A few images of the collapsed structure... a very bad situation.
Quote from: Satori on 11/27/2025 04:32 pmA few images of the collapsed structure... a very bad situation.Looks like it rolled off the end of its rails.
Assuming these latest drone images came from Russian TV coverage, can someone re-link us to that stream, assuming it's available on-demand? I went back through all of today's coverage here and didn't find it. Also FYI I didn't find any images that showed that structure before launch (but I also don't know exactly where to look).
According to unconfirmed rumors, after today's #SoyuzMS28 launch, an emergency occurred at Pad 31: part of the launch facility, the maintenance cabin, located under the rocket, was damaged. Roscosmos has not yet commented on these rumors, I also have no additional information.
Well, something bad happened to Baikonur's Pad 31/6 after today's launch. While it might take a long time to fix, the worst thing is that this is the only active pad for ISS missions.
Drone footage (4x speed) for better understanding
Assuming these latest drone images came from Russian TV coverage, can someone re-link us to that stream, assuming it's available on-demand? I went back through all of today's coverage here and didn't find it.
The space rocket launched without incident. The spacecraft successfully docked with the International Space Station. The crew is on board and in good health.The launch pad was inspected, as is done every time a rocket is launched. Damage to several launch pad components was identified.Damage can occur after launch, so such an inspection is mandatory worldwide.The condition of the launch pad is currently being assessed.All necessary spare components are available for repair, and the damage will be repaired shortly.
afec7032 🇷🇺@robert_savitskyAs far as I understood, it's even worse. Looks like a crew access structure/platform, whatever it's called, collapsed after the liftoff and fell/slided into the flame trench. Either it wasn't properly secured after it was retracted away from the rocket, or something else failed.
https://t.me/roscosmos_gk/18802QuoteThe space rocket launched without incident. The spacecraft successfully docked with the International Space Station. The crew is on board and in good health.The launch pad was inspected, as is done every time a rocket is launched. Damage to several launch pad components was identified.Damage can occur after launch, so such an inspection is mandatory worldwide.The condition of the launch pad is currently being assessed.All necessary spare components are available for repair, and the damage will be repaired shortly.Are they referring to spares at gagarin's start?I do wonder, if there was a need to launch a Soyuz ASAP, could single use, temporary scaffolding be used for the teams to work on Soyuz, and then quickly dismantled before launch?
I have a question. Does Progress need the same pad? What about resupply for the cosmonauts?
Quote from: guckyfan on 11/27/2025 07:19 pmI have a question. Does Progress need the same pad? What about resupply for the cosmonauts?Yes. All Soyuz-2 based launches from Baikonur are delayed without a prospect launch date.
Quote from: Satori on 11/27/2025 07:24 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 11/27/2025 07:19 pmI have a question. Does Progress need the same pad? What about resupply for the cosmonauts?Yes. All Soyuz-2 based launches from Baikonur are delayed without a prospect launch date.Unless they use scafolding to service the souze before launching and dismantling it before launch, while the platform is rebuilt, could either of the other two sites be used as a backup: Guiana or Vostochny?
Can the Progress launch from Vostochny?
Is the Pad a Guiana still usable, or could the platform get dismantled and moved to Baikonur?https://youtube.com/watch?v=3gLfRoG8wMc#t=125s
This is pretty serious for Russia. The ISS still has support from other partners. I wouldn’t even begin to guess how long, if ever, Russia can fix such things with their current political situation
On the photo you can see the maintenance cabin, the room where it moves during the launch, its shield from inside and the view from it to the flame trench.
It is very strange. If I understand correctly, this structure should have moved into the safe alcove before launch. It didn't, but the launch happened anyway.
The emergency at Baikonur will not lead to the end of the manned space program. It will take several months to resolve the problem, but the first launch from the pad could take place as early as the first quarter of 2026, science journalist Mikhail Kotov, who was present at Baikonur during the incident, told Vzglyad newspaper. Roscosmos previously reported damage to the launch pad following the Soyuz launch.
Quote from: Nighthawk117 on 11/28/2025 05:51 amGuys, I do not see this launch happening anytime soon.Time to suggest a trampoline?
Guys, I do not see this launch happening anytime soon.
The firemen all running around the flame trench at minute 1:58 need "Yakety Sax" playing in the background,. But I suppose what the heck else would anyone do?!
