The story about upcoming space launches from the Dombarovsky ICBM site brought a question from a reader - Doesn't the START Treaty prohibit co-locating space launch facilities and ICBM sites? As it turned out, yes, it does - Article IV.4(a) of the treaty says:
"Each Party shall limit the number of space launch facilities to no more than five, unless otherwise agreed. Space launch facilities shall not overlap ICBM bases."
One way around this ban would be to stretch definitions of a "space launch facility", "ICBM base" (or that of "overlap", for that matter). The first one is relatively easy - the treaty defines space launch facility as a "specified facility from which objects are delivered into the upper atmosphere or space using ICBMs or SLBMs." This facility could be as small as a single launch pad or silo, not overlapping with much of anything.
The other definition, however, does not leave much room for stretching - according to the treaty, an ICBM base (for silo-based missiles) is "an area in which one or more groups of silo launchers of ICBMs and one associated maintenance facility are located."
Here is how the Dombarovsky base looks like (map of the area is from mappoint.msn.com):
The map shows the 52 silos that were listed as active in July 2004. The maintenance facility is most likely located in Yasnyy. As we can see, about any silo group would overlap with the rest of the base. The only exceptions would probably be the southernmost Dombarovsky-3 group and the northermost Dombarovsky-7. In fact, from the Kommersant report we known that one of the silo groups had already had its missiles removed - it said that there are only 46 missiles currently deployed there. But we will have to wait until the MOU data are released to see which one it is.
In any event, the issue will have to be taken to the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission and very much will depend on what the meaning of "overlap" is. My guess is that the United States will give Russia some leeway on that and will not try to block space launches from Dombarovsky. But we will see.
The book
Comments
I was wondering the scale of your excellent map. Again referencing the START Treaty, Art IV, para 11(c): "Each Party shall locate test ranges and space launch facilities no less than 100 kilometers from any ICBM base for silo launchers of ICBMs, any ICBM base for rail-mobile launchers of ICBMs, and any deployment area."
Additionally, in hyper-linked article below, it states the launch was using the R-36 M2, of which I believe you said there are about 50 in the Strategic Forces. With the life of the R-36 MUTTH nearing the end, what would be the wisdom of expending the relatively few R-36 M2s by space launch (other than the short sighted aim of gaining revenue)?
http://russianforces.org/eng/news/archive/000154.shtml
Well, this seems to be a more serious problem. The whole area on the map is about 150x130 km, so space-launch facilities and ICBM silos will be well within 100 km from each other.
The only solution that I can see is that Russia does not declare the new site as a space launch facility. As far as I understand, the treaty does not explicitly prohibit space launches from ICBM bases (or does it?). The silos will still have to be counted against the START ICBM limit, but it shouldn't be a big deal for Russia.
As for the plans to use R-36M2 for space launches, I've been puzzled by this myself - it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. However, I would not rule out that there is some confusion in reporting - it is still possible that R-36M, not R-36M2, will be the main launch vehicle. But I wouldn't exclude the "short sighted aim of gaining revenue" either.
In the article Strategic Rocket Forces commander outlines plans for the future it states that "Some of the R-36MUTTH missiles will be used as space launchers." Using the R-36MUTTH would be a more logical platform for the Dnepr vise the R-36M2. As for the complications with the treaty, the Russian side could wait for the treaty to expire in 2009. Although it sounds like there are more immediate plans in the works. Has either side given indications whether they wish extend the treaty?
Forgive me for not "signing" my last post. Ultimately, your initial thoughts are probably correct, the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission will have an interesting time with this issue if indeed the Strategic Force move ahead.
I think I just assumed that older missiles will be used for space launches. Maybe I was wrong. We will see.
As for START extension, the idea was mentioned in the Helsinki statement in 1997, but it didn't go anywhere. I doubt there is enough interest to get it extended beyond 2009 - both sides would be quite happy to get rid of the many START restrictions (like this one with space launch sites).
minuteman on the way to moscow leningrade murmusk
5 megaton
1010101010101010010101
1010101010010101010010
1101010101010101010101
minuteman on the way to moscow leningrade murmusk
5 megaton
1010101010101010010101
1010101010010101010010
1101010101010101010101