includes a digital
magnetic, both still and video capture capability as well as a digital PC interface allowing for
real-time review of images in the field.
2.3.3.1.7 Garmin Global Positioning Systems
One Colorado 400t and two Oregon 400t, Global Positioning Systems, allowing fo r route
mapping as well as waypoint storage in the field.
2.3.3.1.8 Leica Rangemaster 1200 Laser Range Finders
These two range finders are accurate out to 1500 meters, extremely compact and user friendly.
2.3.3.1.9 Sony CyberShot Cameras
Three Sony CyberShot I 0.1 megapixel digital cameras - compact and portable for quick reaction
to opportunities while actively investigating.
These equipment items give BAASS considerable capability when investigating events in the
field. In addition to the items listed above a wide range of other support type items are in the
BAASS inventory. T hese include Toshiba laptop computers, digital voice recorders, digital
Game Cameras, TR spot lights, power invertors, several pieces of older night vision equipment,
and packaging and storage items for solid, liquids, and hazardous materials.
In addition, BAASS obtained Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (T SCM) equipment in an
effort to enhance the security of BAASS facilities. ln addition to the below listed TSCM
equipment BAASS personnel are trained by Research Electronics International in Cookeville,
TN; also the manufacturer of the equipment.
• OSCOR 5000E, Omni-Spectral Correlator covering the radio frequency range from
50 kHz to 3 GHz
• ORION Non-Linear Junction Detector
• TA LAN Telephone Analyzer
• CPM-700 Broadband Detector
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 17
November 23, 20 10
2.3.3.2 Scientific Equipment
2.3.3.2.1 Veho VMS-001 200X 1.3 Megapixel Digital USB Microscope
This instrument is a very portable (4.4 x 1.3 inches) digital microscope which expands the
capability of the field! investigators. The microscope allows detailed images to be taken and
connects directly to a laptop. Illumination is via 4 built in white LED lights.
2.3.3.2.2 Celestron 44340 3.5" LCD Digital Microscope
This instrument is a bench top digital microscope. The microscope has magnification
capabilities of 40-400,X extending up to 1600X with digital zoom. Images can be uploaded to a
PC or laptop via a USB connection. It could also be taken into the field if required.
2.3.3.2.3 Niton XL3t 900S GOLDD Analyzer
This instrument is an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer. The device analyzes the emission of
characteristic "secondary" (or fluorescent) X-rays from a material that has been excited by
bombarding with high-energy X-rays. BAASS field teams deploy the Niton and conduct on-site
elemental analysis.
2.3.3.2.4 Colibri TTC Handhcld Dose Rate Meter
This instrument package allows for the detection and quantification of alpha, beta and gamma
radiation in the field. The ability to accurately measure and quantify these three types of
radiation adds another critical level of capability to the BAASS arsenal ofanalysis.
2.3.3.2.5 Hand held Spectrum Analyzer Pro Bundle 3 (NF-5030 and HF-60100)
These are instruments designed to detect and measure a broad spectrum of electromagnetic
(EMF) radiation and high frequency radio waves. The NF-5030 measures three dimensional
magnetic fields from as low as background up to 20 Gauss. Combining the two instruments
electric fields are measured from 0.1 V/m to 20 kV/m and frequencies from 1 Ilz to 9.4 Gllz.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 18
November 23, 2010
2.3.3.6 Hardware for ANSYS Workbench Platform
The research and work performed by BAASS ranges from technical design and prototyping, all
the way up to advanced theoretical and computational studies of partial differential equations
describing multiphysics problems. An expandable twelve core Hewlett Packard server with
48 GB of RAM and I TB of storage is used to perform parallel processing solutions for
structural, fluid flow, heat transfer, high and low frequency electromagnetic problems along with
coupled physics of two or more of those listed previously.
2.3.4 Data Warehouse
BAASS developed a Data Warehouse to support research on UAP and related anomalies and
titled it "Project CAP ELLA". The BAASS Data Warehouse is revolutionary because it: 1)
AAP Person incorporates a format ~a~_c!_on _the ~ - JSix Layer Model for analyzing UAP, 2)
~· MP •· includes several new databases developed by BAA S, and 3) incl.udes databases developed by
58
erson others which have never been collectively analyzed. The Data Warehouse currently consists of
eleven separate databases and their associated supporting documentation in electronic format
such as witness interviews, photographs, videos, recordings, sketches, analytical reports, etc.
