19 December 2008

AADC Asks for Another Huge Slice of PORK


As you read through the request, you'll get to the part where AADC tries to hold the Alaska State Legislature hostage by claiming, "If this capital request is not approved, the KLC will not be able to support the U.S. Air Force in its Operationally Responsive Space program. Nor will AADC be able to attract other potential customers..."

Since 1995, AADC has had a continuous pattern of saying at every step and every request for more handouts that if they just get this one, then everybody will want to launch rockets in Kodiak. Realistically, it's just too darn expensive to launch in Kodiak, (unless, of course, you are spending Department of Defense dollars.)
With the extreme drop in the cost of oil per barrel, the State of Alaska cannot afford to give handouts to AADC. It's time for them to pay their own way.

Click on the title of this post to see the entire document in PDF, including some financial charts not in this post.
k
Kodiak Launch Complex Infrastructure FY2010 Request: $17,500,000
Reference No: 41789

AP/AL: Appropriation Project Type: Construction
Category: Development
Location: Kodiak Contact: Dale K. Nash, Chief Executive Officer
House District: Kodiak (HD 36) Contact Phone: (907)561-3338
Estimated Project Dates: 07/01/2009 - 06/30/2014
Brief Summary and Statement of Need:
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) requests $17.5 million to build two facilities: a dedicated rocket motor storage facility and an additional launch pad. This program contributes to the Department's mission of promoting a healthy economy and strong communities by providing economic growth in the communities it serves.
Additional Information / Prior Funding History:
Refer to the funding matrix in the detailed description.
Project Description/Justification:
This is the second of a two-year funding request for this multi-year project.
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation’s (AADC) Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) requests funding for the following: a dedicated rocket motor storage facility, an additional launch pad, and related infrastructure. KLC’s existing two launch pads are right next to each and cannot be used simultaneously, thereby limiting customers and launches. The additional facilities will allow multiple launch customers to be on site simultaneously, double KLC’s launch capabilities, and result in KLC being a full service spaceport.
AADC is currently developing a long-term relationship with the U.S. Air Force (USAF). The USAF plans to initiate the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program with the goal of having launch on-demand capability – placing national defense assets in orbit with very little lead time. KLC is an attractive launch site for the ORS program because the KLC offers flexible launch scheduling not available at other U.S. launch sites; and launches from KLC avoid populated areas, environmentally
sensitive areas, and congested air routes. However, the ORS program will require a dedicated rocketmotor storage facility and dedicated launch pad. Neither is currently available at the KLC.
An initial ORS demonstration launch is planned for September 2009 and a second potential launch is scheduled for December 2009. Once mature, it is estimated the ORS program will launch four or more payloads to orbit each year. This is in addition to launches already provided for the Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency. In addition, the AADC is currently in discussions with other potential customers such as other Department of Defense agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and commercial interests.
The facilities will be built over the next two years and will cost $35 million. In fiscal year 2009 and again in 2010 AADC has/will be requesting $17.5 million. Of that amount, $14.0 million will be provided by the federal government and $3.5 million is requested from the State’s General Fund. The State’s initial General Fund investment of $15.6 million has resulted in $214 million in revenue, a viable aerospace industry within Alaska, and employment opportunities in Kodiak. KLC has become an acknowledged national asset in the U.S. spaceport inventory. Additional investment by the State
will send a strong message that Alaska supports the KLC and the continued expansion of the aerospace industry in Alaska.
If this capital request is not approved, the KLC will not be able to support the U.S. Air Force in its Operationally Responsive Space program. Nor will AADC be able to attract other potential customers as the KLC will continue to be limited – unable to accommodate multiple launch customers on site simultaneously.
Funding History
Year Amount Legislation AR #
FY 1999 5,000,000 SLA 98 Ch 139 Page 40 Line 9 32591-04
FY 2000 6,000,000 SLA 99 Ch 2 Page 38 Line 21 32646-04
FY 2000 9,300,000 RPL 0810064 32647-04
FY 2001 17,900,000 SLA 00 Ch 135 Page 3 Line 13 32627-05
FY 2002 4,500,000 SLA 01 Ch 61 Page 3 Line 23 32639-06
FY 2002 20,000,00 SSSLA 02 Ch 1 Page 112 Line 4 32673-06
FY 2004 38,000,000 SLA 03 Ch 82 Page 45 Line15 32679-08
FY 2006 36,000,000 FSSLA05 Ch3 Page3 Line27 32723-09
FY 2007 15,000,000 SLA 06 Ch82 Page 3 Line 30 10334-11
FY 2008 15,000,000 SLA 07 Ch30 Page 84 Line 31 6355-12
FY 2009 17,500,000 SLA 08 Ch29 Page 88 Line 9 4689-13

State of Alaska Capital Project Summary Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
FY2010 Governor Reference No: 41789
12/14/08 4:18:04 PM Page 2 Released December 15th

State of Alaska Capital Project Summary Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
FY2010 Governor Reference No: 41789
12/14/08 4:18:04 PM Page 1 Released December 15th
Kodiak Launch Complex Infrastructure FY2010 Request: $17,500,000

Reference No: 41789

13 December 2008

Kodiak Rejects Missile Defense - Overwhelmingly


Results from the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll, December 5 through December 12:

The U.S. missile shield...

is unnecessary - 67.17%

is important for the nation's defense - 21.59%

will never work - (5.1%)

will ramp up a new arms race - (6.15%)

[percentages based on 667 responses]

Over 78% of the respondents voted anti missile defense. While online polls are generally considered "unscientific", it seems clear a community that is home to a facility used in missile defense tests rejects the notion that it is actually needed.

Coupled with another poll from 26 February 2005, it appears that the KLC is not only unneeded, but also unwanted. We have copied the post from that date below:

Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

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 clearly indicates local attitudes toward Space Pork Kodiak. We suspect the numbers opposing the KLC would 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 anomaly, the unmistakable community opposition is undeniable and prevailed in the overall results.

11 December 2008

More Alternative Views of the Missile "Test"

From Arms Control Wonk

MDA Test Oddities

I am close to posting on the most recent Missile Defense Agency flight test (FTG-05).

In case you wonder why this is taking me literally days to work through (with lots of help from David Wright), read these statements by new MDA Director General Patrick O’Reilly.

Good afternoon, or as Mr. Whitman said, almost good evening. What I would like to do is go over exactly what happened this afternoon. At 1504 Eastern time, a little after 3:00, we launched a target out of Kodiak, Alaska and it did end up, 29 minutes later, with an intercept off of California using a ground-based mid-course defense system, the Aegis system, some of our satellite systems and our early warning radar system in Sacramento and also using a forward-based radar that we had located in Juneau, Alaska for today’s test only.