Unofficially, violations of operational procedures, stemming from increasingly scarce maintenance of the facility in the past few years, were blamed for the collapse of the structure. ... A failure to install a special stopper into position to secure the mobile service platform inside its shelter during the launch could be the culprit ... According to another rumor, the mobile platform was not properly secured in its underground shelter before launch, which let the blast wave from the rocket exhaust pull it off its guide rails into the flame trench.
Quote from: jpo234 on 11/28/2025 09:02 amQuote from: Nighthawk117 on 11/28/2025 05:51 amGuys, I do not see this launch happening anytime soon.Time to suggest a trampoline?Soyuz and Progress are launch vehicle agnostic.
The damage will therefore test the current leaders of Russia. How committed are they to the International Space Station partnership with NASA? Before, they were willing to play out the string to 2030 and the end of the station’s lifetime, but that required minimal investment in new capabilities. In fact, Russia recently cut the number of crewed Soyuz missions to the station from four every two years down to three, to save money. Now they must devote significant resources to the Soyuz program critical to the ISS.[...]Thursday was the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States and so far NASA has not commented on the implications of damage to Site 31 in Kazakhstan.However one source familiar with the agency’s relationship with Russia said there are multiple concerns. In the long-term, as Manber said, this will test Russia’s commitment to the partnership. But in the near-term there are concerns about the lack of Progress launches.Not only does this cargo vehicle bring supplies to the Russian segment of the station, it is used as a primary means to reboost the space station’s altitude. It also services the Russian thruster attitude control system which works alongside the US control moment gyroscopes to maintain the station’s attitude and orientation. Notably, the Russian control system “desaturates” the US gyroscopes by removing their excess angular momentum.
I'm really glad that Dragon has demonstrated the ability to reboost ISS.
Quote from: Vettedrmr on 11/28/2025 12:04 amI'm really glad that Dragon has demonstrated the ability to reboost ISS.We know a Dragon at Harmony forward can apply axial force for reboost. I'm less certain about CMG desaturation, which requires applying the right kind of angular acceleration. Does anyone here know? My crude mental model says that a Dragon at harmony zenith can do it if ISS is oriented properly, but I do not trust my mental model.
Has there been any indication that the Russian space agency might consider modernizing/reactivating Gagarin's Start?That is a retired launch complex in Baikonur that historically was used for crewed launches.
QuoteEric Berger@SciGuySpaceReplying to @SciGuySpaceCrazy to think about, but if there’s any emergency on the ISS for the time being, literally every responsibility falls on SpaceX:Crew: DragonCargo: Dragon and Cygnus (launches on Falcon 9)Reboosts: Dragon and CygnusRescue missions: Dragon
Eric Berger@SciGuySpaceReplying to @SciGuySpaceCrazy to think about, but if there’s any emergency on the ISS for the time being, literally every responsibility falls on SpaceX:Crew: DragonCargo: Dragon and Cygnus (launches on Falcon 9)Reboosts: Dragon and CygnusRescue missions: Dragon
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 11/28/2025 04:58 pmQuote from: Tywin on 11/28/2025 04:26 pmQuote from: Vettedrmr on 11/28/2025 12:04 amI'm really glad that Dragon has demonstrated the ability to reboost ISS.Cygnus too.We know a Dragon at Harmony forward can apply axial force for reboost. I'm less certain about CMG desaturation, which requires applying the right kind of angular acceleration. Does anyone here know? My crude mental model says that a Dragon at harmony zenith can do it if ISS is oriented properly, but I do not trust my mental model.I suspect NASA will be doing some mathematical modeling very quickly to see what is possible.
Quote from: Tywin on 11/28/2025 04:26 pmQuote from: Vettedrmr on 11/28/2025 12:04 amI'm really glad that Dragon has demonstrated the ability to reboost ISS.Cygnus too.We know a Dragon at Harmony forward can apply axial force for reboost. I'm less certain about CMG desaturation, which requires applying the right kind of angular acceleration. Does anyone here know? My crude mental model says that a Dragon at harmony zenith can do it if ISS is oriented properly, but I do not trust my mental model.
Quote from: Vettedrmr on 11/28/2025 12:04 amI'm really glad that Dragon has demonstrated the ability to reboost ISS.Cygnus too.
