Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

SPACE PORK KODIAK
Results of the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll (17-24 February 2005) 839 responses
Published 24 Feb 2006 in the Kodiak Daily Mirror, page 4
"Why Should the Kodiak Launch Complex exist, or not exist?"

41% - It's waste of taxpayer money and useless in national defense
15.85% - It could potentially damage the environment.

56.85% - Anti-Kodiak Launch Complex

27.41% - It's crucial for national defense
15.71% - It's good for the local economy

43.12% - pro-KLC

The poll cleary indicates local attitudes toward Space Pork Kodiak. We suspect the numbers opposing the KLC wuld be even higher if there hadn't been the large number of out-of-state workers in town to support the latest MDA launch. The poll was running over 50% for "It's a waste..." until somebody alerted the KLC staff around Feb 22 causing a huge spike in the pro percentages. Despite this anamoly, the unmistakeable community opposition is undeniable and prevailed in the overall results.

More Unearned Pork for AADC

From the Department of Defense web site, contract news for November 28, 2005:
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2005/ct20051128.html

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. of Anchorage, Alaska, is being awarded a modification to its cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, HQ0006-03-D-0043, to provide kodiak launch complex spaceport facilities and services in support of Missile Defense Agency target launches. The contract was awarded on Sept. 1, 2003 with an estimated contract ceiling of $43,350,000 for a five-year period of performance.

The modification will increase the contract ceiling by $26,150,000 for a total estimated value of $69,500,000.The Missile Defense Agency is the contracting activity.

With the escalating costs of the Iraq debacle and the needs of U.S. citizens ravaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is impossible to justify increased funds for the KLC. We believe that this modification is a result of pressure from Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and is yet another example of his selfish tunnel vision, taking money from those who really need it.

Apparently, he is also taking money from those who DON'T need it.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, has been pressing the Pentagon to continue upgrading ground-based missile defense interceptors that are being based in Fort Greely, Alaska, with 40 missiles expected to be deployed by 2007. Sen. Stevens has already received $103,400 from missile defense contractors in the 2001 to 2006 election cycle.

U.S Gives up on Greely's Ground-based Midcourse Interceptor Missiles Defense Program:

From www.nonukesnorth.net:

U.S Gives up on Greely's Ground-based Midcourse Interceptor Missiles Defense Program:

Cancellation Looms but Senator Ted Stevens fights it

Envision a wind farm at Fort Greely, dear neighbors.

That's right, Ted Stevens is fighting it tooth and nail but the military is finally giving up on the ground-based interceptor missile idea. They've been putting interceptors (at least 7 so far) in the ground at Fort Greely despite the abysmal failure of the system to show any sign of working. (I'm sure it was the No Nukes North spud test that finally convinced them, aren't you?)

It would be an exaggeration to say that they are canceling the system: for now the Missile Defense Agency still has to waste billions of dollars building and deploying 40 missiles slated for Greely by 2007. However, they've given up on ever making it work - they will not upgrade it and they will instead focus on all their other stupid star wars plans (multiple mini interceptors,space-based defenses, etc.)

What seems to be going on is that the military wants to abandon the embarrassing failed interceptors entirely, but Ted Stevens is the chair of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Need I say more? The defense subcommittee (i.e. Stevens) is directing the Missile Defense Agency to continue the ground-based interceptor program alongside its related radars and control systems until it is in "a final stable configuration." Stevens argues that if they give up all the money spent on it so far would be wasted and that Delta Junction will be devastated. The military has so little confidence in the interceptors that they want to separate that part of the system from the other components.

Basically, the Missile Defense Agency realizes they can never deliver a ground-based interceptor system that works but Ted Stevens DOES NOT CARE that the system doesn't work and will try to force them to waste billions continuing it. That's right: PORK AT ITS PUREST. The interceptors are the most expensive part of their budget and the agency wants to abandon them, but Stevens doesn't want the military spending billions on systems that might have a chance, he wants them to waste it on useless missiles since they are in Alaska. Nevermind spending that money on actual threats posed by nuclear proliferation, such as inspecting the 6 million cargo containers that arrive by ship every year or securing the weapons usable nuclear material all over the world or fixing the deteriorating Russian early-warning system, etc. etc.