[snip]

All right — and we showed the footage of today’s launch out of Vandenberg. As I said, the target was launched at 1504 and at 1523 Eastern Time, the target was in view and — of the Beale radar and the other sensors, and we launched a ground-based interceptor. That’s the first stage, and then it will show a separation. We’ll have other data that will come over the next 24 hours — the intercept occurred over 200 kilometers in altitude and 1,300 kilometers downrange from the launch point.

[snip]

Q: Why is it hard for the target to — why is it hard to deploy countermeasures, why did that fail?

GEN. O’REILLY: Well, I can’t get into the great detail, but I can say simply, countermeasures, you try to build them to be very lightweight so that they don’t affect the original flight, but at the same time, you’re traveling at about 10 kilometers a second, somewhere around there, around 15,000 miles an hour. So at that, at that and you’re leaving the earth’s atmosphere, and you’re typically doing a lot of maneuvers at that point and at the same time you have to try to deploy two or three or four, whatever it is, lightweight objects. And that has been problematic on this particular target. The target itself is 40 years old, and it was one of some of our older missiles. Again, this was the last test using this particular target configuration, and we have a new target that is being assembled at this time by Lockheed Martin, that’ll be tested in the spring with Aegis and then follow up with a GMD later on this summer in another test. And that will be a different countermeasure system, again, a newer one.

The numbers in these passages are complete goobledygook.

— The entire scenario took 29 minutes? It is hard to believe that the interceptor was launched nineteen minutes into flight (15:23 EST) and took a full ten minutes to travel just 1,315 kilometers.

1,315 km in ten minutes works out to about 2.2 km/s. (The hypotenuse of triangle with 200 km and 1,300 km legs.) The GMD interceptor is supposed to have a burnout of like 7-8 km/s.

What, did MDA strap the interceptor to a flock of geese? That’s got to be a mistake. It probably should have taken four or five minutes for flyout. I am honestly very, very confused here.

— The countermeasures failed because the missile was traveling 10 km/s?

First, this is a 3,000 km range missile with a burnout velocity of probably around 4.5 km/s. It wasn’t traveling anywhere near 10 clicks a second. (Not that speed would explain why the countermeasures didn’t work, but he’s clearly trying to make something up on the spot and just gets confused.)

Second, ICBMs don’t travel 10 km/s. The speed is more like 7 or 8 km/s. Of course, O’Reilly also gave the measure in miles per hour — 15,000 mph, which in metric that is about 7 km/s.

So, here you what appears to be a simple error (the timeline doesn’t jibe), an apples-to-oranges comparison (talking about ICBM speeds in a test against a much slower moving MRBM) and a basic inability to convert to metric.

Other than that, everything is clear as a bell.

Comment

I’d looked at similar puzzlements in an earlier test. I don’t have an explanation for the apparently slow fly-out time of the interceptor, but do have a thought about the target speeds and, possibly, some constraints on decoy deployment.

If you look at the locations of the second and third stage range safety areas (http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com/?pid=19&id=7035), you see that they’re much closer together than would be expected. I suspect that means the third stage was used as an accelerator to give the target RV an ICBM-like trajectory. I.e., the second stage delivers the third stage to a point at or after the apogee of a simulated ICBM trajectory, then the third stage pitches down to impart the proper velocity vector. After which the decoys would have to deploy. Something like was done at White Sands way back when: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/athena.html

Might be worth running some simulations using such a scenario.

— Allen Thomson · Dec 11, 02:02 PM ·

08 December 2008

Additional Perspectives on "Successful"(?) Missile Test

From "The Political Landscape"
http://www.wholesomereading.com/?p=338#comment-505

Missile Command

If the Obama administration brings us one significant change, I hope it’s the end of this bloody fraud.

From "Griper News"
http://gripernews.blogspot.com/2008/12/when-is-failure-success-when-you-ask.html

Saturday, December 06, 2008
When is Failure Success? When You Ask the Pentagon
clipped from edition.cnn.com

A missile shield test was a "smashing success," Pentagon officials said Friday, despite the failure of the test to put to rest concerns that the interceptor might not be able to differentiate between real missiles and decoys.

Eight of the United States' 13 missile defense tests have been deemed a success.

The ground-based interceptor missile, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, destroyed a long-range ballistic missile launched from Kodiak, Alaska, the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency said.

But one key aspect of the test -- to see whether the system could tell the difference between a missile and a decoy aimed at confounding its "seek" systems -- failed because the decoy did not deploy.

Early in his campaign, Obama pledged to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." But he later said he would support missile defense systems if they work.

That last paragraph tells you all you need to know. If it doesn't work, Obama's going to cut it. So every test, regardless of outcome, will be called a success.

The spin isn't even consistent. Where the test was meant to simulate "countermeasures similar to what Iran or North Korea could deploy," Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly, director for the Missile Defense Agency, says, "Countermeasures are very difficult to deploy. We have had trouble deploying them in the past."

So N. Korea and Iran can pull it off, but we can't?

From "In From the Cold"
Jason Wolfe said...

What does this do to the global deterrence environment? How does this affect our relationship with Russia? Keep in mind that this was launched from Alaska, which can see Russia from its windows. Even if this missile defense shield is propoganda and would never work in against a real missile, it will still have the effect of driving up deterrence tensions. Russia will now have to move ever closer to launch on warning readiness. Remember "Able Archer" from 1983? Remember how close the world came to ending from false alarms? These missile defense systems would never stop a real nuclear assault, simply because the number of interceptors is less than the number of nuclear missiles. But these missile defense systems dramatically increase nuclear tensions by forcing the weaker nations to adopt launch on warning posture.

Pretend we successfully get this missile defense shield online. The era of deterrence will be over, and America will now have the power of "compellence". America will be able to compel all other Nuclear powers to obey us, because we can win in a Nuclear war. Does anyone else see how dangerous that world would be? Any nuclear war, even small ones, will end our civilization. Eroding deterrence, and entering compellence puts the world at risk. These missile defense shields are needlessly jeopardizing the future of the species.
3:05 PM

07 December 2008

Another Perspective on the Missile Test

From Foreign Policy Watch
Diplomatic strategy, international news, and thoughtful political analysis

December 6, 2008
Failure to Launch: "Successful" Missile Defense Test

Much of the criticism of the test trials of the US ground-based missile defense system has focused on the fact that the Pentagon's tests have almost always been carried out under highly scripted scenarios. Most notoriously, most instances have involved the launching of interceptors when the time of launch and flight trajectory of the target missile were known in advance. The trials also frequently do not realistically involve missiles equipped with decoys that would otherwise work to deceive interceptors and tracking radars in flight. Neither of these comforts are conditions that would prevail in the event of an actual attack.

Yesterday, the Missile Defense Agency conducted its most recent test, this time involving decoys. At least, that was the plan. While the test was dubbed a "success," there was only one problem: the countermeasures failed to deploy.

