Slashdot Mirror


Kazakhstan Wants Russia To Hand Over Their Baikonur Space City

Hugh Pickens writes writes "RIA Novosti reports that Kazakhstan and Russia are in talks over returning the city of Baikonur to Kazakhstan — the site of the first Soviet rocket launches and Russia's most important space launch center. Baikonur, built in Kazakhstan in the 1950s, is the main launch facility for the current generation of Russian rockets and was leased by Russia from Kazakhstan under an agreement signed in 1994 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. 'Today both nations' governments have decided to set up a new intergovernmental commission for the Baikonur complex to be headed up by first or other deputy prime ministers,' said Talgat Musabayev, head of Kazakhstan's space agency. At issue is control over Baikonur and the rent Russia pays Kazakhstan to use the facility, a subject of ongoing dispute between the two nations ever since Kazakhstan gained independence from the USSR. Earlier this year, Kazakhstan blocked Russia from launching several rockets from Baikonur in a dispute over a drop zone for debris and Kazakhstan insisted this must be covered by a supplement to the main rental agreement signed in Astana in 2004, extending Russia's use of the space center's facilities until 2050. Russia pays an annual fee of approximately $115 million to use the space center, which currently has the world's busiest launch schedule, as well as $50 million annually for maintenance. Russia and Kazakhstan are working to build a new space launch facility at Baikonur, called Baiterek, to launch Angara carrier rockets capable of delivering 26 metric tons of payload to low-Earth orbits but Russia intends to eventually withdraw from Baikonur and conduct launches from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, an operating spaceport about 500 miles north of Moscow — and the unfinished Vostochny Cosmodrome in the Russian Far East."

131 comments

  1. I bet by aglider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They won't return it!
    For a simple question: why should they?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:I bet by mumblestheclown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not much more than a political gambit. Kazakhstan squeezes, russia squeezes back. Or, more precisely, kazakhstan squeezes, russia pays off whoever needs to be paid off in kazakhstan, and things are back to normal. There's a good reason why I've seen more maybachs in Almaty than any other city in the world. While nowhere nearly as corrupt as uzbekistan or turkmenistan or russia as a whole, kazakhstan is still by in large run with russia's golden hand up its backside.

      russia, or, more specifically, the russian governments from basically 1400 through 1991 and then 2000 - today have been this giant cancer that has caused hardship and ruin for the lives of hundreds of millions in states and regions that border russia. only now are internet-reading educated russians in large cities starting to even slightly understand this.

    2. Re:I bet by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      then why was putin voted back in?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:I bet by ikaruga · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First because he said internet-reading educated russians in large cities. Educated people are a minority in most regions of the planet.
      Second, corruption is rampart in Russia. Even if the people vote against Putin they can easily work around it. Last elections over there showed it:140% votes
      As a guy who was born in Russia this corruption pisses the crap out of me.

    4. Re:I bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure with Yeltsin things were smooth and no corruption occurred, not even when state parts were sold for a bargain.

      Yeah, right.

    5. Re:I bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was because Kazakhstan is number one exporter of potassium

    6. Re:I bet by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your post's first part is correct. Second is opinionated drivel on the level of fox news. Governing world's largest state with extremely complex mixture of cultures and ethnicities that have standing conflicts that sometimes spawn over millenia requires a very hard handed approach.

      Most people don't seem to understand that large states are ALL corrupt, but corruption changes face in accordance to local culture. In the East, it's generally low level corruption, with low and middle level bureaucrats that take most of the bribes. The upper echelon of the bureaucracy typically accepts this as a realistic cost of running an Eastern country.

      In the West, we typically have a high level corruption where highest of the ruling elite are more corrupt then low and middle bureaucrats. And we the people accept that corruption at highest strata of society is just the way our culture works.

      I still remember the old saying about the biggest difference between Russia and USA. In USA, money is power. In Russia, power is money.

    7. Re:I bet by Clevershutter · · Score: 1

      Because Kazakhstan, glorious nation, is not run by little girl and Russia is.

      --
      Simplicity if the hallmark of truth.
    8. Re:I bet by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      then why was putin voted back in?

      Probably for the same reason why Hitler was voted in in the first place...charisma, propaganda, nationalist tendencies, social issues etc.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:I bet by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

      then why was putin voted back in?

      Because it was his turn to be president. Next time, it will be Medvedev's turn.

      So, the two of them are sitting in a bathtub, and Putin asks Medvedev, "What day is it today?" Medvedev answers, "Tuesday." Putin responds, "Good! Then I am president today, and you must go to the freezer to fetch us another bottle of vodka!"

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    10. Re:I bet by Hentes · · Score: 1

      I don't see paying for the renting of a facility as corruption. It's good business for both of them. Kazakhstan doesn't have a space program so the Baikonur would be useless to them, and Russia doesn't have territories near the equator, so they have to strike a deal.

    11. Re:I bet by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Widespread lack of belief that the opposition is better. The major complaints from the opposition against Putin are that he is corrupt, and gives money and power to his friends. As far as running the country, he does ok.

      The American way to handle this would be to throw the corrupt guy out, and let the new corrupt guy in. The Russian way to handle it is to try to be friends with the current corrupt guy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:I bet by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Last elections over there showed it:140% votes [economist.com]

      Perhaps Mr. Putin could be persuaded to finish off his career in the United States, helping us to increase our terrible level of political engagement.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:I bet by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      ....
      The American way to handle this would be to throw the corrupt guy out, and let the new corrupt guy in. The Russian way to handle it is to try to be friends with the current corrupt guy.