Each of the databases contains UAP sighting events relating lo the purpose of that particular
database, although some of the reported cases do overlap. Four of the databases will continue to
catalogue current and future sighting reports. Seven of the databases have been completed and
full y integrated and populated with all pertinent info rmation captured by the CAPELLA format.
BAASS will continue to input historical data in the CAPELLA format and will expand the Data
Warehouse with additional databases and unusual aerial phenomena information.
The eleven databases c urrently included in the Data Warehouse are:
I . N IOS Database
2. l 1843(a)(2) !Pilot Database
3. Sign/Grudge/Dlue Book Database
4. UFOCAT Database
5. M UFON Case Management System Database
6. Project Colares Database
7. Canadian Release Database
8. United Kingdom Release Database
9. BAASS Database
10. Utah Ranch Database
11 . Post-Utah Ranch EITects Database
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 19
November 23, 20 I 0
The BAASS Data Warehouse is an electronic repository for historical, ongoing, and future UAP
reporting and investigations. The Data Warehouse is designed to faci litate sophisticated analyses
and data mining to improve our understanding of the extent, structure, and frequency of UAP, as
well as their potential correlation to known physical, environmental, biological, or socio-political
factors.
2.3.4.1 CAPELLA Format AAP Person
5, AAP
The CAPELLA database format is based upon the "Six Layer Model for Ano alous Person 58
Phenomena" developed by !AAP Person 5 Iand .,..fA...,...P_P_e_rs_...,
0 n,... a.....1i.....-................................._·~...
s..,. 1
--·_---_.. ....................1
This six layer model encapsulates all of the potential characteristics o UAP events that can e
studied. The six layers are:
1. The Physical Layer - those physical characteristics associated with a UAP event
2. The Anti-Physical Layer - the patterns that conflict with those predicted in modem physics
3. The Psychological Layer - the psychological impacts to the witness(es) and the social
conditions that surround them
4. The Physiological Layer - the effects perceived by humans
5. The Psychic Layer - the effects commonly found in parapsychology literature
6. The Cultural Layer - the primary and secondary effects upon society.
Additionally, the CAPELLA format captures administrative details associated with the UAP
event, such as witness information, location, date, time, duration, etc.
2.3.4.2 Data Warehouse Upgrade
BAASS is undergoing a database upgrade project to further enhance data security and integrity,
and increase processing power for greater analytical capability. The CAPELLA framework and
methodologies will be preserved in the upgraded system. This upgrade w ill increase efficiency
and effectiveness, and will allow databases to be analyzed individually or collectively.
2.3.4.3 Statistical Analysis
BAASS h u~OJ21$.1S::a....LimL:.1S:~ l, yet comprehensive statistical analyses for three of the
databases: !i:-"TT':=c:-T~=~- - ,r,:1 Pilot Database, Pro·ect Si n/Grudge/Blue Book Database,
and the U anc a ase. e analyses on th 1843(a)(2) and Blue Book databases are
focused on identifying patterns of technical information om e case reports. The Utah Ranch
analysis delves into patterns and aspects of when anomalous activity is reported in an attempt to
identify potential times and improve the means of future detection methods.
Summary Report on BA.ASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 20
November 23,2010
3. TYPES OF UAPS OBSERVED
NASA aeronautical engineed 1843(a)(2) I
made important inroads into attempts to delineate
some quantitative characteristics of UFO perfonnance by close examination of, and derivation of
numerical parame • . ligated sentinel UFO casesP843(a)(2) ln addition, I
computer scientist AAP Person 5 has attem ted to compute estimates of optical power
output derived from reports AAP Person 5 This report attempts to extend and broaden
these preliminary studies using considerably enhanced computational power and mathematical
modeling capabilities.
Figure 1, taken froml1843(a)(2) !depicts illustrations of the various shapes associated with the
UAP phenomena.
THE UFO PATTERN
A Cond«!Mcl Statement of Repeated Obsemltions
CONAGUUJIOMOF HIGNLY ll9(Al1NG SHAPES
.IAUC'.M • IU#'SOINl,..,o,#oofWJ' 0 ~,
0
~
l>offltclS-..
