Russia has managed to damage the only launch pad it currently has certified for crewed missions to the International Space Station, turning a routine Soyuz flight into a structural crisis for its human spaceflight program. The accident at Baikonur Cosmodrome did not endanger the crew on board, but it left the country’s sole operational crew pad heavily scarred and raised immediate questions about how, and whether, Russia can keep sending people to orbit.
The mishap has exposed how dependent both Moscow and its partners remain on a single piece of Soviet-era infrastructure, even after years of geopolitical tension and talk of diversification. With the Soyuz MS-28 mission now overshadowed by images of torn concrete and twisted metal, the damage is forcing a reassessment of Russia’s role in the ISS partnership and the fragility of a station that still relies on Russian propulsion and logistics.
How a routine Soyuz launch tore up Baikonur’s crew pad
The Soyuz MS-28 launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan was supposed to be a familiar choreography: a three-person crew riding a proven rocket from a historic pad that has sent cosmonauts to space for decades. Instead, the liftoff ended with severe structural damage to the launch complex, including reports that parts of the flame trench and surrounding infrastructure were ripped apart as the rocket climbed away. According to accounts of the event, the mission carrying Roscosmos astronauts and a NASA astronaut reached orbit, but the pad itself suffered what officials later described as “significant” harm, leaving Russia’s only active crew-certified site in need of major repairs and, for now, unusable for new launches.
Investigators have focused on how the exhaust from the Soyuz interacted with the pad, with technical descriptions noting that, under normal conditions, the cabin is safely tucked away while the exhaust from the rocket shoots by it harmlessly. In this case, the latest launch appears to have produced an abnormal plume pattern that battered structures around the vehicle, shredding parts of the access tower and damaging systems that feed and service the rocket before liftoff, as detailed in analyses of the Soyuz launch pad accident. The result is a paradoxical outcome: a mission that technically succeeded in reaching the ISS while simultaneously crippling the ground infrastructure that made it possible.
Baikonur Cosmodrome’s unique role in Russia’s crewed access to space
To understand why this single accident matters so much, it helps to remember how central Baikonur Cosmodrome is to Russia’s human spaceflight identity. Located in Kazakhstan, Baikonur has been the launch site for crewed missions since the days when Yuri Gagarin went into orbit, and it remains the only place from which Russia can currently send astronauts to space. The damaged pad is not just one of several options, it is the only active launch pad certified for crewed spaceflight, which means the Soyuz MS-28 mishap effectively sidelined the country’s entire human launch capability in one blow, as underscored in reports that Russia’s only active launch pad has sustained severe damage.
That vulnerability is not new, but it has rarely been so stark. Earlier accounts of Russia’s space posture have already noted that the country’s ability to send astronauts to orbit has been under pressure, with one assessment stating that Russia is unable to send astronauts to space for the first time since 1961, when Gagarin went into orbit, because of compounding technical and geopolitical constraints. The Baikonur accident now adds a physical bottleneck to that picture, turning what had been a strategic and financial challenge into a literal hole in the ground that must be repaired before any new crewed Soyuz can fly, a reality captured in coverage of Russia’s inability to send astronauts.
What exactly was damaged on the Soyuz MS-28 pad
Early imagery and technical descriptions point to a launch complex that took a direct beating from the rocket’s exhaust. The access building that allows crews and technicians to reach the Soyuz capsule was reported as partially destroyed, with structural elements twisted or collapsed under the force of the plume. Surrounding service structures, including umbilical arms and support towers, also appear to have been compromised, leaving the pad without key systems needed to fuel, power, and stabilize a rocket before liftoff, according to detailed breakdowns of the condition of the launch complex.
Officials have tried to reassure partners by stressing that all necessary spare components are available for repair and that the damage will be addressed in the near future. Statements about the pad’s status emphasize that the condition of the launch complex is currently being assessed and that All required backup hardware is on hand for restoration, a line that has been repeated in both Russian and international summaries of the incident. Yet even if those assurances prove accurate, the scale of the destruction means that any restoration will involve more than swapping out a few parts, and the timeline for returning the pad to full crewed service remains uncertain, a point echoed in reports that Russia’s only way to launch crewed rockets was effectively taken offline.
The crewed mission that left the pad in ruins
The irony of the Soyuz MS-28 episode is that, from the crew’s perspective, the mission profile looked like a success. A NASA astronaut rode to orbit alongside two Russian colleagues, continuing a long tradition of mixed crews even amid strained relations between Moscow and Washington. Reports on the flight note that the launch pad Russia uses to send space crews to the ISS was damaged after the NASA astronaut headed to the station with 2 others, underscoring how a mission meant to symbolize ongoing cooperation instead highlighted the fragility of the infrastructure that underpins it, as described in coverage of how Russia’s launch pad was damaged during the ISS flight.
From a technical standpoint, the Soyuz MS-28 rocket performed its primary job, delivering its human cargo safely into orbit and on course to rendezvous with the ISS. The problem unfolded below the ascending vehicle, where the interaction of exhaust and pad structures produced the destructive forces that tore up the launch area. That disconnect between a nominal flight and a devastated pad complicates the narrative for Roscosmos: it can point to a successful crew delivery, but it must also explain how a standard launch profile ended with the country’s only crew-certified pad in pieces, a contradiction that has fueled headlines about how a Soyuz rocket accidentally destroyed its only working launch pad.
Roscosmos messaging and the promise of quick repairs
Roscosmos has responded to the Baikonur accident with a mix of technical reassurance and strategic ambiguity. On one hand, officials have stressed that the condition of the launch complex is being thoroughly evaluated and that All necessary backup components are available for restoration, language that signals confidence in the ability to rebuild the pad without long term disruption. On the other hand, they have avoided committing to a specific date for the next crewed launch, instead framing the repair schedule as contingent on ongoing assessments and engineering studies, a stance reflected in detailed updates on how damage will be repaired shortly.
