Baikonur has reached the final stage, is it only Vostochny or a trampoline next?
First of all, a little bit at once storiesRemember how in 2014, Dmitry Rogozin, then Deputy Prime Minister and head of cosmonautics, proposed on a now-banned social network that American astronauts be transported to the International Space Station using trampolines?
And in April 2021, he denied reports of negotiations between Roscosmos and SpaceX, stating that Russia had its own plans and that the Russian manned spacecraft Orel would fly to the Russian station in 2025. Well, if there's a station, there'll be a new spacecraft. If there's no station, we'll go to the ISS.
Here we are, the year 2025 is ending. Where is the Russian station? Where are all these "Orel," "Federation," "Argo," and "Parus"?
I would very much like to insert a quote from one of the greatest Russian writers, born in the Russian city of Kyiv, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, from his immortal novel:
The audience didn't like Bengalsky's speech. A complete silence followed, broken by the checkered Fagot.
“This is again a case of so-called lies,” he declared in a loud, goatish tenor, “the papers, citizens, are real!”
“This is again a case of so-called lies,” he declared in a loud, goatish tenor, “the papers, citizens, are real!”
There are no new ships. There are no reusable ones. missilesThere are no new rockets. In fact, there are launch vehicles and spacecraft created by the greatest figures of the last millennium: Korolev, Keldysh, Glushko, Tsander, Tikhonravov, Mishin, and other lesser-known but no less significant engineers and designers.
The Soyuz and Progress spacecraft (the cargo version of the Soyuz), the Soyuz, Proton, Zenit, and Rokot launch vehicles—all were created by the brilliant designers of the Soviet school. And at the same time, Baikonur was built, a gem of the space age, just like Cape Canaveral.
And so, on November 27, 2025, the final chapter of the Baikonur Cosmodrome was closed. That's just how it happened.
It was on November 27, after the launch of the Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle carrying the Soyuz MS-28 spacecraft, that an event occurred that would become a milestone in the history of Russian cosmonautics.
The launch itself was successful; Soyuz MS-28, carrying cosmonauts Sergei Kud-Sverchkov, Sergei Mikayev, and astronaut Christopher Williams, safely lifted off from Earth and arrived at the ISS.
But after liftoff, the 8U216 service cabin fell onto the launch pad and flue. It's important to note that a service cabin isn't exactly a cabin in our understanding. It's a three-level platform measuring 20 x 17 meters and weighing approximately 150 tons.
During launch preparation, this cabin extends from the concrete wall of the exhaust duct and is positioned under the underside of the rocket. Its platforms are raised, providing access to the first- and second-stage engines of the launch vehicle. From here, the team performs all pre-launch work on the underside of the rocket, including removing protective covers and installing "blocks with special devices" on the rocket's engines.
The significant term "bars with special devices" conceals ordinary pyrotechnic charges with electric fuses, without which it would be impossible to start these ancient engines created by Korolev and Glushko. And the bar... Well, a bar is just that—a square piece of wood. That's how they launched space rocket engines in the 60s, and it turns out that's how they still do it today. Not the Falcon, though...
What happened on November 27?
Preparations for the launch of Soyuz-2.1a and Soyuz MS-28 proceeded as planned. Forty-four minutes before liftoff, the service cabin moved into its bay, as scheduled. Then came the launch, and then, during liftoff, something happened: the pressure created by the exhaust flow from the engines ripped the cabin out of its bay.
It's a good thing it wasn't an instantaneous process; the rocket ascended safely, but then the cabin plummeted 20 meters into the deflector chute, flipping over during the fall and landing upside down. That is, the entire two-story superstructure—you know, 150 tons from 20 meters, F = m*g… Basically, there was nothing left to repair.
The reason for this is said to be the insecure fastening of the cabin in the niche or the locks that could not withstand the load.
Regarding the launch crew's incompetence... I absolutely don't want to look at that for several reasons. I've spoken to them, I won't spoil it, but there will be another article later. These are unique people, somewhat akin to submariners. Professionalism mixed with... perhaps fanaticism. It's difficult to understand, easier to respect.
But the idea of a faulty lock is entirely plausible, especially since specialized sources like RussianSpaceWeb.com directly state that the cause of the accident was violations of the operating rules for facility 31/6, which arose due to infrequent maintenance over the past few years.
And here, everyone is openly talking about the "optimization" that began under Rogozin and which no one has reversed. And the optimization at Roscosmos is no different from similar processes anywhere: more work for less money and, in general, savings on everything. The savings, as they say, are obvious. Or rather, in the gas vent.
Many experts, even without conducting analyses or commissions, say that the 8U216 service cabin is everything.
Not repairable
We need to build (there is no better word) a new one.
Fortunately, the plant where the 8U-216 was built in the 60s, namely the Syzran Tyazhmash plant, which is controlled by the Trifonov family, is alive and well, and, what's more, thriving, unlike many of its peers.