,~ ,
u,,lkulo, S.UCt<
.........
'"'°'''ommonl OIOill<
• OOU..HAT ,, , . ."
"'E:3 ..
• C'OMCMHA1(,,.., :A-
• MTUM
o
(:):
NOrf:(IJSll#w,-b.,,_r,p;a,lnlg#lllinwoitglow.(1} Dml>-dal-"<:olanlMineltra««OJtlsol.,,,-,y,(3}Glonldi,ors /tow,,._ol,o.
Figure 1. The UFO Pattern: A Condensed Statement of Repeated Observations
As an important component of these studies, BAASS understands a considerable number,
possibly a majority, of UAP reports can be explained by simple misidentification of current
advanced technology platforms. Some recent black triangle and even possibly some saucer and
hat shaped UAP reports over the last several decades may have been explained by aircraft
sightings of the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird (Figure 2), Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk Stealth
Fighter (Figure 3), Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber (Figure 4) and Boeing
Phantom Works Stealth X-45A Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAV) (Figure 5). Nevertheless, a
significant number of cylindrical and cigar shapes along with spherical, lenticular and ellipsoid
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 21
November 23, 2010
shaped UAPs which appear to hover and/or accelerate at rapid rates from a stationary position
have been harder to explain considering the inherently poor aerodynamic properties of these
objects. It is this latter subset of UAP reports that BAASS has focused on.
Figure 2. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works SR-71 Black Bird
Figure 3. Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 22
November 23. 2010
Figure 4. Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber
Figure 5. Boeing Phantom Works B-2 Stealth X-45A UAV
Summary Report on B/\ASS IJAP Analysis Capubilitic:s Pugc 21
November 23. 20 10
Figure 6. Three Dimensional Rendering of a Cylindrical or "Tic Tac" UAP
Figure 7. Three Dimensional Rendering of a Metallic Spherical UAP
Summary Report on BA ASS UAP Analysi'> <'arabilities Page 24
November 23, 20 I 0
4. ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS FOR UAP INVESTIGATIONS
4.1 "TIC TAC" INCIDENT
The following summary is excerpted from the report of an investigation conducted by personnel
assigned to DIA of an observation by elements of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group of UAP off
the coast of Mexico in November 2004. Note: The DIA personnel who wrote the report utilized
the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) rather than the more common Unidentified Aerial
Phenomenon (UAP) or Unidentified Flying Object (UFO). All three terms, AAV, UAP, and
UFO are used at different times in this section and should be considered interchangeable.
During the period of approximately I 0-16 November 2004, the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group
(CSG) was operating off the western coast of the United States in preparation for their
deployment to the Arabian Sea. The USS Princeton on several occasions detected multiple
Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) operating in and around the vicinity of the CSG. The AAVs
would descend "very rapidly" from approximately 60,000 feet down to approximately 50 feet in
a matter of seconds. They would then hover or stay stationary on the radar for a short time and
depart at high velocities and tum rates. On 14 November after again detecting the AAV, the
USS Princeton took the opportunity of having a flight of two FlA-18Fs returning from a training
mission to further investigate the AAV. The USS Princeton took over control of the F/A-l 8s
from the E-2C Airborne Early Warning aircraft and vectored in the f/A- l 8s for intercept leading
to visual contact approximately one mile away from the AAV, which was reported to be "an
elongated egg or a 'Tic Tac' shape with a discernable midline horizontal axis." It was "solid
white, smooth, with no edges. It was "uniformly colored with no nacelles, pylons, or wings." It
was approximately 46 feet in length. The F/A-18Fs radar could not obtain a ' lock' on the AAV;
however it could be tracked while stationary and at slower speeds with the Forward Looking
Infrared (FLI R). The AAV did take evasive actions upon intercept by the F/A-18 demonstrating
an advanced acceleration (g), aerodynamic, and propulsion capability. The AAV did not take
any offensive action against the CSG; however, given its ability to operate unchallenged in close
vicinity to the CSG it demonstrated the potential to conduct undetected reconnaissance leaving
the CSG with a limited ability to detect, track, and/or engage the/\/\V.
