Final Report
Title of Project: Visit to the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan and Mission Control in Moscow for
Launch and Docking of Soyuz TMA 21, December 2010
Name of Project Director: Bill Gibson
Academic Rank: Professor
Office Address: 343 Old Mill, Burlington, VT 05405
Name of Department: Economics, CAS
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 802.656.3064
Describe the activities and results of the project: I received an invitation from NASA to attend a
space launch at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan in December 2010. I was invited to join this NASA
group to observe the launch because of my previous contact with Commander Coleman, flight engineer for
expedition 26, a guest lecturer in my Economics of Space Exploration course taught at UVM in 2004. The
invitation from NASA was a unique opportunity to observe a launch first hand. The advantage of the NASA
sponsorship is that I was able attend the launch with colleagues and NASA astronauts, officials, engineers
and others. Our group leaders were Bobby Satcher of NASA and Chris Hadfield of NASA and the Canadian
Space Agency. The launch of Expedition 26 Russian Soyuz TMA-21 with Dmitri Kondratyev (Russian Space
Agency), Paolo Nespoli (European Space Agency) and Catherine Coleman (NASA) was picture perfect.
Figure 1: Liftoff of Soyuz TMA 21 at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, December 2010
Before the launch we were given a full tour of the facilities and were able to see the launch gantry and
rocket much more closely than I have ever been able to do at the Kennedy Space Center. In the years I
have taught this course, I have included material on the Soviet space program and how the competition
contributed to both their successes as well as that of the US. I have not, however, had an opportunity to
gather any first-hand information about the Russian space program. This trip was absolutely invaluable. We
were taken to the The Cosmonautics Memorial Museum, a premier venue to study Soviet space history. We
also visited the Baikonur Museum. Throughout the trip we were provided with an excellent translator, who
was extremely knowledgeable about Soviet space history. She was invaluable as a source of information and
was open to any question. We all learned an enormous amount from her, in addition to our conversations,
often to very late at night, with the U.S. astronauts who were our guides. We were also able to see the
elaborate communications structure NASA has built in Russia. We stayed at the NASA headquarters
in which the control room coordinated NASA communications between Baikonur, Star City and Mission
Control in Moscow. All aspects of the Russian US cooperation were open to us. Both Russian and US
sources were forthcoming and went to great effort to explain in detail the nature of the operations there.
1
They were also quite candid about the problems involved in the cooperation, ranging from technical, language
to medical treatment. This level of interaction would obviously be impossible were it not for this outstanding
opportunity and the funding of CTL at UVM.
Figure 2: Rocket rollout on a cold morning at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, December 2010
What is almost impossible to convey without direct observation and photography is the difference in the
technological and engineering levels at which the US and Russian space programs operate. Lean, efficient
and with no frills, the Russian space program seems to get the job done with infrastructure that is far less
advanced that the US had in the 1960s. Reading about Baikonur is not enough. It is necessary to see what is
not captured in the official photographs published by ROSCOSMOS. The spartan facilities, barebones launch
technology and what appeared to be a very limited regard for pomp, self-promotion and public relations–to
which NASA seems eternally devoted–is, to say the least a revelation.
Figure 3: Ready for launch at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan
Nothing can prepare one for the rust, decay, torn linoleum and missing parquet that is so evident. Yet
the blinding economy with which the Russians complete their missions speaks to only one conclusion: they
know their priorities and they stick to them. How could one gain an appreciation of this essential difference
2
in approach without seeing in person how a launch propagates through its various phases?
Figure 4: Getting the job done on a low budget
Since the US shuttle was retired last year, there will be no more manned launches in Florida, for the
time being at least. I was able to able attend the launch with colleagues I already know and had access to
many astronauts for questions and perspectives on the sharing of the only available technology for manned
space flight. The 10-day visit also included a day at Star City, the astronaut training facility near Moscow.
This was a one-time opportunity. US astronauts train there and must speak fluent Russian to be able to
understand their instructors. This has caused major problems; Bobby Satcher, for example, has resigned
from the astronaut core since we returned from Baikonur. He had told us that despite his success in the
MIT PhD program in chemical engineering and his MD and subsequent residency at UC San Francisco, he
had so far been unable to learn enough Russian to progress through astronaut rotation. Language skills are
now another hurdle for astronauts that want to do something more than fly a desk.
Figure 5: Docking of the Soyuz TMA 21 at Mission Control in Moscow
Evaluation of the impact of the project on learning: This project was an unqualified success. I was
able to add a large amount of material to my TAP class that would not have been available had I not made
the trip. The first-hand account of the launch, the procedures at the launch site, docking at ROSCOMOS
in Moscow electrified my students. At first, some of them refused to believe that I had actually been there
and talked to Russian cosmonauts. I literally heard one student gasp when I first related my experiences.
Of course, once the class saw some of the many photographs (additional photos available on request) they
realized that I actually had attended the launch and docking. The teaching of this part of the class benefitted
3
significantly from fist-hand experience. I learned many things that are impossible to read about in published
literature; e.g., how the U.S. astronauts feel about having to rely on the Russians to get to the International
Space Station. How they compare the experience of a shuttle launch and return to that of Soyuz. These rides
are very different and require a different set of skills for execution, successful completion and, occasionally,
survival. I was able to convey to the students, returning from the experience, a much deeper and more
detailed account of the impact of the end of the shuttle program on the astronauts and the US space agency.
In this regard, the support for the trip from CTL was highly productive, invaluable and will provide lasting
contribution to the course.
Figure 6: Bobby Satcher and Bill Gibson awaiting the docking of the Soyuz TMA 21 at Mission Control in
Moscow
4
The class was in need of a Russian component, however, and because there is far less coverage of the
Russian program in the literature than of the US program, it was not going to be easy to augment my
course. The people I met at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan and in Moscow were not only able to
provide first-hand comparison of the US and Russian space program, but they pointed out some important
literature that I had not found on my own. Speaking with journalists covering the Russian program for the
New York Times and the Financial Times of London was quite edifying. They noted, for example, that
the Hall and Shayler book on the Soyuz was an important resource and was what they relied upon as their
principal guide to the technical details of the program. I now use this book extensively.
Evaluation instruments or process: The main evaluation of this project is through the impact on the
students on the TAP class, Economics of Space Exploration. It is has been a very successful class in the
past and this experience has heightened its immediacy. From comments on the evaluations, it is apparent
that
the post-Baikonur class was the best so far. This is the most important instrument by which project’s
In the Corporate finance class, he also led the way. He wrote what he says is
the best academic
paperbe
of hismeasured.
career in that class, on the accounting
success
can
irregularities at WorldCom. His task was to analyze the problem at the heart of
scandal and recommend legislative remedies. Mr. Weaver showed a deep
understanding of the principal-agent problem and applied it artfully to the
WorldCom case. His paper was a blend of sophisticated economic and legal
reasoning.
Respectfully submitted,
This candidate comes at no risk; he will do well in any program. He is a creative
and competent student who will not shy away from anything thrown at him. He
has the personality and drive to become a highly successful lawyer and if
admitted will become a credit to your program.
Very truly yours,
Bill Gibson
William Gibson
26 January 2012
5