Military officials said the test showed for the first time that various radars and defense systems could be used together.

However, the success of the test was tempered by the failure of the dummy target to deploy planned "countermeasures" -- devices designed to try to throw off the interceptor. As a result, officials could not tell whether the system can distinguish between a warhead and decoys that probably would accompany an actual attack.

Needless to say, any state willing to launch an offensive ballistic missile attack against the US is going to (1) launch more than one missile and (2) be certain that its countermeasures are able to successfully evade intercept attempts by US missile defense systems.

http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/failure-to-launch-successful-missile.html

Photos of Recent Missile Launch

Exclusive photos of the launch from Kodiak are posted here:
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2008/12/kodiak-missile-test-photos-progressive.html

06 December 2008

Missile Test Unrealistic

From the "In From the Cold" blog


Blogger Brian said...

Aside from the bit about the planned countermeasure failing to work, the other huge difference is the velocity. A ballistic missile fired at the US from Iran or North Korea is going to have a much higher velocity - about 40% higher than the target in this scenario.

So I'm not quite sure how this "proves" the ability to intercept a missile from either of those two States when it's moving at a much lower speed and with no countermeasures, two things we know they are going to have.

05 December 2008

How Do We Define Success?

Today a rocket launched from Kodiak was intercepted by a rocket launched from Vandenburg AFB in California. As the champagne celebratory haze clears, keep a few things in mind:

1. It wasn't a resounding "success": According to Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, "...the target did not release planned countermeasures designed to try to confuse the interceptor missile. O'Reilly did not say what those countermeasures were, but they often include decoys or chaff to throw off shoot-down attempts." Apparently the technology to shoot down a real enemy missile which would have countermeasures is not yet working.

2.It wasn't a truly realistic test: The "test" was very tightly controlled - everybody knew when the interceptor would be launched and its probable path (they've launched targets from KLC before). One wonders what would happen if they actually had to scramble an interceptor with no prior warning. Now that would be a true test.

3. If the U.S. can't launch an ICBM that works the way it should, why do we think other countries can? Neither North Korea or Iran has ever successfully fired a missile that had any chance of landing anywhere near the U.S. Right now, if North Korea got really lucky, they might be able to hit the tip of the Aleutians. We are sure the folks out there appreciate the expenditure of ten billion dollars a year to help them sleep more soundly.

4. It's ALL about the money: Roughly $10 billion is spent per year on the program, which is run by defense contractor Boeing Co. but includes work by most of the nation's largest weapons makers. It is spread across three branches of the military and is composed of missiles, radar and satellites designed to intercept missiles during different stages of flight.

5. Fortunately, President-elect Barack Obama expressed skepticism about the capabilities of the system during his campaign, leading to speculation he may reduce the program's scope. Russia has strongly objected to plans to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

6. At least the true character of the KLC has finally been admitted. According to the AP: "WASHINGTON - The Defense Department said today it shot down a missile launched from a military base in Alaska..."

7. Finally, Kodiak desperately needs a new high school and a new police station and jail. Our roads are a mess and infrastructure in Kodiak, Alaska and all across the United States is crumbling. Take a drive down Mission Road past the Salvation Army and ask yourself: Is Missile Defense worth it? Friday's test cost between $120 million to $150 million.

It Really Is Space Pork Kodiak


Congratulations to Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation for their eternal optimism and complete disregard for reality.

We had an eerie feeling of déjà vu when we read AADC President Tom Case’s claim: “We (AADC) are on the tipping point of being able to break out into a significant aerospace industry in Alaska.”

In the mid 1990’s, when the KLC was just a dream due to lack of funding, Pat Ladner repeatedly claimed, “Build it and they (private commercial launches) will come.” Local residents who researched the satellite launch market as well as the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority knew private customers were not coming and they never did.

So Ted Stevens pressured the Pentagon into funding the construction with your taxes and every launch has been government funded, all but one overtly military.

Now, despite an inability to cover operation costs with launch revenues, AADC wants to build even more infrastructure at Narrow Cape: an additional launch pad and a rocket motor storage facility. They want even more handouts from the federal and state governments to build their “field of dreams”. These unneeded structures would be located on the ridge overlooking West Twin Lake and Fossil Beach.

Why? Because “AADC anticipates a demand for ‘the ability to put small satellites into orbit quickly to fill a specific need for a period of time.’”. They also anticipated a demand for the ability to launch commercial satellites. We all know how that worked out. There are no corn fields at Narrow Cape from which launch customers will magically appear.

Governor Palin inserted three million dollars of state funding in the last state budget to help AADC with their dreams, yet vetoed a request for one-third that amount to fund seismic upgrades to Peterson Elementary School. She might be out a-huntin’ and a-fishin’ but she shore ain’t figgered out fiscal responsibility and wise use of state funds.

As the KLC launch tower continues to corrode, it is time to stop wasting tax dollars and state funds on a rusty white elephant. It is still Space Pork Kodiak, no matter how you slice it.

03 December 2008

KLC Wasn't Wanted and They Couldn't Pay Their Own Way (and they still can't)

Stevens pushed Kodiak rocket funding on reluctant military
Article published on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
By JAN HUISMAN
Mirror Writer

When, in 1997, the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation suddenly received $18 million dollars in federal funding for its planned rocket launch site on Kodiak Island, it was no secret U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska had pulled some strings.

New evidence indicates Stevens not only pulled, but pushed, strong-arming Missile Defense commanders on behalf of AADC.

The money appeared in a Pentagon spending bill during a House-Senate conference in the fall of 1996. $23 million was added to the budget of a small Air Force missile defense program. $5 million would be spent on two launches for the program — the remaining $18 million was earmarked for construction of the Kodiak Launch Complex.

Newspapers at the time reported the Air Force did not solicit the funding.

“The Air Force believes this is an important test but due to higher priority requirements and limited budgets, did not request funds for this test,” the Air Force said in a statement to the Anchorage Daily News.

Michael Cantrell, an engineer working for the Air Force Atmospheric Interceptor Technology program, said Stevens added the money to his program’s account after he worked out a deal in which the money would go to Kodiak.

“I understand that Sen. Stevens wanted to fund the range, but could not just put the funds in the budget for a range without a user. So I became that user and the funds were added to my budget for the Kodiak Complex,” Cantrell wrote in a fax to the Kodiak Daily Mirror.

When Cantrell’s superiors at the missile defense program found out, they were furious.

“I was opposed to using missile defense money for the Kodiak facility only because we already had our launch facilities that we were using for missile testing,” said retired Rear Adm. Richard D. West, then deputy director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

“We were using White Sands and Kwajalein (launch facilities), which were already developed and paid-for launch facilities that were sufficient for our testing.”

West said Stevens overruled MDA’s priorities, insisting the Kodiak project proceed.

