SPACE PORK KODIAK: Kodiak Launch Complex / Alaska Aerospace Corporation

Kodiak Launch Complex only launch in 2011 (no further launches scheduled until 2013) TacSat IV

2011-10-01T11:13:00.001-08:00

One launch in 2011; one launch in 2010, no launches in 2009;
No launches scheduled for 2012, but Alaska Aerospace Corporation wants the State of Alaska to bail them out with ten million dollars in 2012 to keep 28 jobs in Kodiak. One wonders what those KLC employees do for an entire year with no launches.

Restarting the "Tiime Since Last Launch" timer

2011-09-27T08:17:00.001-08:00

The KRLIG crew is off-line - if the one and only launch for 2011 (for a total of two in the last three years) at the KLC on 27 Sept is successful, we will restart the timer upon our return.

Kodiak Launch Complex One and Only Launch for 2011 (Minotaur-IV+)

2011-09-22T14:59:00.000-08:00

From Space Daily:
NRL TacSat-4 Spacecraft Encapsulated by Staff Writers Washington DC (SPX) Sep 22, 2011

TacSat-4 is an experimental spacecraft that will test advances in several technologies and SATCOM techniques. Ultimately, TacSat-4 will augment the existing fleet by giving the SATCOM Support Centers (SSC) an additional space asset to provide communications to otherwise under-served users and areas that either do not have high enough priority or do not have satellite visibility.

The Naval Research Laboratory's Tactical Satellite IV (TacSat-4) has been encapsulated inside the fairing (nose cone) of an Orbital Sciences Corporation Minotaur-IV+ launch vehicle in preparation for a Sept. 27 launch from the Alaska Aerospace Corporation's Kodiak Launch Complex.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) sponsored the development of the payload and the first year of operations. The Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office funded the launch that is managed by the Space Development and Test Directorate (SD), a directorate of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC).
TacSat-4 is a Navy-led joint mission which provides 10 Ultra High Frequency (UHF) channels and allows troops using existing radios to communicate on-the-move (COTM) from obscured regions without the need for dangerous antenna positioning and pointing.
To augment current geosynchronous satellite communication, the TacSat-4 spacecraft will be deployed into a unique, highly elliptical orbit with an apogee in the high latitudes of 12,050 kilometers.
"Communication is a critical warfighting requirement," said Dr. Larry Schuette, ONR's director of innovation. "Developed, more rapidly and at lower cost, TacSat-4 supplements traditional communications satellites and provides much needed support to forward deployed forces at sea and Marines on the ground."
TacSat-4 provides flexible up and down channel assignments, which increase the ability to operate in busy radio-frequency environments and will cover the high latitudes and mountainous areas where users currently cannot access UHF satellite communications (SATCOMs).
The NRL Blossom Point Ground Station provides the command and control for TacSat-4. The Virtual Mission Operations Center (VMOC) mission planning system allows dynamic reallocation to different theaters worldwide that enables rapid SATCOM augmentation when unexpected operations or natural events occur.
TacSat-4 is an experimental spacecraft that will test advances in several technologies and SATCOM techniques. Ultimately, TacSat-4 will augment the existing fleet by giving the SATCOM Support Centers (SSC) an additional space asset to provide communications to otherwise under-served users and areas that either do not have high enough priority or do not have satellite visibility.
The project also helps define future options for launching one or more smaller, highly elliptical orbit (HEO) satellites allowing the military to achieve the benefits of a combined HEO and geosynchronous orbit constellation.
The spacecraft bus was built by NRL and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) to mature ORS bus standards. It was developed by an Integrated (government and industry) System Engineering Team, the "ISET Team," with active representation from AeroAstro, Air Force Research Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Laboratory APL, ATK Space, Ball Aerospace and Technologies, Boeing, Design Net Engineering, General Dynamics AIS, Microcosm, Microsat Systems Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, Orbital Sciences, NRL, SMC, Space System Loral, and Raytheon. The Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR and E) funded the standardized spacecraft bus.
TacSat-4 is managed by the Naval Research Laboratory Naval Center for Space Technology and will be the 100th NRL built satellite launched into a celestial orbit.

Funding shuffle hides money going to Launch Complex (by Carolyn Heitman)

2011-06-23T09:44:00.002-08:00

(Note that it's been over 9 months since a launch has occurred at the KLC and only one launch is scheduled for 2011 (27 Sept) as of 24 August 2011)
The Alaska State Legislators recently cut $4 million dollars to the Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) to cover operating costs for the rest of 2011. However, the governor’s fiscal year 2012 budget still includes $4 million out of the $8 million AAC is requesting for operating and sustainment funding. Currently AAC has $29 million in its account for the remainder of 2011 and should use its own funds rather than ask for more handouts from the state. Perhaps if it did not pay its top employees such high wages it would have more operating funds. Annual salaries are over $2 million.

In order to finance AAC and the Kodiak Launch Complex through the rest of 2011 Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Sen. Mark Begich and Rep. Don Young have requested $9.5 million from Congress.

Since AAC is set up as a private corporation with corporate bylaws, it is time the state and federal government (using taxpayers’ money) stop funding it and the Kodiak Launch Complex. Without federal funding neither would be operating. Since 1993 the AAC has received a minimum of $305.7 million dollars in revenue — $144.8 million in federal grants, $134.3 million launch revenues and $26.6 million from the state of Alaska (mostly flow-through federal monies) — and to date AAC has not paid any dividends to the state, which was the original agreement. It would be interesting to know how many other private corporations are financially supported by the federal government, thereby adding to the national debt.

Last year when the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) stopped funding the Kodiak Launch Complex, it left a nice parting gift to the state by giving $80 million to the Air Force. In turn the Air Force funneled the same amount to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, a portion of which will be appropriated to AAC.

Starting in July AAC will operate under the Alaska Department of Military and Veteran Affairs, while at the same time intending to establish an Alaska Aerospace and Missile Defense Technology Center through the University of Alaska, which would make it more difficult to track Department of Defense/federal funding to AAC, Kodiak Launch Complex and Fort Greeley. It doesn’t hurt having retired military employees working for AAC, UAF (president) and ex-employees of the AAC working for the University of Alaska to rubber-stamp and push through Department of Defense funding for missile defense programs without the public’s knowledge. Talk about a stacked deck!

AAC also intends to use the National Guard Cooperative Agreement for further Kodiak Launch Complex infrastructure development (Alaska Aerospace Corporation Financial Statements, June 30, 2010) and much needed federal funding could be directed away from the needs of the National Guard. In past years federal funding for the Kodiak Launch Complex was earmarked and funneled via of the Army National Guard at Elmendorf Air Force Base — again to make funding more difficult for the public to track.

AAC is a private corporation which will operate through both the state of Alaska and the Department of Military and Veteran Affairs, doing Department of Defense activities on state public land (Narrow Cape). Where else has the Department of Defense launched missile targets and defense satellites from public-use lands? Something is wrong with this picture.

In October 2010 the Alaska Aerospace Corporation received $227,195 from the Federal Aviation Administration (the agency who licensed the KLC and is also a cooperating agency with the AAC) for the First Commercial Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching Grant for a Rocket Motor Storage Facility for the Kodiak Launch Complex (now the FAA is helping fund construction projects at the KLC). The AAC is always claiming to be broke and asking for hand-outs so where did it get the matching funds? The storage facility is not one building but will consist of 5 ‘Earth Covered Magazines’ (dirt covered structures). The first structure was completed last year and the second is scheduled to be completed this year. The Kodiak Launch Complex was never intended or developed to be a commercial launch site but a government/military facility. The AAC’s goals also include the creation of a Kodiak Economic Development Zone. Who will most benefit from that action remains to be seen.

This summer the AAC is planning preparation work for the installation of a ‘Liquid Oxygen Air Plant’ at the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) for larger ‘medium-lift’ launch vehicles that require liquid fuel. The vehicles would take off from Launch Pad 3 which will be located on the Cliffside above Fossil Beach. The AAC has consistently told the Kodiak public from the beginning that NO liquid- fueled vehicles would be launched from the KLC, only solid fuel vehicles. The liquid fuel plant could potentially leave the door open for launching interceptors from the KLC in the future, depending on new U.S.-Russia treaty agreements.

The previous U.S.-Russia ‘Start Treaty’ prevented the launch of interceptors from the KLC. However, the 2011 AAC ‘Proprietary and Competition Sensitive’ report mentions just that. An excerpt from the report states: “With the maturing of the missile defense industry, there will be a need to provide sustainment testing of the system to insure that the mission readiness of the interceptors does not degrade. Test launches of interceptors from the KLC can accomplish such testing without taking the missile defense system off-line. This sustaining aspect of missile defense is possible at KLC and AAC may have an opportunity to regain missile defense operations at KLC.” Are missile silos in Narrow Cape’s future?

When I contacted the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (AAC’s landlord) to find out if the Alaska Aerospace Corporation had provided an updated detailed plan of operations or a permit application for the liquid fuel plant, I was told that the DNR transferred land management rights and authority to the AAC and that the DNR is a ‘cooperating’ agency. Being a cooperating agency the DNR should be well informed of what is transpiring out at Narrow Cape, however, the department had no knowledge of the liquid fuel plant or was not willing to release the information. There has been no updated DNR/AAC Land Management Agreement or Development Plan since 2009, nor when contacted, did the Federal Aviation Administration admit to receiving a permit application from the AAC for the installation of the liquid fuel plant. Apparently the AAC is blatantly going ahead with whatever development it chooses at Narrow Cape without applying for permits or notifying the DNR or the Kodiak public of any proposed plans. No thanks to Senator Stevens the AAC was never required to do a Narrow Cape/KLC ‘site-specific’ environmental assessment.

Kodiak has a local representative (retired military) sitting on the Alaska Aerospace Board of Directors along with Rep. Austerman (a non-voting member) but residents as a whole very seldom get any updated reports or feedback in the local paper on what the AAC is proposing for Narrow Cape. When it comes to Alaska state public lands any development is suppose to be for the maximum benefit of the people and Kodiak does not need another Vandenberg or Cape Canaveral. From the AAC’s actions all these years it appears to have been originally set up as a military entity under disguise of a state agency, hiring mostly military retirees and their NASA friends and taxpayers should not be stuck with financially supporting it and the KLC and it is time to take away the Golden Fleece.

Carolyn Heitman is a 44-year Kodiak resident.

Friday, 22 April 2011: KLC Launch Delayed by California Mishap

2011-04-22T11:14:00.002-08:00

(Note the number of days since the last launch in the timer to your right; over 5 months since the last launch.)
Jacob Resneck/KMXT
            A spectacular mishap in which a $424 million NASA research satellite was lost in the Pacific has caused the launch of a military satellite from the Kodiak Launch Complex to be delayed for several months.
             The U.S. Air Force had initially announced it would launch a Minotaur IV rocket in May. But now an Air Force spokesman says the launch won't be until mid-summer or early fall. The spokesman asked not to be named.
            The cause of the delay can be traced to a malfunction of a similar rocket last month. An apparent malfunction of a launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California destroyed NASA's Glory mission, a climate research satellite that had been mounted on a Taurus XL rocket.
            Spaceflight Now reported this week that the Glory mission had failed to separate properly in mid-flight and the payload was lost in the Pacific Ocean.
            While of a different design, the Taurus XL shares some of the same components as the Minotaur IV causing the Air Force to ground the mission as a precaution.
            The Minotaur IV is based on the Peacemaker ICBM missile and is the same type of rocket that successfully launched from Kodiak's Narrow Cape last November.
            The Air Force says the "exact nature of the problem" that occurred is still unknown and it's still awaiting the facts before committing to a launch date in Kodiak.
            The Air Force added that the military satellite is the only mission currently booked for the Kodiak Launch Complex which is owned by the state-owned Alaska Aerospace Corporation.

12 April 2011: No Bailout for Alaska Aerospace in 2011 Alaska State Budget?

2011-04-12T14:22:00.001-08:00

SB46 is the Alaska Senate proposed capital budget for 2011.
According to KMXT news, all funding for the Alaska Aerospace Corporation has been removed from this draft.
      "But eliminated from the Senate's capital budget is any funding for the Alaska Aerospace Corporation. The governor's budget had allotted $4 million. That was less than the $10 million requested by the state-owned corporation that operates the Kodiak Launch Complex. But those funds didn't survive the Senate Finance Committee."
            "Sen. President Gary Steven's chief of staff Katrina Metheny said it was not Steven's doing. She said the senator does support the Alaska Aerospace Corporation, adding there would be opportunities to re-insert the funding at a later date though she offered no commitment it would happen."
      I confirmed this elimination with KMXT news personnel today.
Perhaps our elected officials are finally realizing what a colossal waste of money it is to keep the Kodiak Launch Complex (aka "The Little Launch Complex That Couldn't" aka "Space Pork Kodiak") open for business when it has little or no business. No more handouts; no more corporate welfare.

