Next KLC Launch

DEC-JAN To be announced GBI --- Scenario calls for the launch of a mock warhead from the Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska followed by a Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) from Vandenberg AFB. The DoD will announce the launch time several hours in advance. Operation Name: FTG-05

http://thechristianradical.blogspot.com/2008/10/nov-5-minute-man-iii-nuke-missile.html

Austerman & Lundquist on the KLC

Funny how the unconditional support of the KLC has softened in recent years. Oh, by the way Mr. Austerman, the KLC has no capability whatsoever of deterring an enemy missile attack. And it's interesting that you should refer to it as a "military-type installation". AADC has always insisted that it's strictly commercial. However, he's right on when he points out the exorbitant costs of keeping the facility open when you break it down on a per launch basis.

Andy Lundquist
Kodiak Launch Complex

On his reaction to recent news of corruption in congressional funding for missile defense, Lund-quist said such allegations should be pursued “with maximum vigor.” He described the Kodiak Launch Complex as a “positive development” for Kodiak but not necessarily a priority.

“I don’t want to see it competing for a pool of capital project dollars for other things on Kodiak that are needed more,” he said. “If it’s rocket launches or new high schools, I’ll take high schools. A rocket launch is not my high priority. And I don’t know how many days they close that area off around a launch, but it’s still costing somebody something.”

Alan Austerman
Kodiak Launch Facility

Austerman said he sees benefits in the Kodiak Launch Facility, despite some disappointments.

“Originally, we were all excited about the fact that it was going to create all these new jobs and that it was going to be private industry. I was disappointed that didn’t happen,” he said.

“The amount of jobs that are created out there are not what we nearly had thought they would be, (but) the amount of jobs that are created are good.

“I’m not opposed to the launch complex just because it didn’t live up to its expectations. Although I think there’s a lot of dollars spent out there, where if you look at it per job, it’s pretty outrageous.

“When I look at it as a military-type installation of being able to deter possible nuclear attacks on Alaska or the United States, I think it’s positive.”

The Pentagon didn't want the Kodiak Launch Complex

Perceptive analysis of Erik Lipton's article on wasted missile defense money is here:

http://andthecowgoesmoo.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/nyt-350m-wasted-on-missile-defense-projects-even-the-pentagon-thought-was-stupid/

and here:

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfromthewing/2008/10/12/he-leveraged-his-lounge-membership-a-whole-lot-better-than-i-ever-did/

Incontrovertible Proof that the KLC is, Indeed, SPACE PORK

Although this article is rather long, it documents how Ted Stevens, other politicians, and defense contractors succeeded in obtaining funding for an unnecessary facility: the Kodiak Launch Complex.

How one man gamed the defense spending system

By ERIC LIPTON THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 1:00 a.m.

A replica of a Saturn V rocket dwarfs cars parked outside the Army Space and Missile Defense Command headquarters in Huntsville, Ala. Michael Cantrell, who worked there, extracted nearly $350 million from Congress for projects the Pentagon did not want. NEW YORK TIMES ARCHIVE/ 2007

They huddled in a quiet corner at the US Airways lounge at Ronald Reagan National Airport, sipping bottomless cups of coffee as they plotted to turn America's missile defense program into a personal cash machine.

Michael Cantrell, an engineer at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command headquarters in Huntsville, Ala., along with his deputy, Doug Ennis, had lined up millions of dollars from Congress for defense companies. Now, Cantrell decided, it was time to take a cut.

"The contractors are making a killing," Cantrell said he recalled thinking at the meeting, in 2000. "The lobbyists are getting their fees, and the contractors and lobbyists are writing out campaign checks to the politicians. Everybody is making money here -- except us."

Within months, Cantrell began getting personal checks from contractors and later returned to the airport with Ennis to pick up a briefcase stuffed with $75,000. The two men eventually collected more than $1.6 million in kickbacks, through 2007, prompting them to plead guilty this year to corruption charges.

Cantrell readily acknowledges concocting the crime. But what has drawn little scrutiny are his activities leading up to it. Thanks to important allies in Congress, he extracted nearly $350 million for projects the Pentagon did not want, wasting taxpayer money on what would become dead-end ventures.

Recent scandals involving former Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., and the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, both now in prison, provided a glimpse into how special interests manipulate the federal government.

Cantrell's story, by contrast, pieced together from federal documents and dozens of interviews, is a remarkable account of how a little-known, midlevel Defense Department insider who spent his entire career in Alabama skillfully gamed the system.

