NASA's Abandoned Launch Facilities

trazom28 writes I ran across an interesting slideshow of NASA's abandoned launch facilities. It's an interesting piece of scientific history. The images are from "photographer Roland Miller's upcoming book, Abandoned in Place. The book is a visual study of the deactivated launch and research facilities that played an essential role in early American space exploration.

Comments

Then and Now

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly recommend the Then and Now tour at Cape Canaveral AFS. You sign up for it at the KSC visitors' center.

Re:Then and Now

[Imagix]

Note that one of the tours requires you to bring a passport (if you're not a USAian), I believe the justification was that you're going onto an active military base.

Re:Then and Now

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly recommend the Then and Now tour at Cape Canaveral AFS. You sign up for it at the KSC visitors' center.

Wiah I had a way to get there. I guess I could hire a Russian cab driver to give me a ride.

Re:Then and Now

[JWSmythe]

That's not surprising. They want something guaranteed to be good. It's unrealistic for them to be able to know if every form of ID from any country in the world is legitimate. I'm sure they do at least a cursory check before allowing anyone in.

In theory, your passport is good. It should have been checked when you entered the US.

If you are a foreign national in the US, you're suppose to keep your passport with you at all times. Some states require anyone 18 and over to carry at least a state issued ID with them at all times. I carry 3 state/federal photo IDs, because they all serve a different purpose.

This is the ID requirement from their site.

ID Requirements
Please arrive at the designated boarding area at least 15 minutes before departure time. A U.S. government-issued Driver's License or U.S. State ID card is required for guests age 18 and over. International adult and child guests must present a valid passport to participate.

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours/ksc-up-close-then-and-now-tour.aspx

Re:Then and Now

[Imagix]

Oh, I wasn't complaining :) Reasonable request. But we ran into this when we just went there. We don't carry the passport around as a matter of principle (theft risk). But, had we known ahead of time, we would have been carrying it. Oh well.

Re:Then and Now

[Anonymous Coward]

one of the tours requires you to bring a passport (if you're not a USAian)

If American's aren't required to bring their passports how would they know that someone's not American and needs a passport?

Re:Then and Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Military Intelligence is run as a separate division.

Re:Then and Now

[bickerdyke]

American Drivers licence or other Photo ID?

first

[blackomegax]

FLORIDA DOOR 4LYFE

Re:first

[blackomegax]

http://www.abandonedfl.com/int...

that's sad

[ksheff]

It's too bad they can't find a use for these facilities. Contractors would rather build new stuff that may or may not ever be used.

Re:that's sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Did you also cry when they demolished 19th century shipyards? This NASA stuff is the equivalent of a sail ship manufacturing plant.

Re:that's sad

[ksheff]

Demolishing them would actually free up the land so something useful could be done with it and any metal would be taken to a scrap yard. Just abandoning this stuff is a waste of resources.

Re:that's sad

[sycodon]

I expect that as long as we are setting rockets on their ass and blasting them into space, it would not be "rocket science" to design a launch facility that is adaptable to different vehicles and sizes. Re-inventing the wheel is expensive.

Re:that's sad

[mpmansell]

Given just how noxious most rocket fuels are and, no doubt, the number of safety corner cut in the rush to beat the Soviets, I suspect that most of these facilities are far too contaminated to be economically rehabilitated for any other use in the foreseeable future.

Re:that's sad

[Ol Olsoc]

I expect that as long as we are setting rockets on their ass and blasting them into space, it would not be "rocket science" to design a launch facility that is adaptable to different vehicles and sizes. Re-inventing the wheel is expensive.

Warning - I am an inveterate Rocket slut......

The difference between different Rockets is astounding. My post isn't trying to contradict - I have some fun examples to enjoy

Freedom 7 Mercury launchL

http://voyagerslog.blogspot.co... Alomost unbelievably single. A retaining ring, and a pivoted gantry.

This is almost shocking. There was a tower and elevator that owuld pull away before launch - probably because those early ones were so explodey. But this is darn simple. And we were learning as we went at the same time.