This is a whole other mystery about how Lieutenant Colonel-topographer Sergei Trifonov ended up in the chair of the general director of Tyazhmash in 2004, when it was on the verge of bankruptcy, and how Trifonov pulled the plant out, but the fact is: there is room to make a cabin.
The only question is how long it will take. Those who built these cabins 60 years ago, you know. Today, building the cabins for Vostochny and Kourou took two years each.
After the accident, Roscosmos reported "the availability of all necessary spare parts to restore the launch complex, so it will be repaired in the near future." But behind this proud report lies... Gagarin's Launch Site, Pad No. 1. This complex was transferred to Kazakhstan in 2010, and an open-air museum was established there. Clearly, this was part of the same optimization.
Indeed, why keep a backup launch pad? Why waste money on it? It's easier to just throw it away in Kazakhstan. Off the balance sheet, as they say, off the expense list.
And now the best thing that's in store for Baikonur is that the used cabin from Gagarin's launch pad will be hauled over and installed at Site 31. It's hard to say how smart this is, considering there's been no proper maintenance for 15 years.
According to various estimates, the recovery time for Launch Complex 31/6 ranges from several months to three years. Even with sufficient spare parts, a full inspection of the launch complex is first necessary to determine whether the cabin damaged other elements of the pad during the collapse. These inspections will take several months, that's for sure.
And then there's another aspect. Russia today is not the USSR. Or even the USA. It's a tightly bureaucratized country, where there are, on average, six managers and executives for every worker in any organization.
And Roscosmos, which is also a state-owned company... They'll first need to conduct damage assessments and cost calculations. Then prepare the documents for the tender for the proposed work. Then hold the tender itself. Basically, it'll be at least six months of paperwork, and even longer, since the inspection and damage assessment at Site 31 alone will take between three and six months, according to preliminary estimates.
And how long the work itself will take—nobody knows at all. Or how much it will cost. And what condition will the cabin be in when it's hauled to the 31st launch site? Again, there's simply no precedent in history for dismantling a service cabin, moving it to another site, and reassembling it there.
Considering our realities and possible assistance from the Kazakhs, definitely three years, no less.
For example, historically, Backup Pad No. 31 has been operational since 1961, that is, since the dawn of manned spaceflight. It has already suffered accidents that temporarily left the country without a backup pad. I'll quote General Kamanin's diaries:
I visited Site 31 and inspected the launch site, which was destroyed by a rocket explosion on December 14, 1966. The launch site restoration is proceeding successfully; all concrete work has been completed, and installation of the launch equipment has begun. The builders and assemblers assure that they will have the launch site fully restored by May 1, 1967.
Then, a rocket carrying the Kosmos-133 spacecraft, which later became the Soyuz, exploded on the pad. And it must be said that people worked much more efficiently back then than they do now. At least there were no government procurement laws that would completely slow things down. And to be fair, I should note that the fitters and builders gave their bosses a deadline they were supposed to give up on. As expected, they gave it a nice figure, so that management would actually back off and not interfere with the work. In fact, the first flight from the renovated pad took place not on May 1, 1967, but on February 8, 1968.
So, when (if at all) they'll be able to restore Site 31 is a big question. A very big one.
ISS
Meanwhile, pad 31/6 was the only Russian launch complex capable of sending crews to the ISS. It's fair to ask about Plesetsk, Kourou, and Vostochny. Yes, they exist, and they have pads for Soyuz launches, but:
Plesetsk, due to its northern location, is unsuitable for launching manned spacecraft. Satellites can be launched from there, but a Soyuz spacecraft carrying a crew is not. This is due to several physical reasons.
"Vostochny doesn't have the infrastructure for manned launches, specifically, its search and rescue system in the event of an accident is completely undeveloped. Yes, this represents 1 to 4% of the total number of launches, but nonetheless."
- Kourou. You might recall, we poured a ton of money into it. But now the Kourou spaceport is closed due to sanctions.
Sea Launch is a complete disaster, not to mention the venture itself: the half-disassembled complex has been sitting in the Far East since 2020, stranded and without a chance. All American and Ukrainian equipment has been removed from the ships, and naturally, the Zenit launch vehicles manufactured by Yuzhmash are gone. In short, it's a complete sea shambles.
So the only glimmer of hope is Vostochny, but there are no fewer difficulties there.
In May 2025, Rafael Murtazin, head of the ballistics department at RSC Energia, publicly mentioned restrictions on manned flights from Vostochny in an interview with MK. He said:
Incidentally, a 97-degree orbital inclination will be more advantageous for launches from our Vostochny Cosmodrome, where we plan to transfer all launches after the ISS deorbits. If we launch from Vostochny to an orbit with a lower inclination, the flight path will pass over the Pacific Ocean or the United States or Canada. To insure the cosmonauts in the maritime zone during each launch, 12-13 rescue ships will be on duty (in case of an emergency, the probability of which is no more than 1 percent). But if we launch from Vostochny to an orbit with a 97-degree inclination, the first two stages will fall over our territory, over land, for which we will not face any claims from other countries. Moreover, insuring our cosmonauts will be much more convenient.