Op-ed Compass Piece on Alaska Aerospace Corporation & Kodiak Launch Complex Published Online in Anchorage Daily News

2011-04-09T08:31:00.000-08:00

Original title: "The Little Launch Complex That Couldn't"

http://www.adn.com/2011/04/05/1794506/launch-complex-gobbles-money-but.html

Taurus XL Failure Investigation Could Delay TacSat-4 Launch at Kodiak Launch Complex

2011-03-18T15:11:00.001-08:00

Fri, 18 March, 2011 By Turner Brinton

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department this month shipped an experimental satellite communications payload and its spacecraft platform to the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska, where they were mated in preparation for launch as early as May 5, a Navy official said March 14.

However, the launch date for the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)-developed TacSat-4 satellite could be affected by an investigation into the March 4 launch failure of a Taurus XL rocket, said Mike Hurley, head of spacecraft development at NRL. The Minotaur 4 vehicle that will carry TacSat-4 to orbit shares some hardware in common with the Taurus XL; both vehicles are built by Dulles, Va.-based Orbital Sciences Corp.

In addition, the military may decide to launch the ORS-1 operational surveillance satellite ahead of TacSat-4 if it is ready in time, the Air Force has said. Although ORS-1 is launching from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, both launch campaigns share some personnel.

Complete story here

The Little Launch Complex That Couldn't: Kodiak Launch Complex and Alaska Aerospace

2011-03-14T05:39:00.000-08:00

Imagine a school district asking the state for money to build a new high school when they cannot prove any students will attend. “Build it and they will come!” the district claims. The state says no, but a powerful U.S. Senator funnels construction funds to the project through a federal government agency. The school is built and fully staffed from administrators to teachers to custodians. Unfortunately, only a few students ever show up and then, only occasionally.

So, the district, using state and federal handouts, decides to add a gym and a pool and more lockers to attract students. They still show up infrequently; sometimes the school is empty for over a year. The feds pay the cost for a few years, but finally pull out. The district appeals to the state for money to keep the school open just in case some students decide to show up. Who would support funding for such a school?

The State of Alaska would not loan money to build the Kodiak Launch Complex in the mid-1990s because AAC could not produce confirmed launch business. Senator Ted Stevens, however, directed construction money through the Department of Defense to build it. AAC expanded KLC infrastructure with state and federal handouts based on a business plan of “Build it and they will come”. The Missile Defense Agency propped it up for a few years while Senator Stevens was in office, then finally abandoned use of the facility.

Since launch revenues have never covered the cost of keeping the KLC open, Alaska Aerospace has continually asked for state and federal bailouts from its inception in 1998. Despite no launches in 2009 and only one in 2010, AAC expects Alaska to fork out a ten million dollar handout this year. Corporate welfare is counter to the fiscal responsibility we, the voters, demand from our elected representatives.

The KLC is like an old truck I owned that started falling apart. With each repair, I figured that now the truck would run fine and I was done. Yet, it continually broke down and I kept pouring money into it, thinking that each repair would be the last. I loved that old pickup and didn’t want to let it go. But I finally realized that I was throwing my money away on a truck that hardly ever ran and got rid of it.

It is time to stop throwing money away on “Space Pork Kodiak.” It has sat at Narrow Cape for thirteen years, never breaking even, costing the state more and more money while providing minimal returns and economic benefits to our community and our state. It is time to invest state funds in businesses and ventures that will produce solid returns for the state.

Let’s return Narrow Cape entirely to the uses for which it is best suited: hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, birding, subsistence activities such as berry picking, and whale-watching.

Kodiak Launch Complex Begs For Bailout:: Ten Million Dollars!!

2011-03-08T03:58:00.002-09:00

JUNEAU, Alaska — Executives at the Alaska Aerospace Corporation say the Kodiak Launch Facility requires $10 million in state funding next year for maintenance and operations.
Aerospace Corporation chief executive officer Dale Nash says the $4 million allocated in Gov. Sean Parnell's budget proposal is insufficient and could lead to maintenance on the facility being deferred.
Nash says the additional funding became necessary after the Missile Defense Agency declined to renew a contract with the facility last year and decided against further launches from the island.
Aerospace Corporation President Craig Campbell says his agency is looking to diversify the facility's clientele and collaborate with the private sector.
The Alaska Aerospace Corporation has managed the facility since it opened in 1998.

By CHRIS STEIN
Associated Press

How long will the state and the feds pour money into the "Launch Pad to Nowhere"? Alaska's infrastructure needs improvement and upgrades and we waste our money on an unprofitable white elephant. For fifteen years Alaska and the feds have propped the KLC up - it's time for the facility to sink or swim on its own. Stop the corporate welfare.

NASA burdened by rising launch costs and delays

2010-11-24T07:53:00.000-09:00

Considering the burdensome cost of transporting equipment, rockets, and launch personnel to Kodiak in addition to housing launch technicians, this report does not bode well for the Kodiak Launch Complex.

Publish Date: 24 November 2010
US: The next generation of NASA remote sensing satellites and space science probes could be burdened by rising launch costs and delays as the agency incorporates new medium-lift rockets, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

The uncertainty surrounds 12 to 14 science missions through 2020 that have not yet received launch vehicle assignments, the government watchdog report said.

NASA is ending its use of the Delta 2 rocket, a workhorse launcher that has delivered nearly 60 percent of the agency's scientific satellites to space since 1998.

NASA is shifting future medium-class missions to SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and the Taurus 2 launcher being developed by Orbital Sciences Corp. The GAO found both vehicles serve the same market as the Delta 2 and have similar costs. But the Falcon 9 and Taurus 2 are not certified to launch NASA's most expensive and important science missions.

United Launch Alliance has three more NASA missions on its Delta 2 manifest. Parts for producing five more Delta 2 rockets are also available, but there are high costs of modifying and maintaining launch pads to host any extra flights, according to the GAO.

The report addressed NASA's efforts to support the remaining Delta 2 flights and the agency's medium-class launch strategy.

Read the rest of the article here.

KLC Minotaur IV Launch = Enormous Waste of Money

2010-11-20T09:07:00.001-09:00

Air Force spokesman Joe Davidson is in Kodiak helping coordinate the launch. He reported Thursday that the total cost of the seven satellites is $120 million. The cost of the Minotaur IV rocket including a new propulsion system is $50 million. (source: KMXT, Kodiak public radio)
This one launch would have paid for two brand new high schools in Kodiak; instead, local property owners will bear the burden of paying for the new school.

Orbital Minotaur IV launches with multiple satellites

2010-11-19T17:04:00.000-09:00

November 19th, 2010 by William Graham Orbital Sciences Corporation used their Minotaur IV launch vehicle to loft eight satellites for the United States Government and university research programmes on Friday night. The mission, designated STP S-26, launched from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska one minute into a 90-minute window, with a lift-off time of 20:25 pm Eastern (01:25 UTC).

Alaska Aerospace Once Again Begs Alaska for Handouts

2010-11-17T09:20:00.000-09:00

Click here for a link to the Kodiak public radio station KMXT's story on Alaska Aerospace's request for an exorbitant amount of space pork from the state of Alaska.
AAC is dragging out their tired and false claim that if "we build it, they will come". Their record of launches up to now clearly belies this tired adage.
Click on the title of this post to read about AAC's declining revenues and why, yet again, "Alaska Aerospace will turn to the state of Alaska for sustaining funding needs." Even the Feds don't seem to want to waste any more taxpayer funds on the rusting, obsolete white elephant Kodiak Launch Complex.

Inside next week’s launch from Narrow Cape

2010-11-11T17:03:00.002-09:00

For another local launch news story from public radio KMXT, click here.

The STP-S26 launch includes military and NASA experiments

Article published on Wednesday, November 10th, 2010 in Kodiak Daily Mirror

By SAM FRIEDMAN

Mirror Writer

The Kodiak Launch Complex has its first launch in almost two years Nov. 19, and it’s a new type of launch.
Instead of the missile defense-related work the complex has done over the last decade, the new launch is for the military’s Space Test Program and will bring 16 experiments into low earth orbit.
The experiments range from high-priority military projects to NASA technology trials and experiments built by college undergraduates. They investigate subjects including electronics, space weather, navigation and biology. But a common thread throughout the mission is projects that are small and inexpensive by aerospace standards.
The mission’s name, STP-S26, comes from the fact that it is the 26th launch carried out by the Space Test Program and contains small satellites.
Mission manger Air Force Capt. Rachel Derbis said the Kodiak launch is the most complex mission the Space Test Program has attempted in 20 years — in part because it packs in so many small payloads.
“It is our hope that these experiments will prove out the rapid access to space for small satellites and push forward the frontiers of space,” she said. “In essence, accomplishing more with smaller satellites is the true meaning of maximizing access to space.”
Among the seven satellites carrying the experiments on the Kodiak launch, four are about 400 pounds and three weigh less than 10 pounds.
In addition to making satellites small, some of the organizations with experiments on board used standardized satellite forms like the blocky CubeSat to help keep costs down.
One especially small experiment on the mission is a CubeSat called NanoSail D that is smaller than a loaf of bread before launching and costs $250,000.

It is part of a larger NASA satellite with an $8 million to $12 million budget, not including experiments.
Although NASA has access to the International Space Station for space experiments, missions like STP-S26 are still useful for the space agency, said Mark Boudreau, project manager at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and the manager of one of the satellites on the STP-S26 mission.
“Launch vehicles and services (rockets or shuttles), as we all know, are expensive,” he said. “Sometimes it can take years to get even the smallest scientific or technology experiment manifested for flight. That means delaying the return of scientific knowledge.”
In addition to NASA and the military, the University of Texas at Austin and the National Science Foundation have satellites on the STP-S26. Here’s a look at all of the satellites.
• Primary Satellite: The mission’s primary satellite carries a pair of experiments off the military’s Space Experiment Review Board (SERB) list.
One experiment, the top-ranked priority from 2006, will test how well military electronics function in space. The other experiment is an ocean telemetry link, a project to relay information from ocean buoys.
• FastSat: The larger of two NASA satellites, FastSat carries a set of three instruments to measure space weather, including the temperature at the top of earth’s atmosphere and astrophysical plasma.
Also on board the FastSat is the tiny $250,000 satellite, the NanoSail D. The satellite’s mission is to unfurl into a thin sheet that uses sunlight to leave the earth’s orbit. If successful, the technology could one day be used to keep abandoned satellites out of earth’s orbit where they might damage other satellites.
• OREOS: The second NASA satellites launch is a separate set of three CubeSats that will study how micro-organisms survive in space.
• FastTrac: The FastTrac satellite is the winner of a biannual contest between American universities sponsored by the Air Force. This winning satellite on this mission will breaks into two satellites, which then communicate with each other. It was built by the University of Texas at Austin.
• FalconSat-5: Another student project, the FalconSat-5 was built by cadets at the U.S. Air Force academy in Colorado Springs. The satellite handles a pair of SERB priorities related to space communication and navigation.
• Radio Aurora eXplorer: This National Science Foundation satellite is also a CubeSat, and also like the FastSat will study astrophysical plasma to understand patterns that can disrupt communications.
• Ballasts: The mission is also a test for the Minotaur IV rocket that will take the payloads into space.
Kodiak’s launch will be the third Minotaur IV launch ever conducted. It will also be the first to test whether the rocket can drop payloads at multiple elevations. After deploying its other experiments to a 650-kilometer elevation orbit at 72 degrees inclination, the rocket will continue to 1,150 kilometers to release ballast.
The first Minotaur IV launch took place in April. The missile is made out of decommissioned Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The Kodiak launch is scheduled for 4:24 p.m. Nov. 19.
Mirror writer Sam Friedman can be reached via e-mail at sfriedman@kodiakdailymirror.com.

NASA to Hold Media Telecon to Discuss Upcoming Satellite Missions

2010-11-07T15:47:00.002-09:00

MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. -- NASA will hold a media teleconference at 10:30 a.m. PST on Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2010 to discuss the Organism/Organic Exposure to Orbital Stresses, O/OREOS and Fast, Affordable, Science and Technology Satellite, or FASTSAT -- scheduled to launch Nov. 19, 2010 on a Minotaur IV launch vehicle from the Alaska Aerospace Corporations Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska.

