14 April 2015: Alaska Aerospace Corporation Changes Name of Kodiak Launch Complex to "Pacific Spaceport Complex"

Photo of U.S. Army rocket exploding just a few seconds after lift-off at the "Pacific Spaceport Complex"
Even though the KLC, located on Narrow Cape, Kodiak, Alaska, is actually not anywhere near the Pacific Ocean, AAC is changing the name of the rarely used facility to "Pacific Spaceport Complex".  This change is simply a PR ploy to disguise the fact that the last rocket launched from the KLC exploded a few seconds after lift-off. 

12 April 2015: Pacific Spaceport Complex Puts Plastic Fence Back Up Rather Than Remove It From Beach

Good (?) news: AK Aerospace re-erected the plastic fencing on the beach near the Kodiak Launch Complex - it seems pointless since AAC stated that all the hazardous material has been cleaned up and you can just walk around the end of the fence anyway. All that needless orange plastic fencing along the highway is unsightly and restricting public access.Here are photos and video KRLIG shot on Sunday.
https://youtu.be/Z4KNMC9hi1M

05 April 2015: Alaska Aerospace Trashes Ocean Beaches at Narrow Cape

According to an article published in The Alaska Dispatch on April 2, 2015, "Alaska Aerospace Corp. officials say the cleanup of hazardous materials from a rocket explosion last year has been completed at the Kodiak Launch Complex."
Unfortunately, their containment fences have not been removed and are trashing the ocean beaches at Narrow Cape with a huge amount of plastic debris.  Since no launches are currently scheduled, perhaps KLC employees could remove this unsightly, dangerous plastic debris before any more of it is washed into the ocean and causes marine mammal, fish, and bird fatalities. 

28 September 2014: Kodiak Resident Comments on Launch Pad 3 Draft Environmental Assessment

September 28^th, 2014

To: Ms. Stacey Zee – FAA, c/o ICF International, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031

Dear Ms. Zee,

Comments on the Kodiak Launch Complex Launch Pad 3 Draft Environmental Assessment.

I am completely opposed to any further development of the Kodiak Launch Complex at Narrow Cape. Public access to public land, public safety, cumulative environmental impacts, the past negligence of due diligence by the AK Aerospace Corporation, natural resource degradation and contamination, unjustified cost to the state, lack of clear vision or business plan, questionable economic sustainability, and impacts on rare plant species in the area are among my many concerns.

Kodiak has been my home since 1980 and I have been actively interested in the details of this facility since the very beginning when there was a public advisory committee. That committee was disbanded very quickly after members of the public, including myself, raised concerns and questions that former CEO, Pat Ladner, did not want to answer. Rather than be transparent with the intended purpose of military launches, he fed the public with promises of commercial satellite launches and bringing our little fishing village into the 21^st Century with high tech jobs and reeducation for unemployed fisherman.

We were also told that public access would be guaranteed, and there would never be more volatile and toxic liquid rocket fuels or fissionable nuclear materials used.

From the start, the AAC (formerly the AADC) has lacked any real long- term business plan. All they have ever had for a business plan is, “Build it and they will come.” Even our state representative, Rep Alan Austerman, who was also an AAC board member, was quoted in the Kodiak Daily Mirror recently saying that the KLC has no business plan. There have only been 17 launches since 1998 and 15 of those successful. There has been so little business and generated revenue to sustain their operations, the state has had kick in millions of dollars annually to keep it open. Unlike General Motors, the KLC has never been a viable business to justify government subsidy. With a dwindling state budget, I just can’t see the justification for more corporate bail out for Space Pork Kodiak.

My husband and I live in Kodiak and also live part of the time at Pasagshak that is within the circles of impact in your EA document. We are very familiar with the area and natural resources surrounding the KLC as that has been our backyard playground and grocery store since the early 1980’s. We live a subsistence lifestyle and that is where we get our fish, deer and berries for the freezer. As most Pasagshak residents, we collect rainwater for drinking water off our rooftop as wells are brackish. We are concerned about perchlorate and other contamination of drinking water, berries, fish and the deer that graze on the grass on Narrow Cape.

The KLC was built on some of the only public land along our road system and perhaps the choicest piece. Most roadside property is privately owned by Native Corporations with limitations on public access. It was a very poor choice for the location of the KLC as it also happens to be one of the most beautiful and popular recreational destinations.  It was a very impractical choice as it is at the extreme opposite end of a narrow, winding road for safely, efficiently, and the all-season transporting of rockets and related materials. What were they thinking?