No one more important

AADC has never denied Stevens’ importance to their agency.

“No one has been more important to AADC than Senator Ted Stevens,” wrote former AADC CEO Pat Ladner in the 2002 annual report. “He held us to a strict standard and provided help to AADC only after we convinced him that our goals would benefit the nation as well as Alaska.”

Yet others said it was Stevens who did the convincing.

“Congress has the right to put money into programs that they think are important to the nation,” West said. “We made a point that in this particular case, we didn’t think we needed that facility and could use the money for something else.”

In response, West said Stevens sent a “strong message.”

“We were to see that that money would be used in building the facility for Kodiak.”

The Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation was formed as an independent state agency in 1991 with the intention of bringing space-related economic development to Alaska. Ladner was hired as CEO in 1992, leaving a management position at the Strategic Defense Initiative, a forerunner to the Missile Defense Agency.

Initially focused around expanding the Poker Flats facility in Fairbanks, the agency settled in 1994 on Kodiak as a suitable site for a launch facility. Advantages included range safety – with nothing but water for thousands of miles south of Kodiak Island — and the ability to launch satellites into a polar orbit.

In a series of public meetings in Kodiak in the mid ’90s, Ladner pitched the project as a cutting-edge venture that would bring the burgeoning commercial space industry to Alaska. Ladner said several private communications and aerospace firms had expressed interest in launching out of Kodiak.

Funding for construction was to come from bonds issued by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, to be repaid by profits from commercial activity.

But the customers never turned up and the project failed to meet AIDEA’s funding criteria. The project appeared dead in the water.

Neal Brown, former director of the Poker Flats research range, said he had been hopeful but skeptical about the commercial potential of the aerospace industry.

“I’m sure (Ladner) worked really hard to get commercial stuff, but he just never materialized it,” Brown said. “So he went for what he could, and that became the military.”

Cantrell was the subject of a lengthy New York Times article in October detailing how he leveraged his position as head of the experimental AIT program to collect more than $1.6 million in kickbacks. Cantrell and his deputy, Doug Ennis, are waiting sentencing after pleading guilty to corruption charges.

Cantrell lobbied Capitol Hill to line up federal funding for his program. Often, as in the case of AADC, he enlisted congressmen and senators with promises the money would be spent on contractors or agencies in the politicians’ constituencies.

Cantrell said he worked with Ladner to procure funding for the Kodiak Launch Complex.

“Pat knew what I was doing,” Cantrell wrote in the fax to the Mirror. “Bill Bittner was AADC’s attorney, and Pat used Bill to work Stevens’ office.”

Bill Bittner, attorney and lobbyist, is Sen. Stevens’ brother-in-law.

Ladner acknowledged knowing Cantrell, but distanced himself from Cantrell’s lobbying.

“Mr. Cantrell and I never went to see Sen. Stevens at all. Now, if he went to see Sen. Stevens, that’s fine,” Ladner said.

He said the funds that came through Cantrell’s program were not make or break for AADC.

“We got money from a lot of sources. What can I tell ya?” he said.

Regarding the Pentagon’s reluctance to pay for the Kodiak project, Ladner said they didn’t appreciate what they were getting.

“The people that were in missile defense at that time probably would have rather had that money for something else, but as it proves out now, it was a worthy investment,” he said, citing Kodiak’s ongoing involvement in missile defense testing.

Tipping point

Cantrell’s first test in November 1998 launched from a mobile pad on the Kodiak site where contractors had only just begun pouring concrete; The program used to justify $18 million in funding for KLC could itself have launched without it.

Compounding the waste, the first missile carried none of Cantrell’s test equipment in the payload. Cantrell’s superiors ordered it removed when they found out about the earmark to build KLC.

“After the Stevens meeting I was told to participate, but we could not get my payload on the launch without a significant delay and cost increase,” Cantrell wrote. “So, we put my program name on the launch and left the hardware off.”

Ladner said AADC does not know what is on the classified military payloads, aside from confirming they do not contain anything hazardous.

Since 1998, the Kodiak Launch Complex has completed 13 launches. Aside from one launch contracted by Lockheed and NASA, all have been military.

All of the seven launches since 2004 were target missiles fired by the Missile Defense Agency to simulate an attack on the U.S. coming from Asia.

Aside from the $76 million earned in revenue from these launches, the AADC has received $138 million in federal capital investments since 1993.

In August, AADC signed a new three-year contract with MDA that could be worth $50 million. A target missile launch is planned for Friday, and two Air Force launches are on the schedule over the next two years.

Current AADC CEO Dale Nash said the anticipated commercial launches never materialized because satellite phone systems lost out to terrestrial cell phones.

“There were an awful lot of people counting on that being out there – constellations of hundreds of satellites,” he said. “The commercial (demand) for polar orbits has basically gone away.”

Nash said AADC faces strong competition from government-subsidized launch sites in India, Russia, China and Europe.

Unless depreciation of the launch site’s infrastructure is factored in, Nash said, AADC is operating at a profit.

Yet AADC has never issued a dividend to the State of Alaska, which initially invested $15 million in the project. Nash said the Alaska legislature agreed it was better to reinvest profits into growing the launch capabilities.

The agency is seeking capital funding from the state to expand the Kodiak Launch Facility, Nash said. The expansion would give Kodiak the ability to launch quickly upon request.

“Right now, it’s typically about 60 days from the time someone shows up until they can go launch,” Nash said.

“Russia and China both have the capability to launch within about an hour to two hours from the time they decide they want to launch until they’re on orbit,” he said. “We’re trying to design and build an additional launch pad with rocket motor storage to get that kind of capability.”

AADC president Tom Case said rapid launch capability would help protect a nation increasingly dependent on satellite systems for its economic and national security.

“There are anti-satellite technologies that have proliferated around a number of space-faring countries now,” said Case, who joined AADC in 2007 after retiring from the Air Force.

Case said AADC anticipates a demand for “the ability to put small satellites into orbit quickly to fill a specific need for a period of time.

“This is a major economic development opportunity for this state (and) it’s a key part of our national security infrastructure.”

“We are on the tipping point of being able to break out into a significant aerospace industry in Alaska,” he said.

Mirror writer Jan Huisman may be reached via e-mail at jhuisman@kodiakdailymirror.com.

AADC has claimed that “We are on the tipping point of being able to break out into a significant aerospace industry in Alaska,” since 1995. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

02 December 2008

We Saw the Rocket! Security is Tight!

Last Friday after a hike around Narrow Cape, we saw the rocket out on the launch pad. According to the security guard, they were doing a "dry run" in preparation for the upcoming launch. Interestingly, the nose was covered with a shroud. Although we didn't take pictures, I don't think anyone would have stopped us.
The rocket is one of those solid fuel dinky little surplus Minuteman or Polaris bottle rocket missiles we have left over from the Cold War. You could actually see the fuse coming out of the rocket that the technician lights with a Bic lighter. I think it was mounted on a Budweiser bottle, but the label was turned away from us, so I can't be sure.
You'd think they'd at least use local beer bottles.