That messaging reflects a broader pattern in how Russia presents its space program to the world. The country has long emphasized continuity and resilience, even as sanctions, budget pressures, and aging infrastructure have eroded some of its capabilities. Official statements about the Baikonur mishap fit that template, highlighting technical competence and downplaying long term risk. Yet the fact remains that Russia’s only active crew pad is out of service, and until it is fully restored, the country’s human spaceflight ambitions are constrained by a single point of failure that no amount of optimistic rhetoric can wish away, a reality that sits uneasily alongside the image of Russia as a spacefaring power.
Could the Baikonur accident push Russia away from the ISS?
The timing of the Baikonur damage has sharpened an already active debate about Russia’s long term commitment to the ISS. Analysts have been asking whether Moscow might eventually choose to abandon the station, and the loss of its only crew pad gives that question new urgency. Reports on the incident note that, on November 27, the launch pad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan was damaged following the Soyuz MS-28 launch, and they explore what Roscosmos has said about its plans for future participation in the ISS program, including hints that Russia could pivot more aggressively toward its own orbital projects if cooperation becomes too costly or constrained, as examined in assessments of the Baikonur accident and ISS future.
For now, Roscosmos has publicly reaffirmed its intention to keep a permanent presence on the ISS, and NASA has continued to coordinate crew rotations that include Russian cosmonauts. Yet the structural damage at Baikonur complicates that cooperation by limiting Russia’s ability to deliver its own personnel and cargo. If repairs take longer than expected, or if political tensions deepen, the accident could become a catalyst for a gradual decoupling, with Russia reducing its reliance on the ISS while partners like NASA and the European Space Agency lean more heavily on commercial providers. That scenario is not guaranteed, and it remains unverified based on available sources, but the Baikonur mishap has clearly shifted the conversation from abstract policy debates to the concrete question of whether Russia can physically reach the station when it needs to.
What Russia’s launch gap means for the ISS partnership
The immediate consequence of the Baikonur damage is a potential gap in Russia’s ability to launch new crews, a gap that reverberates across the ISS partnership. The station’s operations have long depended on a balance of responsibilities, with Russia providing propulsion and some logistics while NASA and other partners supply power, modules, and commercial crew transport. If Russia cannot send its own astronauts to orbit for a period of time, that balance shifts, raising questions about how responsibilities are shared and how long the current arrangement can hold. Analysts have already framed the situation as a test of what Russia’s inability to launch crewed missions would mean for the ISS, a question explored in depth by experts like Leah Nani Alconcel at the University of Birmingham, whose work on Russia’s inability to launch crewed missions highlights the strategic stakes.
In practical terms, NASA and its partners can still reach the ISS using vehicles like SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, and they have already built redundancy into cargo and crew transport. The more delicate issue is political and symbolic: an ISS without regular Russian crew rotations would look very different from the joint project that has flown for more than two decades. It would also complicate maintenance of Russian-built modules and systems that require on-site expertise. While some of those tasks could, in theory, be handled by non-Russian astronauts trained on the ground, that approach would mark a significant shift in how the partnership operates, and it would likely accelerate discussions about the station’s eventual retirement or replacement.
Accident or symptom: what the mishap says about Russia’s space infrastructure
The Baikonur pad damage is being treated as an accident, but it also reads as a symptom of deeper structural issues in Russia’s space infrastructure. The reliance on a single crew-certified pad, the age of the facilities, and the broader economic pressures on Roscosmos all contribute to a system where one mishap can have outsized consequences. Commentators have pointed out that Russia’s only way to launch crewed space rockets was accidentally destroyed during a mission that should have been routine, a phrase that captures both the immediate shock and the underlying fragility, as highlighted in analyses of how its only crewed launch route was destroyed.
From my perspective, the incident underscores the risks of underinvestment in critical infrastructure, especially in a domain as unforgiving as spaceflight. While Roscosmos insists that All necessary spare components are available and that repairs will be swift, the fact that such a key asset could be so badly damaged by a single launch suggests that margins for error have grown thin. Whether the Baikonur accident ultimately becomes a turning point for Russia’s space program or a cautionary footnote will depend on how quickly and transparently the pad is rebuilt, how partners respond, and whether the country uses the crisis to modernize its launch facilities rather than simply patching up the old ones.
The broader geopolitical backdrop to a broken launch pad
No space incident unfolds in a vacuum, and the Baikonur mishap is no exception. It comes at a time when Russia’s relationships with Western partners are strained, sanctions are biting, and budgets for science and technology are under pressure. In that context, the loss of the only active crew pad is more than a technical setback, it is a blow to national prestige and a reminder that even long standing strengths can erode without sustained investment. The fact that the mission involved a NASA astronaut heading to the ISS with 2 others only sharpens the contrast between ongoing cooperation in orbit and confrontation on the ground, a tension captured in reports that Russia’s launch pad was damaged after a NASA astronaut’s departure.
At the same time, the accident highlights how interdependent spacefaring nations remain, even when their terrestrial politics diverge. The ISS still relies on Russian propulsion, and Russia still benefits from access to Western technology and markets, despite efforts on both sides to decouple. A broken launch pad at Baikonur is therefore not just Russia’s problem, it is a stress test for a partnership that has survived wars, sanctions, and leadership changes. How quickly the pad is repaired, how openly the investigation is conducted, and how flexibly partners adapt their crew rotation plans will all signal whether that partnership still has the resilience to weather new shocks.
More from MorningOverview