Nope, PORK FOR ALASKA even if it means slashing realistic defensive programs and leaving the nation with the ever-increasing risk of nuclear terrorism. Now we start our right to die campaign: these missiles are a $3.3 billion a year Terry Shaivo. LET IT GO!

Here are a couple articles on the recent developments and No Nukes North will be issuing a press release posthaste. Don't even ask me why the News Minerhasn't covered this yet and why you are relying on a volunteer grad studentto get this fairly pertinent news out. More soon! - Stacey Fritz

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005/10/7/408BF2BF-AF51-4459-ADEE-BE583D194C5D.html

"White House May Reconsider Missile Defense Approach"

Global Security Newswire - October 7, 2005 - By David Ruppe

Cheaper than KLC, yet has launch contracts!

SOUTHWEST Regional Spaceport Touted as New Mexico Moneymaker
Space.com - USA
Here's a link to a story about a commercial spaceport that cost far less to build
than the KLC and it already has contracts to launch commercial payloads.
<http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050913_nm_spaceport.html>
Why has the KLC cost much, much more
AND not been able to attract any customer other than the U.S. government?

This 10 million dollar tower has been used for only 1 launch and is severely corroded in several areas. 

KLC Facts Left Out of the Open House Media Packet

Congratulations to the folks who engineered the Kodiak Launch Complex open house on August 20, 2005! It was a brilliantly engineered public relations event.

Here is some information that did not appear in the media information packet, but was provided by AADC officials when asked specific questions.

The cost of the launch tower was ten million dollars, funded entirely by the now-defunct Alaska Science and Technology Foundation. The ASTF was dissolved by the State Legislature in 2003 at the urging of Governor Murkowski who said many of the projects funded through ASTF were of questionable benefit. (according to alaskalegislature.com)

Only one of AADC’s eight launches required the use of the tower (2001); at this time, no future launches requiring the tower have been announced.

When concern was expressed about the severe rust and corrosion evident after the tower was opened, AADC officials assured us that they were preparing to deal with the problem. It has been more than eight months since the last launch at the complex. The tower itself was completed in 1999.

The remaining infrastructure of the KLC cost around 50 million dollars, funded by various branches of the military and the Department of Defense.

In its seven years of launches, Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, a state owned and operated corporation, has never earned enough money from launches to cover KLC operating costs. The shortfall has been made up by federal funding.

It seems fitting that the day of the open house was the smokiest in Kodiak’s history, making it difficult to get a clear view of the entire facility.

Is the Kodiak Launch Complex a private playground for employees of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation?

On the afternoon of Sunday, January 9, I was driving through the Kodiak Launch Complex on my way to Fossil Beach when a pickup truck with state license plates escorted a flurry of unlicensed off road vehicles (dirt bikes and 4-wheelers) out of the Mission Control building parking lot and sped down the road toward Fossil Beach.

When I arrived at the beach, the ORVs were tearing up and down the beach, and the state vehicle was parked on the bluff above, with two small children in the cab and a dog in the back. Later, as I headed back toward town, several of the ORVs passed me and pulled into the Mission Control parking lot.

I pulled in to investigate and observed that many of the riders were clearly under the age of 16 and some appeared to be small children. Trailers for hauling ORVs had been placed in the back of the lot so that AADC vehicles blocked any view of them from the road; I could not ascertain if this was intentional or not.

As I pulled out of the parking lot, the state vehicle pulled in. The driver introduced himself as site manager of the KLC. I asked him if he was using a state vehicle for personal business. He replied that he was “off duty”. I asked him if he realized that it was illegal to ride ORVs on state roads. He told me that he was aware of that fact and if I had a problem, I should contact his boss, Pat Ladner. During our conversation, ORVs continued to pull into the lot, having traveled through the KLC on the state road. It appeared that the site manager condoned and facilitated the illegal activity.

It is disappointing and troubling when employees of a state-owned corporation use state property and state vehicles to facilitate and engage in activities that violate Alaska statutes.

One wonders if the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation’s requests for expanded authority over state lands are merely a ploy to enlarge and protect their employees’ private playground.