Skip to content
Above Top Secret
Whistleblowers

AAWSAP and AATIP: what the Pentagon actually funded

A twenty-two million dollar defence contract to study advanced aerospace threats, awarded to a company owned by a hotelier with an interest in the paranormal. The contract is documented. Almost everything else about it is contested.

Above Top SecretResearch desk
2 min read
A corridor in an office building

The contract is documented and auditable. Who ran what, under which programme name, is disputed.

Partly documented, partly disputed, and worth separating carefully because this is the foundation of the modern UAP conversation.

What is documented

In 2008 the Defense Intelligence Agency awarded a contract under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program — AAWSAP — worth about twenty-two million dollars. It went to Bigelow Aerospace, owned by Robert Bigelow, who had a long-standing personal interest in the paranormal.

Illustration

The funding was secured largely through the efforts of Senator Harry Reid, who has spoken about it publicly. The contract produced a set of technical reports on subjects including propulsion, metamaterials and warp drive concepts. Several have been released and are of variable quality.

Where it becomes contested

The relationship between AAWSAP and AATIP — the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program — is not agreed.

Luis Elizondo, a former Defense Department official, has said publicly that he ran AATIP and that it investigated UAP. His resignation in 2017 and subsequent statements were central to the New York Times coverage that restarted public attention.

The Pentagon has disputed elements of this. Its position, stated by spokespeople, has been that Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities relating to AATIP. Elizondo maintains he did.

Both positions are on the record and we are not in a position to adjudicate between them. What can be said is that the dispute is about role and remit rather than about whether the programmes existed.

What the programme produced

The released technical reports are the checkable part, and they are a mixed body of work. Some are competent literature reviews. Others are speculative in ways that would not pass peer review.

That is not scandalous for a threat-assessment contract — the brief was to survey what might be possible, which invites speculation. It does mean the reports should not be cited as though they represent settled defence science.

What actually followed

The line from here is direct and institutional. The 2017 coverage led to the Navy formalising reporting procedures in 2019, the UAP Task Force in 2020, the ODNI assessment in 2021, and AARO in 2022.

Whatever the disputes about who ran what, the consequence is a permanent office with a statutory basis. That is the substantive change and it is not contested.

Join the discussion

Still open on this one:

  1. 01

    What was Elizondo’s formal role?

    Personnel records would settle it. The dispute has run for years over something a document could answer in a paragraph.

Join the discussion

Be the first to comment

Sources

Open them and check for yourself. Where a record is public, it is linked.

  1. US National Archives and Records Administration

    NARA

  2. Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

    Office of the Director of National Intelligence · 25 Jun 2021 · no public copy located

  3. The National Security Archive

    George Washington University

0 comments