True, the head of the ballistics department is silent about the fact that it is one thing to search in the Kazakh steppe-desert, and another to search in the forests of Siberia and the Far East.
But all this is in the uncertain future, after a ton of decisions have been made. In the meantime, Russia will be unable to send Soyuz and Progress spacecraft to the ISS for some time.
And here a number of very unpleasant questions immediately arise:
1. What will happen to the Progress capsule, which is scheduled to launch with cargo to the ISS on December 21? Will they unload it and then go beg Musk for a ride to the ISS?
2. How will crew rotations take place on the Russian segment? Russian cosmonauts fly to the ISS under the cross-flight program. Under this program, Russia and the United States each provide one spacecraft seat for a representative of the other country. That is, one seat on the Soyuz versus one seat on the Dragon.
I don't know how this program will work without Soyuz, or even if it will work at all. The Americans are such guys, they could even recall Rogozin's trampoline. And the ISS can't be left without a Russian crew; the Russian segment needs to be serviced, it needs repairs, and everything there is far from new...
3. What's easier: repairing the launch pad at Baikonur or refurbishing the Vostochny launch site? I mean, which is faster? Because space won't wait, and if we don't want to lose the Russian segment of the ISS, we need to move faster.
Well, the last
Sergei Pavlovich Korolev was a brilliant designer who understood space. That's why he had backup launch pads. Yes, they were destroyed from time to time, there were accidents, but that was the beginning of the journey into human spaceflight. Elon Reeve Musk proved a worthy student and also created backup infrastructure for manned spaceflight launches, and not because he was strapped for cash.
Both clearly understood the value of backup launches. Korolev usually had a second launch vehicle ready when launching one spacecraft. Just in case. Incidentally, the Chinese have also grasped the concept and are doing the same thing. And, imagine, it's already paid off for them!
Here's a Chinese example: micrometeorites or space debris damaged the windows of the Shenzhou-20 spacecraft, docked to the Chinese orbital station. A problem? Absolutely not! China immediately launched the backup manned spacecraft, Shenzhou-21, and the astronauts were removed from the station and returned to Earth. The "leaky" Shenzhou-20 will be deorbited unmanned.
What if they didn't have a spare spacecraft on standby? What if something like this happened to ours? Would they have pierced the Soyuz? Yes, our American friends would have evacuated our cosmonauts from the ISS, but what would they do if something like this happened on the ROS, which, with its planned Eastern orbit, can't be approached from any other spaceport? Neither the Chinese nor the Americans?
A situation that could easily happen: the ROS is hanging out in its unreachable orbit, the only launch pad is damaged, so what? Will the cosmonauts immediately be awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union title posthumously? Or will they hang around for six months, sharing the last can of food three ways?
Some believe that our frankly incompetent, would-be optimizers among the "effective managers" have gone too far in their cost-cutting. And, as a result, have left the Russian space industry without space, or more precisely, without spaceports.
I imagine a repeat of that very meeting with Stalin, when in 1942 it became clear that the existing guns were not capable of penetrating the Tigers' armor:
- Well, what are we going to do, comrades?
"What are we going to do, Comrade Stalin?" those who had scrapped Grabin's 57mm gun asked, looking obsequiously into their leader's eyes. Yes, it had its flaws, but it could still hit the Germans.
"What are we going to do, Comrade Stalin?" those who had scrapped Grabin's 57mm gun asked, looking obsequiously into their leader's eyes. Yes, it had its flaws, but it could still hit the Germans.
Only it will be, of course, with Putin, the characters will be different, but I think the behavioral style will be the same.
I don't know what Vladimir Vladimirovich will tell them; his allies have given him a good run for his money, I must admit. I'll never forget: "When Musk's flies, then we'll talk." Well, Musk flies everything. Both the Dragons and the Falcons. They fly reusably and without incident, to the envy of his competitors.
But where are all our Argos, Orlyas, Parusas, Federations, and other vanished Orlyatas? There's not even a website left of Argo, and the last of the Federation/Orlyas. news They are generally dated to 2022, and even then they mainly talk about how the ships being developed will fly to the station under development in 2028-2030.
But we could go on and on about how our spacecraft "furrow the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater," but even the royal Soyuz spacecraft, endlessly modernized over the past 50 years, have flown their last flight. Temporarily—perhaps, the only question is how "temporary." I can't believe Roscosmos's claims that they have everything for repairs; the gentlemen at that company have regaled us with fairy tales too often. And delivering the cabin from Gagarin's Launch Pad No. 1, which hasn't seen service for 15 years, is prolonging the agony, nothing more.
This is the case when you would be glad to find at least something bright, but it doesn’t work out.
Information