What happens to the International Space Station when one of its main “space taxis” suddenly stops working? Welcome, dear readers of every age and background, to FreeAstroScience, where we try to keep complex space news as clear and honest as a night sky in winter. This article is crafted by FreeAstroScience.com only for you, to help you understand why a single launch pad in Kazakhstan has shaken the way we reach the ISS, why SpaceX is suddenly carrying almost the whole load, and what risks and opportunities lie ahead. Stay with us to the end, so we can walk through the shock, the data, and that one “aha” moment that changes the way you look at space stations and human cooperation forever.
What exactly went wrong with Russia’s Soyuz launch pad?
How did the Baikonur accident happen?
On 27 November 2025, a Soyuz 2.1a rocket carrying two Russian cosmonauts and one NASA astronaut lifted off from Site 31/6 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, heading for the International Space Station on a mission designated Soyuz MS‑28. The rocket performed as planned and the crew reached orbit safely, docked with the ISS, and began their mission without drama, so at first glance it looked like “just another” routine Soyuz flight.
The real problem was left behind on the ground. Under the pad, a roughly 20‑ton service platform inside the flame trench—used to support and access the lower part of the rocket—appears to have been left improperly secured and was torn loose by the exhaust plume, collapsing into the trench and smashing key parts of the launch infrastructure. Images taken after launch show twisted metal and debris where the platform should have been, and independent analysts say the visible destruction suggests repairs could range from many months to even a couple of years in the worst case.
| Key fact | Value |
|---|---|
| Launch date | 27 November 2025 |
| Launch site | Baikonur Cosmodrome, Site 31/6 |
| Rocket | Soyuz 2.1a |
| Crew | Two Roscosmos cosmonauts + one NASA astronaut |
| Failed structure | ≈20‑ton service platform in flame trence |
| Repair time (expert estimate) | Up to ~2 years in worst case |
Why was this single launch pad so important?
For human spaceflight, Baikonur’s Site 31/6 was not just another pad; it was Russia’s only active launch site configured for crewed Soyuz flights to the ISS after the historic Gagarin’s Start (Site 1/5) was retired and turned into more of a heritage site in 2020. Roscosmos had already reduced the number of crew‑capable pads as budgets shrank, which left 31/6 carrying the full responsibility for both crewed Soyuz and many Progress cargo missions to the station.
For decades, Soyuz had a reputation as a rock‑solid workhorse: thousands of launches, hundreds with people on board, and a history of carrying astronauts from NASA, ESA, JAXA, and other agencies safely to space even when the shuttle fleet was grounded. So, the strange irony here is that the rocket did its job, but the ground hardware failed, turning a normal launch into a long‑term headache for the ISS partnership.
Roscosmos publicly says that spare parts exist and repairs will be “relatively quick,” while outside engineers, looking at the photos and the age of the site, lean toward a much longer, more complicated recovery. That gap between official optimism and external caution is one reason this accident has raised so many eyebrows among spaceflight watchers and policy makers.
Can Russia and the ISS keep flying without Soyuz launches?
Can Russia still send crews and cargo to the ISS?
Right now, Russia has no simple way to launch fresh crews to the ISS, and even Progress cargo flights—vital for fuel, propellant, and some supplies—are at risk until either Site 31/6 is repaired or another pad is fully adapted for these missions. Other Soyuz‑capable pads exist at Russian spaceports like Plesetsk and Vostochny, and there is mothballed infrastructure at the old Gagarin’s Start and at non‑Russian sites such as Kourou in French Guiana, but none of them is plug‑and‑play for ISS‑style missions with the current Soyuz and Progress fleet.
Engineers could, in theory, rebuild or move the damaged service platform, borrow hardware from retired pads, or redesign the ground systems, yet each of those paths involves design work, testing, and safety checks that do not happen in a few weeks. Independent analysts, including veteran Russian space historian Anatoly Zak, estimate that a full repair of the platform and flame trench could stretch close to two years, even if Roscosmos manages to restore some limited use earlier. During that time, Russia might still keep its current crews in orbit by swapping seats with partners, but it loses control over its own access to space in a way that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago.
Who can launch astronauts to the ISS now?