      Sadly, I agree with you. That is why I am part of RootStrikers.org. I think that replacing one neo-con with a dem does not really change that much. And as long as the 2 major parties block 3rd parties, nothing will change. As such, we need the citizens to block CONgress from being so corrupt.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:I bet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      russia, or, more specifically, the russian governments from basically 1400 through 1991 and then 2000 - today have been this giant cancer that has caused hardship and ruin for the lives of hundreds of millions in states and regions that border russia.

      Indeed. How dare they build roads, irrigation, schools, universities, power plants, factories, and, well, cosmodroms in countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc, which were obviously doing so well on their own with 99% of their people living in yurts and herding livestock.

      Stop colonialism today! Replace the Russian cancer on Kazakh soil that is Baikonur with traditional Kazakh yurts!

    15. Re:I bet by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      And let's not forget that sweet, sweet, >100% voter turnout. Evidence suggest the Communist Party actually received more legitimate votes last year.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    16. Re:I bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medvedev was never president :).

    17. Re:I bet by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Come to India - the world's premier corruption-free destination!! [1][2][3]

      [1] Side-effects may include gastrointestinal and breathing difficulties
      [2] Corruption level relative to Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan
      [3] According to a poll of 543 "randomly" sampled individuals

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  2. Russia "giving back" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia giving stuff back? Seriously? I'll be right back. I need to check hell for ice.

    1. Re:Russia "giving back" by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Especially because giving up Baikonur would force Russia to launch from higher latitudes, reducing their payload to orbit capacity for certain orbits.

      I'm picturing a crusty old political geographer sitting up in one of his wingback chair and saying, a quavering voice, "Russia wants a warm water space port."

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Russia "giving back" by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Especially because giving up Baikonur would force Russia to launch from higher latitudes, reducing their payload to orbit capacity for certain orbits."

      This is also for the moment, the only place from where American and European astronauts are going to space.

      Its not only a Buttfuckistan against WhoCaresistan bit.

  3. time to invade by alen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    like they did in georgia a few years back

    1. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First place my mind went to.

    2. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Can you at least get your fact straight ? The only ones saying that Russia invaded Georgia are the tie-eater and members of the Tea Party

    3. Re:time to invade by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      'Tie-eater'

      The only people who are going to know who you're referring to are Georgians or Russians.

    4. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didnt Georgia invade the independent countries Ossetia and Abkhazia first, so Russians had to come and protect Ossetia's and Abkhazias sovereignty, after recognizing their independence a few hours before?

      As the US and other western countries demonstrated with Kosovo, recognizing some random regions independence from one of your geopolitical foes and then marching in to protect the newly granted independence is a valid practice according to international law.

    5. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing Russian peace keepers in the process, while using U.S. artillery to shell those cities.

      My favorite political quote comes from that conflict.
      US representative starts yelling and pointing fingers at Russia during UN meeting.
      Russian representative (Lavrov I think): so, found any Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet?

    6. Re:time to invade by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Right.... Georgia recognized their sovereignty after Russia held a gun to the collective heads of nearly everybody in Georgia?

      Don't even get me started with Kosovo. That is a political quagmire that has nearly 2000 years of bullshit strewn around the rest of the world and is responsible for the deaths of literally millions of people including folks in my hometown. In spite of all of those millennia of turmoil and death, little seems to be solved.

    7. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the other anon said, it's much worst than that. Imagine if Serbia tried right now to retake Kosovo, starting by shelling the major city and the US / UN / KFOR peacekeeper.

    8. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Right.... Georgia recognized their sovereignty after Russia held a gun to the collective heads of nearly everybody in Georgia?

      Russia recognized their sovereignty and 5 minutes later marched in to protect it. Like the US and the EUSSR did in Kosovo. What the tiny Georgia did or did not absolutely doesnt matter.

      > In spite of all of those millennia of turmoil and death, little seems to be solved.

      Nobody cares about Kosovo itself. But the conquest of Kosovo massively changed the bigger picture of things.

      Russia took the conquest of Kosovo by the US and the EUSSR as a precedent: "If you can legitimize an invasion and a land grab simply by proclaming the regions you want to grab as independent first, so can we." And they did. And they will again if they feel like it, because no international law exists any more to stop them.

    9. Re:time to invade by bmo · · Score: 1

      Saakashvili eats his tie.

      --
      BMO

    10. Re:time to invade by Teancum · · Score: 0

      Russia took the conquest of Kosovo by the US and the EUSSR as a precedent: "If you can legitimize an invasion and a land grab simply by proclaming the regions you want to grab as independent first, so can we." And they did. And they will again if they feel like it, because no international law exists any more to stop them.

      Russia did nothing of the sort. If you really want to understand why Russia went into Georgia, I would suggest reading this book or you can simply read the Cliff Notes.

      It was simply in the national interest to do what Russia did, as was also the case with Kosovo. In the case of the USA, it was even more about the personal ambition and the need to establish a "lasting legacy" on the part of Bill Clinton.... and ditto for Putin in regards to Georgia. Russia wanted a strong leader, so that is what they got.

    11. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was on the news when the Kosovo war started that the Russian president (or foreign minister?) said something like "this is a precedent for further similar situations and you will regret it"

    12. Re:time to invade by i · · Score: 1

      No. South-Ossetia and Abkhazia was/is a part of Georgia. They are still only recognised by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Tuvalu and Vanuatu (and by partially recognized Transnistria and unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh. And each other).

      Georgia tried to use army forces to retake the control of South-Ossetia but was met with Russian forces which entered Georgia proper in fighting.
      Separatist forces in Abkhazia have with the help of Russian weapons and forces more or less complete control of Abkhazia.