Gemini program. The rocket was more powerful, and thrust effects were getting getting to be a problem, they could wreck a rocket.

Here is a cool photo I'd not seen before - a time exposure photo of Gemini 10 put in place and launched - Love it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Back to the launchpad itself, now you'll see it is built up some. I'll note that this was a repurposed launch pad, having been used for Titan II rockets. It was abandoned at the end of the Gemini program. The larger thrust required thrust deflectors to avoid damage to both the Pad and rocket. http://www.honeysucklecreek.ne...

Then we move onto the Saturn 1, but lett's ski ahead to the Saturn V.

This was one serious big sumbitch rocket. The days of taking a little rocket out horizontally were gone, replaced with the vertical transport. The sizes were so different that in addition to handling the amount of thrust, everything was bigger.

Which brings us to Launch complex 39 Of Apollo and Shuttle fame.

Now we can repurpose things if needed. The pads are large enough to handle Saturn V's, so they could be modified for shuttle use, and at present 39A is being modified for Spacex Falcon Rockets, and 39B launchpad is going to be used for SLS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

That's the long version with pictures. The tl;dr version is that the early launch pads were rendered useless as the Rocket power grew, and building new pads was happening whaile th eold ones were in use. Even getting the Rocket for the Apollo-Soyuz mission gusseted up required changes The Saturn 5 Rocket was just too much oomph to send a stripped down Apollo to low earth orbit, the pads that were used for the Saturn 5 launchpad were used because the Pads normally used for that Rocket were not operational any longer, so they strapped on a Saturn 1-B with what was called a milkstool. The photo shows the concept.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/ga...

Re:that's sad

[Teancum]

The problem is that they are sitting in the middle of a wildlife refuge, and doing any demolition would actually cause far more damage to the local environment than simply leaving them in place. This is both in terms of simply hauling the demolition equipment in and trying to "rehabilitate" the land in some fashion after you have cleared away the mess.

Besides, there is always the possibility that some of those sites could still be reused, and concrete poured in the past for a launch pad is often very useful for subsequent launch site. For instance, the landing pad site at KSC that SpaceX is using to recover the Falcon 9 1st stage components is a former launch site that SpaceX got permission from both NASA and the USAF to clear away the metal on the site and set up the other things (like a radio beacon for the core to find) that needed to be put into the site as well.

Otherwise, the land is not really all that useful and can't be used for anything other than a place to study wildlife or launch rockets. Certainly no commercial businesses or homes can be built in the area unless it is directly in support of launch vehicles themselves. There is nothing else for it to do other than rot away, which has other very useful value in terms of trying to see what actually stands up to the environment of Florida over time and what doesn't.

Re:that's sad

[f3rret]

Demolishing them would actually free up the land so something useful could be done with it and any metal would be taken to a scrap yard. Just abandoning this stuff is a waste of resources.

Most these old sites are smack dab in the middle of nowhere, it's not exactly highly desired land.

Number 4

[SlayerofGods]

What the heck is number 4? Looking at the door it appears to be in a thick concrete dome. With very uncomfortable looking inclined metal seats. (with harnesses) all angled to a center cage with "Fire Blanket" canisters...
The title is rather unhelpfully "Abandoned Secret NASA Complex" -roll eyes-

Re:Number 4

[SlayerofGods]

So follow up...(thank you google image search) Wired also is carrying the pictures and actually tells you what they are instead of BS like "Abandoned Secret NASA Complex"
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/c...
Number 4 is
"Shelter Dome, Rubber Room, Launch Pad 39B, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 1996. “Adjoining the Rubber Room was a Shelter Dome room with the floor set on springs to isolate the occupants from whatever conflagration may be occurring above them as they seek shelter.”

Re:Number 4

[gstoddart]

Wow ... and on a rocket launch pad, that "conflagration" could be quite, er, dramatic.

Would not ever want to be the poor bastard who had to lock himself into that room and hope it would hold up.

That's the "curl up in a corner and keep screaming until they find you" room.

