The acceleration of the launch abort system on its own, when it's not dragging the entire capsule with it, is double digit gees. The main rocket is not going to catch up to it and run into it.
This became a factor during the (unmanned) Mercury-Restone 1 incident, where the launch tower flew off when the rocket was still on the launchpad, leaving the capsule behind on the rocket because the capsule was only designed to detach when the rocket was in freefall (it wasn't in freefall, because it was still on the launchpad.)
The thinking at the time was that, without the capsule attached, the tower might not fly as planned. It could be unstable in the thin up atmosphere. It might spin. That lateral thrust, withough the mass of the capsule, might cause it to spiral, leaving it floating out in front of the accelerating rocket.
StackExchange pictures and discussion: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4153/could-3d-prin...
It's a silly thing little, perhaps, but it helped shape my personality.
When I got involved with high power model rocketry I'd been flying little Estes kits for years. I had rudimentary understanding of aerodynamic forces and testing for stability, and had hacked around with flight simulation code cribbed from G. Harry Stine's "Handbook of Model Rocketry". I was young and thought I "knew stuff". Somebody at a high power launch remarked offhandedly about the difference thrust profiles of an end-burner vs. a core-burner. After I digested it I began to reflect on the visceral sense of how little I really knew about rocketry, and the world in general, that I felt.
It was a seemingly simple piece of trivia about a topic that's not particularly important in my day-to-day life. It was, however, one of those deeply humbling "unknown unknown" moments. I've grown to absolutely adore the feeling of learning about new, uncharted depths in my knowledge because it means there's something new to learn about. The lesson about false confidence and humility was also a really good one. I hope it was a lesson that changed me for the better.
When I first got into model rocketry, I was inundated with technical material. NASA had a huge variety of short technical briefs on things like stability, drag coefficients, etc - I think they gave them out for free to anyone who asked - and I had a fair collection. Unfortunately the mathematics in in them was far too much for 8 year old me, and I wasn't really able to use them in earnest for anything. Rocket science - proper science - seemed unapproachably complex.
But a few years later I was given a copy of G Harry Stine's book, and it was like the doors were thrown open. Everything in it was hugely practical! And perfectly readable to 11 year old me. One great big book that said "you can totally do all this, and here's how". I credit the BASIC code in the appendices with helping get me into programming. I spent a long time painstakingly translating one of them into TI-83+ BASIC.
So the lesson that I learned was the opposite as yours - it's easier than it looks!
It sounds easy, with hindsight, to say "Of course the burn profile of the fuel grain would determine the the thrust curve". The idea of fuel grain burn profile just simply hadn't occurred to me. Sure-- I knew motors had total and specific impulse but, I grew up on Estes motors as "black boxes" and never thought about motor manufacture or that performance could be engineered. I never thought about the motor as anything more than "put an ignition source in, get energy out".
I know I've had a lot more of these moments. This was just a memory evoked by the parent post. I'm having trouble coming up with another of these "deep holes that look shallow, or don't even look like a hole at all" moments immediately to relate a second anecdote.
These shallow-looking deep holes clearly exist in large numbers. By their very nature we can't know how many there are. They're fractal, too. Inside each one are more similarly-appearing (or not appearing) holes to go down.
That idea might trouble some people, but it's very exciting to me. The only troubling bit is knowing I have a finite period explore the space of knowledge and a limited capacity to understand. That doesn't discourage me, though.
https://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/images/EstesStandardEng...
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7457/12472921013_aa92200267_k...
Coming from model rocketry myself, I had the same question, so I went straight to wikipedia to find out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket
Somehow I thought that the combustion of the propellant had to be inline with the thrust, but TIL there is a combustion chamber, and it's the ejection of the combusted gases through the nozzle causes the thrust.
I like hearing other people's experience with model rocketry. It's interesting because I experienced it more as model building (assembling and decorating) with a fun day of launching and running after them. I never got into the physics of the flights (other than lighter==higher) or even thought of investigating propellant properties--geometry and chemistry--as amateur rocketry does. I guess nobody told me "you can make your own engines if you want," but even then I'm not sure I would've pursued it.
Left to right: Saturn V, Space Shuttle, Falcon 9 Heavy, SLS (still under construction).
2:22, you hear Neil Armstrong say "inboard cutout," that is the center engine shutting off to limit the thrust, and therefore G-forces the astronauts felt. As fuel ran out, the rocket stack would weigh less and so the rocket would push harder. By the time the main engine cutoff, the Saturn V was pulling 4 and a half Gs.
Also, just noticed the SLS keeps its launch escape tower (the big needle on the top of the rocket - see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ) - this wouldn't happen in a real flight. The flight plan calls for ditching than when it's not longer useful - you can hear the Apollo 11 call saying, "tower jettisoned."