      Regarding Kosovo, as something like 90% of the people was/is Albanians and more or less a war started 1998 between the Serbian army and Albanian rebel forces, a potential risk for homicide was lingering. 2008 declared Kosovo independence. Today is Kosovo recognized by most of the EU country's, USA, Canada, Australia and Japan. Plus a couple of minor country's.

      As the former republic of Yugoslavia disintegrated, a war started 1991 between a couple of the former provinces/autonomous regions of Yugoslavia. At this point there were no commonly or at all recognized country in this area.

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
    13. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > South-Ossetia and Abkhazia was/is a part of Georgia.

      Russia says they're not.

      > They are still only recognised by

      It doesnt matter whom they are recognized by as long as Russia says that they're independent.

      > Separatist forces in Abkhazia

      Freedom fighters.

      > Regarding Kosovo, as something like 90% of the people was/is Albanian

      Regarding Ossetia, something like 90% of the people are Ossetians.

      > Today is Kosovo recognized by most of the EU country's, USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.

      As irrelevant as Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Tuvalu and Vanuatu recognizing Abkhazia. The only thing that matters is the US military presence. Thats the only thing that makes Kosovo independent. If the US withdrew from Kosovo, Kosovo would be within minutes reintegrated back into Serbia.

      > potential risk for homicide was lingering.

      Russia says that a potential risk for homicide was also lingering in Ossetia and Abkhazia.

      > At this point there were no commonly or at all recognized country in this area.

      Who cares? The point is, that without the US attacking Serbia, there would be no independent Kosovo today. US weaponry was the only reason this border was redrawn. So the Russians figured, if the US can do that, and nobody protests, that they also could redraw other peoples borders. And so we got Ossetia and Abkhazia.

    14. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NATO went into Kosovo to end an apartheid, and a looming genocide. We've been putting an end to shit like this in that part of the world for ages.You're welcome. Everyone complains about the US / NATO "policing" the world. The middle east isn't the only place in the world that would likely go to shit if we stopped.

    15. Re:time to invade by Teancum · · Score: 1

      That sounds like an excuse, not a cause. You can use anything for an excuse, including what your mother look like this morning when she woke up today (or if she did at all).

    16. Re:time to invade by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This does not contradict GP's points. Regardless of why NATO went into Kosovo, and why Russia went into South Ossetia, the point is that the former established the precedent used to justify the latter. You can't have your cake and eat it too...

    17. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on your defintion of "first" and "independent country". In geopolitics there is no "first", there is simply an ongoing period of time and each event always has history behind it. Note it's South Ossetia; North Ossetia is a region of the Russian Federation.

      Georgia invaded South Ossetia because while South Ossetia claimed independence, Georgia never recognized their government and saw them as insurrectionists because...

      South Ossetia was a part of the Republic of Georgia when the RoG was formed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This made sense, as South Ossetia was a region governed by the Soviet Republic of Georgia under the Soviet Union; when it dissolved it made sense that each existing region would continue along it's same borders. South Ossetia remained a part of the RoG because it was prior, but it harbored a strong seccesionist movement as it was roughly 70-30 Ossetians-Georgians by ethnicity. THey broke away in 1992, but Georgia never recognized them, just claimed them as a region in rebellion or something. South Ossetia's Government was only recognized by Russia, and Georgia claimed soveriegnty rights due to it's history and large minority of Georgians in the region. Why did they attack in 2008? Because...

      During the 90's and 2000's, the US saw fit to consolidate it's Cold War victory. Russia historically dominates the nations and people around it to act as buffers to protect the Russian core regions. Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc., are all at various points used as a buffer region between Russia and the muslims to the south, whether it was the Ottomans or the Persians, and in it's current form Turkey and Iran. These people broke away and formed their own countries, but the US saw an opportunity to undermine Russia and keep them from ever building up the strength to challenge them again. This was done in the form of the various "color revolutions"; in Georgia the Rose Revolution in 2005 brought a president to power who was strongly pro-West and brought Georgia into NATO. Georgia thought that with NATO backing, they could finally bring those troublesome South Ossetians to heel (which again, to them, were simply rebels and not a valid country), and they started beating up on them.

      Russia saw this as a great opportunity to show how impotent the US is, and that they had come back from the mess they were in during hte 90's. So they went in to "support the South Ossetian government from the Georgian aggressor", and subsquently tore the Georgians a new a-hole. South Ossetia becomes a de facto country, but still only remains recognized by 6 nations as a real country and does not have UN membership. However, notably the US did NOT intervene to save their supposed "ally" Georgia from Russian aggression, which showed all the little satellite countries around Russia just how strong US promises and NATO membership is, and who the big kid really is in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

      This is basically how the countries around Russia tend to interact.

    18. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is an excuse that has been made 10 years before. Yes, it is not the cause, but the US and Europe opened the way to this, by changing what is acceptable.

    19. Re:time to invade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Georgia tried to use army forces to retake the control of South-Ossetia

      Georgia tried to use army forces to exterminate the South Ossetians, along with Russian peacekeepers. Even HRW (well known for its anti-Russian biased) noted that invading Georgian forces indiscriminately fired from tanks into basements (where civilians typically hide when this sort of stuff goes down).

  4. Get ready by slcdb · · Score: 2

    Prepare for the onslaught of "In Soviet Russia ..." jokes.

    --
    Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
  5. From the sound of it by Holliday · · Score: 1

    I read this headline on Twitter, and it seemed that the submitter meant a hostile situation

  6. What about Königsberg (Kaliningrad)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be waaay more interesting.

    1. Re:What about Königsberg (Kaliningrad)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please elaborate. Interesting in what way?