The goal of the O/OREOS mission is to demonstrate the capability to conduct low-cost astrobiology science experiments on autonomous nanosatellites in space. Scientists will apply the knowledge they gain from O/OREOS to plan future experiments in the space environment to study how exposure to space changes organic molecules and biology. These experiments will help answer astrobiologys fundamental questions about the origin, evolution and distribution of life in the universe.

The Small Spacecraft Division at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., manages the O/OREOS payload and mission operations supported by staff and students from Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, Calif.

FASTSAT is NASA's first microsatellite that supports the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adaptor, or ESPA -- an adapter ring developed by the U.S. Department of Defense specifically to accommodate secondary spacecraft launch opportunities. FASTSAT will demonstrate the capability to build, design and test a spacecraft platform to enable governmental, academic and industry researchers to conduct low-cost scientific and technology experiments on an autonomous satellite in space.

Teleconference panelists are:

-- Mark Boudreaux, FASTSAT project manager at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
-- Joseph "Joe" Casas, FASTSAT science operations director at Marshall
-- Dean Alhorn, NanoSail-D principal investigator at Marshall
-- John Sigwarth, Thermospheric Temperature Imager principal investigator at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
-- Pascale Ehrenfreund, O/OREOS project scientist, Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington

Supporting experts will be online to answer questions about the experiments on FASTSAT and O/OREOS.

For dial-in information, journalists should e-mail their name, media affiliation and telephone number to Kim Newton at kimberly.d.newton@nasa.gov.

Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live on NASA's website at: http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

For more information about FASTSAT and O/OREOS visit: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/smallsats

UPDATE: Kodiak Launch Complex Pork Requests

2010-11-03T10:04:00.003-08:00

KRLIG received the following clarification related to our KLC for Sale? post from a Kodiak resident who spoke with Tom Walters who sits on the Alaska Aerospace Board of Directors.
AAC is indeed requesting ten million dollars per year for the foreseeable future from the State of Alaska.
The 80 million dollar request is to construct an air strip at Narrow Cape, a second rocket storage facility, and a second launch pad.
Mr. Walters was noncommittal on the question of whether the KLC would be offered up for sale if AAC did not receive the requested corporate welfare.
AAC has publicly admitted that launch revenues have NEVER covered the costs of operating and maintaining the KLC.
The audacity of this plea for government handouts is astounding! No launches since December 2008 and, according to the AAC Timeline, of the fourteen launches that have occurred thus far, almost all were Missile Defense Agency (MDA) launches. The MDA has terminated its contract with the KLC for launches and providing funds to keep the facility open.
So, more rocket storage capacity and another launch pad although few, if any, launches will occur at the KLC? Why should the state and federal government continue to pour dollars into a bottomless black hole of waste?
Narrow Cape is an important recreation, subsistence, hunting, and fishing area - further development of KLC infrastructure will contribute to substantial degradation of these uses.
The Nov 2 elections results seem to indicate that people want less government spending - zero bailouts for the KLC is an excellent step in the "right" direction. It's time to put this rusting white elephant to rest, once and for all.

Kodiak Launch Complex For Sale??

2010-10-28T16:07:00.000-08:00

[We are currently trying to obtain independent verification of the following information]
KRLIG learned recently from a very reputable source that the Alaska Aerospace Corp. is requesting 10 million (more) dollars a year from the state for the next 4 years. This handout is on top of the millions of dollars in corporate welfare they have already received from the state in recent years to keep them going between the few launches that have occurred since the facility was first built. AAC has admitted publicly that launch revenues have NEVER covered the cost of operating the complex.

In addition to this plea, they are also requesting from the state an additional 80 million dollars to build another complex at Narrow Cape! Apparently, the current infrastructure is corroding in the severe marine environment of Narrow Cape and is fast becoming obsolete. And remember the launch tower (aka Faulty Tower) is built on a major earthquake fault.

Reportedly, if they can't get the money they are requesting from the state, they might try to sell the KLC. Our question is, "Who could they legally sell it to?" A foreign country? If sold to someone from out of state, Kodiak and Alaska would have even less control of it than we do now.

All of this is obviously disturbing on many levels. While Kodiak is working so very hard to improve the local quality of life by becoming more energy independent and adopting more sustainable living practices, AND struggling to finance the new high school, this proposal is ludicrous and if financed, would be like pouring more of our state revenue into a black hole that hasn't produced a dime of profit for the state. Don't forget that the federal government has also poured tens of millions of dollars into the KLC for construction and maintenance.

The AAC website doesn't even list the names of their board members to facilitate public contact.

UPDATE: Minotaur IV launch delayed again

2010-09-14T10:31:00.000-08:00

Processing for another slightly delayed Minotaur IV launch is under way at Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska, for STPSat 2/STP-26 (Space Test Program S-26), aimed at enabling responsive access to space for small experimental satellites and payloads. The launch vehicle is configured in a Multi-Payload Adaptor configuration with several small satellites and nanosats, including FalconSat 5, Fastrac A/B, FASTSat-HSV 01, NanoSail D, O/OREOS and RAX (Radio Aurora Explorer), a National Science Foundation ground-to-space bistatic radar experiment. Launch is on track for November. (from Aviation Week)
The last launch at the KLC was in December 2008 - further delays might mean two consecutive calendar years with no launches at the KLC which requires millions of dollars of government funding just to maintain the facility even when not launching.

UPDATE: Rocketeer Follies

2010-08-12T13:45:00.000-08:00

Secret Sandia settlement taps taxpayers

Larry Barker Investigates

Reporter: Larry Barker
Web Producer: Bill Diven

KODIAK, Alaska (KRQE) - Just before dawn more than three years ago the military launched a rocket with a secret payload off the coast of Alaska, a success touted by the Pentagon that left a trail of injury and secret payouts for Sandia National Laboratories.
It was February 2006, a dark and bitter night in the rugged Alaskan back country. What followed the launch was an incident so foolhardy and so reckless that it literally ruined lives.
It is also something the government kept quiet for three years.
"We had a very tragic and unfortunate incident that happened in Alaska," Dr. Al Romig, Sandia chief operating officer, told KRQE News 13.
Kodiak Island is a remote sportsman's paradise, and it was there that Sandia engineers from New Mexico tested a secret missile radar system. But it wasn't rocket science that got Sandians in trouble.
The successful liftoff wrapped up weeks of research. Sandia's engineers worked hard, and then they played hard.
They celebrated with a big party back at the Narrow Cape Lodge that went on much of the day. There were speeches, champagne toasts, chips and salsa and booze, lots of it.
One top Sandia engineer was described as being tipsy, swaying and slurring his speech.
Post-launch bashes are a Sandia tradition. On Kodiak they partied with beer, champagne, whiskey, vodka, rum and wine.
What happened next is documented by an internal investigation obtained by News 13 investigative reporter Larry Barker. The report so sensitive, the lab won't make it public.
Late in the afternoon, the Sandians moved their celebration to the beach. Josh Lucas, 29, and two others hopped into a government Jeep for a little joy ride
Lucas later said he drove onto the sand looking for firewood and to go four wheeling. But their fun was cut short when the Jeep got stuck in the seaside muck.
"Diana Helgeson and myself are avid four wheelers and thought we had the situation under control," Lucas told Alaska State Troopers in a recorded statement. "I ended up getting stuck in the sand. I was screwing around. So we walked back to the lodge."
Lucas, Helgeson and Dave Stokebrand returned to retrieve the abandoned vehicle with Lucas again driving. He was tired, had been drinking, and he was driving too fast in the dark.
Lucas hit a ravine, launched through the air and slammed into the pit.
In the pitch black Helgeson and Stokebrand were unconscious. Lucas, his broken arm, ran the half mile back to the lodge for help.
Witnesses described Lucas as hysterical and the scene at the lodge chaotic.
"Along comes Josh. and he's yelling and screaming from hundreds of yards away," Eric Schindwolf said in statement to Alaska troopers. "He's yelling, 'We need help out here; we need emergency medical.'
"He was just trying to get somebody to pay attention."
Helgeson and Stokebrand suffered critical injuries and were airlifted to a hospital by Coast Guard helicopter. Alaskan police launched an investigation.
"When the troopers arrived we pretty much had chaos trying to figure who were the injured, who were involved, who were people that were there to help," Sgt. Maurice "Mo" Hughes of the Alaska State Troopers post on Kodiak Island said in an interview with News 13. "Alcohol had a component in this incident. People that were unfamiliar with the location, the time of day--it was dark--factor of alcohol and potentially being tired.
"All those can build up very quickly to disaster. In this case it did."
Lucas was charged with two counts first-degree assault and driving while intoxicated. The criminal case was turned over to the Kodiak district attorney.
Either the crime was reckless or negligent, but either way conviction could result in a prison sentence, according to District Attorney Mike Gray.
Helgeson suffered multiple injuries including severe head trauma that left her permanently disabled. Her 20-year career at Sandia is over.
The crash cut short Stokebrand's 17 years as a Sandia engineer. He has significant brain damage and today requires around-the-clock care.
Sandia attorneys concluded if there were a lawsuit a jury could find labs liable for substantial damages, as much as $2 million to Helgeson and as much as $10 million to Stokebrand.
Last year Sandia quietly reached a settlement with the injured employees and then stuck the taxpayers with the bill. The Department of Energy confirmed government funds were used to pay for what happened in Alaska.
Taxpayers are on the hook for what is likely to be millions of dollars although exactly how much is not known. The lab said it's a secret and won't discuss either the decision to settle or the terms of the settlement.
"We don't discuss legal matters involving the laboratory," Romig said. "Those (terms) are protected by confidentiality agreements."
So what went wrong in Alaska? Sandia said its chief operating officer would answer News 13's questions.
Romig, however, declined to characterize Lucas's actions that night.
"I wasn't there to observe what Josh Lucas did or didn't do," he said. "I wasn't at the party. I didn't see Josh Lucas. I wasn't on scene to observe it."
But Romig does know what happened and conceded he read Sandia's detailed report on the incident. Still he ducked a question on whether he believed the investigation showed Lucas acted recklessly when he got behind the wheel of a government Jeep after drinking to go four wheeling on the beach.
"Sandia doesn't discuss the contents of its internal investigations," he said.
Nor would Romig comment on whether Sandia employees acted in a responsible manner.
"It's difficult to say that based on reading the report; I wasn't there," Romig continued. "There was an accident that was unfortunate.
"Sandia has taken corrective actions to try and prevent those things from happening again in the future."
Lucas still works at Sandia labs and wasn't prosecuted in Alaska where the Kodiak District Attorney changed his mind after consulting with victims.
News 13 approached Lucas at his home about getting his side of the story but was rebuffed.
"You can stop right there," he said. "Get off my property."
Trooper Hughes offered one summation for the combination of four-wheeling on an unknown beach in the dark while fatigued and after drinking. "Made for a very bad night," he said.

AAC application for marine mammal take

2010-07-08T11:05:00.003-08:00

[Federal Register: July 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 129)]
[Notices]               
[Page 38991-38992]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy10-39]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-AY99

 
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to Space Vehicle and Missile Launch Operations at Kodiak 
Launch Complex, Alaska

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice; receipt of application for regulations and subsequent 
letters of authorization; request for comments and information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  NMFS has received an application from the Alaska Aerospace 
Corporation (AAC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental 
to launching space launch vehicles, long range ballistic target 
missiles, and other smaller missile systems at Kodiak Launch Complex 
(KLC) for the period of February 2011 through February 2016. Pursuant 
to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt 
of the AAC's request for the development and implementation of 
regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and 
inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the AAC's 
application and request.

DATES:  Comments and information must be received no later than August 
6, 2010

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to P. 
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address 
for providing email comments is PR1.0648-AY99 @noaa.gov. Comments sent 
via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte 
file size.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly or Michelle Magliocca, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability

    A copy of the AAC's application may be obtained by writing to the 
address specified above (see ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact listed 
above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet 
at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, 
the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization 
is provided to the public for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, 
and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining 
to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set 
forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as 
''...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; Pub. L. 108 136) 
removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical region'' 
limitations and amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies 
to a ``military readiness activity'' to read as follows (Section 
3(18)(B) of the MMPA):
    (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to 
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A 
Harassment]; or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned 
or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

Summary of Request

    On June 4, 2010, NMFS received a complete application from the AAC 
requesting authorization for the take of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias 
jubatus) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), incidental to space vehicle 
and missile launch activities from KLC for a period of 5 years. These 
launches are designed to support the U.S. Department of Defense 
training and operations and hence are considered military readiness 
activities. Marine mammals, specifically pinnipeds on nearby haulouts, 
may be exposed to launch noise. AAC is requesting the take, by 
harassment, of juvenile and adult Steller sea lions and all age class 
of harbor seals.