The well documented, geologic instability and activity of the area with major, shallow earthquake faults running through Narrow Cape should be enough to nullify the entire plan of increasing the infrastructure of the KLC and especially, introducing a liquid fueling facility. Had a proper EIS been done initially before the KLC was built, this data alone would have shown what an irresponsible location Narrow Cape is for such a facility!

Some of the recreational activities that have been and will be impacted include: hiking, fishing, birding, photography, whale watching, beach combing, surfing, botanizing, camping, ice skating in winter on backwater lagoons, wildlife watching, tide pooling, fossil collecting, and general nature appreciation.

Our late senator Ted Stevens managed to get the KLC built with federal money and without having to jump through the hoops of a thorough EIS that it deserved, thanks to a rider he secretly attached to a Sunset Transportation bill.  He and the military promoters knew that area had far too many environmental issues and would probably never have been built had it gone through the customary process. So, there is really very little reliable baseline data on that area and its resources since all of the studies were done quickly after the fact with money from the military by hand picked government contractors that just went through the motions.

Since the rocket accident on August 25^th, the area has been completely cut off to the public and we have been told next to nothing about the impacts, contamination issues, clean up efforts or when it will reopen. Solid rocket fuel contains perchlorates, normally discharged in rocket exhaust, but since the fuel blew up, it was scattered all over the area. Perchlorate contamination in the environment has been extensively studied as it has effects on human health. Among the health impacts, perchlorate has been linked to its negative influence on the thyroid and can block hormone production in people and wildlife.  Exposure to perchlorates has also been linked to various cancers. And this, among other contaminants, is what has been and will be added to the environment of this public recreational area in the future.

How can you even begin to evaluate the cumulative impacts of a third launch pad and the accuracy of your environmental data before knowing the compounded levels of contamination that resulted from previous launches, the August 25^th accident and without reliable baseline data?

The location of proposed Launch Pad 3 is located on a ridge on the south side of the public road leading down to Fossil Beach. Presently, all of the KLC structures are on the north side. If built, this would extend the footprint and area of impact as well as straddle the public road.  That would give the KLC and AAC even more reason to block it off and maintain complete control over the area. This is unacceptable!

If there is to be more construction, it should be confined to the north side of the road so that public access is guaranteed to Fossil Beach and Narrow Cape. Why spread out the impacts more than necessary?  I have read the geologic justification for the preferred location but do not think others on the north side were adequately evaluated or considered, especially in respect to the public access issue.

At present, we can’t even access the beautiful long beaches to the north of the KLC.

And what about the damaged facility? Who will pay for the repairs and mitigation?

As a real, viable alternative for the EIS, why not consider dismantling the entire KLC?

How can the construction costs of yet another launch pad be justified with so few launches in the past, no contracts on the horizon, and in the aftermath of the accident, the rising cleanup costs? And, at the expense of such valuable public land!

In closing, the best option for the KLC is to dismantle it, not to expand it.

28 September 2014: Rocket Explosion and Damage Images: Pacific Spaceport Complex

Photos by Derek Clarkston

27 September 2014: Space Pork Kodiak buttons coming soon

Coming soon:  Space Pork Kodiak buttons.

Finally Legislators Wake Up to the Waste of Money That is the Kodiak Launch Complex

http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/under-review-funding-at-risk-for-kodiak-missile-launch-pad/28161520

Juneau Empire Op-ed Piece Says It All - Why It Is Time to Close the Kodiak Launch Complex

