Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Abandoned Launch Facilities

Posted by samzenpus on from the lost-in-time dept.

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.

34 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Then and Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:Then and Now by Imagix · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Then and Now by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Then and Now by Imagix · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Then and Now by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      American Drivers licence or other Photo ID?

      --
      bickerdyke
  2. Re:first by blackomegax · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  3. that's sad by ksheff · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    1. Re:that's sad by ksheff · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    2. Re:that's sad by sycodon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:that's sad by mpmansell · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

    4. Re:that's sad by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:that's sad by Teancum · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:that's sad by f3rret · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  4. Number 4 by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

    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-

    --

    Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    1. Re:Number 4 by SlayerofGods · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.”

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    2. Re:Number 4 by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Number 4 by SlayerofGods · · Score: 3, Informative

      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!

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    4. Re:Number 4 by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
    5. Re:Number 4 by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      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.

  5. Me depressed now by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Me depressed now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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?

    2. Re:Me depressed now by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. Pretty neat pictures by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Pretty neat pictures by PPH · · Score: 1

      if only I could find out about them in time

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Reminds me of Rocketdyne by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Reminds me of Rocketdyne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  8. Re:it wouldnt be slashdot without a cynic by gstoddart · · Score: 3

    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.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. Back in the days, lots of rocket activity by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Back in the days, lots of rocket activity by sconeu · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Back in the days, lots of rocket activity by losfromla · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    3. Re:Back in the days, lots of rocket activity by jbburks · · Score: 1

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

  10. Given NASA/SpaceJunkX's backward tendencies... by sethstorm · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  11. Sell/lease the facilities cheap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... 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.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  12. Inane caption by GoddersUK · · Score: 1

    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".