Determined to save his job, Cantrell often bypassed his bosses and broke department rules to make his case on Capitol Hill. He enlisted contractors to pitch projects that would keep the dollars flowing and paid lobbyists to ease them through. He cultivated lawmakers, who were eager to send money back home or to favored contractors and did not ask many questions. And when he ran into trouble, he could count on his powerful friends for protection from Pentagon officials.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican, for example, chewed out Pentagon officials who opposed a missile range Cantrell and his contractor allies were seeking to build in Alaska, prompting them to back off, while a staffer for former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., intervened when the Pentagon threatened to discipline Cantrell for lobbying, a banned activity for civil servants.

"I could go over to the Hill and put pressure on people above me and get something done," Cantrell explained about his success in Washington. "With the Army, as long as the senator is not calling over and complaining, everything is OK. And the senator will not call over and complain unless the contractor you're working with does not get his money. So you just have to keep the players happy and it works."

Cantrell's division was a small part of the national missile defense program, an effort that has cost the United States more than $110 billion since President Ronald Reagan unveiled his Strategic Defense Initiative 25 years ago. Today, the missile defense effort is the Pentagon's single biggest procurement program.

The Army declined to discuss the Cantrell case, other than to say it had taken steps to try to prevent similar crimes from happening again.

But some current and former Defense Department officials say the exploiting of the system that preceded Cantrell's kickback scheme has had a damaging impact, slowing progress toward building a viable missile defense system by diverting money to unnecessary or wasteful endeavors. That pattern of larding up the defense budget with pet projects pushed by lawmakers and lobbyists is a familiar one.

"What they did may have been a scandal," said Walter E. Braswell, Ennis' lawyer, referring to the actions of his client and Cantrell. "But even more grotesque is the way defense procurement has disintegrated into an incestuous relationship between the military, politicians and contractors."

Dr. J. Richard Fisher, one of Cantrell's former bosses, said: "The system needs to change. But it is not likely to do that. There is just too much inertia -- and too much self-interest."

Towering over the highway near the entrance to Huntsville is a replica of the Saturn V rocket, the powerful missile that lifted the first man to the moon.

Created in Huntsville, it is a fitting icon for this once-sleepy cotton mill town, now so dominated by the aerospace industry that it is nicknamed Rocket City.

An estimated 18,000 uniformed and civilian federal employees work in the aerospace industry in the Huntsville area today, augmented by about 40,000 others, who work for federal contractors.

Michael Cantrell grew up on a dairy farm nearby, listening to the rumble of rocket test flights. As a young engineer, he became a civilian employee of the Army and quickly impressed his bosses.

"Mike moved at the speed of sound," said Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who briefly headed the missile command.

By 1990, Cantrell, then 35, took over an experimental program to develop faster, cheaper and lighter missiles that could intercept and knock out enemy missiles flying within the atmosphere. Under the Reagan administration, money was plentiful for such research, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and the arrival of the Clinton administration, Pentagon bosses were forced to make budget cuts.

Cantrell became a regular on Capitol Hill, both in the halls of Congress and in the bars and restaurants where Hill staffers gather after hours. He set up a makeshift office in the US Airways lounge at Reagan National Airport, where he followed up on pitches for money to lawmakers and hid out from his Defense Department bosses. He identified lobbyists who could prove useful and contractors -- many of them campaign donors -- with projects that needed nurturing.

"It was like I was going hunting in Washington," Cantrell said. "And I would always come up with money."

One colleague was so impressed with Cantrell's record that she gave him a bobblehead doll carrying a briefcase marked with dollar signs.

Inspired by his successes, Cantrell soon embarked on a more ambitious project that would all but guarantee sustained financing.

Cantrell's proposal, which was based on the premise that Congress would significantly increase annual financing for his experimental missile defense work, involved not just five test launchings, but the construction of a new launching site on a remote Alaskan island and the lease of a mothballed Navy helicopter carrier, which would be used to send the simulated attack missile.

The launching project

It was easy to find willing partners.

The program's main contractors, including the defense giant Lockheed Martin, prepared presentations for Congress making the case for an extra $25 million to $50 million a year for the project.

Officials in Alaska, who had been seeking money for a spaceport on Kodiak Island to launch commercial satellites, eagerly chimed in. And nearly a dozen lawmakers also did their part, Cantrell said, including Sen. Stevens of Alaska; Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala.; Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine; and Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., all members of the Appropriations or Armed Services committees with missile defense contractors in their districts.