l
According to 1843(a)(2) I the AAVs would descend from a very high altitude into the
scan volume of the AN/SPY- 1 at a hi gh velocity. The top of the scan volume would put the
AAVs at higher than 60,000 feet. The AAVs would descend "very rapidly" from approximately
60,000 feet down to approximately 50 feet in a matter of seconds. They would then hover for a
short time and depart at high velocities and at tum rates demonstrating an advanced acceleration
(g) capability. p843(a)(2) 7 added that based on his experience, which is 17 years as a Fire
Control on Aegis cruisers, Che AA V exhibited ballistic missile Characteristics in reference to its
appearance, velocity, and indications on the radar. Since the radar was in the mode to handle /\ir
Intercept of conventional aircraft it never obtained an accurate track of the AAVs and was
quickly "dropped" by the radar meaning it was eliminated by the computer to reduce the amount
ofclutter on the radar, as any other false target is handled. If the radar were set up in a mode for
Ballistic Missile tracking they likely would have had the capability to track the AAV. They were
detected three separate times during the week operating off the western coast of the United States
and Mexico. The Tactical Air Officer onboard the Princeton could not identify the radar contact
Summary Report on B/\ASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 25
November 23, 2010
and given the high speed and altitude was perplexed. On 14 November 2004, after again
detecting an AA V took the opportunity of two F/A-18s airborne in the vicinity to task them for
airborne reconnaissance of the AA V.
Figure 8. Location of the AAV during the F/A18 Intercept
!AAP Person 9 b was flying a single seat
F/A-18C that launched from the USS Nimitz at approximately 1030L to conduct a Functional
Check Flight of an aircraft that had recently completed significant maintenance. He noted the
weather that day was blue skies. no clouds, and unlimited visibility. After 30 minutes into hi s
fl ight he received a radio call from his air controller asking him to investigate an unidentified
airborne contact. This was not a standard request. Additionally the controller asked if he had
ordnance onboard, which was odd since no controller had ever asked that question during a
SummaJ)' Report on BA.A~S LAP Analysis Capabi lities Page 26
November 23. 2010
situation of identifying an unknown contact over U.S. or International territory. He responded
that he had no ordnance onboard. The controller provided vectors to the vicinity of Figure 8.
The object was reported to be at "slow speed and low altitude."
While en route at approximately 250 knots indicated/400 knots groundspeed at mediwn altitude
(15-25,000 feet), he gai ned radar contact of what he believed to be two F/A- 18Fs that were
approaching the AAV from the west at low altitude (500- 5,000 feet). There was no other traffic
on the radar. The controller informed him to remain above I 0,000 feet, as there was other fighter
traffic at low altitude investigating the AAV. As he approached approximately 15nm from the
AAV descending through approximately 15,000 feet, he could see a water disturbance in the
ocean surface. He recalled that the sea state was low (calm). At approx imately 5-10 nm away
from the AAV, the controller told him to "skip it'' and return to his operating area. Since he was
close he elected to fly over the water disturbance to try and see what was causing it.
The disturbance appeared to be 50 to I 00 meters in diameter and close to round. It was the only
area and type ofwhitewater activity that could be seen and reminded him of images of something
rapidly submerging from the surface like a submarine or ship sinking. It also looked like a
possible area of shoal water where the swell was breaking over a barely submerged reef or
island. He overflew the disturbance and turned back to the northwest. As he was flying away he
could see the disturbance clearing and could no longer identify the place where it occurred. He
did not see any object or vessel associated with the disturbance either above the surface, on the
surface, or below the surface. He also never made visual contact with the other fighter aircraft
that were vectored to the location or the AAV. It is possible that the disturbance was being
caused by an AAV but that the AAV was ' cloaked' or invisible to the human eye.
!MP Person 9 !recovered aboard the Nimitz at approximately 1200L. H~~........,.......,....,..........,'"'14'
Intelligence Center (CVIC) and was asked by hi • Officer
saw the "supersonic Tic Tac"? We questioned now-:,-----;-,---r- o dete ~:--:T~-c-::-::i-=::-:-:,~....
information but based on his position in CVIC a was not involved in any further
discussions concerning the AAV.