Re:Number 4

[SlayerofGods]

Yah that's why the photo caught my eye; I was thinking why would people inside a several foot thick concrete dome need harnesses and fire blankets... whomever is in this room is not having a good day.
After knowing what it's called there is an even more amazing article on that very room.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/...
They join technicians working on the platform to jump down a chute on the north-side of the platform that connected to the teflon-lined slide that rapidly gets them underground.
That 200-foot slide empties into the aptly-named "rubber room" with its rubber floors meant to absorb the impact of the explosion occurring on the pad surface 40 feet above them. Hopping off the landing ramp, the people would scurry to their left into the fallout shelter, a domed room suspended on shock-dampening springs and sealed off with massive blast-proof doors. Inside, the chamber held 20 chairs, a toilet and carbon dioxide scrubbing equipment to keep the occupants alive until rescue teams arrive.
AWESOME!

Re:Number 4

[Anonymous Coward]

a toilet

What ever for? Anyone that sought refuge there would have doubtlessly already relieved themselves through sheer terror.

Re:Number 4

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the toilet is quite the welcome thing. As I heard on the tour when we were in the blockhouse for Launch Complex 5, it wasn't only Alan Shepard wishing he hadn't had so much coffee. The blockhouse itself was closed with a big blast door for the launch. Wouldn't you know it: there wasn't a bathroom inside the blockhouse. They did have coffee pots, though. That meant the controllers were squirming at least as much as the astronaut who was ready for them to "light this candle."

It's stories like that that makes the tour so great.

Re:Number 4

[moderators_are_w*nke]

Thanks, that link is so much better. The editors should change the front page.

Re:Number 4

[Anonymous Coward]

For a comprehensive look at the past, the present and the future at KSC, including a complete look at the Emergency Escape System and Safe Room under Pad A, check out these high resolution spherical panoramas of the facilities. There are 109 panoramas of Pad A, (http://nasatech.net/ntSubPad39A_PAGE.html), 40 panoramas of SLS development and refurbishments on Pad B (http://nasatech.net/ntSubPad39B_PAGE.html), 16 pans of the Crawler upgrades (http://nasatech.net/ntCT-2_PAGE.html), 9 pans of the new Mobile Launcher (http://nasatech.net/MobileLauncher/) and many other unseen areas of America's Spaceport. Enjoy!

Re:Number 4

[Whorhay]

I wonder what the reasoning was for mounting the blast door that way. I would think you'd want it oriented such that a blast coming down the slide would push the door closed, instead of hold it open. Although I suppose that if the door isn't closed all the way by the time a blast reaches that far it might not matter.

Me depressed now

[NotDrWho]

It wouldn't be so bad if this were just part of a natural evolution of NASA. But at its heart it's the result of the dramatic slashing of the NASA budget after Apollo, the end of the "space race," and constant political interference (mostly in the form of pork projects that Congressmen wanted NASA to lend credibility to). NASA is a sad shell of its 1960's self, and these facilities are a very literal reminder of that fact.

Re:Me depressed now

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, "political interference". You mean like the only way the Apollo project would have existed in the first place?

Unless Kennedy was paid by Martin Marietta and Rockwell and Grumman to "commit this nation" to send a few test pilots on the Moon?

Re:Me depressed now

[DerekLyons]

But at its heart it's the result of the dramatic slashing of the NASA budget after Apollo, the end of the "space race," and constant political interference (mostly in the form of pork projects that Congressmen wanted NASA to lend credibility to).

Well, no. Not really.

Pretty much all of the Saturn V pads and buildings are still there, and still in use - having been repurposed multiple times. The Saturn I pads were abandoned in the late 60's because nobody thought we'd ever use them again. (And then along came Skylab.)

Other pads were abandoned for a wide variety of reasons... For example, we don't need as many as we used to because we don't have vehicles sitting on the pad as long as we used to. Others were abandoned because rockets don't blow up nearly as often, so we don't need "hot spares". Others were abandoned because the booster was replaced by a different one and the activity shifted to a different pad. Yet others because not only do rockets not blow up so often, their payloads fail less often and have a longer lifetime, so we don't need much of the the frenetic launch pace of the 60's. (Or multiple combinations of these.) Etc... etc...