  7. Neither is a true replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither Plesetsk or Vostcohny are particularly good locations for launching geostationary satellites, Plesetsk is great for polar launches that are relatively low orbits but it's unlikely they would even try to launch a geostationary payload from there, The problem is that launch facilities are best located in the tropics to take advantage of earth's spin.
    That and the rocket in the linked article looks oddly steampunk. Are those protective covers? Or have the Russians gotten Paul Junior Designs to make a beaten steel and riveted fairing for their new vehicles?

    1. Re:Neither is a true replacement by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Looks like a protective cover to me.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. Too far north. by bmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Russia intends to eventually withdraw from Baikonur and conduct launches from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, an operating spaceport about 500 miles north of Moscow â" and the unfinished Vostochny Cosmodrome in the Russian Far East."

    200 miles south of Arkhangelsk? Really?

    As one moves further north, one loses the assist from the Earth's rotation. Launch anything easterly from the Equator, and you get slightly more than a 1,000 mile per hour boost to orbit. If you want to save fuel and cost, you try to launch from as far south as you can, which is why we launch from Florida instead of Cape Cod.

    (24902 * cos(63))/24

    24902=Circumference of the Earth
    63=Latitude of the Plestsk Cosmodrome in degrees
    24=Hours in a day.

    471mph/758kph - it's the worst out of all of them.

    Vostochny Cosmodrome is 51 degrees N. 653mph/1051kph

    Baikonur is roughly 46 degrees North - 720mph/1160kph

    Canaveral is 28.5 (roughly) - 912mph/1468kph

    Centre Spatial Guyanais - 5 degrees N. 1034mph 1664kph - the ESA gets the biggest boost.

    Unfortunately for the Russians, they don't have anything very far south. The furthest south they can go is the southern end of Dagestan at roughly the same latitude as New York City.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Too far north. by vbraga · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does launch latitude matters for polar orbits?

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    2. Re:Too far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get a boost from being close to the Equator only if you launch a satellite to Geosynchronous orbit, 35800 km high. It's useless for low earth orbits, most of which are polar orbits (they fly over the poles). Most of Russia military satellites are in that latter category.

    3. Re:Too far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are some options:
      a) Cuba
      b) Syria
      c) secret base in the middle of Sahara
      d) secret base in the Amazon
      e) secret base in Atlantis
      f) Cape Caneveral

    4. Re:Too far north. by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, you can launch polar orbiting sats from nearly anywhere, it's where the bits fall that may be a problem.

      The US launches polar orbiting sats from Vandenberg, because a launch failure or simply a spent booster means that it goes down in the Pacific instead of somewhere on the continental US or Canada (because the Earth rotates under it).

      Polar sats are a small percentage of launches.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:Too far north. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      As one moves further north, one loses the assist from the Earth's rotation. Launch anything easterly from the Equator, and you get slightly more than a 1,000 mile per hour boost to orbit. If you want to save fuel and cost, you try to launch from as far south as you can, which is why we launch from Florida instead of Cape Cod.

      Well, no. You seem to have forgotten that the Cape started as a ballistic missile test range... Why? Because back then the area was largely uninhabited with lots of empty ocean to the east into which to drop rockets or (later) expended stages. As ranges increased, there were plenty of Caribbean islands where telemetry stations (as telemetry as pretty much line-of-sight back then) could be placed. By the time we got into the business of launching into orbit, we were already in the habit of using the Cape and the infrastructure was already in place.

      Anyhow, the boost from being as southerly as possible isn't as important nowadays because modern boosters have much higher performance than those of the 50's and 60's. Not to mention that saving fuel is something of a fool's errand - fuel is cheap compared to the other costs of a launch. (In 2000, it only cost something on the order of a million dollars to filll the Shuttle's external tank.)

    6. Re:Too far north. by ikaruga · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The furthest south they can go is the southern end of Dagestan at roughly the same latitude as New York City.
      Yes, but interesting enough, Kazakhstan's most southern point is about the same as Russia's. There is really no reason to use Kazakhstan other than "saving money" instead of building a new lauch center.

    7. Re:Too far north. by bmo · · Score: 2

      >It's useless for low earth orbits, most of which are polar orbits

      This is wrong.

      Most LEO orbits are inclined orbits.

      --
      BMO

    8. Re:Too far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's such a great cost saver, why not launch from Palmyra Atoll?
      It's uninhabited, property of the US, and about 5 degrees north of the equator.

    9. Re:Too far north. by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does launch latitude matters for polar orbits?

      Short answer, "Yes." Long answer; It's 8am and I haven't had my morning coffee. I don't discuss orbital mechanics before caffination. But I'm sure someone else will in a few hours, once the East coast has finished wasting time on all the other websites we go to in order to avoid working and come here...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    10. Re:Too far north. by bmo · · Score: 1

      c) secret base in the middle of Sahara

      This is not as silly as it sounds.

      It's not terribly that far from the Black Sea, through the Suez Canal to East Africa. We ship ordinary stuff all the time for longer distances.

      I'm sure the Russians could strike a deal with the Kenyans or Tanzanians.

      Bam, there's your equatorial or near-equatorial launch site with an ocean to ditch launch failures into.

      --
      BMO

    11. Re:Too far north. by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      Still, at 63 degrees north in Siberia they won't have so much trouble keeping the liquid oxygen in the fuel tanks cold.

      Finding people who want to work there might be a problem, though. Although, on second thoughts, it might be a better job than working in the salt mines.

    12. Re:Too far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for the Russians, they don't have anything very far south.

      They have shared use of the ELS facility in French Guiana.

    13. Re:Too far north. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I suspect getting things there, like space ships and people, would prove tedious. Oh and it's a national wildlife refuge.

