Major damage to Baikonur Site 31/6: policy discussion

[wannamoonbase]

Major damage to PU-6 at Baikonur


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

[catdlr]

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

This is where Boeing and Starliner could shine as a cargo vehicle beyond the next flight.  Probably not, but it's good PR potential for them.

[DanClemmensen]

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

This is where Boeing and Starliner could shine as a cargo vehicle beyond the next flight.  Probably not, but it's good PR potential for them.

Starliner is a horrible cargo vehicle. It has no external storage and it occupies one of the two available IDSS docking ports instead of a berthing port. We also do not know how much NASA agreed to pay for a Starliner cargo mission, but it's almost certainly more than Cargo Dragon or Cygnus.

[jpo234]

Guys, I do not see this launch happening anytime soon.

Time to suggest a trampoline?

[Eric Hedman]

Guys, I do not see this launch happening anytime soon.

Time to suggest a trampoline?

No.  No point in rubbing it in.  From what I can tell from my view of the situation, regardless of other issues with Russia, they have been good reliable partners on the ISS.
P.S. I do find the comment funny.

[Kaputnik]

Guys, I do not see this launch happening anytime soon.

Time to suggest a trampoline?

No.  No point in rubbing it in.  From what I can tell from my view of the situation, regardless of other issues with Russia, they have been good reliable partners on the ISS.
P.S. I do find the comment funny.

Well, apart from sending the whole thing in to a tumble due to malfunctioning thrusters.
But US vehicles have thruster problems too.
I agree that, in general, the Russians have been surprisingly cooperative in recent years.

[eeergo]

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.

No, it was retracted at the time of ignition. There are locks for each position travelled and fatigue could lead to weld failure with deferred maintenance or overlooked during inspections including throughout each launch campaign. If unsecured or incorrectly secured the launch environment can initiate rolling of structures. The service cabin crashed through the barriers and rolled off the end and fell to the bottom. Damage would have occurred to the launcher if launch was attempted and the service cabin would have been strewn across the trench in a much different and destroyed state. There are failsafe mechanisms in the launch system dating back to the R-7 ICBM days.

How can this have happened though? Such a rolling structure surely has good brakes and redundant braking systems in place, plus failsafe systems as you say that can be as dumb as mechanical stops/barriers. Surely a system designed in the 50s can have a bit of "play" and can incur in damage, but rolling off the rails uncontrolled for tens of meters after "crashing through the barriers" is not a subtle failure mechanism - and furthermore it never happened (as far as I'm aware) in 75 years of such pad design being in use, during periods of much stronger material, ideological and schedule hardship. Plus this kind of gross spectacular failure mode is precisely what mid-20th century mechanically overengineered Soviet infrastructure is best at preventing.


Did this platform even EVER get damaged from inadvertent rolling under a launching rocket before?

I mean, I hate to be that guy, but this reeks of either sabotage (or admittedly, extreme levels of incompetence, which I think are less likely and would involve at least a handful of people).


Think about it: with the (inexplicable IMO) mothballing/retirement of Gagarin's Pad a few years ago, and the political closure of the Guyanese ELS, there only remained this pad outside of Russian territory. It was also one of only 3 active pads worldwide (one of them being in a military base and at too high an inclination unsuitable for ISS use). Roscosmos and the Russian civil space program in general have been the subject of major defunding and explicit sidelining by the State's central politics, currently revolving around war(s). This blocks all crewed or uncrewed Russian participation in ISS for close to a year, if not years, even with emergency scrambling, either at Baikonur reparing this pad, adapting Vostochny's for crewed use and Soyuz/Progress spacecraft processing, or reviving a Soyuz-compatible Proton, which itself is in its death throes as an active launcher. Not sure whether this being a voluntary action would be supposed to hurt or benefit Russia, I guess it's in the ideological eyes of the beholder and its longtermist plan, but it would surely come as a high-impact shock in a fertile situation.

