DOW-UAP-D175: BAASS analysis capabilities and Nimitz modeling
BAASS’s November 2010 capabilities report describes its DIA-funded personnel, sensors, Project Capella databases and engineering software. It revisits the 2004 Nimitz encounter and demonstrates fluid-flow, underwater-acoustic and radar-cross-section models. The calculations depend on assumed conditions and limited testimony; they do not measure an unknown vehicle’s propulsion or establish the report’s speculative cloaking and undersea interpretations.
- File
- Document · Release 07
- Date
- Nov 23, 2010
- Location
- Las Vegas, Nevada
- Extent
- 141 pages
Search This File
Probed Assessment
This is a research-capabilities demonstration built around testimony and assumed models; it does not establish exotic propulsion or measured hypersonic performance.
Key takeaways
- Capella combines eleven databases with acknowledged overlapping reports.
- The Nimitz account includes inaccurate radar tracking, an unconfirmed FLIR identity and no anomalous sonar contact.
- The five-second descent and derived speed are modeling assumptions.
- Fluid, acoustic and radar models demonstrate conventional engineering software.
Why it matters
The report documents what BAASS had assembled and how it attempted engineering analysis, while exposing the limits of applying models to sparse observation data.
Corroboration
Witness estimates, retrospective interpretation and simulated contours are distinct. No cloaking, underwater vehicle or propulsion mechanism is independently established by these models. Source plotting and input-file inconsistencies require verification before numerical reuse.
Open questions
- • Are original radar tracks and full interview records available?
- • Which precise model dimensions generated the plotted outputs?
- • Can the calculations be reproduced after resolving the source’s labels and input inconsistencies?
Probed separates this editorial assessment from the source claims below. It summarizes what the released artifact supports; it is not independent verification.
Official Description from War.gov
This document is an administrative, programmatic, or contractor-produced record related to the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP), a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)-administered program active from 2008 to 2012. AAWSAP’s official scope of work identified 12 technical research areas relating to potential aerospace threats over a time horizon of more than 40 years. As part of the broader program record, the file documents how AAWSAP was scoped, organized, tasked, funded, executed, or described at a particular point in time. This November 2010 Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) contractor-authored capability statement presents BAASS’s analysis as technically rigorous and strategically valuable. The document appears intended not only to describe BAASS’s analytical capabilities but also to reinforce the case for the organization’s continued relevance and for the continuation of AAWSAP. The document summarizes the company’s self-assessment of the suitability of its personnel, software, equipment, field sensor, and data warehousing capabilities for analyzing unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and unidentified submerged objects (USOs). It includes excerpted case findings and uses selected case studies and modeling exercises as demonstrations of BAASS’s analytical capabilities. The report describes BAASS as combining field collection resources, historical databases, and computational tools such as ANSYS Multiphysics to model UAP incidents through engineering and physics analysis, including work on radar cross section, fluid behavior, acoustics, and aerodynamic performance. It also presents BAASS’s in-house capabilities as supporting both threat assessment and the study of advanced aerospace technologies, while asserting that analysis of UAP performance characteristics could inform future developments in propulsion, stealth, detection, and weapons systems.
Preserved verbatim as source metadata. This wording is separate from Probed’s file-specific description and assessment.
File Context
Related entities
Tracker findings
Catalog conversions were incomplete
Project Capella comprised eleven separate databases; seven were completed and four continued cataloguing reports, with some cases overlapping databases.
Princeton account lacked an accurate target track
The Nimitz section reproduces an investigation attributed to DIA personnel and reports that the Princeton radar in air-intercept mode did not obtain an accurate track.
Cloaking was an interpretation of disturbed water
One pilot described a 50–100 meter water disturbance but saw no associated object above, on or below the surface; the text’s cloaking suggestion is an interpretation.
FLIR operator reported normal equipment operation
The later FLIR account reports normal systems, no jamming cues and no discernible object movement, with closure attributed to the aircraft.
The report could not confirm the same target across accounts
The FLIR crew member could not confirm that the recorded target was the same object described by the earlier flight.
Louisville reported no underwater contact
The Louisville account reports no unidentified sonar contacts during the activity; statements about undetectable undersea operation remain conditional.
Extreme speed and acceleration depended on assumed duration
The report’s 8,182 mph and 75 g example follows an assumed five-second descent; these are calculated scenario outputs, not measured values.
Flow simulations used assumed geometry
The compressible-flow demonstration compares a Tic Tac geometry and a right circular cylinder using assumed air conditions and a zero-degree angle of attack.