Specified Activities

    AAC is proposing to launch small to medium space launch vehicles 
ranging in size from the small Castor 120 and the related Peacekeeper 
derived Minotaur IV and V vehicles to the medium lift Taurus II 
(currently under development) from the KLC. KLC can also support launch 
of the Minuteman II and III derived Minotaur I (a space launch vehicle) 
through III (which are primarily used as ballistic targets). Additional 
target missiles include the C-4 Trident, Quick Reaction Launch

[[Page 38992]]

Vehicles, and tactical missiles such as the Patriot and Theater High 
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). A number of smaller target and 
interceptor missile systems may also be flown from KLC. The AAC 
anticipates ability to accommodate nine launches per year.
    Marine mammals, specifically pinnipeds hauled out on Ugak Rock, 
which lies immediately south of Narrow Cape, would be subjected to 
rocket launch noise. Sound monitoring previously conducted on Ugak Rock 
demonstrates that noise levels could reach up to 101.4 dBA for the 
loudest vehicle, the Castor 120. AAC is requesting the take of 10 
Steller sea lions per launch and the take of 125 harbor seals per 
launch.

Information Solicited

    Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and 
comments concerning the AAC's request (see ADDRESSES). All information, 
suggestions, and comments related to the AAC's request and NMFS' 
potential development and implementation of regulations governing the 
incidental taking of marine mammals by the AAC near the KLC will be 
considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, regulations governing 
the issuance of letters of authorization.

    Dated: June 29, 2010.
Helen M. Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-16493 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

Kodiak Launch Complex to Close?

2010-05-10T11:00:00.002-08:00

Well, Alaska Aerospace's desperation continues to get even more pathetic; now they've got the Alaska congressional delegation begging the Missile Defense Agency to please please please please oh please launch rockets from the Kodiak Launch Complex.

This letter (reproduced below) is a hoot - note that the KLC is referred to as a "national treasure" - oh, really? Mount Rushmore is a national treasure - the KLC is an already obsolete facility that can't even support itself financially. Hence the need for MDA bailout money.
      They fail to mention that at least one rocket had to be destroyed about one minute after launch for undetermined reasons.
      Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young claim that the KLC may have to close if MDA won't come and launch rockets. The only reason they ever launched any rockets in the past was due to pressure from once powerful, former Alaska senator "Uncle" Ted Stevens. In fact, it was Stevens who pressured the Air Force to fund the construction of the KLC when the State of Alaska determined that AAC would not be able to repay a construction loan.
The launch tower is rusting, it sits on an earthquake fault, the facility can't pay for itself, the conclusion is obvious: shut it down before it sucks any more money out of state and federal coffers. The lack of MDA launches has produced the best idea yet for this travesty of corporate welfare!

We Told You So, Part Deux: Kodiak Launch Complex Loses Missile Defense

2010-04-15T08:02:00.001-08:00

Note that nowhere in the story below does it mention AAC attempting to find commercial launch customers. When AAC first came to town, they rarely mentioned military launches - they were going to launch telecommunications satellites for private firms - we're still waiting for the first non-military customer. And they want to build even more infrastructure - they are not using the launch pads they have, but they want to build another one! Now, that's wise use of government funding!

Launch complex loses missile defense

Article published on Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

By SAM FRIEDMAN

Mirror Writer

The Alaska Aerospace Corporation is looking for new customers to launch rockets from its Kodiak Launch Complex as it prepares to lose business from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, its most valuable customer.
Since 2004, the MDA has been the only customer to launch missiles from the Narrow Cape facility. In total, it has launched eight rockets from Kodiak, the majority of the facility’s 14 launches.
The MDA’s contract with Alaska Aerospace ends Aug. 31.
In the past, rockets launched in Kodiak have played the role of test target missiles to intercept rockets launched from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base. New plans call for sending the test missiles from Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands said MDA spokesman Richard Lehner.
“To make it more challenging we’re launching the test missiles from Kwajalein,” he said. “To make it more operationally realistic.”
To pay some of its costs while it searches for new customers, Alaska Aerospace Corporation requested $4 million from the State of Alaska’s capital budget to help pay costs in its 2011 budget. The $4 million sum is approximately the same as the company’s net loss before capital contributions in the 2009 fiscal year.
The funding request is now winding its way through the state Legislature, which concludes its session Sunday.
“We need to be prepared,” said Alaska Aerospace Corp. CEO Dale Nash. “We don’t yet know what will happen with the MDA launches. We have asked for the state Legislature to tide us over.”
Alaska Aerospace Corp. also hopes to cover its costs with two non-MDA launches this fall. Both are for the U.S. Force, which has used the Kodiak Launch Complex before.
In mid-September the Kodiak Launch Complex is expected to launch STP-S26, a rocket that holds several scientific experiments Nash said.
Its payload includes a space phenomenology experiment and an ocean data telemetry satellite according to the Alaska Aerospace Corp’s annual report. The rocket also contains FalconSat-5, a satellite designed by engineering students at the Air Force Academy.
Between 60 and 90 days later the complex is supposed to launch the TACat4, a satellite that will provide Ultra High Frequency communication channels.
The launches were previously scheduled for 2009, but have been delayed.
Back in January, Alaska Lt. Gov. Campbell wrote in a guest opinion in the Kodiak Daily Mirror that the Kodiak Launch Complex needs to move beyond its MDA work.
In early January, he traveled with Nash to Colorado to lobby the Air Force to use the Kodiak Launch complex for its future launches. He expressed optimism about a meeting with Gen. Robert Kehler, Air Force Space Commander
”While it is too early to declare victory, our meetings netted some very positive direction,” Campbell said.
This summer, work is expected to finish on the Kodiak Launch Complex’s new rocket motor storage facility. Another proposed project would add a third launch pad to the complex, allowing two customers to use the launch complex simultaneously.
Nash said engineering work has been done for the third launch pad, but there are no further plans unless federal stimulus money becomes available or the complex sees an upswing in commercial spaceport demand.
Mirror writer Sam Friedman can be reached via e-mail at sfriedman@kodiakdailymirror.com.

We Told You So: Kodiak Launch Complex Bailed Out Again

2010-04-10T10:40:00.000-08:00

Since 1995, KRLIG's research has shown that the Kodiak Launch Complex would never be a successful business; for 15 years we've said that the KLC and AAC could not survive on their own without continual and substantial handouts from the federal and state governments. This aging facility has yet to cover its operating costs with launch revenues. It has been a constant drain on state and federal resources. Here is the latest example of Alaska pouring money down the toilet:
The Alaska Legislature has budgeted " $4 million to the Alaska Aerospace Corporation to temporarily cover operating expenses." (Kodiak Daily Mirror 4/0/10)
Note the number of days since the last launch in the counter to the right.
The KLC just sits out at Narrow Cape on an earthquake fault slowly rusting away in the harsh marine environment.
Meanwhile, property owners in Kodiak have to help pay for a badly needed new high school - that four million would be far better spent on education infrastructure (or operating costs for that matter)

A Pathetic Plea for Business for Space Pork Kodiak

2010-01-22T06:07:00.001-09:00

Since 1995, those of us that have done our homework have known that the KLC would never be a self-supporting business. The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority refused to lend Alaska Aerospace funds to build the facility because AAC's business model showed they could not repay the loan. It was only built after pressure from then Senator Ted Stevens on the USAF to provide construction funding. Read about it here and here.

KRLIG's research showed that private launch customers were not interested in the KLC because it was too expensive. Occasional military launches (plus a one-off NASA launch) have been the only business and many of those were due to Stevens' influence.

There was not a single launch at the KLC in 2009. The facility remains dependent on federal and state funding to operate and maintain this dormant white elephant.
After twelve years, the KLC is no "secret" (as Campbell implies below) and AAC has had all that time to market itself and attract private launch customers. The KLC is a drain on government finances and provides an inadequate return for the size of the investment.

KLC is looking for launch customers
Guest opinion by Alaska Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell
Article published on Tuesday, Jan 19th, 2010 Kodiak Daily Mirror

Alaska is fortunate for our superb geographic location. We are blessed with abundant natural resources which can and should be developed for the economic vitality of our state. From seafood and mining to oil and gas resources, Alaska has what the world needs. And we are located at the northern apex to North America and Asia, giving us two directions to focus our sales and export opportunities.
But our geographic location also has tremendous value in the aerospace industry. Our Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC), owned and operated by the Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC), is a gem. Located on 3,700 acres of state land at Narrow Cape on Kodiak Island, the site is ideal for both government and commercial rocket launches. Over the past 12 years, KLC has been critical to our space launch access and missile defense testing capability. In the past six years there have been eight Missile Defense Agency (MDA) target missile launches from KLC, demonstrating the value of this site to our nation. Now it is time to look beyond missile defense launches, to other military capabilities and potential commercial operations.
Earlier this month, I traveled to Colorado to meet with General Robert Kehler, Commander, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) to discuss potential opportunities for increased use of KLC. Along with Mr. Dale Nash, AAC chief executive officer, and Mr. Tom Case, AAC president and chief operating officer, we presented the rational for increased use of KLC by AFSPC. While it is too early to declare victory, our meetings netted some very positive direction.
We received assurances that KLC will be included in determining launch locations for future AFSPC launches. This is important, as KLC provides the ideal site for launches into polar orbits. It also allows for almost a 20 percent payload advantage when launching into the Molniya and Tundra orbits over Vandenberg AFB in California.

The State of Alaska has provided direct financial support to KLC in the past. In 1998, $16 million was invested to develop the complex. Last year, the state provided an additional $7 million for rocket motor storage facility construction. Additional funding is being considered for expansion of the site, based on increased demand for use. So the trip to Colorado was a specific targeted effort to expand the market for KLC and secure greater opportunities for launches in the coming years.
I have a mission for all Alaskans: Let’s not keep the Kodiak Launch Complex a secret. The site has matured to the point where Alaska needs to be more proactive in marketing the capabilities and opportunities for increased use, both government and civilian. The team at Alaska Aerospace Corporation is doing a tremendous job operating the site and looking for expansion opportunities. Alaska is best positioned to provide greater access to space and I am committed to leading that effort with the team from AAC. As KLC increases launch activities in the coming years, Alaska will benefit. Let’s keep the momentum going.

[ print ] [ close ]

KLC: ONE YEAR LAUNCH-FREE!

2009-12-05T10:02:00.001-09:00

Congratulations to Alaska Aerospace Corporation for completing one year launch-free! The last launch at the KLC was December 5, 2008.
On December 31, 2009, AAC can proudly state that not one launch occurred in the calendar year 2009!
This "for profit" corporation and its facility have been bailed out by the federal and state governments since 1995.
AAC officials have admitted that launch revenues do not cover the cost of operating the facility.

Meanwhile, a 30 million dollar "rocket storage facility" is being constructed at the KLC, using federal and state money. At least they can store them even if they aren't launching them!
To those who claim that the KLC is vital to National Missile Defense, it should be noted that the target missiles fired from Kodiak can be launched from portable launch pads using mobile mission control modules. Little, if any, of the infrastructure currently in place is required for MDA launches.
And local residents have reported that that Faulty Tower (the unused launch tower sitting on an earthquake fault) is continuing to rust and corrode in the harsh marine climate of Narrow Cape, despite a million dollar paint job just two years ago.

Big Anniversary Coming Up!!

2009-11-25T14:27:00.000-09:00

Watch this space for news of a milestone anniversary coming up for the Kodiak Launch Complex!

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation Becomes “Alaska Aerospace Corporation”

2009-11-04T07:31:00.003-09:00

We love how AADC (oops, we mean AAC) continually comes up with arguments claiming that some insignificant action they propose or perform will help obtain launches: "The name change assists in securing launch and other aerospace related contracts".
The truth of the matter is that no private businesses want to do commercial launches at the KLC (it's cost prohibitive) and even the military launches are dwindling - tens of millions of dollars thrown away on infrastructure that sits on major earthquake faults and slowly rusts away in our corrosive marine environment; it's all pork barrel waste.

Anway here's the info from their website:

On October 20, 2009, Alaska Senate Bill 125, sponsored by Senator Joe Paskvan and signed by the Governor into law, changed the corporation’s name to that of the Alaska Aerospace Corporation to recognize the corporation’s growth and successful operation. There are no changes to ownership or corporate governance.