IMO they can just cobble together some scaffolding for the technical crew to walk on and...<snip>This wouldn't be pretty and but it likely could work for a few launches a year until they have a better replacement.It's mostly *just* an access platform, fundamentally. People are overthinking it when they mention using other pads.
zubenelgenubi edit: Space Policy splinter thread here: Major damage to Baikonur Site 31/6: policy discussion
Moderator note:All geopolitical discussions on this forum are restricted solely to the Space Policy section. Now let's keep the geopolitical opinions out of this thread, keep it classy, and get back on the topic. Failure to do so will result in moderation of posters found in contempt.zubenelgenubi edit: Space Policy splinter post here: Major damage to Baikonur Site 31/6: policy discussion
Moderators note:Please, lets keep the forum on topic. Any post with any political significance will be deleted!zubenelgenubi edit: Space Policy splinter post here: Major damage to Baikonur Site 31/6: policy discussion
Anatoly Zak@RussianSpaceWebProbably clearest views so far of the collapsed service platform at Site 31 in Baikonur:
Katya Pavlushchenko@katlinegreyNew photos of the damaged launch pad at Site 31 of Baikonur Kosmodrome were published in Telegram channels and on Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum. Sad to see it like this.
Is there an animation of how this structure got here? Is it not normally retracted prior to launch operations? It looks to be upside down, does that mean it was not retracted, fell, and flipped over?
afec7032 🇷🇺@robert_savitskyThis is how it looks like when the service platform is being retracted inside the "bunker", about an hour before launch.Video taken by Dmitry Rogozin at the Vostochny cosmodrome in 2021
Question The three erector? or access arms appear to be laying flat on the deck. Is this correct? It seems they are too low. Wouldn’t they ideally rest in a cradle or stop before touching the deck?
According to one source, this is a platform located beneath the rocket, where workers can access the vehicle before liftoff. It has a mass of about 20 metric tons and was apparently not secured prior to launch, and the thrust of the vehicle ejected it into the flame trench.
Divider catch first and mass throw it over, and it's up-side down:
Quote from: HVM on 11/29/2025 05:08 pmDivider catch first and mass throw it over, and it's up-side down:Vostochniy and CSG use a different modernized pad design. The six legacy pads use a different railway system (chain driven versus motorized wheels), service cabin carrier design. The only other damage to a service cabin carrier structure was when Vostochniy's flame diverter was ripped off on the debut 1S pad launch.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 11/29/2025 05:38 pmQuote from: HVM on 11/29/2025 05:08 pmDivider catch first and mass throw it over, and it's up-side down:Vostochniy and CSG use a different modernized pad design. The six legacy pads use a different railway system (chain driven versus motorized wheels), service cabin carrier design. The only other damage to a service cabin carrier structure was when Vostochniy's flame diverter was ripped off on the debut 1S pad launch.So, pad 1/5 in Baikonur and 16/2 in Plesetsk could be considered as potential sources of spare parts?
Here is rigid body simulation that will clear this mix-up
...41/1 is the easiest as when it was decommissioned all hardware was stripped from the pad and removed. 16/2 is a reserve pad with upgrade plans on the back burner for the permanent home of the RD-193 variant of Soyuz-2.1v or its proposed unnamed successor. Some hardware for 43/3 came from 41/1 and 16/2 but not sure as to what all was scavanged. Note that not only the service cabin sustained damage but catwalks, piping and hardware above the service Cabin in the ring also sustained damage of which during launch video from the side of the trench can be seen being liberated and flying free in all directions with the view abruptly cut away as the service cabin was already beginning to move in the latter stages of the ignition sequence and hold down release. Once the rocket exhaust got a full grip behind the deflector it was game over from the rapidly building up back pressure from the pressurizing entrant gasses behind it.
Do we know for sure that the collapse happened during the launch? If it had, would it not have been obvious and reported (or rumours leaked) much sooner. I wonder it may have happened post-launch after the launch table was racked back out into service position and critial structure(s) failed in the process?