    14. Re:Too far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It totally matters for equatorial orbits (i.e. geosynchronous). You can't directly launch into an orbit with an inclination less than the latitude of your launch pad. The only place you can directly launch into an equatorial orbit is from the equator. Otherwise you launch into an inclined orbit, and then change the plane of the orbit on a later burn. Plane changes are very expensive in terms of delta V (and hence fuel).

    15. Re:Too far north. by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

      While not nearly as useful as Geosynchronous orbits or other near equatorial orbits, Molniya orbits and related Tundra orbits are incredibly useful, especially for countries like Russia that has most of its territory in high latitude locations. The kind of vehicles that you would put into those orbits don't need to be launched from Florida and in fact are better launched from places in Russia as well.

      My point is that there are things besides polar orbits or geosynchronous orbits to consider when building a spaceport or trying to identify why that location might be useful.

    16. Re:Too far north. by bmo · · Score: 1

      >Still, at 63 degrees north in Siberia

      >Siberia

      No. West of the Urals now... This is closer to St. Petersburg than Omsk, which is actually in Siberia.

      >cold

      Meh. There are far colder places to be.

      >salt mines

      No.

      Logging. Lots and lots of logging. Go look at the river near the Ulitsa Gagarina bridge in Arkhangelsk, just north of the city center. You've never seen so many log rafts. Wood, paper mills, etc.

      Where this cosmodrome is, used to be an ICBM site.

      --
      BMO

    17. Re:Too far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can always invade Cuba.

    18. Re:Too far north. by bmo · · Score: 1

      +5 informative

      --
      BMO

    19. Re:Too far north. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Don't think of it as saving fuel, think of it as increasing launchable payload with the same class launcher and therefore reducing your $/kg to orbit. For orbital satellites what it generally means is you can increase the on-orbit operational life because you can carry more reaction mass to re-boost the orbit.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:Too far north. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Don't think of it as saving fuel, think of it as increasing launchable payload with the same class launcher and therefore reducing your $/kg to orbit.

      Either way, moving your launch site is a very expensive way of saving a relatively small amount of money or gaining a fairly modest amount of performance.
       

      For orbital satellites what it generally means is you can increase the on-orbit operational life because you can carry more reaction mass to re-boost the orbit.

      Assuming the bird in question carries re-boost fuel, or is even in an orbit that requires re-boost in the first place. Neither are universally true, or even close. (Maneuvering fuel is far more common than reboost fuel anyhow.)

    21. Re:Too far north. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oh and it's a national wildlife refuge.

      Oddly enough, so is Cape Canaveral (more or less)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:Too far north. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, but interesting enough, Kazakhstan's most southern point is about the same as Russia's.

      It's not just the latitude - you also want to build that kind of stuff in an area that is relatively sparsely populated. Kazakhstan is perfect for that, being mostly desert. Dagestan is mostly mountains, and north of it are heavily populated "bread basket" lands of Kuban.

    23. Re:Too far north. by Mercano · · Score: 1

      This is why Russia and the ESA recently built a Soyuz launch pad at the Guiana Space Centre; They get nearly double the performance to GEO there, from 1.7 tonnes out of Baikonur to 3 out of Kourou. Russia's still dependent on Kazakhstan for Proton launches, though, and that's what they're currently using for most of their communication satellite launches.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    24. Re:Too far north. by GodGell · · Score: 1

      There is something wrong with your math. The circumference of the Earth is 40,075 km. Where did you get that 24K figure from??

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    25. Re:Too far north. by bmo · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not wrong.

      It's miles.

      Now if you want to get in a war with me over whether miles or kilometers is better, I'm going to insist that the Gunther chain adjusted to a nautical mile instead of a statute mile is a superior standard.

      --
      BMO

    26. Re:Too far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little bit, I think, but in the opposite direction. If you launch from an equatorial site, you need to cancel out your west-to-east velocity as well as giving yourself the north-south velocity component that puts you in a polar orbit. So it's actually better to launch from a site at an extreme latitude. But this is a second-order effect, rather first-order like the bonus for launching into an equatorial orbit from a site near the equator.

    27. Re:Too far north. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Surprised nobody has answered this yet. Yes, it matters, and in fact the further you go towards the poles the better. That delta-v boost you get at the equator is entirely in the wrong direction. You actually have to expend energy to lose that velocity to go into a true polar orbit. If you just pointed your rocket due north and expended the energy necessary to get into orbit you'd end up in a highly inclined orbit that wasn't quite polar. If you wanted to be in a polar orbit you need to actually aim your rocket north-west to get rid of the eastward starting velocity from the earth's rotation. The closer to the equator your start out at, the more energy it will cost you.

      However, for anything other than polar orbits it is highly advantageous to launch close to the equator. That is part of why the ISS is at such a highly-inclined orbit that isn't terribly useful for anything else - if it were easier to reach the Russians wouldn't have been able to reach it without wasting a lot more energy (basically you need to "fly" your rocket down to the equator and THEN go into orbit after burning off all the velocity you imparted shuttling yourself down there).

      If you want to learn about orbital mechanics in a practical way, go download Orbiter. It is a free (as in beer) orbital flight simulator which is relatively accurate. You can fly something realistic, but generally you start out with "super ships" that have a lot more energy/fuel that is normally carried, so you can manually fly yourself to orbit and not worry about wasting 10% here and there. You learn a lot about how things work in the process. Dock with the ISS, and then fly to the moon and back and you'll have a pretty good idea of how things work.

    28. Re:Too far north. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They can always invade Cuba.

      Yeah, I'm sure the US wouldn't have any objections to that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Why? by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    It was silly to give Kazakhstan independence in the first place.

    What would Stalin have done?