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) was established by the Alaska State Legislature in 1991 and charged with stimulating a high technology aerospace industry in the state. AADC was designed to augment the nation’s ability to place satellites into orbit and to support missile defense testing. The Corporation, in partial fulfillment of its charter, built and operates the Kodiak Launch Facility, the nation’s first full service commercial spaceport that was not co-located on a federal reservation. [Editor's Note: no commercial launches have ever taken place at the KLC]

Senate Bill 125 simply changes the name of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation to the Alaska Aerospace Corporation.

The word “Development” in the corporation’s title gave the perception that they were a not-for-profit administrative body that simply encourages aerospace development, rather than an organization that owns and operates space launch facilities that are fully developed and capable of launching rockets into space. The name change assists in securing launch and other aerospace related contracts that generate significant economic benefits to Alaska by providing long-term, high-paying, stable jobs; by providing local economic diversity; and by creating short-term benefits from projects and construction activities.

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation Board Of Directors Meeting

2009-10-21T15:24:00.001-08:00

We wonder if they'll announce the May 28, 2010 launch that's mentioned in various sources.

October 23, 2009, 10:30 am
Alaska Energy Building
4300 B Street, Suite 103
Anchorage, Alaska

Proposed agenda items include an update regarding the Kodiak Launch Complex, up coming missions and other matters to properly come before the board. The board may also hold an executive session in accordance with AS 44.62.310.
Individuals or groups of people with disabilities who require special accommodations, auxiliary aids or services, or alternative communication formats, call 561-3338 by 9:00 am on October 9, 2009. Please provide advance notice in order that AADC may accommodate your needs.

Ball Aerospace Completes STPSat-2 Satellite Pre-Shipment Review

2009-10-13T09:58:00.002-08:00

We continue to wonder when AADC will mention to the public this upcoming launch.....

By: PR Newswire
Oct. 13, 2009 08:03 AM

BOULDER, Colo., Oct. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. has successfully completed a comprehensive pre-shipment review for STPSat-2, the first spacecraft for the Department of Defense (DoD) Space Test Program Standard Interface Vehicle (STP-SIV) program. Launch of the vehicle is scheduled for the second quarter of 2010 on a Minotaur IV rocket from Alaska's Kodiak Launch Complex.

(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20091013/LA91264)

The pre-shipment review was completed on Sept. 17, following assembly and performance testing of the standard vehicle and standard payload interface which is designed to accelerate the DoD's space technology efforts. The testing also included functional and environmental testing of the STPSat-2 payload suite, which is comprised of the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Phenomenology Experiment and ONR's Ocean Data Telemetry Microsat Link.

"Completion of the first STP vehicle is a tremendous achievement toward the goal of increasing access to space for future DoD payloads," said David L. Taylor, Ball Aerospace president and CEO. "Ball Aerospace is confident the repeatable design used for STP-SIV program will help pave the way for reducing cost, schedule and risk on DoD missions."

STP-SIV is capable of supporting a variety of experimental and risk reduction payloads and multiple launch vehicles. Using flight-proven hardware for the spacecraft (and developmental hardware only on the experimental payloads), each bus can accommodate up to four independent payloads, each one having its own separate power and data interface. Ball Aerospace has already begun production on the second STP-SIV, designated STPSat-3, following a contract award from the Air Force Space Development & Test Wing Space Development Group at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, N.M., earlier this year.

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. supports critical missions of important national agencies such as the Department of Defense, NASA, NOAA and other U.S. government and commercial entities. The company develops and manufactures spacecraft, advanced instruments and sensors, components, data exploitation systems and RF solutions for strategic, tactical and scientific applications.

Ball Corporation (NYSE: BLL) is a supplier of high-quality metal and plastic packaging for beverage, food and household products customers, and of aerospace and other technologies and services, primarily for the U.S. government. Ball Corporation and its subsidiaries employ more than 14,500 people worldwide and reported 2008 sales of approximately $7.6 billion.

Forward-Looking Statements

This release contains "forward-looking" statements concerning future events and financial performance. Words such as "expects," "anticipates," "estimates" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Key risks and uncertainties are summarized in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Exhibit 99.2 in our Form 10-K, which are available at our Web site and at www.sec.gov. Factors that might affect our packaging segments include fluctuation in product demand and preferences; availability and cost of raw materials; competitive packaging availability, pricing and substitution; changes in climate and weather; crop yields; competitive activity; failure to achieve anticipated productivity improvements or production cost reductions, including our beverage can end project; mandatory deposit or other restrictive packaging laws; changes in major customer or supplier contracts or loss of a major customer or supplier; and changes in foreign exchange rates, tax rates and activities of foreign subsidiaries. Factors that might affect our aerospace segment include: funding, authorization, availability and returns of government and commercial contracts; and delays, extensions and technical uncertainties affecting segment contracts. Factors that might affect the company as a whole include those listed plus: accounting changes; changes in senior management; the current global credit squeeze and its effects on liquidity, credit risk, asset values and the economy; successful or unsuccessful acquisitions, joint ventures or divestitures; integration of recently acquired businesses; regulatory action or laws including tax, environmental, health and workplace safety, including in respect of chemicals or substances used in raw materials or in the manufacturing process; governmental investigations; technological developments and innovations; goodwill impairment; antitrust, patent and other litigation; strikes; labor cost changes; rates of return projected and earned on assets of the company's defined benefit retirement plans; pension changes; reduced cash flow; interest rates affecting our debt; and changes to unaudited results due to statutory audits or other effects.

SOURCE Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
Published Oct. 13, 2009
Copyright © 2009 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.

Space Weather Microsat Eyes 2010 Launch

2009-10-06T08:35:00.005-08:00

One wonders why the AADC website has no mention of this launch; in fact, that site hasn't been updated since February, 2009 (as best we can ascertain). Once again, AADC fails in public relations and communication as we have to find out about launches in Kodiak from out-of-state news sources.

Oct 6, 2009(From Aviation Week)

Cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado have nearly finished integrating the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)-sponsored FalconSAT-5 microsatellite, which soon will undergo system testing before being shipped to Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska for launch next year.

The $11 million FalconSAT-5 will fly as a secondary payload on the Space Test Program's (STP) S26 mission, which is slated to launch on May 28, 2010, on a Minotaur IV modified ICBM.

FalconSAT-5 will perform space weather measurements with onboard sensors in collaboration with remote ground sites. On Sept. 25, the satellite's main payload - the Space Plasma Characterization Source (SPCS) - arrived at the Astronautics Laboratory. After fit checking, cadets provided updates on the satellite to STP officials during an S26 payload readiness review Sept. 29. Satellite system testing will take place in the coming months at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., and Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

Manufactured by Busek Inc. of Natick, Mass., under an AFRL Small Business Innovation Research contract, SPCS uses a 500-Watt Hall Effect thruster, propelled by one kilogram of xenon and ammonia cold gas to stimulate the space environment around the satellite and perform small orbital maneuvers. The Integrated Miniaturized Electrostatic Analyzer (iMESA) and Wafer Integrated Spectrometers (WISPERS) payloads measure effects from the thruster's rocket plume on the surrounding space weather environment.

This suite of experiments will measure the local ionosphere, stimulate the local space weather environment, measure the subsequent changes and evaluate ionospheric effects on radio frequency signals for communication impacts, according to an Air Force statement.

Rocket boosters to stop at Indian Island during transport for space program

2009-09-23T08:02:00.002-08:00

News from Peninsula Daily News
By Jeff Chew

INDIAN ISLAND -- Three rocket boosters that will be used in a 2010 launch from Kodiak Island will stop off at Naval Magazine Indian Island late this month.

The Navy base in Port Townsend Bay will assist the Air Force Space Command's Space Development and Test Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico in transporting the rocket boosters.

The three motors, which will use rocket fuel, will be shipped from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to Naval Magazine Indian Island, said Tonya Racasner, Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center media relations representative, based in El Segundo, Calif., who did not specify which day the motors are expected to arrive at the base.

The three rocket motors -- which range in weight from 107,000 pounds for the first stage motor to 17,500 pounds for the third stage motor -- will be transported to Indian Island over the road on commercial heavy haulers.

They will then be loaded at the Naval Magazine pier onto a commercial shipping barge with a deck of about 27,000 square feet for transportation to Kodiak Island, a trip that will take between eight and 14 days, depending upon the weather.

The rocket motors will be installed at the Kodiak Launch Complex starting in early 2010 for the launch planned for May 2010.

The rocket motors are retired Peacekeeper Intercontinental Ballistic Missile stages that will be used as the first three stages of a Minotaur IV space launch vehicle for the Department of Defense Space Test Program S26, Racasner said.

"The solid rocket motors will be stored and transported in containers specifically designed for motor transportation in accordance with Department of Transportation and Defense Transportation Regulations and will be under the supervision of the Air Force and the U.S. Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command," the Air Force said in a prepared statement.

Naval Magazine Indian Island "is involved because they are the only Northwestern port with the infrastructure and expertise to support such a large ordnance shipment," Racasner said.

No fuel will be transported with the rocket motors.

Space Test Program

The Department of Defense Space Test Program S26 will launch seven experimental satellites investigating the space environment, space effects on satellite components and satellite guidance and control.

"The U.S. Department of Defense Space Test Program has a 41-year history and is charged with providing access to space to the U.S. space community for scientific and experimental projects that demonstrate a potential military" use, Racasner said.

It will be the 26th small launch vehicle mission for the program.

The Minotaur family of space launch vehicles is built for the Space Development and Test Wing's Launch Test Squadron by Orbital Sciences Corporation, using a combination of commercial and retired Peacekeeper and Minuteman II ICBM hardware.

More information on the Minotaur IV can be found at the Orbital Sciences Corporations' Web site at tinyurl.com/orbitalminotaur.

Besides Naval Magazine Indian Island, several government and commercial operations are participating in the transport of the rocket motors, including the Air Force Ogden Air Logistics Center's 309th Missile Maintenance Wing and the Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.

Where's AADC?

2009-09-15T09:14:00.002-08:00

One wonders why AADC is not listed as exhibiting at this summit - if you really want to attract commercial launches, don't you want to take every opportunity to promote and publicize your facility? Or has the KLC truly become a strictly military-use site as was predicted by many Kodiak citizens as early as 1995?

The 2009 Governor's Aerospace Summit is coming to Spokane on October 6 and 7.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – Sep 11, 2009 – (SPOKANE, Wash.) - Make sure to register for the Governor's Aerospace Summit in Spokane, Washington, as registration will increase starting September 21, 2009. Visit www.greaterspokane.org for registration information or visit here to learn more.

Important dates for summit attendees:

Registration Increases September 21
Davenport Group Rate Expires September 15
Exhibitor Tables are Limited - Book By September 30
The Aerospace Summit is co-sponsored by The Aerospace Futures Alliance (AFA), Inland Northwest Aerospace Consortium (INWAC) and Greater Spokane Incorporated.

This year's summit event will include a reception and trade show event beginning at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, October 6. The official program will continue on Wednesday morning, starting at 8:00 AM, and will include keynote and general sessions, along with industry-specific sessions in the afternoon. The event will conclude at 3:30 PM on October 7.

Summit speakers:

Governor Christine Gregoire
Senator Lisa Brown
Senator Chris Marr
Mayor Mary Verner
Gen. Eugene Tattini, Ret. - Deputy Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Scott Hamilton - President and CEO, Leeham Co LLC
Addison Pemberton - President, Scanivalve
Aviation High School

Summit sponsors:

Apex Industries
Boeing
Hobart Machining
Snohomish County EDC

Registered exhibitors:

Absolute Aviation
Altek, Inc.
Apex Industries
Haskins Steel
Jet Seal
Rand North America
Samuelson and Associates
Triumph Composite Systems
Xpedx

Registration for the event is $125 before September 21, 2009. The price will increase to $150 until October 6. Registration at the door will be $200.

Companies interested in sponsorship opportunities may contact Linda Lanham at lindal@afa.wa.com, or via phone at 253.277.1844.

Companies interested in exhibitor opportunities may contact Robin Toth of Greater Spokane Incorporated at rtoth@greaterspokane.org or via phone at 509.321.3636. Space is limited.

To register for the event, please visit the events link at www.greaterspokane.org or register for the event here.

Discounted fares on Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air are provided by Alaska Airlines Groups and Meetings. More information is available on the website.

About Aerospace Futures Alliance
The Aerospace Futures Alliance of Washington (AFA) is one of the nation's leading aerospace industry associations and the premier aerospace association in Washington State. AFA is committed to making it easier for Washington State aerospace companies to do business in the state by working to:

Lower the regulatory and tax burden on aerospace companies
Lower the cost of doing business through transportation infrastructure improvement and reform of the health care system
Ensure that the state has a strong pool of highly-skilled, well-educated employees for the future.