But the military already had rocket launching sites around the globe, and Gen. Lester L. Lyles of the Air Force, who then ran the missile defense program, had no intention of spending money on another one.

Lyles and his deputy, Rear Adm. Richard D. West of the Navy, were particularly incensed when they learned of the plans to lease a helicopter carrier, the Tripoli, and spend several million dollars renovating it.

Summoned to Washington in 1997 to explain the project, Cantrell offered little information. That only further infuriated his bosses.

"Who in the hell is in charge of this program?" West finally demanded in an exchange both men recall.

Cantrell was ordered to remove his experimental equipment from the planned launching. But the money kept coming. Stevens' office had called to insist that the Kodiak project proceed, West and Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson, then the head of Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said in interviews.

"I got hammered pretty hard," West recalled. The military men backed off, and the construction at Kodiak continued.

Cantrell said he knew that building a new launching facility was wasteful. "It doesn't make sense," he said. "The economics of it, they just don't work."

Cantrell and his deputy, Ennis, visited Kodiak Island on the afternoon of the inaugural test launching in November 1998. The Air Force had substituted other equipment for Cantrell's payload.

The two men, armed with a cooler filled with Miller Lite beer, watched the launching from a trailer, emerging just in time to see the missile burn an orange streak into the sky. They had hidden out to avoid any local newspaper reporters who might discover that Cantrell's missile parts -- the justification for millions of dollars in spending -- were not even being tested.

"There is no way we can explain this," Cantrell remembered telling Ennis.

Back in Washington

The hand that grabbed Cantrell by the shoulder startled him.

It was Lyles, who happened to be on Capitol Hill when he spotted Cantrell outside Lott's office. It was February 1998, even before the dispute over the Alaska project had played out. But the general said he immediately suspected Cantrell was up to no good.

"Are you over here lobbying?" Lyles asked in an exchange the two men recalled.

Cantrell had been working with Lott, then Senate majority leader, for several years. The lawmaker included several million dollars in the defense budget for an acoustics research center in his home state, and Cantrell made sure it went to the intended recipients: the University of Mississippi in Oxford and a Huntsville defense contractor that had a branch office in Oxford. In turn, Lott's office helped get extra financing -- $25 million or so every year -- for Cantrell's program.

It was an arrangement that Cantrell did not want to discuss with Lyles. While he did not consider himself to have been lobbying that day, he readily acknowledges that he often did.

"I just mumbled a lot," he recalled of his response to the general.

The incident with Lyles prompted a formal investigation into Cantrell's activities that same year. But Lott's office requested that the case be closed, Cantrell said. Eric Womble, a former aide to Lott, said he could not remember taking such a step, but added that it would not have been surprising.

"Sen. Lott's staff protects people who are trying to help us and help the nation," Womble said.

Soon, the investigation of Cantrell came to a close. He got only a verbal warning from his boss.

That episode would embolden Cantrell. On several occasions, he would again be caught violating Pentagon rules and each time escape with nothing more than a reprimand.

"If you have the Senate majority leader's office calling over to get you out of trouble, you can't help but get a little cocky," Cantrell said.

The fallout

From the US Airways club, Cantrell could see the symphony of the arriving and departing planes, the Potomac River and off in the distance, the Capitol dome.

One day in 2000, Cantrell met in the airport lounge with Ennis, his deputy, and a Maine contractor to figure out how to pocket some of the government's money.

There were easy ways to cheat. The prototype missile nose cone and heat shields that the Army had paid the Maine company to design for the Alaska tests. Why not hire the business to pretend to design them again? Cantrell asked.

The ballute -- an odd cross between a balloon and a parachute -- had been rejected by experts as a tool to strike an enemy missile. But why not pay the Maine company to develop them anyway? Cantrell suggested.

He could pull off such shenanigans because, by then, he had an extraordinary degree of independence. Cantrell's experimental missile program, which had cost nearly $250 million, was about to be canceled. No working missile system had been built -- and almost none of the components had ended up being tested in real launchings as planned.

The effort had produced some benefits for the players involved: Congress sent an annual allotment of extra money to the Alaska launching site now totaling more than $40 million, and one of the contractors that had worked with Cantrell initially to pitch the space port, Aero Thermo Technology, had secured a no-bid federal contract to provide launching services.

