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.

UPDATE: Kodiak Launch Complex Pork Requests

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 to Close?

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!

Recent Earthquake Activity Near Kodiak Island

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?

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

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

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: 20092008200720062005200420032002200120001999

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?

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

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

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.

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 ·

Additional Perspectives on "Successful"(?) Missile Test

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

Missile Command

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Perspective on the Missile Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photos of Recent Missile Launch

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

Missile Test Unrealistic

From the "In From the Cold" blog


Blogger Brian said...

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

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

How Do We Define Success?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Really Is Space Pork Kodiak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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