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Why? by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      They were probably glad to be rid of MOST of it.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    2. Re:Why? by lbmouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      Must now obtain "WWSD" wrist band.

  10. So not only are we dependent on the Russians... by TWX · · Score: 2

    ...and their goodwill toward continuing to allow us access to the space station, but we're dependent on the goodwill of another nation that has felt the presence of the Russians as a thorn in their collective sides for all these years?

    Mr Musk, please get your capsule man-rated as soon as you can...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:So not only are we dependent on the Russians... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Meh, Dragon and Falcon 9 have been proven to work, the only thing lacking is the stamp from NASA marking them as man-rated, in actuality Falcon 9 is probably safer than anything NASA has approved as man-rated due to the nature of the engines. If we had a national security interest in reaching the ISS quickly without the Russians participation the crew capsule version of Dragon would be completed with little delay.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  11. Job Creators by tekrat · · Score: 1, Interesting

    All Russia has to do is threaten to move the facility. The space center is probably the area's only source of jobs. Russian just has to pretend he's Pappa John Pizza-man, and start firing people who are local because of the "onerous healthcare taxes" or something that Cossak-Stan is asking for.

    Geeze. We need to get Fox News in Russia. Those guys are not corrupt enough.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Job Creators by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Cossak-Stan

      Kazakhs and Cossacks aren't the same people. Not even close. I recommend you remember that if you ever find yourself in either Kazakhstan or certain parts of Russia and Ukraine. ;)

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Job Creators by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 0

      See, we here in the Great Melting Pot don't give a damn. And from this distance, don't really see that much difference. The fact that Cossacks and Kazakhs will violently object to being confused with one another strikes us as silly at best, primitive at worst. Get over yourselves. After Genghis Khan went through, you're all practically brothers anyway.

      Yet Europe, from West to far East, has been busily at war over such crap for the past 1000 years. Really? Get another hobby!

    3. Re:Job Creators by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      See, we here in the Great Melting Pot don't give a damn. And from this distance, don't really see that much difference. The fact that Cossacks and Kazakhs will violently object to being confused with one another strikes us as silly at best, primitive at worst. Get over yourselves. After Genghis Khan went through, you're all practically brothers anyway.

      Yet Europe, from West to far East, has been busily at war over such crap for the past 1000 years. Really? Get another hobby!

      Yes it's fantastic that there's no racism anywhere in the US and you have created a perfectly peaceful and tolerant multi-cultural society! With that and your enlightened foreign policy initiatives, it's no wonder that all the world wants to be like you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. Re: Does launch latitude matters for polar orbits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not an expert in this area, but it might, perhaps, in future, at least, if you're not in a hurry, because, once you've got your satellite into some kind of orbit you can then slowly change the orbit using a more efficient engine than what you have to use to get out of the Earth's atmosphere in the first place, something like an ion drive, or even a solar sail, though you'd probably have to be in quite a high orbit for a solar sail to work (because of atmospheric drag). So the most efficient way of getting into a polar orbit might start off with a launch from the equator into an equatorial orbit.

  13. Tourist Gold! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    When they are done building the new launch center, turn the old one into a tourist destination. Space geeks from around the world would flock to see that and the Borat World amusement park next door.

    1. Re:Tourist Gold! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      If space geeks were willing to pay to go be a tourist there they would do it now while it is still active.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  14. Zakharov should send a nuke up their ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know but I've been told
    Putin's got a network node
    Likes to turn the on/off switch
    Dig that sleazy commie bitch

  15. WHO RUNS Space City?!! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Master Blaster runs Space City.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  16. Kazakhstan should apply for US statehood by spaceman375 · · Score: 1
    The US would LOVE to own that spaceport; they'd jump at the chance with promisses of lots of money. Kazakhstan would immediately be eligible for all sorts of federal grants, loans, and development incentives. The people of Kazakhstan would see a big influx of businesses and jobs, along with social programs and charities, tripping over eachother in the rush to exploit, uh, provide for the new markets. I think it would be a huge win all around. Except perhaps for Russia.

    Then there really would be "Americans" who could say "I can see Russia from my front porch!"

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    1. Re:Kazakhstan should apply for US statehood by atisss · · Score: 1

      Without Russian rockets it's not much of use. US already got launch facilities, but they don't have any rockets.

  17. Re:Better Russia... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

    They very nosey people with bone in their brain.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  18. Crimea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it become another Crimea?

  19. Did anyone else read the headline as by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 2

    a prelude to the first war in space?

  20. Playing with fire by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Are they crazy? Do they not read the Cheezburger site on Vladurday?

  21. OK, I'll bite... by Covalent · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...In Soviet Russia, Baikonur leases YOU!
    ...In Soviet Russia, Bribery is run by the Government!
    ...In Soviet Russia, corruption is impeded by rocket launches!
    ...In Soviet Russia, 140% of people vote for TWO Baikonurs!


    Meh...these aren't very good. Somebody please do better. This is /. people. We have a reputation to maintain!

    --
    Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    1. Re:OK, I'll bite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those were pretty good if you read them with a Yakoff Smirnov accent.

    2. Re:OK, I'll bite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...In Soviet Russia, Covalent makes up quotes about YOU!

  22. AC doesn't get it by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Didnt Georgia invade the independent countries Ossetia and Abkhazia first, so Russians had to come and protect Ossetia's and Abkhazias sovereignty, after recognizing their independence a few hours before?

    As the US and other western countries demonstrated with Kosovo, recognizing some random regions independence from one of your geopolitical foes and then marching in to protect the newly granted independence is a valid practice according to international law.

