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."

31 of 131 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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!
    7. 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."
    8. 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.
    9. 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!

    10. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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 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

    3. 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.)

    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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
    7. 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.

  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: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.
  6. 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.
  7. Re:Why? by lbmouse · · Score: 3, Informative

    Must now obtain "WWSD" wrist band.

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

    a prelude to the first war in space?

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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 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.

  12. 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.