Empire Editorial: Waking up from Alaska's aerospace dream

Posted: August 29, 2014 - 12:05am

When your head is in the clouds, it’s easy to lose track of your feet.
On Monday, the 17th rocket since 1998 lifted off from the state-owned Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island. Four seconds after leaving the launchpad, the rocket exploded.
The blast damaged the complex — how extensively we do not yet know — and it may be a sign that it’s time to give up on the dream of an Alaskan aerospace industry.
Rather than use insurance payouts to rebuild the complex, Alaska Aerospace should consider using that money to demolish it.
When it was envisioned in the 1990s, the Kodiak Launch Complex was to be the centerpiece of a new branch to Alaska’s economy. Built with federal grant money secured by Sen. Ted Stevens, the launch complex would welcome rockets and satellites bound for polar orbits.
The companies that launch satellites need contractors, and they would turn to Alaskans, much as Alaska’s oil industry is served by a family tree of oilfield service companies.
Unfortunately, Alaska’s aerospace dream stubbed its toe on the doorjamb of reality.
Kodiak Launch Complex hasn’t been able to compete with launches from Vandenberg in California, and private companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic haven’t shown much interest in launches from Alaska.
The problem has to do with the market.
The Kodiak launchpad can only fly small rockets, and it’s best suited for delivering satellites to polar orbits, ones that go north to south. Equatorial orbits, which run west to east, are more popular among commercial companies. That limits Kodiak to the military market and the market for polar science satellites.
A contract with the Missile Defense Agency was lucrative for Alaska Aerospace and the Kodiak Launch Complex, but that contract ended years ago and federal budget cuts mean little is available to replace it.
Three years ago, Alaska Aerospace (the state-owned corporation that operates Kodiak Launch Complex) began asking the Alaska Legislature for cash to make ends meet. This year, the corporation received $6 million in operating expenses and $2.4 million for capital costs.
We like the idea of an Alaskan aerospace industry, and we like Alaska Aerospace. It’s nice to dream about the Last Frontier becoming the gateway to the Final Frontier. Unfortunately, the market hasn’t matched our dreams.
After this week’s failure, no more launches are on Kodiak’s calendar.
Alaska Aerospace isn’t a failure of imagination. It’s not a failure of hard work or drive. It’s not the Delta Barley Project or the Alaska Seafood International plant. If the state gave up on Alaska Aerospace today, it would walk away having brought millions of dollars in economic development to Anchorage and Kodiak.
Dreams are wonderful, but you always have to wake up.
• Empire editorials are written by the Juneau Empire’s editorial board. Members include Publisher Rustan Burton, rustan.burton@juneauempire.com; Director of Audience Abby Lowell, abby.lowell@juneauempire.com; Managing Editor Charles L. Westmoreland, charles.westmoreland@juneauempire.com; and Asst. Editor James Brooks, james.k.brooks@juneauempire.com.

25 Aug 2014: Rocket Explodes at Kodiak Launch Complex - Launch Fails

Jay Barrett/KMXT
The Narrow Cape area beyond the Kodiak Launch Complex will remain closed to the public until further notice after this morning’s rocket explosion, according to an announcement from the Alaska Aerospace Corporation.
Pentagon spokeswoman Maureen Schumann said the U.S. Army rocket self-destructed just four seconds into its flight, at about 12:25 this (Monday) morning.
“Shortly after 4 a.m. EDT, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, as part of the Defense Department’s Conventional Prompt Global Strike technology development program, conducted a flight test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska,” she said. “Due to an anomaly, the test was terminated near the launch pad shortly after lift-off to ensure public safety. There were no injuries to any personnel. Program officials are conducting an extensive investigation to determine the cause of the flight anomaly.”
It was the first launch at the KLC in three years.  No future launches have been announced at this time.
Alaska Aerospace CEO Craig Campbell said he couldn’t verify where debris from the rocket came down, but Schumann said it was her understanding that the debris is limited to KLC property and did not fall into the water. The three-stage solid-fuel rocket is based on refurbished Polaris intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Campbell said it did not appear, from a preliminary estimate, that there was any extensive damage to the Kodiak Launch Complex, but said AAC and Department of Defense personnel will be doing damage assessments all day.
Kodiak resident Stacy Studebaker, who owns a home in nearby Pasagshak, has long been a critic of the Kodiak Launch Complex. She said in an e-mail to KMXT that she wanted to know what kind of hazards any un-burnt rocket fuel posed and who will be conducting the clean up. Two popular recreation areas are adjacent to the KLC, Fossil Beach, which remains off-limits, and Surfer Beach.
In the nosecone of the rocket was the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which is a rocket-launched glider capable of flying at over 3,500 mph, or Mach 5. According to the Army’s description, the small craft is designed to be lofted nearly into space before separation and then glide through the atmosphere to its target at hypersonic speeds. If developed, it is expected to be able to hit any target on earth within an hour or less with conventional, non-nuclear explosives.
This was to be the second test of the glider. Its target was the Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific. The first was successfully launched from Hawaii.
Scott Wight, a Kodiak photographer, was watching the launch from Cape Greville in Chiniak, about a dozen miles from the launch site. He said even at that distance the explosion was very loud. Another photographer at Cape Greville said the launch looked out of control and that she wasn’t surprised to find out it self-destructed. She said the resulting fire burned brightly for a short while.
The Kodiak Launch Complex is about 25-miles from the city of Kodiak.