The number of pads required aren't pushed by raw budget, they're pulled by user requirements. Now, I won't disagree that budgets effect the pull rate, but so do a variety of other factors.

Re:Me depressed now

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be so bad if this were just part of a natural evolution of NASA. But at its heart it's the result of the dramatic slashing of the NASA budget after Apollo, the end of the "space race," and constant political interference (mostly in the form of pork projects that Congressmen wanted NASA to lend credibility to). NASA is a sad shell of its 1960's self, and these facilities are a very literal reminder of that fact.

After Apollo? Actually, the data show that Peak NASA occurred in 1966. The first flight of the Saturn V was in 1967. Manned moon landings were in 1969 - 1972. The last Saturn V launch was in 1973.

The budget was not suddenly or unexpectedly "slashed". The ramp-up and ramp-down was due to the development costs of the launch vehicle, spacecraft, and hardware for moon landings, which dwarfed the rest of NASA's budget at that time (and any other time before or since then). This was what Congress authorized. The matter of funding is not a matter of "political inference". There was never any golden age for NASA in which Congress provided them with a steady multi-billion dollar revenue stream year after year to play with. Congress provides specific outlays for specific programs.

The overall shape of NASA's budget in the Apollo era is not because the political winds shifted and space travel fell out of favor, or because of Johnson, or Nixon, or Vietnam, or the economy, but simply because Congress was willing to pay a exceptionally high price for one (and only one) very particular specific program: to put a man on the moon.

Re:Me depressed now

[bill_mcgonigle]

NASA is a sad shell of its 1960's self, and these facilities are a very literal reminder of that fact.

C'mon, everybody knows by now that the real "'scare" of Sputnik wasn't that the Russkies put a tiny satellite into orbit, but that the R7 that put it there was a capable ICBM.

The whole "man on the Moon" thing was political cover for having the biggest-baddest ICBM rockets on the planet and being able to militarize space. You can tell taxpayers that you're going to spend a huge chunk of GDP on technology to obliterate the world, or on putting a Man on the Moon. Guess which gets more "rah-rah" support? The People aren't as psycho as the government, even if they are easily fooled.

The interesting thing is that the plan backfired. Now that politicians are themselves in danger of being obliterated if they start another war, they've backed down quite a bit. At least enough to only go picking on nations that aren't nuclear-armed themselves (Iran and PRNK learned this lesson).

The actual benefits that have been accrued from the Moon Landings are minimal, and at the cost of everything else that might have been done with those resources. Where space exploration is happening, and going, is in the private sector (SpaceX, et. al) where profits are to be made providing useful services from satellites or rich-men's wish fulfilment, or from non-profits looking to further the advancement of science. The difference is that dying peacefully on a Mars colony or studying the Sun is less with the blow-up-the-world crazy. By the end of the next decade NASA itself can be mothballed - they'll still be hard at work on the Senate Launch System that nobody wants. "Mission accomplished" if one must.

Pretty neat pictures

[Registered Coward v2]

Some really nice photos. Hard to believe their still was an A4 on a stand in 1996; it looks like it was kept up as a display. This also brings up my frustration with Kickstarter. There a lot of cool projects I'd back if only I could find out about them in time; usually I find out about them when I read a 'Kickstarter funded" tag line in an article and the funding period is over.

Re:Pretty neat pictures

[PPH]

if only I could find out about them in time

Reminds me of Rocketdyne

[wcrowe]

These remind me of the old Rocketdyne facility near where I grew up in Southwest Missouri. There were a couple of huge rocket testing facilities out there, but they were shut down in the 60s (I think). Thirty years ago, I could take my Jeep and drive around out there and snoop around.

Re:Reminds me of Rocketdyne

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a few years at Rocketdyne's SSFL site where engine testing went on until about 15 years ago. I believe almost all the test stands have been knocked down. There's currently a big environmental cleanup going on. Watching Delta IIs being tested was amazing. My cubicle was in a building near where they used to run some component tests. I had a window that was about a foot in diameter and half a foot thick.

