Major damage to PU-6 at Baikonur

[Satori]

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.

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.

[ZachS09]

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.

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.

[darkenfast]

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.

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.

[catdlr]

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.

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.

[datatramp]

Google translation bits from an informative russian article. It seems the damage is deeper.
https://habr.com/ru/articles/972274/

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

[big_gazza]

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.

[eeergo]

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.

The bolded expression is a dead giveaway.

There's clear graphical documentation of not only the platform's cartwheel and collapse, but also of the pad's pit being extremely worse for wear. The explanation hinted at in the above text (failure of the concrete underside supports on the pad) actually makes more sense than having what is actually akin to 2-3 large gantry cranes welded together, roll spontaneously for tens of meters and reach the end of the rails with enough momentum to fully slide off, with no blame from the rest of the infrastructure. Such a thing never made any kind of sense unless it was willfully facilitated by someone.

[MaxBioHazard]

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.

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.

[daedalus1]

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.

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?

[Brigantine]

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?

That's a 17 nmi = 31 km dog-leg at launch. Instead of a plane-change maneuver (<40 m/s), it's just slight cosine losses. ~20 m/s? So in terms of payload capacity, reduce it by approx 0.6% of (upper stage dry mass + payload) so 60-70 kg.

But I note wiki already lists Soyuz payload capacity to 51.6⁰ from Vostochny. (albeit only to 240 km altitude)

_{Launch at azimuth of e.g. 096, then starting a bit before booster separation, gradually (over 100's of track km) turn left to eventually reach e.g. 087 such that by the time you reach orbital velocity your latitude is 51.6N and flight path is 090. [correct for downrange bearing changes of the great circle] I WAG it would cost about 20 m/s, it depends on the downrange acceleration profile etc. I assume there are no range constraints in that direction.}

[russianhalo117]

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.

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?

Recovery fleet in the water is the Russian Ministry of Civil Defence, Emergencies and Disaster Relief (EMERCOM), Roscosmos, the Russian Ministry of Defense, coast guard and navy depending upon the area. Land operations include Ministry of Civil Defence, Emergencies and Disaster Relief (EMERCOM) Roscosmos, and the Ministry Of Defense.

Notable links which maybe geopolitically restricted:
https://en.mchs.gov.ru

[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

 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.

An additional one also exists:
https://russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_r7_31.html#december

There was also a spare mobile platform stored at the arsenal of Space Forces in the town of Znamenka in the Tambov Region.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1999562350098067814

Anatoly Zak
@RussianSpaceWeb
Pad 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

[Nicolas PILLET]

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

[mn]

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

How eerily similar to this, from a failure in December to a reported repair target of April.

If they actually repair it by April this story would indeed be dedramatized.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/2000795973833077050

Katya Pavlushchenko
@katlinegrey

Roscosmos 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. ⤵️

[owais.usmani]

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

And also one more thing, if I may add. Back then, Mr. AZ still used to identify himself as a Russian, with no insider content.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/robert_savitsky/status/2000803305816305957

afec7032 🇷🇺
@robert_savitsky
Roscosmos 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.

[PM3]

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 counts
2020-2025:  7-14-7-9-8-6 launches

[AmigaClone]

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 counts
2020-2025:  7-14-7-9-8-6 launches

I would say that this accident is only one of the reasons that Baikonour having its current low launch rate.