Prime Base structure

[mmartin798]

Originally Posted by tsofian

200 feet deep isn't really that deep, so I would definitely go deeper. I'd say anything less than 1000 feet isn't deep enough.

How much munitions are you needing a three mile tunnel seems to be able to hold a lot more than you need.

I'm wrestling with your housing scheme, but am not sure what would work or would not work. This is one where there are a lot of ways to do this. I think the original idea of the towers had a very positive psychological impact on the residents. I'm pretty sure the easiest way to go would be "trailers in tunnels" but I really think that would be a terrible way to live. I do think the "cooling tower" shape is all wrong, but that the "high rise" idea might not be terrible, depending upon how they are built.

1000' is kind of overkill. If we assume you are at least a good KM outside of the fireball, 50' is probably enough to keep everyone safe. 200' is a nice safety margin.

I did a quick model of one of the 3 mile long tunnels and came with with about 17 acres of warehouse space with 20m of rock separating each one and placing HVAC and fire suppression stations distributed along the length at about 1 mile each to support the in warehouse units. Make it three and we have a lot of hardware in those tunnels.

I didn't look at the habitat closely yet, so I will reserve comments on that part.

[tsofian]

Originally Posted by mmartin798

1000' is kind of overkill. If we assume you are at least a good KM outside of the fireball, 50' is probably enough to keep everyone safe. 200' is a nice safety margin.

I did a quick model of one of the 3 mile long tunnels and came with with about 17 acres of warehouse space with 20m of rock separating each one and placing HVAC and fire suppression stations distributed along the length at about 1 mile each to support the in warehouse units. Make it three and we have a lot of hardware in those tunnels.

I didn't look at the habitat closely yet, so I will reserve comments on that part.

I'm not looking at a near miss. I'd give it the save level of protection Cheyenne Mountain gives NORAD. You can't count on it not getting a direct hit, even if my accident. It is a one of a kind (maybe two of a kind) resource. I wouldn't cheap out on the depth of the facility


I'm also looking at some other issues: 200 feet deep will probably allow fairly easy surface detection and drilling 200 feet is not too hard. It also would not be immune to things like a Grand Slam or Tall Boy bomb. 1000 feet might be overkill but I still think 200 feet is not deep enough. How deep is Cheyenne Mountain?

[mmartin798]

Originally Posted by tsofian

I'm not looking at a near miss. I'd give it the save level of protection Cheyenne Mountain gives NORAD. You can't count on it not getting a direct hit, even if my accident. It is a one of a kind (maybe two of a kind) resource. I wouldn't cheap out on the depth of the facility


I'm also looking at some other issues: 200 feet deep will probably allow fairly easy surface detection and drilling 200 feet is not too hard. It also would not be immune to things like a Grand Slam or Tall Boy bomb. 1000 feet might be overkill but I still think 200 feet is not deep enough. How deep is Cheyenne Mountain?

It depends on how you measure I would think. There is 2500' of granite above it. But I don't think the blast tunnel, which give access to the complex, goes nearly that far into the mountain side. The Cheyenne Mountain Complex (since NORAD only uses 15% of the complex) probably wouldn't survive a direct hit either. It was built to survive a 30 MT detonation as close as 2km away.

Edit:
I found a drawing for the blast tunnel on globalsecurity.org and the shorter north tunnel is indeed 1200' from the blast doors. So 1000' is not unreasonable. I return you to your regularly scheduled forum.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by mmartin798

1000' is kind of overkill. If we assume you are at least a good KM outside of the fireball, 50' is probably enough to keep everyone safe. 200' is a nice safety margin.

I did a quick model of one of the 3 mile long tunnels and came with with about 17 acres of warehouse space with 20m of rock separating each one and placing HVAC and fire suppression stations distributed along the length at about 1 mile each to support the in warehouse units. Make it three and we have a lot of hardware in those tunnels.

I didn't look at the habitat closely yet, so I will reserve comments on that part.

HVAC at the one mile marks seems doable, fire suppression stations would need to be more closely spaced.