1843(a)(2)
He and
1843(a)(2) ere in the lead aircraft of the first F/A-18F section airborne
a ay om - , 1843(a)(2) The flight walked, started and launched with no
issue. They completed their departure from the USS Nimitz and flew to the working area to
conduct the training portion of the flight. After they completed their training the E-2C controller
handed them off to the USS Princeton !1843(a)(2) f1here they received vectors via Bearing
Range Altitude Aspect (BRAA) to an unknown contact flyin into the w~king ar a from the
1843(a)(2) . south. -1··--· !asked what ordnance they had on board. 1843(a)(2) tol -··-- controLthaL1~A3(a)(2)
they had two captive training AJM-9Ms {CATM-9) and no o er or nance. The flight descended
to between 20-24,000 feet and proceeded to the contact. !1B43(a)(2) I
did not recall any
indications via on-board sensor of the object. Their aircraft was not carrying a Forward Looking
I
Infrared (FLIR) pod onboard. As l1843(a)(2) remembers it, the radar Attack Display was clean
(no targets).
Summary Report on BAJ\SS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 27
November 23, 201 0
1843 2 1843 2
L _ _ _(a
_)_( _)_,...-=-=.=i.....,.._ (_a_)(_ l_ _
.....were attem ting acquire the object visually as they heard "merge
1843(a)(2) plo.e .from- - - -- According to 1843(a)(2) the first indication he had of the unknown contact
was a visua o a isturbance on the water below the AAV. As he scanned the area he gained a
visual on the object. It is important to note that when asked to describe the disturbance on the
water he stated that it was localized underneath the object, did not appear as a trail or wake, and
looked like frothy waves and foam almost as if the water was boiling.
At this oint 1843(a)(Z) detached !1843(a)(2) !which held at approximately 20,000 feet,
escended to between 12-16,000 feet. 1843(a)(2) attempted a "helmet
at was unsuccessful. It is important to note that 1843(a)(2) as using the Joint Helmet
Mounted Cuing System which will cue the aircraft sensors sue as e radar to 'lock on' to what
the pilot is looking at and it also has a recording capability. It may have been useful in this
situation but typically because of the large amount of head movement it is not practical. c::]J §4.~(~)(2)
1843(a)(2L i:=-lstated that the helmet' s recording capability was rarely used therefore he did not think to
~ atday.
1843 (a)(2) communicated what they were seeing with ! =3eontrol-ana-said-thathe .hada 1843(a)(2)
runnmg ia ogue on the interflight radio withj1 843(a)(2) !stated that the object
was "holding like a Harrier." (Referring to the AV-8B jet aircraft, which is capable of hovering
and Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) via thrust vectoring.) According to r-::1.~43(a)(2)
1843(a~_(?Ll !the object' s shape was like an elongated egg or a ' Tic Tac' and had a discemable m ~ •
horizontal axis. However, the object was uniformly white across the entire body. It was
approximately 46 feet in length. 1843(a)(2) escribed it as "solid white, smooth, with no
edges. It was uniformly colored wi no nace es, pylons, or wings." When asked to describe
the appearance, if it g lowed or reflected sunlight he said, "neither, it looked like it had a white
candy-coated shell, almost like a white board." His report differs from !1843(a)(2) I in that he
reported the object traveling level at approximately 500-1000 feet at approximately 500 knots.
The object was pointed in a north/south orientation and was moving both north & south and east
& west, while maintainin a consistent altitude. These displacements, according to !1843(a)(2)
were minor. 1843(a)(2) stated he then began a descent with the intention to take a close aboard
pass with the object in an attempt lo visually identify it. They began the decent as the rolled in
from about 10,000 ft and approximately 350 knots to take the object close aboard. 1843(a)(2)
pulled nose on and then pulled trail (aft) of the object. As they were maneuvering, the object 1843( )(2)
appeared, according toj1843(a)(2) l"to recognize us." He assessed this from the fact th4ohject ( ~
"pointed" (realigned its axis) in the direction of their aircraft. At this time, according t •., '
1843(a)(2) .[ :=] the disturbance on the water ceased.
As they completed this maneuver, the ob·eel ascended quickly and pulled lift vector on and aft of
them at a supersonic speed. 1843(a)(2) commanded the radar through the Short Range radar
set and asked for a picture from 1843(a)(2) initially reported that the "picture was clean" (no
contact) but then stated "you' re not gomg to elieve this, it's at your CAP" meaning that the
AAV had flown to their training CAP, which was located in the southern end of the training area
and had climbed to approximately 24,000 feet. 1843(a)(2) stated that the flight attempted to
locate both the object and the disturbance with no success. 1843(a)(2) stated that nothing was
seen on the surface or subsurface and that there were no indications of the previous disturbance.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 28
November 23, 2010
Following the engagement, the flight rejoined and returned to the USS N imjtz_ When asked how
the jets functioned and if there was any indications of a system malfunction, he stated that, "the
jets were brand new, less than 1 hr n h m.