Now Cantrell was on to another assignment overseeing missile defense research in Huntsville, and through his friends on the Hill, he was once again getting money for projects that the Pentagon did not want.

Cantrell, who by now was helping to oversee 160 or so contractors and managing a $120 million a year contracting budget, said he knew that if he only requested a few million dollars at a time for his scheme, there would be little scrutiny.

For example, the missile nose cones and other parts now made round trips from Huntsville to Maine with little or no change. Cantrell or his deputy simply marked off the work as complete, and that was the end of it.

For nearly six years, from 2001 to 2007, the men collected kickbacks from contractors. During one visit to the US Airways Club, Ennis picked up a briefcase stuffed with $75,000 in cash, according to federal court records. Cantrell also got checks, ranging from $5,000 to $60,000, once or twice a month, court records show. With his new wealth, Cantrell built himself a $1.25 million home in an exclusive Huntsville neighborhood called the Ledges.

Awaiting sentencing on conspiracy and bribery charges, Cantrell now spends his days sitting in the kitchen of his father-in-law's house; his dream home was seized by the federal government.

On top of the kitchen table, next to a King James Version of the Bible and bottle of Extra Strength Excedrin, is a stack of books on how to master poker. Cantrell has reduced them to mathematical formulas pinned onto a bulletin board in front of a computer terminal, where he plays Internet poker for hours at a time.

Even now, he is trying to beat the system.

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

Article published on Monday, Sep 08th, 2008
By ERIK WANDER
Mirror Writer

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. has been awarded a nearly $50 million contract to provide launch services and logistical support at the Kodiak Launch Complex for Missile Defense Agency flight tests.

Dale Nash, CEO of AADC, called the three-year contract announced Aug. 28 a continuation of the previous five-year agreement with MDA.

“It is a big deal in that it is a continuation of what we believe is a very successful relationship between KLC and MDA,” Nash said. “It’s sort of more of the same, but it’s a very good thing and we’re very pleased to continue to do business with MDA.”

The indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, sole-source contract has the potential to reach $50 million, depending on AADC bid amounts to conduct launches at the Kodiak site.

“It does not mean that this total amount is guaranteed,” Nash said. “This is what is expected. Each year, we have to put in proposals and negotiate the contract for that year.”

Nash said the contract is similar in numbers to past MDA contracts, and “it’s not as if we’ve gotten a windfall.”

“But it’s still real dollars,” he said. “It is a new contract on top of what we have done in the past. Yes, it’s big, and we’re very encouraged to continue the relationship with MDA, and I honestly believe, with the borough of Kodiak. We and MDA are pleased to be part and piece of the island of Kodiak.”

Under the contract, AADC bids on each launch.

“Based on history, (we conduct) somewhere between one and three launches per year,” he said. “This year, we only had one launch. The prior year, we had two, and on occasion they will schedule for three.”

Nash said AADC completed seven successful launches with MDA since December 2004 on the previous contract, the last this past July. He said there is a launch scheduled for the end of this year.

“I think they want to get it off before the end of the year,” he said.

The contract is expected to be complete by August 2011. The contract funds do not expire at the end of the fiscal year.

Mirror writer Erik Wander can be reached via e-mail at ewander@kodiakdailymirror.com.

[ print ] [ close ]

Fossil Beach Surveillance

The KLC is setting up cameras to monitor anyone driving to Fossil Beach. It's bad enough we have to drive through the KLC to get there; now, our movements will be monitored and recorded. It's reassuring to know that the 49 million received from MDA is being put to good use.

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

Military News

Providing up-to-date information, news and original content on American Military issues.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

MILITARY CONTRACTS August 28, 2008

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY CONTRACT AWARD

Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, Anchorage Alaska, is being awarded a $48,968,854 (maximum) indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity, sole source contract to provide launch services and logistical support at the Kodiak Launch Complex for MDA flight tests. The place of performance is Kodiak, Alaska. The contract base period and one option are expected to be complete by Aug. 2011. The contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Missile Defense Agency, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (HQ0006-08-D-0004).

Wow! Missile Defense Uses Radar!

Isn't it reassuring to know that a successful test of Missile Defense "proves" that MD radar can track missiles? Since radar has been around since before WWII, it's good to know that we can use a technology that's only been been used for seventy years. Oh, and aren't we launching old Polaris and Minuteman missiles as our targets? 21st century technology?

