Slashdot Mirror
Jeff Bezos To Retrieve Apollo 11 Rocket Engines
Hugh Pickens writes "AFP reports that Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos plans to retrieve the F-1 engines that rocketed astronaut Neil Armstrong and his crew toward the moon in 1969. 'We're making plans to attempt to raise one or more of them from the ocean floor,' Bezos wrote in his blog at BezosExpeditions.com. 'We don't know yet what condition these engines might be in — they hit the ocean at high velocity and have been in salt water for more than 40 years. On the other hand, they're made of tough stuff, so we'll see.' Bezos wrote that he was five years old when Armstrong made history during the Apollo 11 mission by becoming the first person to set foot on the moon, and 'without any doubt it was a big contributor to my passions for science, engineering, and exploration.' Bezos stressed that he is using private funds to try to raise the F-1 engines from their resting places 14,000 feet (4,267 meters) below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, and that they remain the property of NASA. 'I imagine that NASA would decide to make it available to the Smithsonian (National Air and Space Museum) for all to see.' Bezos's efforts come just days after Titanic director James Cameron became the first person in 40 years to descend to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the ocean's deepest point, in a privately-funded expedition."
Can we please go back to decent central funding of scientific endeavour - particularly in space - rather than all this stupid pet projects from people who got lucky and have more money than sense? The Soviets dragged themselves from backwater feudal estate to technocratic superpower in 20 years - and China similarly - because they understood the value of education and science. They didn't think that "the market" would advance them.
At what point would they be considered abandoned?
I mean sitting at the bottom of an ocean for 40 years and its not like a fiber optic cable whose purpose is to be laid over great distances, so at what point can some one else claim them?
I want them to go some where like the Smithsonian, but I'm shocked that Jeff Bezos wouldn't have a cliam.
The good side: it allows private corporations to do things like this.
The bad side: it puts money in the hands of the few.
to save the amazon?
There were a total of 13 Saturn V launches from 1967 to 1973. I'm not sure that even NASA knew *exactly* where the spent stages dropped, as they would have been tumbling down without parachutes, and no need for recovery beacons as used with the shuttle SRBs.
Once the engines are raised, the serial numbers will tell what mission they came from, assuming the serial numbers have survived 40 years on the ocean floor.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
They're not underwater graveyards, so yes, they can be salvaged. I'm not aware of anywhere within US territorial waters that is that deep (and in fact, I think the cutoff for territorial waters is 2,500m depth), so yes. I think you're right, they are legally up for grabs for anybody who can salvage them.
I'd be more concerned about the environmental impact. Yes, it's *very* deep, but wildlife has a tendency to accumulate around features on the ocean floor, and it's quite possible that these rocket engines have become artificial reefs. Beyond that, great steps have to be taken in preserving things that have been salvaged from the bottom of the ocean, because the chemistry changes. Just look at the steps they took to preserve the Mary Rose. I have no doubt of the historical significance of these (I'd add Mercury 3, and Apollo 8, 11, and 13 to the list), but I question whether it's a good idea to try to raise them.
It will be a strange feeling when they pull >40 year old engines from the bottom of the ocean, but I bet that will be nothing compared to the next people to get back to the moon and visit and Apollo landing site. At the most optimistic they will be nearly 60 years old by then...
It's going to be very odd seeing a lunar lander with only the most basic computer system and nothing we would recognise as a display. Big flip switches and filament bulbs.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Cue the idiots who will claim it was all faked in 3, 2, 1....
I would hope they would take this into account and do at least a quick analysis of it before making the final decision to raise them. It's possible they're in an oceanic dead zone, in which case the impact would be negligible. On the other hand, it's just as likely that creatures big and small are using them for a home in which case it may not be feasible to raise a heavy rocket with twenty tons of biomass attached to it.
Let's be very clear about something. Anything claimed by the ocean is subject to maritime salvage laws/rights.
No. Under admiralty law, the objects remain the property of the original owner forever, unless that owner has formally abandoned claim to them. The salvor may claim a reward for recovering the property, but not the property itself.
Most laws like this require you to look at it from the view of a reasonable person. It's reasonable to assume that an iPhone left on a bar for 20 minutes isn't abandoned. However, if it was left on the bar for forty years (and you knew the owner knew roughly where it was but never bothered to come look for it), then its reasonable to assume its abandoned. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd contacted NASA to at least give them a heads up or to get more information on exactly how they're constructed - that would go a long way towards helping raise them.
Did you even read the article you linked? Nowhere in there does it say that the salvaged property becomes the property of the salvor. What it does say is that the salvor can go to court with a claim, and may be entitled to an award, rarely exceeding 50% of the value of the item.
