|
|
Photos from my visit in 2015. I'm sure many of you have been here.  I heard this all got demolished recently - anyone know about that? I'd be pretty bummed. I didn't fully appreciate its history at the time and I'd like to go back before another piece of history is wiped out.
Edit: It seems it was demolished shortly afterwards (source). :'(
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. 14.
15. 16.
17. 18.
[last edit 5/26/2019 8:46 AM by hannahmontana - edited 1 times]
| |
Nice set! Love the tones/colors in your photos.
| |
Another good post; thanks for sharing...haven't done a missile base yet, they look like good explores. I really like that shot 14, and I like any warning sign that replaces a word such as "authorized" with a more subjective one like "competent". 😊
Sorry to see it's gone, always sucks to lose a great location...
"When you've truly done something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." | |
It was torn down last fall, unfortunately. One of my favorite places I've ever been - so sprawling! Glad you got some good photos of it. I went at night and didn't bring my camera :/
| |
I can STILL remember what it smelled like in there.
| |
Really cool set. Could you update the link? I'd like to learn about the place's history but the link 404ed
| |
Posted by goon1
Really cool set. Could you update the link? I'd like to learn about the place's history but the link 404ed
|
Anything Nike related will give you an idea of what happened there. They were across the Sound and coast. This one had a sister facility on top of cougar mountain (now renamed after Harvey Manning) and more stuff in Nike Park in Redmond. Both of those were demolished quite a while ago.
| |
Posted by vivid
Anything Nike related will give you an idea of what happened there. They were across the Sound and coast. This one had a sister facility on top of cougar mountain (now renamed after Harvey Manning) and more stuff in Nike Park in Redmond. Both of those were demolished quite a while ago.
|
At least here in the Midwest, Nike bases tend to come in two separate sites per base- the launch site itself (with the underground launch tubes), and a control site (with the radar facilities) usually some distance away from the launch site. This was so one airstrike couldn't take out the entire Nike base. Did this one have a similar setup?
"Sorry, I didn't know I'm not supposed to be here," he said, knowing full well he wasn't supposed to be there.
| |
Had an interesting run in here. I got chased out by someone screaming nonsense.
| |
Posted by Aran
At least here in the Midwest, Nike bases tend to come in two separate sites per base- the launch site itself (with the underground launch tubes), and a control site (with the radar facilities) usually some distance away from the launch site. This was so one airstrike couldn't take out the entire Nike base.
|
The physical separation of the Integrated Fire Control (aka RADAR & Control) and Launch Battery (Underground missile storage [raised to the surface on elevators for launch, not launched from underground like ICBMs], above-ground maintenance & arming bldgs, etc) was not to increase survivability, it was done so that the Missile Tracking RADAR, which provided launch command & guidance to the missiles, could track the missiles both while in launch position and once in-flight. The analogy is like trying to keep a flashlight shined on a flying bee -- if you're just a foot away from the bee, you've got to move your arm a fast & often to continue to track it with the light, but if you're 10 away, you're not having to move your arm as much to keep the bee illuminated.
Secondary to that, were real-estate concerns -- buying two 5-acre parcels of land could have been easier than one 10-acre parcel. Plus, the IFC needed to be on relatively high-ground for RADAR coverage, whereas the IFC could be on low ground, as long as it had line of sight to the Missile Tracking RADAR.
In some cases, the IFC & Launch Battery were adjacent but about 1000' yards apart, in other cases, the IFC was atop a mountain and the launch battery was several miles away.
The Admin section (offices, barracks, recreation facilities, etc.) could be yet a third parcel in the the area, or may have been adjacent.
/-/ooligan
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people. | |
Posted by /-/ooligan
The physical separation of the Integrated Fire Control (aka RADAR & Control) and Launch Battery (Underground missile storage [raised to the surface on elevators for launch, not launched from underground like ICBMs], above-ground maintenance & arming bldgs, etc) was not to increase survivability, it was done so that the Missile Tracking RADAR, which provided launch command & guidance to the missiles, could track the missiles both while in launch position and once in-flight. The analogy is like trying to keep a flashlight shined on a flying bee -- if you're just a foot away from the bee, you've got to move your arm a fast & often to continue to track it with the light, but if you're 10 away, you're not having to move your arm as much to keep the bee illuminated.
Secondary to that, were real-estate concerns -- buying two 5-acre parcels of land could have been easier than one 10-acre parcel. Plus, the IFC needed to be on relatively high-ground for RADAR coverage, whereas the IFC could be on low ground, as long as it had line of sight to the Missile Tracking RADAR.
In some cases, the IFC & Launch Battery were adjacent but about 1000' yards apart, in other cases, the IFC was atop a mountain and the launch battery was several miles away.
The Admin section (offices, barracks, recreation facilities, etc.) could be yet a third parcel in the the area, or may have been adjacent.
/-/ooligan
|
All true but what a lot of people forget is they had two radar systems linked together by analog computers of the time, one to guide the Nike and one to track the incoming bombers. They needed a clear view of the horizon to "track" and shoot at incoming aircraft 120mi downrange which was their primary mission.
