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: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: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...