US Missile Defence completes Target Tracking and Radar Exercise

Written by FIDSNS http://frontierindia.net on July 19, 2008 – 9:30 am -

Lieutenant General Henry A. “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency director, announced the successful execution of an important system test today during which a long-range ballistic missile was tracked by radars of the missile defense system.

Another Easy "Success" for MDA

So, the Missile Defense Agency will proclaim another "successful" test of their system if the radar in Juneau picks up a blip of the rocket launched from Kodiak. Proof positive that we are safe from North Korea et al! Keep in mind that all previous "successful intercepts" were not necessarily actual hits - if the interceptor came within 50 miles of the target missile, it was termed a "success".

Mid-July missile launch to test system, no hit planned
Article published on Wednesday, Jun 11th, 2008
By ERIK WANDER
Mirror Writer

It’s all systems go for the upcoming missile launch at the Kodiak Launch Complex in Narrow Cape, but it may prove difficult for residents who want to witness the event.

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. conducted a tour of its approximately $150-200 million facility for a group from Anchorage on Tuesday. AADC provides services and facilities for the government’s Missile Defense Agency, AADC’s only customer, to conduct test launches.

The launch of the STARS missile will take place in mid-July as part of MDA’s regular training.

In an operation of this type, a missile is launched from Kodiak and destroyed by an interceptor missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

“We are the clay pigeons,” said Dale Nash, CEO of AADC. “The surest way to kill something is to just smash it.”

He said that the target missile launched from Kodiak simulates one coming from Asia or Russia, because such a missile would fly directly over Alaska.

AADC aerospace engineer Shad Combs said a series of such tests, conducted a couple of times a year, has already been completed successfully. They’re now preparing to do another with the hope of building on what has been learned in previous launches.

“We’re making it smarter and smarter and smarter. Every time we do one test, we incorporate our lessons learned into the following test,” Combs said.

The July launch will differ from previous launches, however, because there will be no interceptor missile. It is what Combs referred to as a “target-only launch.”

“It’s going to be an imaginary interception. The interceptor will not launch, but everything will happen except for that,” he said.

The purpose of the non-target mission is to test the instrumentation and systems to make sure they can pick up the incoming missile and predict how they would intercept it.

“It just goes out and it splashes into the ocean. We’re not short for targets, we’re short for interceptors,” Combs said.

Further details of the launch remain sketchy due to the sensitive nature of the classified mission. AADC would say only that it will take place in mid-July. Combs said, however, that a notice to airmen and a notice to fishermen would be released prior to the launch defining restricted areas. AADC will also close the road leading to the facility.

Members of the public will not be able to view the launch up close because of the road closure. Combs said this was not a security measure.

“It’s not for security,” he said. “It’s strictly for safety. The roadblock gives us enough space, so that if something goes wrong with the missile, the population is safe.”

Combs suggested Chiniak as a possible location for those who wish to try to catch a glimpse or take pictures of the launch.

“Other than that, because of the mountains, once it clears the mountains, it’s into the mist, it’s into the clouds,” he said.

Mirror writer Erik Wander can be reached via e-mail at ewander@kodiakdailymirror.com.

AADC LOBBYING EXPENSES

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: 2008200720062005200420032002200120001999

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

Industry	Total
Defense Aerospace	$30,000

Itemized Lobbying Expenses for Alaska Aerospace Development Corp

Firms Hired	Total Reported by Filer	Reported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)
	Less than $10,000	-
		$0

Lobbying Expenses Reported by Subsidiary Alaska Aerospace Development Corp

Firms Hired	Total Reported by Filer	Reported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)
Birch, Horton et al		$10,000
Cohen Group		$20,000

Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

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

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

56.85% - Anti-Kodiak Launch Complex

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

43.12% - pro-KLC

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

More Unearned Pork for AADC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From www.nonukesnorth.net:

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

Cancellation Looms but Senator Ted Stevens fights it

Envision a wind farm at Fort Greely, dear neighbors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"White House May Reconsider Missile Defense Approach"

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

Cheaper than KLC, yet has launch contracts!

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

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

KLC Facts Left Out of the Open House Media Packet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why DNR Should Not Allow AADC Expanded Authority

Friday, March 04, 2005

Dear DNR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. A comprehensive, documented risk assessment study.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

University Lands Bill Should Be Scrapped

UNIVERSITY LANDS BILL FAILS THE UNIVERSITY, HARMS ALASKANS AND COMMUNITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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