It is true that objects in international waters are covered under maritime salvage law. All the other statements above are false.
NASA has not made any express declaration abandoning title to the engines. There is no time limit. A salvor has a claim to a reward for recovering the property, but not a claim to the property itself. The claim for a reward is equivalent to a lien on the property.
Maritime law does not work like that. There is no time limit. The owner must make a formal declaration of abandonment. NASA has not abandoned title to these engines. The salvor is entitled to a reward for recovering them, but cannot claim ownership of them.
Now I guess we know why he can't afford benefits or safe working conditions for amazon fulfillment center workers.
The salvor may claim a reward
how does one determine what a reasonable reward is when the value of the salvaged item is difficult to determine? can the owner simply offer a penny, or can the salvor hold the goods for ransom until he gets what he wants? such a right to claim reward seems ripe for abuse, unless it must be agreed upon in advance, in which case it is no longer a right really, given that in that case the salvor could be said to have the right to see the owner dance like a chicken (since he has the right to anything he can agree to get the owner to do as a precondition of the salvage operation).
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Hey, I'm going to make a troll comment that mentions jocks, but how will I sneakily cover my intentions? I know... I'll call myself 'JockTroll.' Now watch me reel those suckers in... oh shit, that won't work.
wasn't there a Spanish ship that was found but had to have it's cargo returned to Spain because it was in the service of the Spanish government?
Would this fall under the same clause?
Having seen a couple of aircraft wrecks that have been salvaged, all they'll be able to retrieve is a hunk of junk. Restoring them to a state that's useful for exhibition will mean rebuilding most, if not all, of it. If that's the case anyway, why not borrow NASA's blueprints and build a replica or two?
As an added bonus, the replica materials can be chosen to be easier to work with than the originals, since you're not going to build flightworthy examples. E.g. replace titanium with aluminium.
That's what the courts (or arbitrators) are for. It is up to the court to decide what the amount of the reward will be, based on a long list of factors set out in the International Convention on Salvage (1989). Typically, the reward will be less than 50% of the value of the property recovered, although it can be more for sunken treasure. The salvor does not need to have (and in fact, must not have) a pre-existing agreement with the owner to have a pure (or "merit") salvage claim.
In general, if the owner of the vessel refuses to pay the reward arising from a successful salvage, the court can seize the property and order it to be sold at auction to satisfy the claim. Of course, there can be lots of details and exceptions in specific cases.
So the salvor can claim a reward from NASA; presumably NASA would refuse to pay. Would not a court then grant ownership of the engines to the salvor in lieu of the reward? If not, how would any salvor ever hope to receive the reward to which he is entitled?
The same way other such disputes are resolved. The court orders the property to be auctioned off, and each party gets it's respective share of the proceeds.
If they are in international waters aren't they subject to maritime salvage law? How can they be the property of NASA, if they knew where they were and never retrieved them, why would they still belong to NASA is raised?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Jeff Bezos is searching to salvage the Apollo 11 first stage just like Howard Hughs was mining manganese nodules with the Glomar Explorer. In other words, this is just a cover story for some C I A escapade.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
How is jettisoning a disposable rocket stage not abandoning it?
Is the garbage that you put on the curb back in 1998 still your property?
Only if you launch it into ocean water atleast 2,500 feet deep.
Is there a difference between something that was supposed to be in the water and then sank (like a ship or cargo from a ship) versus something that was thrown away into the water (like, arguably, these engines)?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
This has been answered in another comment but, for convenience, I'll repeat: Under the International Convention On Salvage, 1989,
Property means any property not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and includes freight at risk.
Based on what I have read, the 1989 convention covers more kinds of property than than previous maritime law, which mostly dealt with vessels and their cargo. In light of that, and therefore pertinent to your question, it has been a principle of maritime law since ancient times that goods thrown overboard remain the property of the owner and do not become the property of anyone finding them, because they cannot be considered as abandoned. In the contemplation of the law, goods that are jettisoned are regarded as being only temporarily sent out of the ship.
Oh, man! I wasted all my mod points before I got to this comment! +1 Funny!
I've been thinking for a long that if I won an absurd amount of lottery money, I'd use some of it to retrieve the "stage zero" engines from an Atlas launch and put'em in my den. My own space-age artifact! Of course, the wife would say, You're going to put what in here???"
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
wasn't there a Spanish ship that was found but had to have it's cargo returned to Spain because it was in the service of the Spanish government?
Well, I am sure that they try that argument every time that anyone finds one of the lost treasure ships with the raped wealth of the Americas aboard. The last that I heard, the Atocha artifacts were mainly in the possession of the salvage company, not the Spanish government. They also tried that with the Amistad cargo, to no avail.