Alaska Legislature Funding Kodiak Launch Complex is a Waste of Money

Dear Legislator:

      This message is written on behalf of the Kodiak Rocket Launch Information Group to explain why it is time to stop pouring money into the black hole that is the Kodiak Launch Complex.  KRLIG was formed in 1995 as an ad hoc group of Kodiak residents who were frustrated with Alaska Aerospace's lack of information and refusal to answer questions about the, at that time, proposed KLC.   As we corresponded with scientists, business people, and others around the country connected to the aerospace industry, our extensive research made it apparent that a rocket launching facility in Kodiak would NEVER pay for itself - a fact that has proven to be true.  It was at this point (1996 or 97) that more and more Kodiak residents opposed what came to be known locally as  "Space Pork Kodiak". A few years ago, an AAC official admitted to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly that launch revenues had never covered the costs of keeping the facility open. 

     Some legislators have used the term "federally funded asset" in relation to the KLC; this phrase is somewhat misleading.  A more accurate term would be, "Ted Stevens funded asset".  When AAC went to AIDEA for a construction loan in the '90s, they were told not to come back until they could prove they would have the business to pay it back.  This never happened because they could not show they would have sufficient launches to pay back a loan and, more importantly, Senator Ted Stevens (at that time on the Senate Appropriations Committee) pushed through unwanted funding to USAF/DoD for initial construction - 40 million dollars, as I recall.  
      Here is a link to a story that explains what happened:  http://kodiaklaunchcomplex.blogspot.com/2008/12/klc-wasnt-wanted-by-military.html      This story appeared in  the Kodiak Daily Mirror in 2008. 
      Here is an article from the NY Times from about the same time documenting the USAF opposition to funding the KLC:  http://kodiaklaunchcomplex.blogspot.com/2008/10/incontrovertible-proof-that-klc-is.html

     Since 1998, AAC has been entirely dependent on state and federal funds just to keep the KLC open.  I am sure that you will hear from them this year that "several companies are interested in launches and contracts are imminent".  They have repeated that mantra for at least fifteen years with few results.  They will tout their "partnerships" as proof they are major players in the launch industry.  Well, without actual launch contracts they are not what they pretend to be.
       As long as Ted Stevens was in the Senate, the federal funds flowed; once he was out, it wasn't long until the Missile Defense Agency canceled the contract that essentially paid the costs of the KLC just to keep it open in case they wanted to launch a target missile.

    You may also hear claims along the "build it and they will come" line......another ploy AAC has used for years to continue to build more infrastructure requiring more money for maintenance, yet not really acquiring launch contracts. Keep in mind that every launch from the KLC has been paid for by federal government agencies - most have been military-funded launches.  Not one private entity has ever paid to launch a rocket in Kodiak.

    The last launch was September 26, 2011, and as of February 9, 2014,  there are no launches listed for 2014 on their website.  We don't know many businesses that can or should survive when, in almost three years,  they don't perform the service for which they were created.  Funding of the KLC is simply corporate welfare.

    The KLC was built on false premises, a non-existent (or fantasy) business plan, and now just sucks state funding for high salaries for its corporate officers (who do not reside in Kodiak) and maintenance for an ocean side facility that is quickly rusting away.  AAC will claim that they are bringing income and jobs to Kodiak.  This simply not true except when there is construction going on which provides short-term benefits although often the workers are from off-island or even out of state.

     Finally, it is my understanding that AAC has been paying a monthly stipend of $15,000 to the owner of the Narrow Cape Lodge which is used for lodging launch-related personnel;  it has been empty for the nearly three years since the last launch at the KLC.  We have learned that a legislator is trying to get state funds for AAC to purchase the "Space Hotel", which would mean even higher costs for them to maintain the KLC.  This purchase would be a waste of our dwindling state funds.