The 650 aerospace companies in Washington employ more than 209,000 people and account for $36 billion in revenue - 15% of the gross domestic product of the state. AFA provides a strong voice for the aerospace industry throughout the state, working closely with a multitude of organizations including labor, educational institutions, airports, seaports and other partners.

For more information about the AFA, visit www.afa-wa.com or contact us at 253-277-1844.

About Inland Northwest Aerospace Consortium
The Inland Northwest Aerospace Consortium (INWAC) is an association of aerospace organizations located in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho, comprising an area from the Cascades to the Rockies. The INWAC group works to position aerospace as the region's premier industry, providing leadership, resources, networking opportunities and advocacy to grow aerospace companies. For more information about INWAC, please visit www.inwac.com

What's New for AADC?

2009-09-09T17:19:00.002-08:00

A recent Kodiak Daily Mirror article quoted AADC officials saying that two orbital launches were scheduled for 2010; nothing on their web site about these launches. Meanwhile, the area of Narrow Cape where my friend shot a nice buck last year is being paved as the new rocket motor storage building site is prepped. One more chunk of Narrow Cape to be fenced in and off-limits to hikers, berry-pickers, hunters, etc.

On another note, a long-time KRLIG member wrote us this email: "I was intrigued to see the supporter of the KLC who insisted on remaining anonymous; used to be it was the opposition who tried to be anonymous. Clearly, community sentiment has changed toward the KLC as Kodiak has realized that the feds and state have continually bailed AADC out from the beginning."

DoD SBIR/STTR: Missile Defense Agency's 5th Annual Industry Day

2009-06-27T17:39:00.001-08:00

Saturday, June 27, 2009
DoD SBIR/STTR: Missile Defense Agency's 5th Annual Industry Day

The Missile Defense Agency's 5th Annual Industry Day is being held August 11-12, 2009, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Long Beach, CA (200 South Pine Ave., Long Beach, CA 90802). The conference is expected to draw representatives from small and large businesses in the high technology R&D sector. Attendees will have the opportunity to sign up for one-on-one sessions with key MDA technical representatives and industry personnel as well as hear overview presentations from key MDA technology leaders.

By establishing this event, it is the goal for the MDA SBIR PMO to allow small businesses the opportunity to schedule one-on-one appointments with technical representatives where they can learn as much as they can about the technical aspects of the SBIR/STTR Program and the upcoming solicitations topics and research areas. A better informed small business community is more likely to submit stronger, more focused proposals and minimize duplication and mistakes - enhancing the SBIR/STTR process for MDA and the Small Business Community.

The Industry Day will focus on enhancing the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) process for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Small Business Community. Research Area Leads will give briefings on the following technology areas:

Interceptor Technology
Manufacturing, Producibility & Field Sustainability
Radar Technology
Space Technology
Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC)
Directed Energy
Modeling & Simulation
Innovative Concepts & Special Focus Projects*

*Represents SBIR only

This is an opportunity to interact directly with key agency and industry personnel. Direct communication between potential bidders and topic authors is not allowed after August 23, 2009 - the last day of the SBIR pre-solicitation period. After the solicitation opens on August 24, 2009, all questions regarding topics must be addressed through the online SBIR/STTR Interactive Topic Information System (SITIS). For more information, visit http://www.mdasbir.com. Registration is available at www.ndia.org/meetings/9160.

Spaceport America is launched: Officials mark beginning of construction

2009-06-20T13:08:00.005-08:00

Note that while this spaceport is being financed by the state, Virgin Galactic is investing some 250 million in spacecraft to use the facility. We're still waiting for that private business investment in the KLC - state and federal funding and still not able to cover operation costs with launch revenues (no launches = no revenues).
Note the comments near the end of the article made by Roberto Valdez - think of commercial fishing in Alaska and you'll see the parallels.
KLC continues to beg for more and more federal taxpayer funding because it is unable to attract any private, commercial interest or investment. The facility should never have been built until it could be proved that commercial launches would actually occur.

By Diana M. Alba / Las Cruces Sun-News
Posted: 06/20/2009 12:00:00 AM MDT

Conquistadores face a new frontier. Modern-day adventures broke ground Friday at Upham, N.M., for Spaceport America, the first commercial spaceport to take people into outer space. Roberto Valdez, of Espanola, leads a group dressed as conquistadores who came with Don Juan de Onate to the new frontier of New Mexico in 1598. (Norm Dettlaff / Sun-News)
Space ride
If you could afford it, would you take a ride into space? Read story
Yes, in a heartbeat.
Absolutely, to infinity and beyond.
No, I like to keep my feet on the ground.
No, because it will never be affordable for me.

UPHAM, N.M. -- Against the slate-blue backdrop of the San Andres Mountains, officials on Friday symbolically marked the start of construction on Spaceport America and launched a new era of adventure for mankind: commercial space travel.

Spaceport officials have said they expect the $200 million project to wrap up in 18 to 24 months, and an official with the space flight company Virgin Galactic said it could send the first tourists into space in two years, depending on how quickly technology develops.

Gov. Bill Richardson said the spaceport is possible because of investments on the part of the state and Virgin Galactic, which is putting about $250 million into creating the spacecraft that will be used.

"We took a risk, we gambled and we won," he said.

Some people expressed disappointment that a planned flyover by WhiteKnightTwo -- the carrier vehicle for Virgin Galactic's spaceship -- didn't take place. It was en route to New Mexico from its California base when pilots decided to land it in Phoenix because of a technical concern.

But spaceport officials announced that the plane would fly over the Las Cruces International Airport at 9:30 a.m. today. The public can attend.

Speakers said the project would be not only a platform to launch tourists into space, but also an avenue for developing new technologies and science that will benefit humanity.

Spaceport Authority Executive Director Steve Landeene said the possibilities include space-based telecommunications
Advertisement
and solar power.

"This is reality, and it will happen," he said. "The people who say it can't happen -- that's the wrong type of attitude."

The spaceport, situated southeast of Truth or Consequences, will feature a runway, terminal, hangars and supporting infrastructure.

The groundbreaking began with 10 members of the group Sociedad de la Entrada, which re-enacts events from New Mexican history, marching through the desert in Spanish conquistador costumes. After speeches by officials, a road-grader ceremonially cleared the first patch of dirt. Then Richardson scooped a miniature shovel of dirt and placed it in a model rocket, which was launched into the sky.

The people attending were enthusiastic and snapped photographs.

Jerry Johnson of Alamogordo said those photographs would be important someday, after the spaceport is established.

"If you got tape of what things looked like today, 10 years from now, people won't believe it looked like that," he said.

But support wasn't entirely unanimous.

Roberto Valdez of Española, a member of Sociedad de la Entrada, said he has doubts about the project, mostly because he believes other industries that have been established in New Mexico -- he cited the movie industry, the nuclear industry and the national laboratories -- have exploited the state's resources and brought little benefit to native residents.

"I remain skeptical about the spaceport," he said. "As the saying goes: 'Behind every spearhead, there's a shaft.' Behind every endeavor, somebody gets the short end of the stick."

Spaceport officials estimated about 460 people attended the groundbreaking. They were shuttled in from Truth or Consequences and Las Cruces in tour buses.

Diana M. Alba can be reached at dalba@lcsun-news.com; 575- 541-5443

By the numbers
# $200 million -- cost of building Spaceport America.
# 18 to 24 months -- expected length of time to construct the project.
# 10,000 feet -- length of the runway to be built at the spaceport.
Source: New Mexico Spaceport Authority

KLC Trailer Park Temporarily Relocated; Now Gone!

2009-06-20T10:02:00.005-08:00

Alaska State Troopers contacted the owners of the trailers parked on state land just beyond the mouth of the Pasagshak River early this week. As a result, the trailers were temporarily located at the entrance to Lake Rose Tead access; as of Thursday, June 18, they had been moved to an unknown location. No information as to why they were parked in the original location has been available. Our thanks to everyone who contacted AADC to protest their employees squatting on public land. These photos were taken on 6/16 of the temporary Trailer Court at the LRT access road. At least three ATVs and two dirt bikes were observed as part of the encampment.

"The Snow Warrior"

There Goes the Neighborhood - KLC Employees Create Illegal Trailer Park on State Land

2009-06-06T07:25:00.004-08:00

Kodiak Launch Complex employees have begun a trailer park just past the mouth of the Pasagshak River. They have illegally parked trailers on state land - formal complaints are being filed, but the state can be painfully slow in evicting squatters. If you don't want AADC turning Pasagshak and Narrow Cape into Trailer Trash City, please contact them and let them know their employees should remove their trailers immediately.
Anchorage Administrative Office
4300 B Street, Ste. 101
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 561-3338
Fax: (907) 561-3339
info@akaerospace.com

KLC Requests More Pork

2009-05-28T08:40:00.004-08:00

AADC wants more government handouts; they still cannot pay their own way.
As you read through this desperate plea for more corporate welfare, you'll see that AADC is trying to hold the State of Alaska hostage. "If we don't get this money, the Air Force won't want to launch here." (paraphrase)
Boo-hoo.....8-(
Well, if the Air Force wants to use the facility, why don't they PAY for the infrastructure and support they need? Why does Alaska have to bear their burden?
AADC claims that the money is need to provide economic benefits to Alaska communities - shall we come to depend on government funding of the KLC for our welfare? Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has rejected some federal stimulus funds, saying we shouldn't be beholden to the government. Is this really any different?
So, what will Kodiak get from all this? A vastly increased KLC footprint at Narrow Cape, further limiting recreational access and degrading the aesthetic value of the area. More unused structures rusting away in the marine environment, awaiting destruction when the Narrow Cape earthquake fault underlying the site slips. Some temporary boost to construction (which is actually booming right now as it is).
Pay your own way, AADC!

Kodiak Launch Complex Infrastructure FY2010 Request:
Reference No:
$17,500,000
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.
Funding: FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Total
Fed Rcpts $14,000,000 $14,000,000
Gen Fund $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Total: $17,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,500,000
State Match Required One-Time Project Phased - new Phased - underway On-Going
0% = Minimum State Match % Required Amendment Mental Health Bill
Operating & Maintenance Costs: Amount Staff
Project Development: 0 0
Ongoing Operating: 0 0
One-Time Startup: 0
Totals: 0 0
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 rocket motor 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 State of Alaska Capital Project Summary Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Final FY10 SB75 Capital Bill Reference No: 41789
5/20/09 1:37:01 PM Page 1
Kodiak Launch Complex Infrastructure FY2010 Request:
Reference No:
$17,500,000
41789
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
Final FY10 SB75 Capital Bill Reference No: 41789
5/20/09 1:37:01 PM Page 2

Recent Earthquake Activity Near Kodiak Island

2009-05-15T17:33:00.008-08:00

Multiple earthquakes in the Kodiak vicinity raise concerns about conditions at the Narrow Cape fault which underlies the Kodiak Launch Complex. The potential for a large magnitude earthquake resulting in damage at the KLC is increasing at this time.
For more detailed information on the fault:
http://saltonstall.blogspot.com/2009/02/alaska-aerospace-kodiak-rocket-launch.html


12:47 PM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	3.47 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska

12:03 PM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	3.05 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska
11:59 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	3.78 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska

11:23 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	4.51 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska

10:41 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	3.86 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska
10:38 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	3.62 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska
10:24 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	4.65 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska
10:15 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	2.74 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska

09:53 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	2.93 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska
09:38 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	4.25 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska








03:26 AM AKDT Friday May 15th, 2009	2.44 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska








03:57 PM AKDT Thursday May 14th, 2009	1.75 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska













11:08 AM AKDT Thursday May 14th, 2009	1.26 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska







08:05 AM AKDT Thursday May 14th, 2009	1.29 ML	in the Kodiak Island region of Alaska

Kodiak Launch Complex Already Outdated & Obsolete?

2009-05-09T10:38:00.003-08:00

Danger Room What’s Next in National Security

Top General: Missile Defense Is Dead, Long Live Missile Defense (Updated)

By Nathan Hodge
March 24, 2009 |

Ballistic missile defense as we know it is all but dead, one of the country’s top military just declared. But already, there are new anti-missile priorities taking shape.

General James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, relayed the message yesterday to the defense industry. "Ballistic missiles are about as passé as e-mail," he said to an audience of missile-defense contractors. "Nobody does it anymore. It’s just gone… no stupid person, enemy out there would be so silly as to come at us with a minimum-energy trajectory. Give me a break. Even the people we would call ‘Third World’ have gone beyond that."