[xanmarus]

I mean, I hate to be that guy, but this reeks of either sabotage or extreme levels of incompetence.

Most likely, there's no money for proper maintenance because everything is being spent on the war with Ukraine. The same thing is happening all over Russia, even in Moscow.

[JSz]

Well, apart from sending the whole thing in to a tumble due to malfunctioning thrusters.
But US vehicles have thruster problems too.
I agree that, in general, the Russians have been surprisingly cooperative in recent years.

They were willing because this cooperation was financially beneficial to them, but it also gave Russia the only opportunity to keep their crewed space programme alive.

[sghill]

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?!

[TheKutKu]

I mean, I hate to be that guy, but this reeks of either sabotage (or admittedly, extreme levels of incompetence, which I think are less likely and would involve at least a handful of people).

I guess it's in the ideological eyes of the beholder and its longtermist plan, but it would surely come as a high-impact shock in a fertile situation.

If it was sabotage, it would have been done during september's progress mission, which would have caused a much more critical situation.

[eeergo]

I mean, I hate to be that guy, but this reeks of either sabotage (or admittedly, extreme levels of incompetence, which I think are less likely and would involve at least a handful of people).

I guess it's in the ideological eyes of the beholder and its longtermist plan, but it would surely come as a high-impact shock in a fertile situation.

If it was sabotage, it would have been done during september's progress mission, which would have caused a much more critical situation.

Maybe the opportunity didn't present itself then, or the saboteur wasn't interested in creating an immediate emergency in space. It happening on this flight isn't a discriminator IMHO. Also, the situation in Ukraine is not the same as in September.

[TheKutKu]

I mean, I hate to be that guy, but this reeks of either sabotage (or admittedly, extreme levels of incompetence, which I think are less likely and would involve at least a handful of people).

I guess it's in the ideological eyes of the beholder and its longtermist plan, but it would surely come as a high-impact shock in a fertile situation.

If it was sabotage, it would have been done during september's progress mission, which would have caused a much more critical situation.

Maybe the opportunity didn't present itself then, or the saboteur wasn't interested in creating an immediate emergency in space. It happening on this flight isn't a discriminator IMHO. Also, the situation in Ukraine is not the same as in September.

Why wouldn't a military installation at Plesetsk be targeted in priority? If such sabotage is ever revealed this would cause immensely more international backlash than the targeting of a military facility?

[eeergo]

Based on the debris pictures I’m going with what someone suggested up thread…I’m betting a lot of of the parts can be reused to build the structure…especially those components at the top of the heap.

Nah, those components were subjected to the launch exhaust on their way out of the shelter, which they aren't designed to withstand, not to mention the 5-storey free-fall and impact shock will have deformed a lot of the structure. The square trusses and underlying components are visibly mangled even in those long-range images. The top circular "crown" less so because the rest served as a crushable buffer, but one would have to get closer to appreciate its damage. By the way, the superstructure is probably the easiest part to replace even if it's bigger: the rocket-servicing subcomponents are likely far more complex and fragile.

It's very likely far easier (though still hard!) to rebuild it rather than pass a fine comb through the wreck (how?) and attempt to salvage bits and pieces that may unexpectedly fail or cause issues later.

Why wouldn't a military installation at Plesetsk be targeted in priority? If such sabotage is ever revealed this would cause immensely more international backlash than the targeting of a military facility?

As I hinted, this incident might be seen as damaging or catalyzing to Russia's current ambitions, depending on your long-term strategy and ideology. So IF this was sabotage, it could conceivably have come from Russia's own ranks as well as from its adversaries' (namely Ukraine, but not only) - think the case of NordStream-2, and the lack of actual backlash from any of the involved parties.

Surely some factions in power will be quick to propose (Rogozin-style) "temporarily" diverting resources from the "luxury gifts to the corrupt West" through HSF, towards the war effort. If ISS is abandoned because of lack of Russian supplies and crew transportation, they will argue, it will serve "them" well, and will free up resources for Russia's own national projects if so desired, allowing to increase the country's autarchy. This is likely commentary to watch out for, no matter the actual nature of the incident or its perpetrators.

