Space Expert Pushes to Halt Milstar Launch

As the Pentagon makes its final preparations to launch the first $1-billion Milstar communications satellite this week, an Air Force expert told Congress on Wednesday that the launch should be scrubbed.

Col. Sandy Mangold, who said his outspoken views cost him his job last year as the Air Force’s chief for evaluating the service’s space program budget, made his remarks before the House Government Operations Committee.

Mangold, joined by two other officials who said their efforts to cut military spending were undermined by superiors, charged that a “cancer” has developed in the military acquisition system as the Pentagon attempts to scale back in the aftermath of the Cold War.

After he advocated that the $20-billion Milstar program be terminated, Mangold said senior Air Force officers warned him his career was in jeopardy and that their plan was “to cut off the head of the snake, while preserving the body.”

Mangold called Milstar, originally intended as the Pentagon’s main communications link during a nuclear war, a monument to Cold War technology that is of little use in regional military conflicts. It will cost over $100 million a year just to operate the satellite, scheduled to be launched Saturday.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), committee chairman, questioned the high cost of the Milstar, noting that “2,000 pounds of sand or other form of ballast” will be launched on the first two Milstars because a secret portion of the payload was removed.

But Air Force and Defense Department officials have disputed those claims, saying the special communication capability provided by Milstar is resistant to enemy jamming. (They have said previously that they plan to use less than 900 pounds of aluminum ballast.)

Meanwhile, Pentagon officials also rebutted criticism Wednesday that they had quashed a report suggesting that $10 billion could be saved by developing improvements to an existing missile warning satellite instead of developing a new system.

Col. Edward Dietz testified that he was removed as program manager for the existing missile warning system, known as the Defense Support Program, after he supervised a report that said the DSP system should be preserved.

An investigation by the Air Force inspector general found that the Dietz report was quashed, but the decision was justified because the improvement still would not have satisfied the service’s requirements to track short-range missiles, according to Col. William Schepens.

Nonetheless, the row is still escalating. It was disclosed at the hearing that TRW, prime contractor for the DSP, has removed its program manager, Joanne Maguire, as part of a deal in which the Air Force agreed to remove her counterpart, Col. Joe Bailey.

Dietz testified that it was a “general understanding” in the Air Force that the deal was struck “to make peace” between the service and TRW. The firm declined to comment.

Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Marina del Rey) said she was “very troubled” by the matter, especially since the aerospace industry cannot afford to lose the few women executives it has in responsible technical positions.

“It says disturbing things about how the system is working,” Harmon said in an interview. “It says it is not an orderly professional system.”

Meanwhile, a source close to the conflict said Bailey was being used as a “sacrificial lamb” by Air Force officials who want to put the embarrassing Dietz affair behind them.