Even More of Your Tax Dollars Being Wasted

Rocket launch expected from Narrow Cape late next week
Article published on Friday, November 28th, 2008, Kodiak Daily Mirror

The Missile Defense Agency plans to launch a missile from Kodiak sometime near the end of next week, according to Dale Nash, CEO of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation. The Department of Defense will announce exact time hours before the launch.

The launch, FTG-05, will simulate a missile attack on the United States. An interceptor missile will launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

An AN/TPY-2 radar unit has been temporarily stationed in Juneau as part of the upcoming test. According to MDA, the AN/TPY-2 is a high-resolution X-Band radar used to detect ballistic missiles early in their flight. It can track, identify and estimate the trajectory of a threat missile, and then feed that information to the command and control system used to develop intercept solutions.

The Coast Guard is scheduled to establish a safety zone from Dec. 5 to Dec. 8 in the vicinity of Narrow Cape and Ugak Island, according to a Coast Guard news release.

The safety zone will be enforced between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. each day or until canceled. The safety zone includes all navigable waters contained within the area bordered by the following latitude and longitude points: 57 degrees 26.094 minutes north, 152 degrees 25.128 minutes west, then south west to 57 degrees 24.294 minutes north, 152 degrees 24.930 minutes west, then south east to 57 degrees 18.318 minutes north, 152 degrees 21.210 minutes west, then northeast 57 degrees 24.306 minutes north, 152 degrees 06.444 minutes west, then northwest to 57 degrees 27.900 minutes north, 152 degrees 16.068 minutes west, then northwest to 57 degrees 28.494 minutes north, 152 degrees 19.218 minutes west.

Unauthorized entry into or through this zone is strictly prohibited and may result in civil or criminal penalties including fines of up to $32,500.

There also will be hazardous rocket impact areas established at points where the rocket stages are predicted to enter the ocean. The first stage hazard area is centered approximately 90 miles southeast of Kodiak Island from Dec. 5 to Dec. 8, between 11 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. each day or until canceled. The hazard area is defined by the points 56.5 degrees north, 151.3 degrees west, 55.95 degrees north, 150.65 degrees west, 56.05 degrees north, 150.35 degrees west, 56.6 degrees north and 151.0 degrees west. All mariners are strongly advised to stay clear of this area.

The other two hazardous rocket impact areas are centered approximately 100 miles southwest of Dehlinger Seamount and 75 miles west of Erben Tablemount located in the North Pacific from Dec. 5 to Dec. 8, between 10 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. each day or until canceled.

The second stage hazard area is defined the following latitude and longitude points 41.15 degrees north, 138.35 degrees west, 39.5 degrees north, 137.45 degrees west, 39.5 degrees north, 136.85 degrees west, 41.15 degrees north and 137.75 degrees west.

The third stage hazard area is defined by the following latitude and longitude points 33.25 degrees north, 135.0 degrees west, 30.9 degrees north, 133.75 degrees west, 30.9 degrees north, 133.0 degrees west, 33.25 degrees north and 134.25 degrees west.

The Coast Guard advises all mariners to stay clear of these areas.

06 November 2008

Rocket Motor Arrives in Kodiak Nov 7-8

Rocket motor arriving for possible December launch from Narrow Cape
Article published on Thursday, Nov 06th, 2008
DAILY MIRROR STAFF

A rocket motor and associated hardware will arrive at the Kodiak State Airport late Friday and be moved to the Kodiak Launch Complex at Narrow Cape early Saturday, according to a Missile Defense Agency news release.

The rocket motor and hardware will be used by the Missile Defense Agency in an upcoming test launch from KLC in December or January to target an interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. An Air Force C-17 aircraft, carrying the rocket motor will arrive at the airport after the airport has closed for the night. It will then be delivered to KLC via the Chiniak/Pasagshak Highway in a convoy.

Rezanof Drive near the Coast Guard Base and the State Airport will close as the convoy transitions onto the highway. Safety precautions are being taken to assure the safety of the public and every effort will be made to limit possible inconvenience while the convoy moves the rocket to KLC, the release said.

In a separate news release, MDA announced the arrival of an AN/TPY-2 radar unit in Juneau to support the upcoming test. The radar arrived at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration facility at Lena Point, Wednesday, after being flown from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. This is a temporary deployment and the radar will be removed from the site shortly after the test is completed.

According to MDA, the AN/TPY-2 is a high-resolution X-Band radar used to detect ballistic missiles early in their flight. It can track, identify, and estimate the trajectory of a threat missile, and then feed that information to the command and control system used to develop intercept solutions. The AN/TPY-2 is a transportable unit that can be deployed around the world. Juneau was selected because its location provides an operationally realistic sensor picture for the simulated threat missile from Kodiak.

03 November 2008

Radar Unit for Upcoming MDA Test Involving KLC

Juneau: Monday, November 3, 2008

Radar Unit Arrives for More Tests
A radar unit to support an upcoming Missile Defense Agency flight test arrived in Juneau Saturday. It was taken to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration facility at Lena Point after being flown from the Pacific Missile Range facility in, Hawaii. The agency explains in a press release that as done in the previous flight test, this is a temporary deployment and the radar will be removed from the site shortly after the test is completed. The test is scheduled for the December-January time frame, with a target vehicle being launched from the Kodiak Launch Complex and an interceptor being launched from Vandenberg AFB. The radar will be used to track the target vehicle.

30 October 2008

Next KLC Launch

DEC-JAN To be announced GBI --- Scenario calls for the launch of a mock warhead from the Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska followed by a Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) from Vandenberg AFB. The DoD will announce the launch time several hours in advance. Operation Name: FTG-05

http://thechristianradical.blogspot.com/2008/10/nov-5-minute-man-iii-nuke-missile.html

29 October 2008

Austerman & Lundquist on the KLC

Funny how the unconditional support of the KLC has softened in recent years. Oh, by the way Mr. Austerman, the KLC has no capability whatsoever of deterring an enemy missile attack. And it's interesting that you should refer to it as a "military-type installation". AADC has always insisted that it's strictly commercial. However, he's right on when he points out the exorbitant costs of keeping the facility open when you break it down on a per launch basis.

Andy Lundquist
Kodiak Launch Complex

On his reaction to recent news of corruption in congressional funding for missile defense, Lund-quist said such allegations should be pursued “with maximum vigor.” He described the Kodiak Launch Complex as a “positive development” for Kodiak but not necessarily a priority.