The administration of President George W. Bush poured around $10 billion a year into ballistic missile defense; it focused particular effort on fielding a limited missile defense capability that would protect the United States from a lone missile lobbed by a rogue state (i.e., North Korea). It also expended serious political capital trying to seal a politically controversial deal to station missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe.

In theory, the European site was supposed to protect the United States and Europe from long-range ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East (although Iran has yet to acquire a missile that could reach the United States). Cartwright said missile defense funds would shift toward deterring more realistic threats. "The architecture associated with those terminal defense type capabilities, those area defense type capabilities that have the mobility and have the capability to be out there to address those threats are where we are going to start to put money," he said. "Because it is the most likely."

That’s good news for the developers of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad, a "hit-to-kill" air defense system that can knock down short- and medium-range missiles at greater ranges and higher altitudes than the Patriot system. But it’s not so great for defense contractors who are designing far-out systems to destroy enemy missiles in the vulnerable "boost" phase. As Noah noted earlier today, one major boost-phase program is already in the crosshairs: the laser-equipped Boeing 747 that is supposed to zap missiles out of the sky as they rise from the launch pad.

Observers are also wondering what this shift means for Boeing’s Ground Based Midcourse Defense, or GMD. The Bush administration activated GMD at two sites, one in Alaska and one in California; according to Reuters, Cartwright said the future of the system would depend on whether it could counter other threats. "The more utility, the more willing you’re going to be to put money in it," he said.

Interestingly, Gen. Bantz Craddock, the head of U.S. European Command, said in written testimony submitted today that the U.S. Navy was studying the feasibility of stationing a missile-defense-capable Aegis ship to defend the Eastern Mediterranean region. In his testimony, Craddock said the Navy was leading an "urgent effort" to develop a command-and-control architecture for an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ship operating in defense of countries in the Eastern Mediterranean.

At first glance, that sounds like a more realistic way to counter the Iran missile threat than deploying the long-range GMD system in Europe. The U.S. military has previously looked at the possibility of creating an "instant" ballistic-missile defense system by tying the land-based X-band radar developed for Thaad with sea-based radars and interceptors; Rick Lehner of the Missile Defense Agency told Danger Room a transportable X-band radar has been used in previous tests to provide cueing information to an Aegis ship which then used the data to perform a simulated launch and intercept.

UPDATE: The Obama administration is also picking up on a top complaint of the missile defense critics: namely, that missile defense testing isn’t real enough. Elaine Grossman of Global Security Newswire quotes Peter Verga, the acting deputy defense policy chief, as saying: "I think anything the test community can do to reassure people that the tests are, in fact, operationally realistic is very important."

PHOTO: U.S. Army

MDA Launch from Vandenburg AFB 05 May 2009

2009-05-07T09:24:00.003-08:00

Vandenberg Delta II Launch For Missile Defense Agency Successful

Thu, 07 May '09

A Delta II rocket managed by NASA's Launch Services Program lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA., Tuesday with a spacecraft for the United States Missile Defense Agency.

The spacecraft is called the Space Tracking and Surveillance System Advanced Technology Risk Reduction mission, or STSS-ATRR. Liftoff from NASA's Space Launch Complex 2 occurred at 1:24 p.m. PDT.The launch vehicle was a United Launch Alliance Delta II 7920-10c. Spacecraft separation occurred approximately one hour after liftoff.

"With confirmation of the payload's delivery into the correct orbit, the launch is a success," said Chuck Dovale, launch director for the NASA's Launch Services Program.

NASA also will manage the launch of another mission for the Missile Defense Agency aboard a Delta II rocket this summer from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

AADC 2008 Lobbying Expenses

2009-05-04T06:04:00.007-08:00

From Opensecrets.org

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: $50,000
Subtotal for Parent Alaska Aerospace Development Corp: $50,000

Industry	Total
Defense Aerospace	$50,000

Lobbying Expenses Reported by Subsidiary Alaska Aerospace Development Corp
Firms Hired	Total Reported by Filer	Reported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)
Birch, Horton et al		$10,000
Cohen Group		$40,000

*Each quarterly filing is treated as a separate report, and each may mention multiple clients.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

Kodiak Launch Complex Caught in Time Warp - Next on LOST?

2009-04-30T12:05:00.008-08:00

From the AADC FAQ page:

3. Q: When is your next launch date?

A:The next launch is scheduled for the fall of 2007.

Some sources suggest that the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation may be connected to the Dharma Initiative.

Science(?) Fiction from Sarah Palin: Launch Pad to Nowhere

2009-04-24T19:23:00.008-08:00

Sarah Palin repeats the "build it and they will come" false rhetoric we've heard from AADC since 1995. "Significant Growth?" - only if the 17.5 million in state and federal funds AADC has received this year continues for years to come. And the growth will not be number of launches or more business; just a larger white elephant marring the Narrow Cape landscape. Expand the infrastructure for less than one launch per year on average for the life of the facility.
KLC is NOT the "best equipped [launch facility] anywhere": it does not have the capacity to store more than one rocket at any one time. And, try getting your personnel to Kodiak when Mt. Redoubt erupts ash and all the flights are grounded; or the fog rolls in and flights from Anchorage can't get in for days at a time.
The only launch customer for the KLC has been the U.S. government with all but one launch being overtly military. Keep in mind that while Governor Palin doesn't want to accept federal stimulus money for education, she has requested increased pork barrel funding for the KLC. Our fiscal conservative wants to spend more of your tax dollars on a facility that cannot even support itself with launch revenues. It's a kind of "launch pad to nowhere" scenario.

Sarah Palin Report

A Conservative Outlook
Friday, April 24, 2009
Kodiak Launch Complex

Governor Sarah Palin visited the Kodiak Launch Complex Thursday April 23, 2009 located at Narrow Cape, AK on Kodiak Island. KLC is poised for significant growth as the vital role of the space-based systems becomes increasingly important to our nation. The launch facility is the newest and best equipped anywhere. AADC will provide support for future MDA target missions as well as two missions with the United States Air Force in 2009.

The "Fault" Lies Within Our Launch Complex

2009-03-02T10:12:00.004-09:00

Patrick Saltonstall illustrates the major shallow earthquake fault that runs directly through the Kodiak Launch Complex. The launch tower that was built at a cost of ten million dollars and used for only one launch stands almost directly on this fault. Hence the name commonly used by locals to refer to it: "Faulty Tower". Click on the title to go to his blog.

The Legislature Finally Says "No More Handouts, AADC"

2009-02-28T04:10:00.004-09:00

It would appear that the Alaska Legislature finally wants AADC to pay its own way, and to prove it can actually attract launch contracts before giving them any more handouts. Apparently, "build it and they will come" no longer convinces anyone. Of course, AADC said that for the initial construction of the KLC and hardly anybody showed up. And those who did (military launches) were probably there only because ex-Senator (now convicted felon) Ted Stevens pressured the Pentagon to pay for the KLC and launch there. The DoD has admitted that they had/have no need for the KLC.
AADC has admitted that launch revenues have not covered the cost of operating the facility. They've been living off state and federal welfare since 1995. And you thought bailouts were something new........

No stimulus for AADC despite Palin push
Article published on Friday, February 27th, 2009
By HARRY DODGE
Mirror Writer

It does not appear that the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) will benefit from state stimulus money as was anticipated, Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation President Dale Nash told the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly at a work session Thursday night.

It had been hoped that the KLC would get $35 million to fund planned expansion of the facility. In a Jan. 7 letter to Alaska’s congressional delegation, Gov. Sarah Palin named KLC among the state’s top five priorities for federal funding, calling it “important for the nation’s defense.”

“We are still hoping to get $7 million from the state,” Nash said.

Nash discussed the use of hydrazine at KLC. Hydrazine, a highly toxic compound, is a liquid propellant used primarily to power onboard thrusters of spacecraft. The fact that the fuel will be shipped on-island for an upcoming launch in September was a matter of concern for some citizens.

The KLC operations plan allows the storage of up to 10,000 pounds of hydrazine to be stored onsite, but Nash said the fuel is shipped to KLC for specific missions and is not stored long-term.

Hydrazine is not used in the launch process, Nash pointed out. This will not be hydrazine’s first appearance on the island. The fuel was used in the Kodiak Star launch, one of KLC’s earliest missions in 2001.

“Hydrazene is a highly toxic and volatile chemical” Pam Miller, director of the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, said in a telephone interview.
m
“The greatest concern is transportation in and out of Kodiak. I feel that AADC isn’t being forthcoming with the community in how this is being handled,” Miller said.

Nash outlined plans to add a third launch pad and rocket storage facility that would make KLC the nation’s first rapid launch facility. The idea would be to store multiple rockets and payloads, so that a launch could be accomplished within 24 hours after notification.

There have been a total of 14 launches from KLC, and three more are planned between September and March of 2010.

Old KRLIG web site

2009-02-17T16:03:00.004-09:00

Click on the title to view the old KRLIG website, last updated three years ago. Some relevant links at the bottom of the page are still active. Interestingly, we were saying back then that the only reason the KLC was ever built was due to former Senator (now convicted felon) Ted Stevens' backdoor pressure on the Pentagon; these charges have since been validated by the NY Times.

AADC Fails in Public Relations - No One Knows About the KLC!

2009-01-16T14:07:00.007-09:00

Apparently, no one knows about the Kodiak Launch Complex which is, supposedly, a "commercial spaceport". Note that the New Mexico facility has already had several commercial launches since 2007. How many commercial launches has the KLC had since its inception: zip, zero, nada, 0.

US gives green light for first commercial spaceport

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Federal Aviation Administration has given the green light for the world's first commercial spaceport, New Mexico authorities said Thursday.

The FAA granted Spaceport America a license for vertical and horizontal space launches following an environmental impact study, according to the New Mexico Space Authority (NMSA).

"These two governmental approvals are the next steps along the road to a fully operational commercial spaceport," said NMSA Executive Director Steven Landeene.

"We are on track to begin construction in the first quarter of 2009, and have our facility completed as quickly as possible."

The terminal and hangar facility for horizontal launches is planned for completion by late 2010.

NMSA hopes to sign a lease agreement later this month with Virgin Galactic, a branch of Virgin Atlantic owned by British airline magnate Richard Branson. The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger craft will be the main attraction at the site.

The system plans to take passengers approximately 100 kilometers (62 miles) into the sky. Virgin Galactic plans to welcome 500 passengers per year who will pay 200,000 dollars each for a suborbital flight lasting three to four minutes.

There have been several commercial launches from the site since April 2007, with more launches planned.

Spaceport America has also been working closely with aerospace firms Lockheed Martin, Rocket Racing Inc./Armadillo Aerospace, UP Aerospace, Microgravity Enterprises and Payload Specialties.

The Russian federal space agency currently offers the only orbital space tourism flights aboard the Soyuz spacecraft, which allows passengers to visit the International Space Station (ISS) for several days. The price for the trip recently increased from 20 million dollars to 35 million dollars.

AADC Asks for Another Huge Slice of PORK

2008-12-19T15:06:00.010-09:00

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

2008-12-13T07:36:00.010-09:00

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"

2008-12-11T14:26:00.004-09:00

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

2008-12-08T07:41:00.003-09:00

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

2008-12-07T17:51:00.000-09:00

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

2008-12-07T07:45:00.003-09:00

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

2008-12-06T07:55:00.000-09:00

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?

2008-12-05T15:35:00.006-09:00

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

2008-12-05T07:56:00.007-09:00

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)

2008-12-03T14:18:00.004-09:00

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!

2008-12-02T11:31:00.003-09:00

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

2008-12-02T11:30:00.001-09:00

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.

Rocket Motor Arrives in Kodiak Nov 7-8

2008-11-06T19:41:00.000-09:00

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.

Radar Unit for Upcoming MDA Test Involving KLC

2008-11-03T19:45:00.000-09:00

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.

Next KLC Launch

2008-10-30T19:19:00.000-08:00

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

Austerman & Lundquist on the KLC

2008-10-29T11:14:00.002-08:00

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.”

The Pentagon didn't want the Kodiak Launch Complex

2008-10-13T15:12:00.005-08:00

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/

Incontrovertible Proof that the KLC is, Indeed, SPACE PORK

2008-10-12T09:45:00.003-08:00

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

By ERIC LIPTON THE NEW YORK TIMES

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.

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

2008-09-08T16:36:00.000-08:00

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.