    Ossetia and Abkhazia have always been part of Georgia, but in the days of the USSR, it didn't matter who they belonged to as long as they were in the USSR. With independence, the regions are majority ethnic Russian and they didn't like being joined to an ethnic group (Georgian) who they regard as being something equivalent to rednecks or hillbillies in the USA. So they kicked all the ethnic Georgians out or killed them and proclaimed independence. Being on the border with Russia, Russia sent troops in officially as "peacekeepers" but in reality to prevent a weak Georgian military from re-taking them. But they belong to Georgia. Recognizing their independence is just a sham to justify the illegal action of basically stealing the territories from Georgia.

    Kosovo is somewhat different in that genocidal warfare basically made many countries argue for independence as the only way to protect the citizens. There's nothing really analogous to this in Georgia as in Ossetia and Abkhazia they kicked out the non-Russians and the Russians were never in any real danger to begin with, although they like to claim that they were to justify kicking out the Georgians.

    1. Re:AC doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Ossetia and Abkhazia have always been part of Georgia

      So what? Now they're not any more.

      > Kosovo is somewhat different in that genocidal warfare

      None of that happened in Kosovo. It happened in other Yugoslavian republics, but not in Kosovo.

      > independence as the only way to protect the citizens.

      So argued Russia, when it granted (and subsequently enforced) independence to Abkhazia and Ossetia.

      > There's nothing really analogous

      The analogy is that in both cases, somebody armed to teeth declares a part of some significantly weaker geopolitical foe "independent" and then marches in to "protect" the newly granted independence.

      > were never in any real danger to begin with, although they like to claim that they were to justify

      The justification doesnt matter as there is no independent third party to judge whether the justification is sufficient or not. Without an impartial judge, the Russian justification to attack Georgia as as good as the US/EUSSR one to attack Serbia. The Russians explicitly referenced the Kosovo precedent when they attacked Georgia. "If you can redraw other countries borders at gunpoint, so can we. Go figure!"

    2. Re:AC doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For certain values of always - since 1920ies or so.

    3. Re:AC doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ossetia and Abkhazia have always been part of Georgia, but in the days of the USSR, it didn't matter who they belonged to as long as they were in the USSR.

      So like saying Georgia was always part of Russia

      With independence, the regions are majority ethnic Russian and they didn't like being joined to an ethnic group (Georgian) who they regard as being something equivalent to rednecks or hillbillies in the USA

      Hmm, interesting. I thought that happened after Georgia invaded those semi-independent "states"?? Once again, proof that violence solves nothing. If you are in inferior military position, *always* negotiate. If you are in superior military position, *always* negotiate too - a military first-strike win may not be so cheap as negotiation.

      Georgia gambled with their military and lost big.

    4. Re:AC doesn't get it by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      With independence, the regions are majority ethnic Russian and they didn't like being joined to an ethnic group (Georgian) who they regard as being something equivalent to rednecks or hillbillies in the USA. So they kicked all the ethnic Georgians out or killed them and proclaimed independence.

      First of all, those regions are not majority ethnic Russian. They are majority ethnic Ossetian and Abkhazian, respectively. Neither of those are Russian, or even related to Russia in any way (they speak different languages, have different culture etc). The only common point is religion - Eastern Orthodox - but then Georgians also share it.

      Also, the reason why South Ossetia and Abkhazia rebelled back in the day was because, when Georgia became independent from the USSR, it elected a president who was, for all practical purposes, a Nazi. He used slogans such as "Georgia for the Georgians", and said that Ossetians are "trash that has to be swept out". Under those circumstances, pretty much all minority ethnicites of the countries figured that nothing good is coming for them in the newly independent Georgia, and decided to go their own separate ways - in other words, exercise their right to self-determination in the same way that Georgians themselves did when they left USSR.

      Anyway if you're willing to argue from irredentist position - "Ossetia always belonged to Georgia" - then the same argument applies just as well to Kosovo, since it also "always belonged to Serbia". And ethnic strife was also a major component in both - Albanians rebelled because they were repressed and ethnically cleansed under Milosevic, and as soon as they did that they started to ethnically cleanse Serbs on their own newly independent territory. So, yes, it is directly analogous.

    5. Re:AC doesn't get it by balaband · · Score: 1

      > Kosovo is somewhat different in that genocidal warfare

      None of that happened in Kosovo. It happened in other Yugoslavian republics, but not in Kosovo.

      ...

      The justification doesnt matter as there is no independent third party to judge whether the justification is sufficient or not. Without an impartial judge, the Russian justification to attack Georgia as as good as the US/EUSSR one to attack Serbia. The Russians explicitly referenced the Kosovo precedent when they attacked Georgia. "If you can redraw other countries borders at gunpoint, so can we. Go figure!"

      Where are my modpoints when I need them?

      As a Serbian, I may be biased towards the happening at Kosovo, but the info that USA/EU public has been fed is nothing short of scandalous, and I really didn't expect from you guys to be so much misinformed. I guess it is easier to proclaim Serbia as a "bad guy", then talk about organ thefts, drugs and terrorism, or the fact that USA president can't hold his dick in his pants.

      NOT posting as AC. Time to burn some karma, I don't fucking care - you need to get the version not edited by Fox news.

  23. spent bosters ? by m0s3m8n · · Score: 1

    A bit off-topic. Can someone tell me what happens to the spent first stage boosters when they are jettisoned? Since Baikonur and Kazakhstan are land locked, I assume they just fall back to earth (not water)? Do people live down range of Baikonur in the drop zone? Thanks.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    1. Re:spent bosters ? by tekrat · · Score: 2

      http://www.spaceflightnow.com/soyuz/st25/120628newdate/

      This article indicates that the four boosters on the outside of the rocket comprise the first stage, and separate into four pieces that fall north of the launch site, presumably in un-inhabited area, sort of like our New Mexico/Nevada desert where the US does stuff at White Sands or Groom Lake.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:spent bosters ? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Short answer, usually in the middle of nowhere.