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 11/29/2025 10:24 pm...41/1 is the easiest as when it was decommissioned all hardware was stripped from the pad and removed. 16/2 is a reserve pad with upgrade plans on the back burner for the permanent home of the RD-193 variant of Soyuz-2.1v or its proposed unnamed successor. Some hardware for 43/3 came from 41/1 and 16/2 but not sure as to what all was scavanged. Note that not only the service cabin sustained damage but catwalks, piping and hardware above the service Cabin in the ring also sustained damage of which during launch video from the side of the trench can be seen being liberated and flying free in all directions with the view abruptly cut away as the service cabin was already beginning to move in the latter stages of the ignition sequence and hold down release. Once the rocket exhaust got a full grip behind the deflector it was game over from the rapidly building up back pressure from the pressurizing entrant gasses behind it.Thanks for your reply.Pad 16/2 still looked relatively complete on satellite images. Of course, I don't know if anything has been dismantled.And I don't believe it will be put back into operation. That's why I mentioned it. The great distance and 13 years of inactivity are disadvantages.Pad 5/1 is much closer and hasn't been out of service as long. But if it's to be converted into a museum together with Kazakhstan, they might not want to touch it.exciting times for the ISS
According to posters on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum a back-up version of the mobile service platform, ordered by the Soviet government back in 1971, had been delivered from the NKMZ factory in Ukraine to Baikonur in 2013. However, it likely represents the older 8U216 version of the structure and, in any case, its installation would require major construction work at the pad, including the dismantling of the existing equipment.
Well a spare cabin is already in storage at the cosmodrome. I had forgotten about this.https://russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_r7_31.html#cabinQuoteAccording to posters on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum a back-up version of the mobile service platform, ordered by the Soviet government back in 1971, had been delivered from the NKMZ factory in Ukraine to Baikonur in 2013. However, it likely represents the older 8U216 version of the structure and, in any case, its installation would require major construction work at the pad, including the dismantling of the existing equipment.The 8U216 version is shown in the link below:https://russianspaceweb.com/vostochny_soyuz_ko.html
Quote from: GWR64 on 11/30/2025 08:59 amQuote from: russianhalo117 on 11/29/2025 10:24 pm...41/1 is the easiest as when it was decommissioned all hardware was stripped from the pad and removed. 16/2 is a reserve pad with upgrade plans on the back burner for the permanent home of the RD-193 variant of Soyuz-2.1v or its proposed unnamed successor. Some hardware for 43/3 came from 41/1 and 16/2 but not sure as to what all was scavanged. Note that not only the service cabin sustained damage but catwalks, piping and hardware above the service Cabin in the ring also sustained damage of which during launch video from the side of the trench can be seen being liberated and flying free in all directions with the view abruptly cut away as the service cabin was already beginning to move in the latter stages of the ignition sequence and hold down release. Once the rocket exhaust got a full grip behind the deflector it was game over from the rapidly building up back pressure from the pressurizing entrant gasses behind it.Thanks for your reply.Pad 16/2 still looked relatively complete on satellite images. Of course, I don't know if anything has been dismantled.And I don't believe it will be put back into operation. That's why I mentioned it. The great distance and 13 years of inactivity are disadvantages.Pad 5/1 is much closer and hasn't been out of service as long. But if it's to be converted into a museum together with Kazakhstan, they might not want to touch it.exciting times for the ISS 41/1 (Lesobaza was the pad name) not 1/5.https://russianspaceweb.com/plesetsk_r7_41.html
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 11/30/2025 02:34 pmWell a spare cabin is already in storage at the cosmodrome. I had forgotten about this.https://russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_r7_31.html#cabinQuoteAccording to posters on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum a back-up version of the mobile service platform, ordered by the Soviet government back in 1971, had been delivered from the NKMZ factory in Ukraine to Baikonur in 2013. However, it likely represents the older 8U216 version of the structure and, in any case, its installation would require major construction work at the pad, including the dismantling of the existing equipment.The 8U216 version is shown in the link below:https://russianspaceweb.com/vostochny_soyuz_ko.html Ordered in 1971, delivered in 2013... That cant be right?
Thursday was the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States and so far NASA has not commented on the implications of damage to Site 31 in Kazakhstan.However one source familiar with the agency’s relationship with Russia said there are multiple concerns. In the long-term, as Manber said, this will test Russia’s commitment to the partnership. But in the near-term there are concerns about the lack of Progress launches.
Not only does this cargo vehicle bring supplies to the Russian segment of the station, it is used as a primary means to reboost the space station’s altitude. It also services the Russian thruster attitude control system which works alongside the US control moment gyroscopes to maintain the station’s attitude and orientation. Notably, the Russian control system “desaturates” the US gyroscopes by removing their excess angular momentum.