[tsofian]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

HVAC at the one mile marks seems doable, fire suppression stations would need to be more closely spaced.

Now what do you mean by Fire Suppression Stations? Are these manned fire stations or are they various sectors in a fire sprinkler system? A mile for a fire sprinkler system is a really long run. Now if they are manned that isn't too bad. Now the deal for the ammunition and volatile materials storage should be subdivided into a number of much smaller storage magazines. Each magazine should be individually sprinklered. They should also ideally have a way to vent pressure and blast if possible.

Since this was built in the 1960-1970 I'd say that they were probably going with United States Navy standards for magazines at Weapon Stations in terms of sprinkler protection (flow rate head density and such). I can't recall if each magazine needed a daily temperature check shoreside but shipboard we did daily checks.

[mmartin798]

Since this is a three mile long tunnel, you will not want pressure to drop at the far end away from the water storage tanks. So the fire stations are basically pumps to boost line pressure and I would assume other gear for the personnel to use if needed to control small fires and to perform search and rescue in areas prior to the fire control doors slamming shut.

[tsofian]

I've started looking through the Department of the Army ammunition safety and storage publication http://www.apd.army.mil/epubs/DR_pub...eb/p385_64.pdf. This should give some excellent guidance on how the magazines would have been set up.

[tsofian]

I just reread the section in the module. It makes even less sense. The towers are surrounded by a steel lattice, which fills in the space between the wider top and bottom of the structures. This takes the additional load. The walls are described as built to "keep the ground outside".

So we now have a steel lattice structure which appears to be within an area of backfill. We have that backfill in direct contact with the concrete walls of the towers. We have the towers rigidly fixed to the bottom of the shafts, but also in full contact with other very heavy elements.

So now instead of a freestanding structure in a vertical shaft (which I incorrectly always assumed due to the diagram on the floor plans, which now seems rather misleading) we have a structure that is rigidly fixed to one surface which will be moving and is surrounded by a vast load, which will also be moving, but in ways that are different from the surface below. This is possibly the worst of all possible world. Any shock transmitted into the mountain will cause the bedrock to move in one way and the backfill to move in another. The towers can't be on springs or roller to allow motion because they are surrounded by backfill. That backfill will also transmit any ground shock into the towers.

Even in a period of a few decades the towers will be presented with huge amounts of stress just from the shifting of the backfill and the movement of the rock layers within the mountain. An Earthquake will send extreme and unpredictable stresses through the structure. There is no way this would work as described.

For the tower floors to be attached to the shaft walls the same goes, unless each attachment point is designed to flex in all three dimensions and to allow for compression, rotation, and tension between the tower and the living rock of the walls.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by tsofian

I just reread the section in the module. It makes even less sense. The towers are surrounded by a steel lattice, which fills in the space between the wider top and bottom of the structures. This takes the additional load. The walls are described as built to "keep the ground outside".

So we now have a steel lattice structure which appears to be within an area of backfill. We have that backfill in direct contact with the concrete walls of the towers. We have the towers rigidly fixed to the bottom of the shafts, but also in full contact with other very heavy elements.

So now instead of a freestanding structure in a vertical shaft (which I incorrectly always assumed due to the diagram on the floor plans, which now seems rather misleading) we have a structure that is rigidly fixed to one surface which will be moving and is surrounded by a vast load, which will also be moving, but in ways that are different from the surface below. This is possibly the worst of all possible world. Any shock transmitted into the mountain will cause the bedrock to move in one way and the backfill to move in another. The towers can't be on springs or roller to allow motion because they are surrounded by backfill. That backfill will also transmit any ground shock into the towers.

Even in a period of a few decades the towers will be presented with huge amounts of stress just from the shifting of the backfill and the movement of the rock layers within the mountain. An Earthquake will send extreme and unpredictable stresses through the structure. There is no way this would work as described.

For the tower floors to be attached to the shaft walls the same goes, unless each attachment point is designed to flex in all three dimensions and to allow for compression, rotation, and tension between the tower and the living rock of the walls.

For the disguise plan to work, an appearance of a uniform shape might be required. I think most here would find the place "wrong" as written.