      Longer answer, nowhere isn't what it used to be.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  24. No way would Russia invade Kaz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kazakhstan is a huge source of oil for the Chicoms.

    If Russia invaded Kazakhstan, the Chicoms would wipe Russia off the face of the earth.

    1. Re:No way would Russia invade Kaz by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Kazakhstan is a huge source of oil for the Chicoms.

      If Russia invaded Kazakhstan, the Chicoms would wipe Russia off the face of the earth.

      With what? Their 'aircraft carrier'? At present the PRC military can do two things: 1) prevent some other country from invading China and 2) prevent a popular Chinese uprising. They are not equipped and not skilled and not positioned for an aggressive war. Perhaps in a generation or two, but not at present.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:No way would Russia invade Kaz by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You assume that the Russian military is any better, but it's not. Among other things, Chinese military is all professional, Russian is mostly conscripts, and very poorly trained at that. As far as land and air forces go, at present, I'd bet on Russia over China. It might be different at sea (which is irrelevant for Kazakhstan), and of course Russia has its nuclear deterrent, but that's another matter.

    3. Re:No way would Russia invade Kaz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russian military has significantly more experience actually fighting than the PLA. You know, all those wars, Chechnya, Ossetia, Afghanistan. Not to mention significantly more advanced technology (there is a reason PLA copies Russian fighter planes, this is also why Russia no longer sells them).

      Of course, this is a moot point, because there is no way in hell China would take military action against anything Russian. It's just stupid -- the obvious political axis in the modern world is Russia & China against the US. China needs Russia, and vice versa, and we can all thank the generations of Russophobes in the US congress for making it like this.

    4. Re:No way would Russia invade Kaz by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Russian military has significantly more experience actually fighting than the PLA. You know, all those wars, Chechnya, Ossetia, Afghanistan.

      If Chechnya is anything to go by, Soviet/Russian army didn't really learn much in Afghanistan. Ossetia was better, but there were still major flaws uncovered during the operation - and, frankly, regular Georgian army was simply not much of an opponent.

      Not to mention significantly more advanced technology (there is a reason PLA copies Russian fighter planes, this is also why Russia no longer sells them).

      Russia hasn't really had major tech advancements in military technology since Soviet Union dissolved. There were some improvements here and there, but it's lagging behind more and more with every year. Take fighter planes, for example - PAK FA has been dragging on for two decades now, and it's still not production-ready. In the meantime, Chinese have been steadily moving on from copying Soviet designs to making their own (based on those Soviet designs, yes - but improved with more modern tech etc). Right now they already have their own designs for things ranging from assault rifles (QBZ-95) to tanks (Type 79, 88, 96 and 99) to fighter planes (JH-7, J-10) - and are rapidly developing a 5th gen fighter, J-20. In other words, if China didn't overtake Russia technologically yet, it's a matter of a decade at most before that happens, given the present trends.

      Of course, this is a moot point, because there is no way in hell China would take military action against anything Russian. It's just stupid -- the obvious political axis in the modern world is Russia & China against the US.

      China is unlikely to take a military action against Russia in present situation, where their interests are indeed aligned. However, this can easily change, and we were discussing just such a situation. China is definitely encroaching on many countries that have historically been in Russian sphere of influence/interest, in Central Asia and elsewhere, so there is definite potential to spark conflict there. Even then I doubt it'd get to a real war, but proxy war by supporting various separatist/independence movements versus puppet governments in those Central Asian countries is not unlikely, and I could see covert but direct support from both sides, much like it was between USA and USSR in proxy wars in Africa.

  25. Kazakhstan, greatest country in the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very nice!

    seriously though, we really need to step up our space and general scientific efforts in the U.S.; the Russian space program has often been a bit less than impressive, but at least they're trying

    1. Re:Kazakhstan, greatest country in the world... by dmacleod808 · · Score: 1

      All other countries are run by little girls.

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
  26. soooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when will Alaska get back to it's owner ? you know, being drunk, you are not competent to perform legal acts etc...

    1. Re:soooo by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      when will Alaska get back to it's owner ? you know, being drunk, you are not competent to perform legal acts etc...

      I'm confused. Are you trying to describe Alaska under Russian ownership or Alaska under current management. Either way, you're correct.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  27. Diplomatic Team by jasper160 · · Score: 1

    They should send Borat to ask Putin so space station make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  28. and NASA funds much of this by peter303 · · Score: 1

    NASA is paying $60M a seat for 4 to 6 astronaut rides a year to the space station. Russia made money when they charged $20M for private astronauts.

  29. According to Borat by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    "In Kazakhstan we have many hobbies: disco dancing, archery, rape, and table tennis".

  30. MOD PARENT -1, SO 2006 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should start posts with WAZZZZZZUPPPPP because that's not old. Make sure to say DY-NO-MITE when you make a point because people love catchphrases.

  31. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Moscow with love

  32. Plesetsk is too highly specialized a site by gelfling · · Score: 1

    It was built for high inclination polar orbit insertion, e.g. spy satellites. A more useful general purpose launch site is Svobodny. It was originally built to replace Baikonur but they ran out of money.

  33. Re:Better Russia... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Hmm both posts modded down. So nobody else watched Borat?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  34. Equatorial Sea Launch by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    I believe it would be in Russia's interest to invest in and build a large sea launch capability. They could send rockets etc. from Vladivostok to just about any point on the equator of the Pacific ocean and it would increase their launch capabilities. By the way, the U.S. could also do this in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic!

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!