“I don’t want to see it competing for a pool of capital project dollars for other things on Kodiak that are needed more,” he said. “If it’s rocket launches or new high schools, I’ll take high schools. A rocket launch is not my high priority. And I don’t know how many days they close that area off around a launch, but it’s still costing somebody something.”

Alan Austerman
Kodiak Launch Facility

Austerman said he sees benefits in the Kodiak Launch Facility, despite some disappointments.

“Originally, we were all excited about the fact that it was going to create all these new jobs and that it was going to be private industry. I was disappointed that didn’t happen,” he said.

“The amount of jobs that are created out there are not what we nearly had thought they would be, (but) the amount of jobs that are created are good.

“I’m not opposed to the launch complex just because it didn’t live up to its expectations. Although I think there’s a lot of dollars spent out there, where if you look at it per job, it’s pretty outrageous.

“When I look at it as a military-type installation of being able to deter possible nuclear attacks on Alaska or the United States, I think it’s positive.”

13 October 2008

The Pentagon didn't want the Kodiak Launch Complex

Perceptive analysis of Erik Lipton's article on wasted missile defense money is here:

http://andthecowgoesmoo.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/nyt-350m-wasted-on-missile-defense-projects-even-the-pentagon-thought-was-stupid/

and here:

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfromthewing/2008/10/12/he-leveraged-his-lounge-membership-a-whole-lot-better-than-i-ever-did/

12 October 2008

Incontrovertible Proof that the KLC is, Indeed, SPACE PORK

Although this article is rather long, it documents how Ted Stevens, other politicians, and defense contractors succeeded in obtaining funding for an unnecessary facility: the Kodiak Launch Complex.

How one man gamed the defense spending system

Published: Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 1:00 a.m.
A replica of a Saturn V rocket dwarfs cars parked outside the Army Space and Missile Defense Command headquarters in Huntsville, Ala. Michael Cantrell, who worked there, extracted nearly $350 million from Congress for projects the Pentagon did not want. NEW YORK TIMES ARCHIVE/ 2007

They huddled in a quiet corner at the US Airways lounge at Ronald Reagan National Airport, sipping bottomless cups of coffee as they plotted to turn America's missile defense program into a personal cash machine.

Michael Cantrell, an engineer at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command headquarters in Huntsville, Ala., along with his deputy, Doug Ennis, had lined up millions of dollars from Congress for defense companies. Now, Cantrell decided, it was time to take a cut.

"The contractors are making a killing," Cantrell said he recalled thinking at the meeting, in 2000. "The lobbyists are getting their fees, and the contractors and lobbyists are writing out campaign checks to the politicians. Everybody is making money here -- except us."

Within months, Cantrell began getting personal checks from contractors and later returned to the airport with Ennis to pick up a briefcase stuffed with $75,000. The two men eventually collected more than $1.6 million in kickbacks, through 2007, prompting them to plead guilty this year to corruption charges.

Cantrell readily acknowledges concocting the crime. But what has drawn little scrutiny are his activities leading up to it. Thanks to important allies in Congress, he extracted nearly $350 million for projects the Pentagon did not want, wasting taxpayer money on what would become dead-end ventures.

Recent scandals involving former Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., and the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, both now in prison, provided a glimpse into how special interests manipulate the federal government.

Cantrell's story, by contrast, pieced together from federal documents and dozens of interviews, is a remarkable account of how a little-known, midlevel Defense Department insider who spent his entire career in Alabama skillfully gamed the system.

Determined to save his job, Cantrell often bypassed his bosses and broke department rules to make his case on Capitol Hill. He enlisted contractors to pitch projects that would keep the dollars flowing and paid lobbyists to ease them through. He cultivated lawmakers, who were eager to send money back home or to favored contractors and did not ask many questions. And when he ran into trouble, he could count on his powerful friends for protection from Pentagon officials.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican, for example, chewed out Pentagon officials who opposed a missile range Cantrell and his contractor allies were seeking to build in Alaska, prompting them to back off, while a staffer for former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., intervened when the Pentagon threatened to discipline Cantrell for lobbying, a banned activity for civil servants.

"I could go over to the Hill and put pressure on people above me and get something done," Cantrell explained about his success in Washington. "With the Army, as long as the senator is not calling over and complaining, everything is OK. And the senator will not call over and complain unless the contractor you're working with does not get his money. So you just have to keep the players happy and it works."

Cantrell's division was a small part of the national missile defense program, an effort that has cost the United States more than $110 billion since President Ronald Reagan unveiled his Strategic Defense Initiative 25 years ago. Today, the missile defense effort is the Pentagon's single biggest procurement program.

The Army declined to discuss the Cantrell case, other than to say it had taken steps to try to prevent similar crimes from happening again.

But some current and former Defense Department officials say the exploiting of the system that preceded Cantrell's kickback scheme has had a damaging impact, slowing progress toward building a viable missile defense system by diverting money to unnecessary or wasteful endeavors. That pattern of larding up the defense budget with pet projects pushed by lawmakers and lobbyists is a familiar one.

"What they did may have been a scandal," said Walter E. Braswell, Ennis' lawyer, referring to the actions of his client and Cantrell. "But even more grotesque is the way defense procurement has disintegrated into an incestuous relationship between the military, politicians and contractors."

Dr. J. Richard Fisher, one of Cantrell's former bosses, said: "The system needs to change. But it is not likely to do that. There is just too much inertia -- and too much self-interest."

Towering over the highway near the entrance to Huntsville is a replica of the Saturn V rocket, the powerful missile that lifted the first man to the moon.

Created in Huntsville, it is a fitting icon for this once-sleepy cotton mill town, now so dominated by the aerospace industry that it is nicknamed Rocket City.

An estimated 18,000 uniformed and civilian federal employees work in the aerospace industry in the Huntsville area today, augmented by about 40,000 others, who work for federal contractors.

Michael Cantrell grew up on a dairy farm nearby, listening to the rumble of rocket test flights. As a young engineer, he became a civilian employee of the Army and quickly impressed his bosses.

"Mike moved at the speed of sound," said Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who briefly headed the missile command.

By 1990, Cantrell, then 35, took over an experimental program to develop faster, cheaper and lighter missiles that could intercept and knock out enemy missiles flying within the atmosphere. Under the Reagan administration, money was plentiful for such research, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and the arrival of the Clinton administration, Pentagon bosses were forced to make budget cuts.

Cantrell became a regular on Capitol Hill, both in the halls of Congress and in the bars and restaurants where Hill staffers gather after hours. He set up a makeshift office in the US Airways lounge at Reagan National Airport, where he followed up on pitches for money to lawmakers and hid out from his Defense Department bosses. He identified lobbyists who could prove useful and contractors -- many of them campaign donors -- with projects that needed nurturing.

"It was like I was going hunting in Washington," Cantrell said. "And I would always come up with money."

