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."

27 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Evita's on the horizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Evita's on the horizon by trongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Money is only wasted if you throw it in a pile and burn it. If it gets spent on something, regardless of how silly, then it stays in circulation; somebody will be using it to buy groceries, pay the mortgage, take his kids to the doctor, etc. A bunch of people will be employed on this project, and a bunch of companies will be selling goods and services. This is exactly the kind of stuff we want rich people to be doing with their money.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    2. Re:Evita's on the horizon by Megane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why must the only reason to recover it be to reverse-engineer it? (Besides, we already have projects like the J2X for re-mainstreaming Saturn V technlogy.) Why must you ignore the possibility that the very act of recovering this historical object doesn't in itself advance science through developing the technology to recover it? James Cameron's "voyage to the bottom of the sea" improved deep-diving technology sufficiently that I'm sure more people will go down there in the next few years.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Evita's on the horizon by fast+turtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well there's the science angle of those engines seeing as how they were actually launched raising the questions of how the heat affected them, plus what affect did splash down have on them along with the affect of salt water on the hot/cold components. What kind of corrosion has the metal suffered over time? All sorts of questions like that are then able to be asked.

      To me, the inability to even think of questions to be asked/ivestigated proves just how well the educational system in the United States is reaching the goal of no-one being able to think for themselves as both the government and corps simply want consumers that are as dumb as rocks. No wonder Science has pretty much died in the States though we still have a few that are innovating but they're getting locked out by Patents and such as quickly as possible.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    4. Re:Evita's on the horizon by Vellmont · · Score: 2

      The project is obviously about historic preservation, not science. Think it might be interesting to have the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria on display in a museum somewhere? How about the tools used to create the pyramids?

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Evita's on the horizon by es330td · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about the tools used to create the pyramids?

      I'm pretty sure Ra took those with him when he went through the Stargate.

    6. Re:Evita's on the horizon by tophermeyer · · Score: 2

      Especially in this case, where the retrieval effort is happening in an environment that 1) is rich with exploitable resources and 2) we don't have a lot of experience working in.

      As far as I'm concerned, any project that lets us learn a little more about living and working on the ocean floor is money well spent.

    7. Re:Evita's on the horizon by Specter · · Score: 2

      Technically the broken window fallacy doesn't apply. The BWF requires you break a previously unbroken window for the specific purpose of paying someone to fix it. It's a fallacy, in part, because it ignores the fact that you're destroying something of value at the same time you're creating all this theoretical economic benefit.

      Nothing of value was destroyed in this case with the intention of creating economic activity in the recovery/salvage operation. (The loss of the booster is a sunk cost of the launch; I would imagine no recovery was ever expected.) Now, you could argue spending money to recover the booster not the most efficient way to generate economic benefit (and I'd agree) but it's not really a case of BWF.

      The more interesting question to me is: what does the Law of the Sea have to say about ownership of the wreck? If it's a wreck in international waters, I would have assumed the person to salvage it would be the owner.

  2. The good and bad side of capitalism. by master_p · · Score: 2

    The good side: it allows private corporations to do things like this.

    The bad side: it puts money in the hands of the few.

    1. Re:The good and bad side of capitalism. by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bad side: it puts money in the hands of the few.

      As opposed to communism, which (in reality not theory) puts money in the hands of the... few?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:The good and bad side of capitalism. by zerospeaks · · Score: 2

      Capitalism is not a form of govt.

      --
      http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
    3. Re:The good and bad side of capitalism. by Megane · · Score: 2

      The founding fathers of the USA hated corporations and predicted the current state of affairs would come about if corporations were not strongly limited. Look it up!

      No, you look it up. It's your argument, you support it.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  3. After retrieving the Apollo 11 rocket engines... by stoofa · · Score: 5, Funny
    Most customers:
    • Raised the Titanic
    • Discovered Atlantis
  4. Re:Whose Property Legally? by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Re:Whose Property Legally? by JazzHarper · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:To be clear by JazzHarper · · Score: 2

    Yes, and under international maritime law, the salvor has a claim to a reward for recovering the property, but not to the property itself.

  7. Re:NASA property how? by JazzHarper · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Why are they NASA's property? by JazzHarper · · Score: 4, Informative

    Under international maritime law, the objects remain the property of the original owner forever, unless that owner has formally abandoned claim to them. The salvor may go to court to claim a reward for recovering the property, but is not entitled the property itself.

  9. Re:Strange feeling by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, the ascent stages DID crash back to the moon after the crew redocked with the CSM, then jettisoned the ascent stage.

    They didn't end up back at the landing sites, though.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  10. Re:Whose Property Legally? by bitt3n · · Score: 2

    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).

  11. Re:After retrieving the Apollo 11 rocket engines.. by stoofa · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. Re:Why are they NASA's property? by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Not so long ago some underwater treasure hunters retrieved gold from a spanish shipthat was at the bottom of the ocean for centuries. The Spanish Govt sued and got their treasure back, so I think it would be a good idea to get the permission of NASA before going after it.

    Anyway I agree that there would be better ways Bezos could spen his money in order to further space exploration.

    I think that congress should rewrite NASA's charter (or whatever it is called) to allow individuals and companies to make tax free donations to NASA (the same as if they had donated to charities like the Red Cross, United Way, Humane Society etc.
    And also allow sponsorship in return for naming rights (eg the next Rover on mars could be called the "Range Rover (sponsored by Land Rover.

  13. What's the point? by hackertourist · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:What's the point? by sporkboy · · Score: 2

      Tacking onto this, it's not like it's lost technology that needs to be rescued, or the only extant examples. I saw a full set of these engines on display in Houston in their Saturn V exhibit.

      Which, btw, I highly recommend to any space geeks, the scale of it is pretty awesome up close.

    2. Re:What's the point? by Catmeat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having seen a couple of aircraft wrecks that have been salvaged, all they'll be able to retrieve is a hunk of junk.

      Having seen pictures of World War 2 aircraft, recovered form the sea after 70 years, that looked like the only restoration needed was to hose off the mud and straighten the propeller (see image), I'd say neither of us have any real idea what condition they'll be in.

      Basically, it's all about what angle the S-I stage hit the water 40 years ago. Cold deep sea is comparatively kind to aircraft alloys, although post-recovery conservation is a massive problem.

  14. Re:Whose Property Legally? by JazzHarper · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:NASA property how? by Lithdren · · Score: 2

    Only if you launch it into ocean water atleast 2,500 feet deep.