With Soyuz grounded for new ISS‑bound crews, the main door to the station for international astronauts is SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, launched on Falcon 9 rockets from Florida as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. Crew Dragon has flown multiple operational missions for NASA and partner agencies, carrying astronauts from the United States, Europe, Japan, and other countries, and it can be scheduled more often to make up at least part of the lost Soyuz capacity.
Boeing’s Starliner, which was supposed to share the load, is still facing reliability and safety concerns, and NASA plans at least one uncrewed flight test before considering routine passenger missions, so it cannot step in as a full backup yet. NASA’s Orion spacecraft, built for deep‑space Artemis missions, is not designed or certified as a taxi to low‑Earth orbit stations like the ISS, and China’s Shenzhou spacecraft serves its own Tiangong space station rather than the ISS partnership.
So, for the near future, we live in a strange situation: a huge international laboratory in orbit, owned by multiple nations, almost entirely dependent on one private company—SpaceX—for human access, including, most likely, seats reserved for Russian cosmonauts too. That is the “aha” moment many readers feel when they first see the full picture: a forgotten bolt or an unsecured 20‑ton platform on Earth can suddenly turn the entire ISS program into a one‑lane road managed by a single operator.
Here are some of the questions people are already typing into search engines, and that we just answered together:
- “Can Russia still launch astronauts to the ISS?” – Not with Soyuz from Baikonur until a repaired or alternative pad is ready.
- “Is SpaceX now the only way to reach the ISS?” – For routine crewed flights, yes, at least for the short to medium term.
- “Is Boeing Starliner ready to replace Soyuz?” – No, it still needs more test flights and fixes before carrying regular ISS crew.
- “Will the accident force Russia out of the ISS?” – Not overnight; current crews are safe, and political and technical negotiations will decide how seat‑sharing and resupply evolve.
Is the International Space Station in danger?
From a day‑to‑day safety view, the ISS is not about to fall out of the sky because one launch pad is broken; the Soyuz MS‑28 crew arrived safely, and other astronauts are already on board, continuing research, maintenance, and normal operations. SpaceX Crew Dragon can keep rotating much of the crew and bringing a large fraction of supplies, while other cargo ships like Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus and possibly future uncrewed Starliner missions can help with logistics.
The deeper concern hides behind the headlines. The Russian segment of the station is responsible for much of the station’s propulsion: periodic reboosts to keep the ISS from slowly sinking into denser parts of the atmosphere, attitude control, and certain fuel‑related tasks, which have traditionally relied on Progress spacecraft. If Russia struggles to launch enough Progress vehicles over a long period, partners would need creative work‑arounds, and that is technically and politically complex even in calm times.
All of this lands on a station that was already heading toward a planned retirement date around 2030, while NASA and partners prepare for new commercial stations and deep‑space platforms. So, this accident acts like a stress test for international cooperation: do partners double‑down on keeping the ISS healthy and shared, or do they drift apart into separate space stations and rival programs?
From the FreeAstroScience side of the keyboard, this is where the emotional part kicks in. A fragile metal platform falls into a flame trench in Kazakhstan, and suddenly you and your friends are asking, “Can we still trust this patchwork of nations to keep people alive in orbit?”. That question is exactly why FreeAstroScience.com exists: to keep curiosity sharp, to keep citizens informed, and to remind everyone that “the sleep of reason breeds monsters” when we stop paying attention to how decisions, budgets, safety margins, and human errors shape our shared future in space.
Conclusion
So, where does this leave us? Russia’s only crew‑ready Soyuz launch pad for the ISS is badly damaged, expert estimates for full repair run up to a couple of years, and until something changes, SpaceX Crew Dragon is the main door to humanity’s orbital lab. The station is not doomed, yet the margin for error just shrank, and the whole episode reveals how a chain of small choices—downsizing pads, postponing upgrades, accepting aging infrastructure—can come back to bite an entire international program.
This article was crafted for you by FreeAstroScience.com, a site devoted to making complex science and space policy clear, honest, and emotionally alive for everyone. Keep your mind awake, keep asking questions, and remember that “the sleep of reason breeds monsters” not only in politics or history, but also in quiet decisions about bolts, platforms, and launch pads that most people never see. You are warmly invited to come back to FreeAstroScience.com, stay curious, and keep looking up with us as this story—and the future of the ISS—continues to unfold.
Post a Comment