One colleague was so impressed with Cantrell's record that she gave him a bobblehead doll carrying a briefcase marked with dollar signs.

Inspired by his successes, Cantrell soon embarked on a more ambitious project that would all but guarantee sustained financing.

Cantrell's proposal, which was based on the premise that Congress would significantly increase annual financing for his experimental missile defense work, involved not just five test launchings, but the construction of a new launching site on a remote Alaskan island and the lease of a mothballed Navy helicopter carrier, which would be used to send the simulated attack missile.

The launching project

It was easy to find willing partners.

The program's main contractors, including the defense giant Lockheed Martin, prepared presentations for Congress making the case for an extra $25 million to $50 million a year for the project.

Officials in Alaska, who had been seeking money for a spaceport on Kodiak Island to launch commercial satellites, eagerly chimed in. And nearly a dozen lawmakers also did their part, Cantrell said, including Sen. Stevens of Alaska; Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala.; Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine; and Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., all members of the Appropriations or Armed Services committees with missile defense contractors in their districts.

But the military already had rocket launching sites around the globe, and Gen. Lester L. Lyles of the Air Force, who then ran the missile defense program, had no intention of spending money on another one.

Lyles and his deputy, Rear Adm. Richard D. West of the Navy, were particularly incensed when they learned of the plans to lease a helicopter carrier, the Tripoli, and spend several million dollars renovating it.

Summoned to Washington in 1997 to explain the project, Cantrell offered little information. That only further infuriated his bosses.

"Who in the hell is in charge of this program?" West finally demanded in an exchange both men recall.

Cantrell was ordered to remove his experimental equipment from the planned launching. But the money kept coming. Stevens' office had called to insist that the Kodiak project proceed, West and Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson, then the head of Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said in interviews.

"I got hammered pretty hard," West recalled. The military men backed off, and the construction at Kodiak continued.

Cantrell said he knew that building a new launching facility was wasteful. "It doesn't make sense," he said. "The economics of it, they just don't work."

Cantrell and his deputy, Ennis, visited Kodiak Island on the afternoon of the inaugural test launching in November 1998. The Air Force had substituted other equipment for Cantrell's payload.

The two men, armed with a cooler filled with Miller Lite beer, watched the launching from a trailer, emerging just in time to see the missile burn an orange streak into the sky. They had hidden out to avoid any local newspaper reporters who might discover that Cantrell's missile parts -- the justification for millions of dollars in spending -- were not even being tested.

"There is no way we can explain this," Cantrell remembered telling Ennis.

Back in Washington

The hand that grabbed Cantrell by the shoulder startled him.

It was Lyles, who happened to be on Capitol Hill when he spotted Cantrell outside Lott's office. It was February 1998, even before the dispute over the Alaska project had played out. But the general said he immediately suspected Cantrell was up to no good.

"Are you over here lobbying?" Lyles asked in an exchange the two men recalled.

Cantrell had been working with Lott, then Senate majority leader, for several years. The lawmaker included several million dollars in the defense budget for an acoustics research center in his home state, and Cantrell made sure it went to the intended recipients: the University of Mississippi in Oxford and a Huntsville defense contractor that had a branch office in Oxford. In turn, Lott's office helped get extra financing -- $25 million or so every year -- for Cantrell's program.

It was an arrangement that Cantrell did not want to discuss with Lyles. While he did not consider himself to have been lobbying that day, he readily acknowledges that he often did.

"I just mumbled a lot," he recalled of his response to the general.

The incident with Lyles prompted a formal investigation into Cantrell's activities that same year. But Lott's office requested that the case be closed, Cantrell said. Eric Womble, a former aide to Lott, said he could not remember taking such a step, but added that it would not have been surprising.

"Sen. Lott's staff protects people who are trying to help us and help the nation," Womble said.

Soon, the investigation of Cantrell came to a close. He got only a verbal warning from his boss.

That episode would embolden Cantrell. On several occasions, he would again be caught violating Pentagon rules and each time escape with nothing more than a reprimand.

"If you have the Senate majority leader's office calling over to get you out of trouble, you can't help but get a little cocky," Cantrell said.

The fallout

From the US Airways club, Cantrell could see the symphony of the arriving and departing planes, the Potomac River and off in the distance, the Capitol dome.

One day in 2000, Cantrell met in the airport lounge with Ennis, his deputy, and a Maine contractor to figure out how to pocket some of the government's money.

There were easy ways to cheat. The prototype missile nose cone and heat shields that the Army had paid the Maine company to design for the Alaska tests. Why not hire the business to pretend to design them again? Cantrell asked.

The ballute -- an odd cross between a balloon and a parachute -- had been rejected by experts as a tool to strike an enemy missile. But why not pay the Maine company to develop them anyway? Cantrell suggested.

He could pull off such shenanigans because, by then, he had an extraordinary degree of independence. Cantrell's experimental missile program, which had cost nearly $250 million, was about to be canceled. No working missile system had been built -- and almost none of the components had ended up being tested in real launchings as planned.

The effort had produced some benefits for the players involved: Congress sent an annual allotment of extra money to the Alaska launching site now totaling more than $40 million, and one of the contractors that had worked with Cantrell initially to pitch the space port, Aero Thermo Technology, had secured a no-bid federal contract to provide launching services.

Now Cantrell was on to another assignment overseeing missile defense research in Huntsville, and through his friends on the Hill, he was once again getting money for projects that the Pentagon did not want.

Cantrell, who by now was helping to oversee 160 or so contractors and managing a $120 million a year contracting budget, said he knew that if he only requested a few million dollars at a time for his scheme, there would be little scrutiny.

For example, the missile nose cones and other parts now made round trips from Huntsville to Maine with little or no change. Cantrell or his deputy simply marked off the work as complete, and that was the end of it.

For nearly six years, from 2001 to 2007, the men collected kickbacks from contractors. During one visit to the US Airways Club, Ennis picked up a briefcase stuffed with $75,000 in cash, according to federal court records. Cantrell also got checks, ranging from $5,000 to $60,000, once or twice a month, court records show. With his new wealth, Cantrell built himself a $1.25 million home in an exclusive Huntsville neighborhood called the Ledges.

Awaiting sentencing on conspiracy and bribery charges, Cantrell now spends his days sitting in the kitchen of his father-in-law's house; his dream home was seized by the federal government.

On top of the kitchen table, next to a King James Version of the Bible and bottle of Extra Strength Excedrin, is a stack of books on how to master poker. Cantrell has reduced them to mathematical formulas pinned onto a bulletin board in front of a computer terminal, where he plays Internet poker for hours at a time.

Even now, he is trying to beat the system.

08 September 2008

Missile Defense Agency continues contract with AADC; plans year-end launch

Article published on Monday, Sep 08th, 2008
By ERIK WANDER
Mirror Writer

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. has been awarded a nearly $50 million contract to provide launch services and logistical support at the Kodiak Launch Complex for Missile Defense Agency flight tests.