[ print ] [ close ]

Fossil Beach Surveillance

2008-09-08T14:37:00.002-08:00

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.

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

2008-08-30T17:14:00.002-08:00

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).

Wow! Missile Defense Uses Radar!

2008-08-02T16:14:00.003-08:00

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.

Another Easy "Success" for MDA

2008-06-16T18:55:00.004-08:00

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.

AADC LOBBYING EXPENSES

2008-06-05T13:09:00.000-08:00

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp

Year:

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

Industry	Total
Defense Aerospace	$30,000

Itemized Lobbying Expenses for Alaska Aerospace Development Corp
Firms Hired	Total Reported by Filer	Reported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)
	Less than $10,000	-
		$0

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

Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

2006-02-25T09:23:00.000-09:00

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

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

56.85% - Anti-Kodiak Launch Complex

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

43.12% - pro-KLC

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

More Unearned Pork for AADC

2005-11-29T08:51:00.000-09:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005-10-19T17:53:00.000-08:00

From www.nonukesnorth.net:

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

Cancellation Looms but Senator Ted Stevens fights it

Envision a wind farm at Fort Greely, dear neighbors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"White House May Reconsider Missile Defense Approach"

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

Cheaper than KLC, yet has launch contracts!

2005-09-15T10:39:00.000-08:00

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

2005-09-07T13:21:00.000-08:00

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

KLC Facts Left Out of the Open House Media Packet

2005-09-07T09:08:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005-04-28T11:18:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why DNR Should Not Allow AADC Expanded Authority

2005-03-04T12:58:00.000-09:00

Friday, March 04, 2005

Dear DNR:

Here are my comments concerning the draft decision to allow AADC permits to enforce “temporary” closures of additional lands surrounding the KLC. The decision should be changed to deny AADC’s request.

AADC has not demonstrated a compelling need for such closures. Although their letter to DNR dated January 27, 2004, stated that their contract with DOD required said closures, your decision states that there are no contractual requirements for the closures. Was the January statement untrue? So, then, who has decided that national security requires closures and for what specific, provable reasons? The decision that national security requires closures is arbitrary and without foundation.

The vague term “national security” is repeatedly referred to without any proof that any threat, actual or potential, exists at the Kodiak Launch Complex. AADC should be required to submit a risk assessment that would specifically list potential risks and their probability of occurrence. Without a comprehensive, documented study, any talk of risks has no concrete basis in fact. It is speculation at best and what is that speculation based on? The terrorist acts of 9/11 that occurred 4 years and 4000 miles away? Hardly an adequate basis for assuming there are terrorist risks at the KLC.

And the key word here is “assuming” – it is bad policy to base your decision on unproven assumptions.

I feel it is important to emphasize this point and repeat it: No evidence has been submitted that an actual threat exists at the KLC, nor has any evidence been presented as to any potential threats.

Furthermore, who decides if a launch is to be categorized as “classified”? It would appear that AADC can just state it without verification. Verification of a launch being “classified” in writing must be required from the relevant agencies (Dept of Defense, Missile Defense Agency). These agencies must justify in writing the reasons for the launch being “classified”.

AADC should be required to make public notice when they apply for a permit for road closures so, at the very least, the public can plan for said closures. The public should be allowed to comment on every application for closures.

The draft decision states that closures will be short and minimal. The December launch that was part of a failed missile defense system test belies that statement. The road was closed for at least 6 consecutive days for a minimum of 9 hours each day. For all intents and purposes, the area was closed for a week to all activities. When I wanted to hiking to Pasagshak Point, I was informed by Pat Ladner himself that if I was not below the switchbacks by noon, he would send security to remove me from the area. Thus, one would have to engage in activities early in the morning or very late at night and be sure to be out of the area by noon. This is tantamount to a total day closure. And this went on for a week.

Furthermore, if you check with the Coast Guard, you will find that at least one (and probably more) boats that were traveling from Kodiak to Old Harbor were denied passage through the “security zone”, even though they were traveling two hours BEFORE the closure was to begin. So, the closure was longer than the stated hours.

Clearly the closures last longer than the official, stated hours.

The decision states that since this request is not a federal action, no additional EIS is required. I continue to maintain that this request is an attempt by DOD/MDA to circumvent the NEPA process since they did not include these closures in the original EIS for missile defense activities at the KLC. You also state that there are not environmental issues. An EIS, however, also deals with social and economic impacts which you did not bother to even mention in your decision.

Based on the extensive closures of the December, 2004, launch, it is clear that future launches hold the potential for serious negative social and economic impacts on our community. Such closures will disrupt the many recreational activities mentioned in your decision as well as adversely impacting commercial activities such as fishing, guiding, hunting, etc in this area. An addendum to the land use of the EIS is clearly called for to assess these impacts.

Finally, the decision cites the overwhelming community opposition to these closures. This decision is a slap in the face to our community and its elected representatives who have made it clear that these closures are not justifiable or acceptable to the residents of Kodiak.

Based on the facts in this letter, I recommend the following:

DNR should deny AADC’s request for additional closure areas for launches.

If DNR does indeed grant the request, you should include the following requirements:

1. A comprehensive, documented risk assessment study.

2. Simultaneous public notice when applying for closure permits, allowing for public comment

3. Strict adherence to published closure times and no restrictions of any kind for activities before or after the published closure times.

4. Economic compensation for individuals and commercial entities whose activities are disrupted by closures.

5. An addendum to the EIS on social and economic impacts of this change in the land use policy for missile defense tests.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

University Lands Bill Should Be Scrapped

2005-03-04T12:34:00.000-09:00

UNIVERSITY LANDS BILL FAILS THE UNIVERSITY, HARMS ALASKANS AND COMMUNITIES

Overwhelming opposition from communities around the state makes it clear that HB 130, a bill proposed by Governor Murkowski transferring state lands to the University of Alaska, is not in the best interests of either the University or Alaska communities. It will lock up lands now used for public recreation and subsistence and provide little financial benefit to the university.

First, a little background: the lands to be conveyed to the university were selected through unpublicized negotiations between the university and the Department of Natural Resources during the past year. None of the communities in which these lands are located were notified or included in the selection process. During House Resources Committee hearings on the bill, communities and individuals expressed reservations concerning the lack of public process and outright opposition to the parcel selections.

A particularly egregious example of circumventing public process is the Narrow Cape parcel in Kodiak (erroneously labeled “Kodiak Rocket Range” in the bill). While the university and DNR were negotiating the inclusion of this parcel in the university land grant list, DNR was creating a comprehensive land use plan for state land on Kodiak Island. At no time during the 18 month public process did DNR inform the community that the university was selecting state lands included in the land use plan. The Narrow Cape parcel was of such importance to the community that a special public meeting was held in Kodiak to allow residents to hear DNR clarifications of plans for the area as well as present testimony on the parcel. Local citizens overwhelmingly emphasized the importance of keeping unrestricted access to this area for public recreation, commercial tourism operations, and subsistence activities.

This parcel is currently leased by the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation for the Kodiak Launch Complex. A public road running through the KLC has allowed historic access to some of the best recreational and subsistence lands on our road system since the road was constructed in the 1940’s. In the past year, AADC has attempted to expand their management authority by 14,000 acres and restrict access to Narrow Cape, ostensibly for “security reasons” during Missile Defense test launches. Local residents and members of our borough government have vigorously opposed these restrictions. The current fear is that if the land is transferred to the university, it could be sold to AADC, allowing them, as landowner, to restrict access. With University of Alaska President, Mark Hamilton, as the Chairman of the AADC Board of Directors, there is cause for even greater concern. If the university decides to hang on to the land, they too as a private landowner could restrict access when they choose to develop it.

Other communities, who, like Kodiak, have limited road systems, fear the loss of public use of state lands in or near their communities. Once these lands leave public ownership, they can be “locked up” by private landowners, restricting or even prohibiting what has been long-time traditional and historical use of these public areas.

Overall, the bill provides minimal financial benefit, discourages serious financial support, doesn’t maximize land value, and gives the University a bad name.

Added to these concerns is the fact that Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate, S.293, to grant the university 250,000 acres of federal land with an additional selection of 250,000 acres if Alaska HB 130/SB 96 passes. Between the federal and state bills, three quarters of a million acres of public land would be in danger of being locked up for private development without public input. After DNR’s and the university’s behavior in Kodiak, I can’t see Alaska communities coming out ahead with these bills.

HB 130 is a bad bill and amendments and tinkering won’t fix it. It should die in committee. Governor Murkowski, DNR, and UA need to start over with a fully public process for determining lands to be chosen for conveyance

SPACE PORK KODIAK: Kodiak Launch Complex / Alaska Aerospace Corporation

Kodiak Launch Complex only launch in 2011 (no further launches scheduled until 2013) TacSat IV

Restarting the "Tiime Since Last Launch" timer

Kodiak Launch Complex One and Only Launch for 2011 (Minotaur-IV+)

Funding shuffle hides money going to Launch Complex (by Carolyn Heitman)

Friday, 22 April 2011: KLC Launch Delayed by California Mishap

12 April 2011: No Bailout for Alaska Aerospace in 2011 Alaska State Budget?

Op-ed Compass Piece on Alaska Aerospace Corporation & Kodiak Launch Complex Published Online in Anchorage Daily News

Taurus XL Failure Investigation Could Delay TacSat-4 Launch at Kodiak Launch Complex

The Little Launch Complex That Couldn't: Kodiak Launch Complex and Alaska Aerospace

Kodiak Launch Complex Begs For Bailout:: Ten Million Dollars!!

NASA burdened by rising launch costs and delays

KLC Minotaur IV Launch = Enormous Waste of Money

Orbital Minotaur IV launches with multiple satellites

Alaska Aerospace Once Again Begs Alaska for Handouts

Inside next week’s launch from Narrow Cape

NASA to Hold Media Telecon to Discuss Upcoming Satellite Missions

UPDATE: Kodiak Launch Complex Pork Requests

Kodiak Launch Complex For Sale??

UPDATE: Minotaur IV launch delayed again

UPDATE: Rocketeer Follies

Secret Sandia settlement taps taxpayers

Larry Barker Investigates

AAC application for marine mammal take

Kodiak Launch Complex to Close?

We Told You So, Part Deux: Kodiak Launch Complex Loses Missile Defense

We Told You So: Kodiak Launch Complex Bailed Out Again

A Pathetic Plea for Business for Space Pork Kodiak

KLC: ONE YEAR LAUNCH-FREE!

Big Anniversary Coming Up!!

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation Becomes “Alaska Aerospace Corporation”

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation Board Of Directors Meeting

Ball Aerospace Completes STPSat-2 Satellite Pre-Shipment Review

Space Weather Microsat Eyes 2010 Launch

Rocket boosters to stop at Indian Island during transport for space program

Where's AADC?

What's New for AADC?

DoD SBIR/STTR: Missile Defense Agency's 5th Annual Industry Day

Spaceport America is launched: Officials mark beginning of construction

KLC Trailer Park Temporarily Relocated; Now Gone!

There Goes the Neighborhood - KLC Employees Create Illegal Trailer Park on State Land

KLC Requests More Pork

Recent Earthquake Activity Near Kodiak Island

Kodiak Launch Complex Already Outdated & Obsolete?

Top General: Missile Defense Is Dead, Long Live Missile Defense (Updated)

MDA Launch from Vandenburg AFB 05 May 2009

Vandenberg Delta II Launch For Missile Defense Agency Successful

AADC 2008 Lobbying Expenses

From Opensecrets.org

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp

Kodiak Launch Complex Caught in Time Warp - Next on LOST?

Science(?) Fiction from Sarah Palin: Launch Pad to Nowhere

The "Fault" Lies Within Our Launch Complex

The Legislature Finally Says "No More Handouts, AADC"

Old KRLIG web site

AADC Fails in Public Relations - No One Knows About the KLC!

AADC Asks for Another Huge Slice of PORK

Kodiak Rejects Missile Defense - Overwhelmingly

More Alternative Views of the Missile "Test"

Additional Perspectives on "Successful"(?) Missile Test

Another Perspective on the Missile Test

Photos of Recent Missile Launch

Missile Test Unrealistic

How Do We Define Success?

It Really Is Space Pork Kodiak

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

We Saw the Rocket! Security is Tight!

Even More of Your Tax Dollars Being Wasted

Rocket Motor Arrives in Kodiak Nov 7-8

Radar Unit for Upcoming MDA Test Involving KLC

Next KLC Launch

Austerman & Lundquist on the KLC

The Pentagon didn't want the Kodiak Launch Complex

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

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

Fossil Beach Surveillance

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

Military News