Radar-cross-section model used an assumed sphere
The radar-cross-section example models a dielectric-coated metallic sphere at 300 MHz; BAASS describes future comparisons with reported radar returns, not a measured unknown craft.
Plot units conflict in places with narrative labels
Several original plot labels conflict with their displayed units: Figure 24 labels pressure units as temperature, Figure 94 labels temperature units as Mach number, and Figure 99 again labels pressure units as temperature.
Release provenance
- Release
- Release 07
- Official ID
- release-07-file-025-dow-uap-d175-baass-self-assessment-of-uap-analysis-capabilities-november-2010
- Cleared
- Oct 23, 2026
Referenced Timeline
Nimitz intercept recounted
The report places the visual intercept on November 14.
BAASS contracted for DIA capabilities
The report describes the contract period as 2008–2010.
Acoustic model output dated
ANSYS plots show October 18 model runs, not encounter dates.
Radar-cross-section model output dated
The RCS plot is dated October 27.
BAASS capabilities report
The report bears November 23, 2010.
Source Claims
Claims are attributed to the released source and remain distinct from Probed’s assessment and tracker findings.
BAASS describes this report as a demonstration of data collection, storage and analysis resources built under DIA contract HHM402-08-C-0072 during 2008–2010.
resources built by BAASS under DIA contract HHM402-08-C-0072.
The executive summary acknowledges that many reported sightings may be natural phenomena or unacknowledged aerospace technology.
these sightings may be explained by natural phenomena, or by unacknowledged aerospace technology.
BAASS reports using a twelve-core Hewlett Packard server with 48 GB RAM and 1 TB storage for coupled engineering calculations.
An expandable twelve core Hewlett Packard server
Project Capella comprised eleven separate databases; seven were completed and four continued cataloguing reports, with some cases overlapping databases.
although some of the reported cases do overlap.
BAASS says it completed first-level statistical analyses of the pilot, Blue Book and Utah Ranch databases to seek patterns, rather than reporting independent validation of each case.
focused on identifying patterns of technical information from the case reports.
The Nimitz section reproduces an investigation attributed to DIA personnel and reports that the Princeton radar in air-intercept mode did not obtain an accurate track.
it never obtained an accurate track of the AAVs
One pilot described a 50–100 meter water disturbance but saw no associated object above, on or below the surface; the text’s cloaking suggestion is an interpretation.
He did not see any object or vessel associated with the disturbance
The visual-intercept account describes a white elongated object and an unsuccessful helmet lock, but says the helmet recording was not used that day.
he did not think to use it that day.
The later FLIR account reports normal systems, no jamming cues and no discernible object movement, with closure attributed to the aircraft.
There was no discernable movement from the object
The FLIR crew member could not confirm that the recorded target was the same object described by the earlier flight.
he couldn't confirm that it was the same object
The Louisville account reports no unidentified sonar contacts during the activity; statements about undetectable undersea operation remain conditional.
there were no unidentified sonar contacts
BAASS states that little hard data existed and selects 0.5–10 seconds for a parametric descent calculation because no exact duration was known.
Since no exact duration was known
The report’s 8,182 mph and 75 g example follows an assumed five-second descent; these are calculated scenario outputs, not measured values.
An examination of Table 2 at a At of 5.0 sec
The compressible-flow demonstration compares a Tic Tac geometry and a right circular cylinder using assumed air conditions and a zero-degree angle of attack.
A 0° angle of attack was used in all cases
The compressible-model conclusion reports no significant aerodynamic lift advantage between the two modeled geometries and presents the work as a starting point for more complex cases.
no significantly different aerodynamic lift advantages between the two geometries.
The water-entry study models an idealized steel disc, water and air with assigned properties and boundary conditions; its graphics illustrate a software simulation.
The UAP was defined as being made of steel
The acoustic example assumes a frequency-driven spherical source and compares meshes and theoretical solutions; it does not identify an actual USO propulsion frequency.
Assuming USOs operate on a frequency driven system
The radar-cross-section example models a dielectric-coated metallic sphere at 300 MHz; BAASS describes future comparisons with reported radar returns, not a measured unknown craft.
a full scale RCS full harmonic analysis was performed
Several original plot labels conflict with their displayed units: Figure 24 labels pressure units as temperature, Figure 94 labels temperature units as Mach number, and Figure 99 again labels pressure units as temperature.
Source Material & Evidence
Research Map
Lines appear only when two entities share a row-level source claim or dated timeline event. Unconnected nodes remain visible without implying a relationship.