The at least temporary loss of Site 31 will only place further pressure on SpaceX. The company currently flies NASA’s only operational crewed vehicle capable of reaching the space station, and the space agency recently announced that Boeing’s Starliner vehicle needs to fly an uncrewed mission before potentially carrying crew again. Moreover, due to rocket issues, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 vehicle is the only rocket currently available to launch both Dragon and Cygnus supply missions to the space station. For a time, SpaceX may also now be called upon to backstop Russia as well.
According to the first official press release from Roscosmos, all the necessary spare parts are available for the restoration of the launch complex, and it will be repaired in the near future. Sources in the Russian space industry have confirmed that a spare set of elements for the maintenance cabin does exist in Roscosmos warehouses.
Roscosmos Nov 27 at 11:41✔The space rocket launched without incident. The ship successfully docked with the International Space Station. The crew is on board and in good health.The launch pad was inspected, as is done every time a rocket is launched. Damage to several launch pad components was detected.Damage can occur after launch, so such inspections are mandatory worldwide.The launch pad's condition is currently being assessed.All necessary spare components are available for repair, and the damage will be repaired shortly.
I have a some questions. Since many are saying that the Russians have spare for the 8U216 moblie platform. I guess they'll need to upgrade it to 8U216M specs. But after that how they'll install it. Do they need to remove the concrete slab over its shelter to lower it down (in one piece or in parts)? Do they need to dismantle other structures?
Quote from: The man in the can on 12/01/2025 06:26 pmI have a some questions. Since many are saying that the Russians have spare for the 8U216 moblie platform. I guess they'll need to upgrade it to 8U216M specs. But after that how they'll install it. Do they need to remove the concrete slab over its shelter to lower it down (in one piece or in parts)? Do they need to dismantle other structures?The platform moves along a set of rails - I'd assume they could install temporary rail extensions on a support truss in the flame trench and then roll the replacement platform into its storage bay using the rails.
I don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.
Quote from: Tomness on 11/30/2025 05:10 pmI don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.In the Scott Manley video posted above (post #73), Manley says the main reason they are hesitant to launch crews from Vostochny is the hazardous downrange abort zone: rugged, forested terrain, then ocean. Maybe the folks here could comment on that?
In the Scott Manley video posted above (post #73), Manley says the main reason they are hesitant to launch crews from Vostochny is the hazardous downrange abort zone: rugged, forested terrain, then ocean. Maybe the folks here could comment on that?
“NASA is aware Roscosmos is inspecting Launch Pad 6 at Site 31 following launch of the Soyuz MS-28 on November 27 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan,” a NASA spokesperson told Futurism in a statement. “NASA coordinates closely with its international partners, including Roscosmos, for the safe operations of the International Space Station and its crew members.”The agency also confirmed that the MS-28 crew “safely arrived at the space station” following their launch, but didn’t elaborate on whether the incident would impact any future crewed missions, referring Futurism to reach out to Roscosmos, which didn’t reply by press time.
Paul Montagne@AstroPolo_Space·Found a pic (2009) of the Soyuz platform from the pad in Sinnamary, French Guyana. Without maintenance for years & the harsh climate, it surely is not in good shape ... and soon dismantled.
Strugovets writes:https://t.me/roscosmos_press/3240Google translate:QuoteBy the way:The 31st pad of the Baikonur Cosmodrome has been ordered to be restored by Cosmonautics Day (2026).To avoid a tearful celebration.UPDATE: Spare parts for repairs are already being delivered to Pad 31.
By the way:The 31st pad of the Baikonur Cosmodrome has been ordered to be restored by Cosmonautics Day (2026).To avoid a tearful celebration.UPDATE: Spare parts for repairs are already being delivered to Pad 31.
Cross-post:Quote from: Salo on 12/05/2025 07:15 pmStrugovets writes:https://t.me/roscosmos_press/3240Google translate:QuoteBy the way:.... Cosmonautics Day (2026)...
Strugovets writes:https://t.me/roscosmos_press/3240Google translate:QuoteBy the way:.... Cosmonautics Day (2026)...
By the way:.... Cosmonautics Day (2026)...