Nikes were eventually tested against incoming ballistic missiles but while they were successful they were not ideal to launch when seconds counted on fast moving targets, i.e.. elevator time, target acquisition time even something like 17min crew time to prep and launch all that weighed against the Nike in an anti-missile role.
I love the Nike story I saw a display of Nikes at a local shopping mall (Bigtown in Mesquite) when I was a kid. And lived through the nuclear threat of the Soviet Union. It was constantly on the evening news and my parents and neighbor many of whom were veterans talked about it. I knew even as a kid doing duck and cover drills at school that was not going to help if a Soviet bomber made it through the "Ring Of Steel"
[last edit 11/5/2019 2:18 PM by Explorer Zero - edited 1 times]
| |
Posted by Aran
At least here in the Midwest, Nike bases tend to come in two separate sites per base- the launch site itself (with the underground launch tubes), and a control site (with the radar facilities) usually some distance away from the launch site. This was so one airstrike couldn't take out the entire Nike base. Did this one have a similar setup?
|
Yeah but they didn't launch from tubes. Not Nikes. They had a cradle looking device that brought them up one at a time on an elevator from an underground magazine. Ive been in several. And a lot of Nike sites didn't even have that but had above ground launchers inside of earthen revetments like the ones around Abilene Texas and Roswell NM had no underground facilities or structures at all. See some of my Nike DB entries for pics. The revetments or bays can be seen in this typical photo from Roswell. There was a concrete slab inside the bays that anchored the above ground launchers. The crew had a small control room in which to hide during the launch but it was just a small earth covered room above ground.
1.
[last edit 11/5/2019 2:12 PM by Explorer Zero - edited 2 times]
| |
Thanks for the corrections, Ooligan and 2X. I've not yet had the chance to explore a Nike site, so I guess my information was a little less accurate than I thought. I've got a couple in mind for the future though- they're such an interesting piece of history.
"Sorry, I didn't know I'm not supposed to be here," he said, knowing full well he wasn't supposed to be there.
| |
Posted by 2Xplorations
And a lot of Nike sites didn't even have that but had above ground launchers inside of earthen revetments like the ones around Abilene Texas and Roswell NM had no underground facilities or structures at all. See some of my Nike DB entries for pics. The revetments or bays can be seen in this typical photo from Roswell. There was a concrete slab inside the bays that anchored the above ground launchers. The crew had a small control room in which to hide during the launch but it was just a small earth covered room above ground.
1.
|
That design was known as "SAC Style," as they were designed & deployed to protect Strategic Air Command bases. Some of the SAC Style ones I've explored did have the crew shelters/emergency launcher panels below surface-grade.
/-/oolie
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people. | |
Posted by /-/ooligan
That design was known as "SAC Style," as they were designed & deployed to protect Strategic Air Command bases. Some of the SAC Style ones I've explored did have the crew shelters/emergency launcher panels below surface-grade.
/-/oolie
|
I suppose we could have a debate over whats "under ground' The ones Ive seen were above grade with just some dirt piled on top so, under-dirt I reckon haha!
http://www.uer.ca/...l.asp?picid=169536
Not very good protection just kept the crew safe from a missile that caught fire maybe, pretty much a coffin against any airstrike!
http://www.uer.ca/...l.asp?picid=169537
| |
Posted by 2Xplorations
I suppose we could have a debate over whats "under ground' The ones Ive seen were above grade with just some dirt piled on top so, under-dirt I reckon haha!
http://www.uer.ca/...l.asp?picid=169536
Not very good protection just kept the crew safe from a missile that caught fire maybe, pretty much a coffin against any airstrike!
http://www.uer.ca/...l.asp?picid=169537
|
I was up at that one near the prison. Not much left and on private property that was in use at the time for mulch I think.
There was at least one underground bunker. Been 7 years and the site was so degraded didn't shoot any of it but the bunker seemed fairly small.
Not near as big as the underground missile storage areas found at many.
That site was quite disappointing.
Part of the prison was the was the command center for those missles. That building still stands apparently and was repurposed. S rewing around active prisons tend to go south rapidly so I didn't.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
| |
Shame, it's a park now though so at least someone's getting use out of it.
| |
I just got into Urban Exploration like last week. This missile site is close to me, but I have not been there. Is it still a good site or has it been demolished?
| |
Posted by Mister Beta
I just got into Urban Exploration like last week. This missile site is close to me, but I have not been there. Is it still a good site or has it been demolished?
|
Here's a brilliant idea: Find out for yourself, and share your findings.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people. | |
Posted by /-/ooligan
That design was known as "SAC Style," as they were designed & deployed to protect Strategic Air Command bases. Some of the SAC Style ones I've explored did have the crew shelters/emergency launcher panels below surface-grade.
/-/oolie
|
This was more common at the Atlas sites, but then they're different beasts.
never know until you go |
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is currently Public. Anyone, including search engines, may see it. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 93 ms
|
|
Ethics