They were working perfectly." 1843(a)(2) when asked, said that all aircraft systems were
functional. That there were no ID1Ss1on computer issues or avionics issues and that there was no
radio or communication interference and that they had entry into the Link-16 network. When
asked, 1843(a)(2) couldn' t confirm any physiological or psychological feelings that were out
of the or mary.
1843(a)(2) was a member ofVFA-41 and was the l._1843 _ _ _<a_H_2)_ _ _ _ _ _ __,
1843(a}J?L .... . flying wi 1843(a)(2) They were a part of the second F/A- l 8F section airborne
at ay from VFA-41. Their flight launched following the !1 843(a)(2) !flight. The crews
spoke with each other in the paraloft, discussed the object and that the flights were scheduled for
the same working area. !1843(a)(2) !flight toldl1843(a)(2) I
flight what they saw and to
try to see and record what they could.
There were no clouds and there was a discernable horizon. The time was approximately 1500L.
All on board systems were functiorung normally. The radar was in a standard search mode
(RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of
an L+S track). There was no radio or commurucation interference and they had entry into the
Link-16 network. Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. Accordjng to the radar 1843(a)(2)
dis la , the injtial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. r7 -
1843(a)(2) was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition tFie
ra ar to mgle Target Track (SIT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the
b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and
then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, !1 843(a)(2) !stated that
there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, "any normal EA indications"). It "just
appeared as if the radar couldn't hack it." The radar couldn' t receive enough information to
create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in the direction of the initial
track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FUR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately
-5 deg elevation (Figure 9). According tq 1843(a)(2) t'the target was best guess co-altitude
or a few thousand feet below," estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The
object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure l 0). There was no discemable
movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft' s movement. As
1843(a)(2) watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. O tS4~(a)(2)
1843(a)(2) made no attempt to slew the FLIR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the ••••
object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object.
Summa1y Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 29
November 23, 2010
Figure 9. FUR in 'White Hot' Mode
Figure 10. FUR in "Black Hot" mode
Summary Report on 13/\J\SS l JJ\P /\nalysi" Capnhilitics Pngc 10
November 23. 20 10
1843 (a)(2) was clear in that he couldn't confirm that it was the same object as described by
1843 a 2 flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR. He reaffirmed
that all systems were functional. Following completion of the training portion, the section
returned to the shi. for a normal approach, landing and shutdown. The crew met in CVlC and
debriefed. 1843(a)(2) said that the CJVC section attempted to collect his tapes but he
refused.
They proceeded to their ready room where they debriefed withl1843(a)(2) land his f l ~
• the tapes were made with a set being turned into the intelligence section. l...=jJ~.4~.(~)(2)
1843(a)(2) was not asked to sign any non-disclosure agreement and he is uncertain how far up
the chain the reporting went past his commanding officer. When askedJ1843(a)(2) I couldn't
confirm any physiological or psychological. feelings that were out of the ordinary. He only
expressed a feeling ofconfusion during the event.
According to former!1843(a){2) Inow a civilian working rorl1843 (a)(2) I who was a
!1843(a)(2) I onboard the Louisville in November 2004 during the AAV activity
there were no unidentified sonar contacts in the vicinit of the aerial si htin ,s or an time durin ,
the o erations off the coast of California. The forme 1843(a)(2)
----------------
1843(a)(2) confirmed that there was no anomalous undersea activity during this period. There
was a 1ve ire exercise conducted by the USS Louisville during the period of and in the vicinity
of the AAV sightings; however, the weapon in use did not match the flight profile or visible
characteristics of the AAV. Additionally any live fire would have been coordinated throughout
the CSG and all air traffic would have been well aware of the launch and operati.on of the
weapon system. Aircraft would not have been vectored for the intercept of a US Weapon in
Oight. Based on the lack of detection of any unidentified sonar contacts it is highly unlikely that
an AAV operated below the surface of the ocean; it is possible that the AAV demonstrated the
ability to be cloaked or invisible to the human eye based on ilot re orting of the water
disturbance with no visible craft. Based on the assessment of 1843(a)(2) if the AAV did
operate underwater undetected it would represent a highly a vance capability given the
advanced capability of our sensors.