Kazakhstan has been ambivalent bordering on hostile to Russia's ambitions in Ukraine (no doubt understanding it can happen to them too if it succeeds), and have shown explicit disinterest in continued development or maintenance of Baikonur's shared Soviet heritage for years, let alone new Russian-only initiatives. I can think of other equally plausible scenarios involving Ukraine or the US.

Even if having no direct impact on military events, stopping Russia-led HSF is far more attention-grabbing and policy-shaping than having a brief tactical advantage by delaying the pace of launch of military satellites (which is not particularly breakneck anyway, and could more easily be rerouted to Vostochny or Baikonur). It's also less on-the-nose than an obvious military target.


PS after mod note: This post isn't intended as political, it just spells out scenarios by which a sabotage might make sense.

[Nighthawk117]

As I hinted, this incident might be seen as damaging or catalyzing to Russia's current ambitions, depending on your long-term strategy and ideology. So IF this was sabotage, it could conceivably have come from Russia's own ranks as well as from its adversaries' (namely Ukraine, but not only) - think the case of NordStream-2, and the lack of actual backlash from any of the involved parties.

eeergo

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing myself.

[Metalskin]

As I hinted, this incident might be seen as damaging or catalyzing to Russia's current ambitions, depending on your long-term strategy and ideology. So IF this was sabotage, it could conceivably have come from Russia's own ranks as well as from its adversaries' (namely Ukraine, but not only) - think the case of NordStream-2, and the lack of actual backlash from any of the involved parties.

eeergo

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing myself.

While sabotage is a possibility, I prefer to paraphrase Halon's Razor: Don't describe as malicious that which can easily be explained as incompetence or laziness.

[edzieba]

As I hinted, this incident might be seen as damaging or catalyzing to Russia's current ambitions, depending on your long-term strategy and ideology. So IF this was sabotage, it could conceivably have come from Russia's own ranks as well as from its adversaries' (namely Ukraine, but not only) - think the case of NordStream-2, and the lack of actual backlash from any of the involved parties.

eeergo

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing myself.

While sabotage is a possibility, I prefer to paraphrase Halon's Razor: Don't describe as malicious that which can easily be explained as incompetence or laziness.

From drilling a hole in a Soyuz flight pressure vessel and covering it with spackle (MS-08), to spinning the ISS out of control until prop depletion with Nauka, to hammering a booster segment in resulting in an in-flight RUD and live use of the crew escape system with Soyuz MS-10, the well know issues with Angara development and KVTK development, etc, Russia is entirely capable of generating purely domestic failures in its civilian aerospace programmes, as well as military (e.g. multiple sequential Sarmat failures, the explosion and radionuclide release at Nyonoksa, etc).

[Jim]

Starliner is a horrible cargo vehicle. It has no external storage and it occupies one of the two available IDSS docking ports

Wrong.  External is not a requirement and cargo Dragon uses the same ports

[DanClemmensen]

Starliner is a horrible cargo vehicle. It has no external storage and it occupies one of the two available IDSS docking ports

Wrong.  External is not a requirement and cargo Dragon uses the same ports

You trimmed my cost concern.  Do you think Boeing will accept the same $/kg as Cargo Dragon or Cygnus?

[yg1968]

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

This is where Boeing and Starliner could shine as a cargo vehicle beyond the next flight.  Probably not, but it's good PR potential for them.

Starliner is a horrible cargo vehicle. It has no external storage and it occupies one of the two available IDSS docking ports instead of a berthing port. We also do not know how much NASA agreed to pay for a Starliner cargo mission, but it's almost certainly more than Cargo Dragon or Cygnus.

I don't think that NASA paid anything extra for the "cargo" (uncrewed) mission, it's part of their revised CCtCap contract with Boeing. Furthermore, it's more of an uncrewed mission than a cargo mission.

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1993092300210122921