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

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.

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 ·

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.