Dale Nash, CEO of AADC, called the three-year contract announced Aug. 28 a continuation of the previous five-year agreement with MDA.

“It is a big deal in that it is a continuation of what we believe is a very successful relationship between KLC and MDA,” Nash said. “It’s sort of more of the same, but it’s a very good thing and we’re very pleased to continue to do business with MDA.”

The indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, sole-source contract has the potential to reach $50 million, depending on AADC bid amounts to conduct launches at the Kodiak site.

“It does not mean that this total amount is guaranteed,” Nash said. “This is what is expected. Each year, we have to put in proposals and negotiate the contract for that year.”

Nash said the contract is similar in numbers to past MDA contracts, and “it’s not as if we’ve gotten a windfall.”

“But it’s still real dollars,” he said. “It is a new contract on top of what we have done in the past. Yes, it’s big, and we’re very encouraged to continue the relationship with MDA, and I honestly believe, with the borough of Kodiak. We and MDA are pleased to be part and piece of the island of Kodiak.”

Under the contract, AADC bids on each launch.

“Based on history, (we conduct) somewhere between one and three launches per year,” he said. “This year, we only had one launch. The prior year, we had two, and on occasion they will schedule for three.”

Nash said AADC completed seven successful launches with MDA since December 2004 on the previous contract, the last this past July. He said there is a launch scheduled for the end of this year.

“I think they want to get it off before the end of the year,” he said.

The contract is expected to be complete by August 2011. The contract funds do not expire at the end of the fiscal year.

Mirror writer Erik Wander can be reached via e-mail at ewander@kodiakdailymirror.com.

Fossil Beach Surveillance

The KLC is setting up cameras to monitor anyone driving to Fossil Beach. It's bad enough we have to drive through the KLC to get there; now, our movements will be monitored and recorded. It's reassuring to know that the 49 million received from MDA is being put to good use.

30 August 2008

The ONLY way the KLC manages to stay open - True Space Pork!

Thursday, August 28, 2008

MILITARY CONTRACTS August 28, 2008

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY CONTRACT AWARD

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, Anchorage Alaska, is being awarded a $48,968,854 (maximum) indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity, sole source contract to provide launch services and logistical support at the Kodiak Launch Complex for MDA flight tests. The place of performance is Kodiak, Alaska. The contract base period and one option are expected to be complete by Aug. 2011. The contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Missile Defense Agency, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (HQ0006-08-D-0004).

02 August 2008

Wow! Missile Defense Uses Radar!

Isn't it reassuring to know that a successful test of Missile Defense "proves" that MD radar can track missiles? Since radar has been around since before WWII, it's good to know that we can use a technology that's only been been used for seventy years. Oh, and aren't we launching old Polaris and Minuteman missiles as our targets? 21st century technology?

US Missile Defence completes Target Tracking and Radar Exercise

Written by FIDSNS http://frontierindia.net on July 19, 2008 – 9:30 am -

Lieutenant General Henry A. “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency director, announced the successful execution of an important system test today during which a long-range ballistic missile was tracked by radars of the missile defense system.

16 June 2008

Another Easy "Success" for MDA

So, the Missile Defense Agency will proclaim another "successful" test of their system if the radar in Juneau picks up a blip of the rocket launched from Kodiak. Proof positive that we are safe from North Korea et al! Keep in mind that all previous "successful intercepts" were not necessarily actual hits - if the interceptor came within 50 miles of the target missile, it was termed a "success".

Mid-July missile launch to test system, no hit planned

Article published on Wednesday, Jun 11th, 2008
By ERIK WANDER
Mirror Writer

It’s all systems go for the upcoming missile launch at the Kodiak Launch Complex in Narrow Cape, but it may prove difficult for residents who want to witness the event.

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. conducted a tour of its approximately $150-200 million facility for a group from Anchorage on Tuesday. AADC provides services and facilities for the government’s Missile Defense Agency, AADC’s only customer, to conduct test launches.

The launch of the STARS missile will take place in mid-July as part of MDA’s regular training.

In an operation of this type, a missile is launched from Kodiak and destroyed by an interceptor missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

“We are the clay pigeons,” said Dale Nash, CEO of AADC. “The surest way to kill something is to just smash it.”

He said that the target missile launched from Kodiak simulates one coming from Asia or Russia, because such a missile would fly directly over Alaska.

AADC aerospace engineer Shad Combs said a series of such tests, conducted a couple of times a year, has already been completed successfully. They’re now preparing to do another with the hope of building on what has been learned in previous launches.

“We’re making it smarter and smarter and smarter. Every time we do one test, we incorporate our lessons learned into the following test,” Combs said.

The July launch will differ from previous launches, however, because there will be no interceptor missile. It is what Combs referred to as a “target-only launch.”

“It’s going to be an imaginary interception. The interceptor will not launch, but everything will happen except for that,” he said.

The purpose of the non-target mission is to test the instrumentation and systems to make sure they can pick up the incoming missile and predict how they would intercept it.

“It just goes out and it splashes into the ocean. We’re not short for targets, we’re short for interceptors,” Combs said.

Further details of the launch remain sketchy due to the sensitive nature of the classified mission. AADC would say only that it will take place in mid-July. Combs said, however, that a notice to airmen and a notice to fishermen would be released prior to the launch defining restricted areas. AADC will also close the road leading to the facility.

Members of the public will not be able to view the launch up close because of the road closure. Combs said this was not a security measure.

“It’s not for security,” he said. “It’s strictly for safety. The roadblock gives us enough space, so that if something goes wrong with the missile, the population is safe.”

Combs suggested Chiniak as a possible location for those who wish to try to catch a glimpse or take pictures of the launch.

“Other than that, because of the mountains, once it clears the mountains, it’s into the mist, it’s into the clouds,” he said.

Mirror writer Erik Wander can be reached via e-mail at ewander@kodiakdailymirror.com.

05 June 2008

AADC LOBBYING EXPENSES

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp

A special interest’s lobbying activity may go up or down over time, depending on how much attention the federal government is giving their issues. Particularly active clients often retain multiple lobbying firms, each with a team of lobbyists, to press their case for them.

Year:

Total Lobbying Expenditures: $30,000
Subtotal for Parent Alaska Aerospace Development Corp: $30,000

IndustryTotal
Defense Aerospace$30,000
Itemized Lobbying Expenses for Alaska Aerospace Development Corp
Firms HiredTotal Reported by FilerReported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)

Less than $10,000-


$0

Lobbying Expenses Reported by Subsidiary Alaska Aerospace Development Corp
Firms HiredTotal Reported by FilerReported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)
Birch, Horton et al
$10,000
Cohen Group
$20,000