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

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

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

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

Click on the title of this post to see the entire document in PDF, including some financial charts not in this post.
k
Kodiak Launch Complex Infrastructure FY2010 Request: $17,500,000
Reference No: 41789
AP/AL: Appropriation Project Type: Construction
Category: Development
Location: Kodiak Contact: Dale K. Nash, Chief Executive Officer
House District: Kodiak (HD 36) Contact Phone: (907)561-3338
Estimated Project Dates: 07/01/2009 - 06/30/2014
Brief Summary and Statement of Need:
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) requests $17.5 million to build two facilities: a dedicated rocket motor storage facility and an additional launch pad. This program contributes to the Department's mission of promoting a healthy economy and strong communities by providing economic growth in the communities it serves.
Additional Information / Prior Funding History:
Refer to the funding matrix in the detailed description.
Project Description/Justification:
This is the second of a two-year funding request for this multi-year project.
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation’s (AADC) Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) requests funding for the following: a dedicated rocket motor storage facility, an additional launch pad, and related infrastructure. KLC’s existing two launch pads are right next to each and cannot be used simultaneously, thereby limiting customers and launches. The additional facilities will allow multiple launch customers to be on site simultaneously, double KLC’s launch capabilities, and result in KLC being a full service spaceport.
AADC is currently developing a long-term relationship with the U.S. Air Force (USAF). The USAF plans to initiate the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program with the goal of having launch on-demand capability – placing national defense assets in orbit with very little lead time. KLC is an attractive launch site for the ORS program because the KLC offers flexible launch scheduling not available at other U.S. launch sites; and launches from KLC avoid populated areas, environmentally
sensitive areas, and congested air routes. However, the ORS program will require a dedicated rocketmotor storage facility and dedicated launch pad. Neither is currently available at the KLC.
An initial ORS demonstration launch is planned for September 2009 and a second potential launch is scheduled for December 2009. Once mature, it is estimated the ORS program will launch four or more payloads to orbit each year. This is in addition to launches already provided for the Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency. In addition, the AADC is currently in discussions with other potential customers such as other Department of Defense agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and commercial interests.
The facilities will be built over the next two years and will cost $35 million. In fiscal year 2009 and again in 2010 AADC has/will be requesting $17.5 million. Of that amount, $14.0 million will be provided by the federal government and $3.5 million is requested from the State’s General Fund. The State’s initial General Fund investment of $15.6 million has resulted in $214 million in revenue, a viable aerospace industry within Alaska, and employment opportunities in Kodiak. KLC has become an acknowledged national asset in the U.S. spaceport inventory. Additional investment by the State
will send a strong message that Alaska supports the KLC and the continued expansion of the aerospace industry in Alaska.
If this capital request is not approved, the KLC will not be able to support the U.S. Air Force in its Operationally Responsive Space program. Nor will AADC be able to attract other potential customers as the KLC will continue to be limited – unable to accommodate multiple launch customers on site simultaneously.
Funding History
Year Amount Legislation AR #
FY 1999 5,000,000 SLA 98 Ch 139 Page 40 Line 9 32591-04
FY 2000 6,000,000 SLA 99 Ch 2 Page 38 Line 21 32646-04
FY 2000 9,300,000 RPL 0810064 32647-04
FY 2001 17,900,000 SLA 00 Ch 135 Page 3 Line 13 32627-05
FY 2002 4,500,000 SLA 01 Ch 61 Page 3 Line 23 32639-06
FY 2002 20,000,00 SSSLA 02 Ch 1 Page 112 Line 4 32673-06
FY 2004 38,000,000 SLA 03 Ch 82 Page 45 Line15 32679-08
FY 2006 36,000,000 FSSLA05 Ch3 Page3 Line27 32723-09
FY 2007 15,000,000 SLA 06 Ch82 Page 3 Line 30 10334-11
FY 2008 15,000,000 SLA 07 Ch30 Page 84 Line 31 6355-12
FY 2009 17,500,000 SLA 08 Ch29 Page 88 Line 9 4689-13

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

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

Reference No: 41789

Kodiak Rejects Missile Defense - Overwhelmingly

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

The U.S. missile shield...

is unnecessary - 67.17%

is important for the nation's defense - 21.59%

will never work - (5.1%)

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

[percentages based on 667 responses]

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

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

Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

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

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

56.85% - Anti-Kodiak Launch Complex

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

43.12% - pro-KLC

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

More Alternative Views of the Missile "Test"

From Arms Control Wonk

MDA Test Oddities

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

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

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

[snip]

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

[snip]

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

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

The numbers in these passages are complete goobledygook.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other than that, everything is clear as a bell.

Comment

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

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

Might be worth running some simulations using such a scenario.

— Allen Thomson · Dec 11, 02:02 PM ·

How Do We Define Success?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Really Is Space Pork Kodiak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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