Quote from: Tomness on 11/30/2025 05:10 pmI don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.In case of emergency during flight, partially launched Soyuz from Baikonur will fall in Altay mountains, near Chinese/Mongolese border, it was several times in history and rescue procedures are ready. In the same case on Vostochny, the ship will fall into ocean. Russian vessels, unlike American, can't land to water.
Quote from: MaxBioHazard on 12/07/2025 03:29 amQuote from: Tomness on 11/30/2025 05:10 pmI don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.In case of emergency during flight, partially launched Soyuz from Baikonur will fall in Altay mountains, near Chinese/Mongolese border, it was several times in history and rescue procedures are ready. In the same case on Vostochny, the ship will fall into ocean. Russian vessels, unlike American, can't land to water.Yes, they can.
Quote from: Satori on 12/07/2025 07:57 amQuote from: MaxBioHazard on 12/07/2025 03:29 amQuote from: Tomness on 11/30/2025 05:10 pmI don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.In case of emergency during flight, partially launched Soyuz from Baikonur will fall in Altay mountains, near Chinese/Mongolese border, it was several times in history and rescue procedures are ready. In the same case on Vostochny, the ship will fall into ocean. Russian vessels, unlike American, can't land to water.Yes, they can.Soyuz 23, for example.And even though Soyuz was meant to land on land, it can technically splash down in a worst-case scenario.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 12/07/2025 10:53 pmQuote from: Satori on 12/07/2025 07:57 amQuote from: MaxBioHazard on 12/07/2025 03:29 amQuote from: Tomness on 11/30/2025 05:10 pmI don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.In case of emergency during flight, partially launched Soyuz from Baikonur will fall in Altay mountains, near Chinese/Mongolese border, it was several times in history and rescue procedures are ready. In the same case on Vostochny, the ship will fall into ocean. Russian vessels, unlike American, can't land to water.Yes, they can.Soyuz 23, for example.And even though Soyuz was meant to land on land, it can technically splash down in a worst-case scenario.Correct. Every crew does water-landing training as part of their pre-flight preparations.
Anatomy Kamikaze: Why did the accident happen?The technical collapse of the starting complex 31/6 can not be considered as an anomaly or a consequence of a single error of personnel. The incident is a determined result of the physical wear and tear of materials that worked outside the calculated operating cycles. The site, commissioned in 1961, was originally designed as part of a duplicate system, where the load was distributed between it and the legendary Gagarin launch. However, after the preservation of the first site in 2019, caused by the reluctance to finance its modernization for the Soyuz-2 series missiles, the 31st site was left alone, taking on the entire cargo flow of the national space program.The intensive schedule of recent years, which included manned missions, the sending of Trucks Progress and commercial launches, did not leave time windows for the major reconstruction of underground structures. The gas terminal is a cyclopean structure that took over a colossal temperature and acoustic impact of engines of the first and second stages for years accumulating microcracks.Heating cycles up to thousands of degrees, followed by sharp cooling in the continental climate of Kazakhstan, led to the degradation of the binding properties of concrete and the fatigue of the reinforcement frame. During the November launch, the gas-dynamic jet, instead of sliding normally on the heat-resistant footage, broke through the weakened defense and hit the supporting structures, causing an avalanche-like collapse of the tray wall and deformation of the spinal circle support ring.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that the damage is not superficial, but structural, affecting the geometry of the entire launch device. The positioning of the carrier rocket before the launch is measured in millimeters, and the slightest displacement of the foundation or the curvature of the power elements makes the safe installation of the next product impossible. Moreover, the shock wave and scattering of concrete fragments caused damage to the service unit - a complex multi-ton farm that provides personnel with access to the ship and communications. The restoration of such infrastructure does not require cosmetic repairs, but the actual construction of a new launch
Informative? Or a lot of assertions that are provided evidence free? Personally I'm not buying it. The author(s) seem to be saying that the pad is fundamentally compromised and requires a full scale reconstruction, but this sounds like the usual chicken-little sky-is-falling pessimism that the Russian 5th column are well known for. I'm leaning more towards the official explanation, but recognise that Roskosmos and the Kazakh authoritites have a vested interest in not fully disclosing all facts. I suspect the cause of the collapse of the service platform was a combination of human error (failure to secure after it was retracted) combined with maintenance inadequacies. The real question is how long to fix, and can temporary access facilities be erected to allow inspection and testing of the rocket tail section for the next planned launch.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 12/07/2025 10:53 pmQuote from: Satori on 12/07/2025 07:57 amQuote from: MaxBioHazard on 12/07/2025 03:29 amQuote from: Tomness on 11/30/2025 05:10 pmI don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.In case of emergency during flight, partially launched Soyuz from Baikonur will fall in Altay mountains, near Chinese/Mongolese border, it was several times in history and rescue procedures are ready. In the same case on Vostochny, the ship will fall into ocean. Russian vessels, unlike American, can't land to water.Yes, they can.Soyuz 23, for example.And even though Soyuz was meant to land on land, it can technically splash down in a worst-case scenario.OK, it can ditch, but Russia has no rescue fleet, unlike US.
