Baikonur vulnerable without a military presence

[ToSeek]

Earthly threats for a spaceport

Early last month, Lenin Square in Baikonur echoed again to the sound of marching military feet celebrating the 61st anniversary of the victorious end of the war against Hitler’s Germany. Russia’s famous space center was built by Soviet military forces fifty years ago, and since then they have operated launch pads, managed the infrastructure, and provided security. However, with the nearing of the end of the military withdrawal from the space center, this most recent parade will probably be the last ever: the soldiers, both technical troops and guards, are marching back to Russia.

Although they are to be replaced by civilian contractors, these military units leave behind a space center much more vulnerable to accidents by inexperienced replacements and to theft by the local population and by officials. More ominously, the declining physical security opens opportunities for malicious, even hostile actions by a native population with large segments growing more resentful of the presence of the Russian rocket center in the middle of their own country.

I would think it would be more than a little unnerving to have your primary launch base located in another country that's none too fond of yours.

[Doodler]

Kinda what it would be like if the US launched from Gitmo for some reason...

[Argos]

Time to build another one deep in the Motherland.

[ToSeek]

They're going to start launching Soyuzes out of French Guiana next year.

[Doodler]

Time to build another one deep in the Motherland.

They've got one, but its a good stretch further north. Not so good for launching.

[Nicolas]

Russia's problem is that it is located away from the equator indeed. Nice for some orbits, bad for most.

I would think it would be more than a little unnerving to have your primary launch base located in another country that's none too fond of yours.

ESA has just that. Well, French Guiana is official overseas territory of France, but still... Well, at least we chose for palm trees instead of tundra .

I'm curious how often they will use Baikonour when they start launching from Kourou, and whether Ukraine will use Baikonour as its own base. Russia still rents it; one of the last "payments" was giving the Buran system to Ukraine.

[Kullat Nunu]

They've got one, but its a good stretch further north. Not so good for launching.

Yes, the Plesetsk Cosmodrome near Arkhangelsk. It was kept long secret from the Soviet public, although its existence was already known in the West. Rocket launches were visible in large area, which generated numerous UFO reports.

[Kullat Nunu]

I'm curious how often they will use Baikonour when they start launching from Kourou, and whether Ukraine will use Baikonour as its own base. Russia still rents it; one of the last "payments" was giving the Buran system to Ukraine.

Ukraine? You probably meant Kazakhstan.

[Nicolas]

More than probably

Kazakhstan indeed. Oh well, in my days it all was USSR!!

[publiusr]

So help me--but I miss the Cold War...

[Doodler]

So help me--but I miss the Cold War...

I don't, honestly. Despite the fact that the ISS is a bit of baggage, we are learning quite a bit about what does and does not work in space construction and low cost long duration spaceflight. The original Freedom design would have been near a trillion dollars if we had to development of the life support system, escape vehicle and other support systems without Russian know-how. We would be duplicating effort in our own extremely inflated economy. It sucks that the Russians suffered their financial woes, but credit where its due, they still did it cheaper than we could have.

Its not a surefooted step, but it is a step forward. The next generation of space stations will learn a lot because of it.

Secondly, with the Iron Curtain still up, we would not have access to the most reliable manned launching vehicle on the planet. After Columbia, that would be rather disconcerting.

[Nicolas]

"try whatever you want, and if it fails, there's always Soyuz".

Soyuz can and does fail, but it is extremely reliable. Russian officials have declared that unmanned Soyuz launchers tend to fail a bit more often because "we do not aim at the same level of safety for those". It might sound a bit strange, but a not so safe soyuz still makes a very reliable craft .

But let's not forget that like anything, it's bound to go wrong sometime. We should not let that stop us. Certainly not in something new, high risk such as space launches. Safety is of importance and should not be left out of the equation, but in space business first the goal is set, then an analysis is made to make sure the risk is not too large. In (honest) launch business, you don't minimize the risk. You make it acceptable. If you want to minimize the risk, refrain from letting yourself being shot off the planet on top of a 100m large tube filled with a few thousand tons of ignited fuel.