    Alaska Legislators, thank you for your attention to this issue.  It really is time to stop wasting money on this state boondoggle and close it down.   We have better and more productive uses for state money than the "Launch Pad to Nowhere". 

 We urge you to take action to stop this unrecoverable loss from our dwindling state coffers.  We look forward to your reply and thank you for your service to our state.

8 Nov 2013: Alaska Aerospace Response to Kodiak Residents' Comments on Proposed Pasagshak Barge Dock

The barge landing proposed by Alaska Aerospace is for medium-sized rockets; AAC has no contracts or firm commitments to launch any such rockets at this time.  As you read this letter, note that in point #5 Mr. Greby makes reference to the "true community"; apparently Kodiak residents who took the time to write and submit comments are not to be considered the "true community".  A PDF file of all comments is available by emailing kodiakrocketlaunch@gmail.com
Apologies for the formatting - it appears to be fine in the draft page, but when published, strange line breaks appeared.
 

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Greby [mailto:mark.greby@akaerospace.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:28 AM

To: Laura Gurley; Roberta K POA Budnik

Cc: John Cramer; Jeffrey Roberts; John Zbitnoff

Subject: Public Meeting on Pasagshak Barge Landing

Dear Laura and Roberta,

Alaska Aerospace Corporation will be happy to host a public forum session about our Barge

Landing permitting. Our Public Affairs officer, John Cramer, is out of pocket through next

week, so I'd like to postpone specific scheduling and planning until after he returns to the

office. Our target timeline would be the latter part of October to ensure we have done our

research on the questions already received and allow time for arranging the venue. We truly

want to be open and fair to the entire Kodiak community, and never be seen as "rushing to

judgment" or avoiding contact.

Some thoughts:

1. We do want a Corps of Engineer rep at the meeting so it is seen by all as open and fair.

2. We do want our Public Affairs Officer (VP, Chief of Admin) to work with the CoE about

timing and format of the session. We don't do these often, and would like to benefit from

their (your? <grin>) expertise.

3. The great majority of the comments received seemed to be a very vocal group of folks from

Pasagshak who do not want a boat landing on public property because someone other than them

may actually use it. We would like to discuss appropriate meeting formats to ensure that

those folks get heard, but not allow the public forum to be hijacked by a few folks. The AK

and Kodiak communities can be very entertainingly vocal.

1

4. We think the public forum should be structured to provide the design, clarify any factual

misunderstandings, and collect comments. We do not believe that this is the correct forum

for a debate or rant by either sides about relative merit.

5. I know the CoE has dealt with groups whose voice and presence is disproportionate to the

true community, and we'd like to discuss how they measure and evaluate that input.

I'm on the road today, and I'll give Laura a call on Friday to follow up. Thanks for the

help so far!

Mark Greby

Sr VP & COO

Alaska Aerospace Corporation

907-343-9627

mark.greby@akaerospace.com

Kodiak Launch Complex expansion faces delay

JAMES BROOKS, Kodiak Daily Mirror

KODIAK (AP) — Alaska Aerospace Corporation's plans for a new launch pad have been delayed, not canceled.
In a four-hour board meeting Thursday at the Kodiak Launch Complex, CEO Craig Campbell confirmed that Lockheed-Martin's delays in finding customers for a new, larger Kodiak-launched rocket means at least a one-year delay in construction of Launch Pad 3.
"Now we're projecting into the 2015 period for the launch of the Athena III," Campbell said.
That timeline means construction will not begin until next summer at the earliest.
Work isn't standing still on the project that has been hailed as the future of the Narrow Cape complex. Campbell told board members he's keeping the ball moving on the environmental assessment that must take place before the launch pad can be built. "We expect that to roll forward in the next couple months, then go out to a public comment period," he said.
During the last session of the Alaska Legislature, Gov. Sean Parnell pledged $25 million in state support for the $125 million estimated cost of the launch pad. Financial "gates" are built in to that amount, ensuring Alaska Aerospace cannot move forward with construction and design until a contract is in hand and private financing in place.
Campbell said he has added restrictions of his own and will spend no more than $1 million until Lockheed commits to a launch date and signs a contract.
That amount takes the project to about 65 percent of design, but not engineering work, Campbell said.
The corporation stopped deliberately short of detailed engineering in an attempt to accommodate Orbital Sciences, another space company that has expressed an interest in launching from Kodiak.
Orbital's Antares rocket is designed differently than Lockheed's Athena III, and the new launch pad would need extra equipment to serve both rockets. Orbital is considering both Kodiak and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California as its West Coast launch site for the Antares, but it is not expected to decide between the two until early next year, after it launches its first Antares from a spaceport in Virginia.
"I don't want to get into an engineering and design concept for a solid-based rocket only to find out Orbital is coming here with a liquid-based rocket," Campbell said.
While the delay may pay off for Kodiak if another customer is willing to spend millions for permission to launch rockets from Alaska, the slow pace of development could continue if Congress drags its feet on the federal budget.
The vast majority of America's space projects are at least partially funded by the federal government, and Congress' inability to pass a new defense budget means multibillion-dollar contractors like Lockheed and Orbital don't know how much they can sell. That, in turn, means those companies don't know how many rockets they need to launch from places like Kodiak.
In addition, said Alaska Aerospace chief operating officer Mark Greby, companies like Orbital and Lockheed are awaiting the results of November's presidential election. President Barack Obama and Republican hopeful Mitt Romney have similar space policies, but a few percent difference in funding represents hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, Greby said. "In all honesty, they're all stalling to see which way the climate is going."
Until that weather forecast changes, Launch Pad 3 looks to be stuck in the cold.
___
Information from: Kodiak (Alaska) Daily Mirror, http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com