Since Progress launches are technically possible from Vostochny, whose launch site latitude is ~51.88 degrees N, how much performance of the Soyuz would be needed for a plane change to the ISS’s 51.6-degree inclination?
Quote from: MaxBioHazard on 12/09/2025 10:34 amQuote from: ZachS09 on 12/07/2025 10:53 pmQuote from: Satori on 12/07/2025 07:57 amQuote from: MaxBioHazard on 12/07/2025 03:29 amQuote from: Tomness on 11/30/2025 05:10 pmI don't understand why they don't crew rate Vostochny, give up OneWeb Sats and get CSG Soyuz Pad and move everything to Vostochny.In case of emergency during flight, partially launched Soyuz from Baikonur will fall in Altay mountains, near Chinese/Mongolese border, it was several times in history and rescue procedures are ready. In the same case on Vostochny, the ship will fall into ocean. Russian vessels, unlike American, can't land to water.Yes, they can.Soyuz 23, for example.And even though Soyuz was meant to land on land, it can technically splash down in a worst-case scenario.OK, it can ditch, but Russia has no rescue fleet, unlike US.If they did crew rate Vostochny, then they would provide a recovery fleet. Wouldn't they?
Quote from: FreakySquirrel on 11/30/2025 05:33 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 11/30/2025 02:34 pmWell a spare cabin is already in storage at the cosmodrome. I had forgotten about this.https://russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_r7_31.html#cabinQuoteAccording to posters on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum a back-up version of the mobile service platform, ordered by the Soviet government back in 1971, had been delivered from the NKMZ factory in Ukraine to Baikonur in 2013. However, it likely represents the older 8U216 version of the structure and, in any case, its installation would require major construction work at the pad, including the dismantling of the existing equipment.The 8U216 version is shown in the link below:https://russianspaceweb.com/vostochny_soyuz_ko.html Ordered in 1971, delivered in 2013... That cant be right?Yes it was kept in storage and was rediscovered. They restored it and shipped it to Baikonur. Originally more R-7/R-7A ICBM pads were planned but the discovery and switch to storeable propellant and solid propellant cancelled further pads. The back up service cabin was due to flight testing resulting in changes to fix reliability of the launchers and pad.It was shipped and stored fully disassembled.
There was also a spare mobile platform stored at the arsenal of Space Forces in the town of Znamenka in the Tambov Region.
Anatoly Zak@RussianSpaceWebPad personnel struggled to secure the mobile platform before last month's botched Soyuz launch but proceeded to liftoff anyway so not disappoint bosses and tourists, according to unofficial reports.DETAILS: https://russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_r7_31.html#cabin
Just to dedramatize this story : during a Globalstar launch in December 2011, the launch tower of pad n°6 had been damaged by engines plume. Four months of work were necessary, and the pad returned to service in April 2012. At the time, there was no panic, mostly because a second launch pad existed for manned flights and because... social networks almost didn't exist
Katya Pavlushchenko@katlinegreyRoscosmos reported that a spare kit for the maintenance cabin at #Site31 has arrived at Baikonur. It is expected that it will be ready for launch at the end of February 2026. Here’s some details and a video by Roscosmos in the thread below. ⤵️
At the time, there was no panic, mostly because a second launch pad existed for manned flights and because... social networks almost didn't exist
afec7032 🇷🇺@robert_savitskyRoscosmos says that the full replacement kit of the service cabin has arrived at the Baikonur, and they're working on making the pad ready for launch by the end of February.If it's repaired on schedule, Progress MS-33 will be the only mission that was delayed by the incident.