Re:it wouldnt be slashdot without a cynic

[gstoddart]

Roland Miller's upcoming book, Abandoned in Place, serves as a masterful interpretation of many other United States research facilities in the coming century as this superpower furiously disregards climate change, global warming, income inequality, government corruption, and a failed foreign policy in a race to a dystopian hell the likes of which mankind has never known.

So, everything is proceeding according to plan, then?

Surely you don't think that's by accident. People have spent good money to ensure that happens.

After The Apollo Program

[Anonymous Coward]

After the Apollo Program NASA began a long road of transformation from government engineering and science into a government management agency populated by accountants, lawyers and public relations specialists. The closure of much of NASA's installations was necessary because NASA did not have personnel who could maintain and operate the facilities. Although NASA "farmed out" much of its technical expertise to "shadow companies", mainly for tax evasion purposes, those companies gradually closed down due to retirement and non-retention contracts.

The National Academies of Sciences and the National Research Council detailed in a report of last year the loss of capability of NASA. The current USA educational infrastructure and economy preclude regaining capability for at least 50 years and most likely not for at least 150 years, at best.

Back in the days, lots of rocket activity

[k6mfw]

Many facilities back when they were cranking out rockets like sausages, some explode during liftoff. Also lots of test stand activities such as Santa Susana test facility in hills behind Los Angeles, and today like many other places abandoned and contaminated.

Re:Back in the days, lots of rocket activity

[sconeu]

SSFL (Santa Susanna Field Laboratory) was also the site of the worst nuclear accident in US history.

Re:Back in the days, lots of rocket activity

[losfromla]

Damn it! I live in Los Angeles, I wasn't aware of this disaster zone. Thanks!

Re:Back in the days, lots of rocket activity

[jbburks]

And yet you can walk around it now without damage. Unlike Fukushima or Pripyat...

Old launch sites

[Anonymous Coward]

try topsail beach, the first launch site, but too many hurricanes make landfall there. Great place to vacation

Given NASA/SpaceJunkX's backward tendencies...

[sethstorm]

Those shouldn't be abandoned for long if space technology goes further back than Apollo.

No pictures

[AndyKron]

All I see is white. If they don't like my blockers then fuck 'em.

How do I buy/donate?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't seem to find the kickstarter or find a way to purchase this book... I love the idea, but does it actually exist? User error or UI design fail?

Sell/lease the facilities cheap

[Karmashock]

... To the private space contractors. SOMEONE should get some use out of them. If NASA doesn't want to use those facilities, I'll bet Boeing and SpaceX etc can find a use for them.

They're always in need of large construction hangers near launch pads.

Inane caption

[GoddersUK]

What annoys me about slideshows like this is the complete lack of information provided about the photos. Captions like "Abandoned Space Program Facilities" just aren't very helpful - we already know that. What was it? Was it a lab where they tested different propellants, a workshop where the engineers could fab prototype components for Saturn V? That's all it takes to make the difference between "meh, pretty photos" and "this is really interesting".

They miss one of the early sites

[Anonymous Coward]

The Keweenaw Launch Site, in Keweenaw County, MI, out in the middle of Lake Superior. In the late 50s to mid 60s weather rockets were launched from here. Uncle worked there. Lots of tracking research done there.

It was discontinued because it was too far from the equator and Canada didn't want our stuff flying over their cities. Besides, FL is lots warmer in the winter. All that's left is the concrete pad, a steel ring with degree markings and a headstone memorial.

Go north of Copper Harbor, past Fort Wilkins to the terminus of US41. Proceed about 8 miles on the dirt road to west of Highrock Bay.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on an Army installation. There's more intriguing abandoned facilities all over the place out here (and presumably most other WW2 era sizable installations) than most things in that slide show. That's just the story of the federal government. You fight tooth and nail to get funding to build something. No one is going to fight tooth and nail to get funding to demolish stuff when you can just leave it.