Key Assessments According to DIA Report
• The Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) was no known aircraft or air vehicle currently in
the inventory of the United States or any foreign nation.
• The AAV exhibited advanced low observable characteristics al multiple radar bands
rendering US radar based engagement capabilities ineffective.
• The M V exhibited advanced aerodynamic performance with no visible control surfaces
and no visible means to generate lift.
• The AAV exhibited advanced propulsion capability by demonstrating the ability to
remain stationary with little to no variation in altitude transitioning to horizontal and/or
vertical velocities far greater than any known aerial vehicle with Uttle to no visible
signature.
• The AAV possibly demonstrated the ability to 'cloak' or become invisible to the human
eye or human observation.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 31
November 23,2010
The AA V possibly demonstrated a highly advanced capability to operate undersea completely
undetectable by our most advanced sensors. The so called "Tic Tac" incident has many physics
and engineering aspects that may be studied with regards to understanding the performance
capabilities and propulsion mechanisms of the craft. Since there was lit1le hard data, most
analyses of the incident had to be made using either parametric studies or assumptions based on
eye witness testimony.
4.1.1 Analytical Solutions of Velocities and Accelerations Associated with "Tic Tac"
Performance
An initial starting point consisted of using basic physics formulas for the calculation of velocities
and accelerations based on the distance s the object traveled and the duration time I of the
incident. Since no exact duration was known, as the radar operator noted that it occurred in a
matter of "seconds," a parametric range from 0.5 seconds to 10 seconds was studied (assuming
instantaneous velocities and accelerations).
ds
v=-
dt
dv
a=-
dt
Flight is classified in six categories as shown in the table below.
Table 1. Mach Regimes
Re-entry
Regime Subsonic Transonic Sonic Supersonic Hypersonic High- hypersonic
Speeds
Mach
< 1.0 0.8 - 1.2 1.0 1.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 25.0 > 25.0
Number
Due to the lack of data, only the instantaneous velocity of the craft v and the instantaneous
acceleration a, were computable. For the velocity and deceleration witnessed, a negative sign is
implied to represent the direction component ofthe vector.
Assumptions:
1. Elevation of 60,000 ft to Sea Level - It was reported by radar observation the object
descended from approximately 60,000 ft to sea level in a matter ofseconds.
2. Matter of Seconds - A range of 0.5 seconds to 10 seconds was used for a parametric
study.
4.1.2 Summary of Analytical Velocity and Acceleration Solutions
Table 2 provides the computed values of instantaneous velocities and decelerations in ft/s and
mph and ft/sec2 and g respectively for each chosen .6t. Figure 11 through Figure 14 show
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 32
November 23, 2010
non-continuous plots for velocity and acceleration in each unit for a specific 6t event duration.
As one may observe from the table and graphs, extremely small and small duration times
specifically between 0.5 and 5 seconds provide high velocities and accelerations. Most of the
values in the table represent extraordinary velocities and all fall between lhypersonic and re-entry
speed Mach regimes. Acceleration values also show a very high number ofg.
An examination of Table 2 at a 6t of5.0 sec reveals the average velocity of the craft was 12,000
ft/sec (8,182 mph or Mach 10.7). A very high deceleration value is also witnessed at 2400 ft/sec2
or 75 g. These are extraordinarily high values and would require some form of acceleration
manipulation to limit what a human pilot would experience and be able to survive.
Summary Report on BAASS UAP Analysis Capabilities Page 33
November 23, 2010
Table 2. Velocities and Accelerations of Tic Tac for Parametric Time Durations of Event
!1s 60000 feet
!1s 11.36364 miles
Mach 2
l'1t (sec) V (ft/s) v (mph) a (ft/s ) a (g)
Number J
0.0 0 0 0.0 32.2 2 12
0.5 120
Fuente: archivo UAP oficial del gobierno de EE.UU. (dominio público) · war.gov/ufo ↗ · ver el archivo completo de Nodriza