Major damage to PU-6 at Baikonur

[JonathanD]

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?

[smoliarm]

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?

No, for me it does not look upside down: the circular structure is the topmost part of the platform, and it's still on the top.

[catdlr]

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?

Here is a video of it being rolled back just before launch at the Vostochny cosmodrome in 2021.

https://twitter.com/robert_savitsky/status/1994683000001630536

afec7032 🇷🇺
@robert_savitsky
This 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

[Nonexistence]

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?

[Vettedrmr]

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?

I looked at those myself at first, but I think they are in the correct post-launch position.  According to Eric Berger at ArsTechnica:

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.

[russianhalo117]

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?

The levels retract flat onto the carrier frame and latch in place.

[russianhalo117]

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?

Being upside down is not an illusion because the metal portion of the flame diverter separated first from the service cabin's carrier during its rolling escape thus is now partially underneath upside down as it collided with other pad hardware. With that separated the mass distribution is asymmetrical has a reason to flip. It landed diverter first and fell onto its back.

[HVM]

Divider catch first and mass throw it over, and it's up-side down:

[russianhalo117]

Divider 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.

[HVM]

Here is rigid body simulation that will clear this mix-up
https://twitter.com/HVM_fi/status/1994859845237842314

[GWR64]

Divider 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?

[russianhalo117]

Divider 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?

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.

[russianhalo117]

Here is rigid body simulation that will clear this mix-up

I dont believe so as there is not any damage directly underneath the launch table rather all video and photos indicate that the it was ejected perpendicular to the direction of exhaust deflection horizontally away from the pad in the nominal primary path of deflection into the bowl. The mission is backed up by the ejection of piping and damaged and missing catwalks around the outer edge of the launch table.

As for the original linked x post there are wheel chocks welded to the rails at each end, plus GSE and cable carrier ceiling mounted tracks that they slide on.

There are engineering cameras present in the service cabin  bunker and below and in the launch table that we will likely never see.

[cohberg]

[GWR64]

...
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 1/5 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 

[big_gazza]

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?

[eeergo]

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?

For sure at T+10 min (the time the drone shots were aired) the platform had already fell and the dust from its impact had settled, so if it didn't happen close to T-0, it didn't take long afterwards. Not sure when the platform is repositioned back over the flame trench, but I doubt it's done just minutes after launch, when inspections verifying everything is fine to move it back out can't have taken place yet.

[TJL]

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?

Video of the launch shows just as the Soyuz rocket was clearing the launch platform a long piece of metal shooting out of the launch pad pit.

[russianhalo117]

...
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

[russianhalo117]

Well a spare cabin is already in storage at the cosmodrome. I had forgotten about this.
https://russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_r7_31.html#cabin

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.

The 8U216 version is shown in the link below:
https://russianspaceweb.com/vostochny_soyuz_ko.html