This accident has dipped the orbital launch count from Baikonur to the lowest since 1959 - only six launches in 2025.1957-1961: 2-5-4-8-7 launches 1962-2019: two-digit launch counts2020-2025: 7-14-7-9-8-6 launches
Quote from: PM3 on 12/28/2025 05:02 pmThis accident has dipped the orbital launch count from Baikonur to the lowest since 1959 - only six launches in 2025.1957-1961: 2-5-4-8-7 launches 1962-2019: two-digit launch counts2020-2025: 7-14-7-9-8-6 launchesI would say that this accident is only one of the reasons that Baikonour having its current low launch rate.
Quote from: AmigaClone on 12/29/2025 01:38 amQuote from: PM3 on 12/28/2025 05:02 pmThis accident has dipped the orbital launch count from Baikonur to the lowest since 1959 - only six launches in 2025.1957-1961: 2-5-4-8-7 launches 1962-2019: two-digit launch counts2020-2025: 7-14-7-9-8-6 launchesI would say that this accident is only one of the reasons that Baikonour having its current low launch rate.Why would you guess that the launch rate only would have been one higher. The lack of foreign payloads coupled with sanctions forced domestic production of all components of which they lack expertise resulting in quality control, learning curves to advance TRL for the domestic industrial base, and satellites products having to be redesigned and modernised to use the domestic hardware they can manufacture with passable quality standards resulted in ongoing gaps in production lines causing a knock on effect. Once they domestically rebound then they can increase launch rates. That is why nearly everything other than ISS flights are continually being bumped to the right from an industry wide perspective. As existing hardware is used up the gap worsens as they deal with mandatory industrial component domestication.
NASA appears confident in pad repairs...Russia had been targeting a return to flight mission in March 2026. NASA now appears to believe that. The US space agency’s internal schedule, which was recently updated, has the next Progress spacecraft launch set for March 22, followed by another Progress mission on April 26
Russian Space Web free article:Roskosmos manager casts doubts on timely repairs of Soyuz pad
but he expressed hope that the March 2026 deadline was still achievable
It wouldn't be an Anatoly Zak article unless it has a huge dollop of mandatory pessimism... The article strongly infers that the issues are one of some mechanica/ & structural interfaces not being in alignment, so they will need to perform steelwork modifications and on-site remedial coatings. Not rocket science, excuse the pun. Its about as mundane as it gets,
Thanks russianhalo117 and thank you Anatoly Zak (anik) for the free article.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 01/29/2026 05:41 pmRussian Space Web free article:Roskosmos manager casts doubts on timely repairs of Soyuz padThe headline casts doubt but the article says Quotebut he expressed hope that the March 2026 deadline was still achievable
Eric Berger@SciGuySpace·NASA's Dina Contella said Russia's projected March 22 date for the next Progress launch (from a damaged pad in Baikonur) is looking "pretty good." But they're watching the schedule closely.
Quote from: big_gazza on 01/30/2026 06:54 amIt wouldn't be an Anatoly Zak article unless it has a huge dollop of mandatory pessimism... The article strongly infers that the issues are one of some mechanica/ & structural interfaces not being in alignment, so they will need to perform steelwork modifications and on-site remedial coatings. Not rocket science, excuse the pun. Its about as mundane as it gets,Not inferred. Rather confirmed. The entire shift for that launch incident is under criminal review by the investigating committee. Note that hardware was a different version designed for a different pad and all of the pads are not identical rather similar. Pessimism, rather the Slavic culture, language and way of life that he grew up in with English as a second language.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 01/30/2026 08:17 amQuote from: big_gazza on 01/30/2026 06:54 amIt wouldn't be an Anatoly Zak article unless it has a huge dollop of mandatory pessimism... The article strongly infers that the issues are one of some mechanica/ & structural interfaces not being in alignment, so they will need to perform steelwork modifications and on-site remedial coatings. Not rocket science, excuse the pun. Its about as mundane as it gets,Not inferred. Rather confirmed. The entire shift for that launch incident is under criminal review by the investigating committee. Note that hardware was a different version designed for a different pad and all of the pads are not identical rather similar. Pessimism, rather the Slavic culture, language and way of life that he grew up in with English as a second language.Would they be better off giving OneWeb their Sats back and begging for the infrastructure at Kourou?
According to rumors from Baikonur, the new service platform was installed at Site 31 by Feb. 10, 2026.