This article appears in the October Issue 1 2012 issue of Alaska Journal of Commerce

Read more: http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/October-Issue-1-2012/Kodiak-Launch-Complex-expansion-faces-delay/#ixzz2C8OCyBkr

Alaska Aerospace lays off 5 Kodiak-based workers

August 21, 2012

AP Staff Writer

The Associated Press

KODIAK, Alaska (AP) — The Alaska Aerospace Corp. has laid off five workers, or 20 percent of its Kodiak workforce, after a launch was delayed a year to 2014.
Interim CEO Craig Campbell tells the Kodiak Daily Mirror (http://is.gd/9wH8uH) that the corporation also must stay within its $8 million budget set by the Alaska Legislature.
The layoffs included an engineer, a safety officer, two technicians and a scheduler, all based at the Kodiak launch complex.
The layoffs do not alter the corporation's plans to expand for use by larger rockets. Once those launches are scheduled, Campbell anticipates refilling the positions.
___
Information from: Kodiak (Alaska) Daily Mirror, http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com

State of Alaska Will End Up Paying Entire 125 Million Dollar Bill for Launch Pad

There have been various news releases recently regarding the Alaska Aerospace Corporation and Kodiak Launch Complex funding for Launch Pad 3 construction. Gov. Parnell recently approved $25 million on top of the $8 million inserted into the state’s operating budget for the AAC for the remainder of 2012 ($33 million total) and the governor and AAC would like the public to believe Lockheed Martin will finance $100 million out of the $125 million needed for Launch Pad 3 and future KLC infrastructure.

However, the State of Alaska Capital Project Summary Fiscal Year 2012 Supplemental (March 8, 2012) proposed budget list for FY13 and FY14 shows the state’s proposed designated general funding of $100 million to the AAC “to complete the facility.” While lying to the public the state is prepared to foot the whole bill. The AAC is back to square one before the launch complex was built, when it had no funding and former CEO Pat Ladner said, “Build it and they will come.”

The Missile Defense Agency (via the Air Force) gave $80 million in 2010 to the University of Alaska Fairbanks for defense programs and for the AAC and Kodiak Launch Complex. How much did the AAC receive?

Regarding larger vehicle launches from the KLC the AAC board of directors is sitting on important environmental hazard information that it does not want the Kodiak public to know, especially those people living in close proximity to Narrow Cape. Concerned residents should check out the Kodiak Launch Complex section in NASA’s Environmental Assessment for Launch of NASA Routine Payloads, dated November 2011, as the hazards are listed. Before any further KLC infrastructure takes place, the public should demand a site-specific environmental impact statement for Narrow Cape because of future contamination to the island and human health risks.

By Carolyn Heitman

Read more: Kodiak Daily Mirror - State will end up footing whole bill for new launch pad

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

(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.

Read more: Kodiak Daily Mirror - Funding shuffle hides money going to Launch Complex

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

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

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.

Alaska Aerospace Once Again Begs Alaska for Handouts

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

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

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