Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Confirmed: F-1 Rocket Engine Salvaged By Amazon's Bezos Is From Apollo 11

Posted by Soulskill on from the does-it-qualify-for-free-shipping dept.

willith writes "The folks at Bezos Expeditions have confirmed that faintly visible serial numbers on one of the large engine components they lifted from three miles below the ocean's surface match the serial number of F-1 engine F-6044, which flew in the center position on Saturn V number SA-506 — Apollo 11. With the 44th anniversary of the first lunar landing coming up tomorrow, the confirmation comes at an auspicious time. The F-1 engine remains to this day the largest single-chamber liquid fueled engine ever produced — although NASA is considering using a newer uprated design designated as the F-1B to help boost future heavy-lift rockets into orbit."

100 comments

  1. i wonder... by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 0

    does this mean his company can reverse engineer the rocket and sell the design to the highest bidder?

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    1. Re:i wonder... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Unless the buyers are on a munitions restricted list.

    2. Re:i wonder... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Why would he have to reverse engineer it? The designs are property of the United States citizenry.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:i wonder... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      So is the design for the B-1 Bomber and you can't sell that either.

    4. Re:i wonder... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I don't think they are selling weapons... You could build a B-1 with passenger seats and no radar-evading skin and sell it if you wanted.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:i wonder... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      does this mean his company can reverse engineer the rocket and sell the design to the highest bidder?

      Are you asking if he can reverse-engineer an entire Saturn V rocket because he recovered a used and damaged engine that was sitting on the bottom of the ocean for 44 years? Do you understand how large a Saturn V is? Here is a component view of the Saturn V. That's not even a blueprint, not even close, it just shows where selected components are in the rocket. Look all the way at the bottom, at those engines, that's what he recovered. Why would you think he could reverse-engineer the rest of the rocket because he has an engine that has been corroding for 44 years?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:i wonder... by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

      >You could build a B-1 with passenger seats and no radar-evading skin

      No he can't build a B-1 with or without radar-evading seat skin

    7. Re:i wonder... by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Munitions designations are based on possible military uses not possible civilian uses. The fact that it could be used in an ICBM makes it a munition.

    8. Re:i wonder... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Why would he have to reverse engineer it? The designs are property of the United States citizenry.

      You can even find them on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:i wonder... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      You could build a B-1 with passenger seats and no radar-evading skin and sell it if you wanted.

      In theory, yes. But in reality, I doubt you could, even if you had the financing. I'd guess many of the parts and materials you'd need would be withheld due to some "shortage", or something. I'm sure there is more to its design that is classified than the weapons systems and skin too. It would probably be even harder to be get permission to fly it. And with all of the restrictions and documentation needed to sell aircraft, it's very unlikely you could sell it.

    10. Re:i wonder... by decsnake · · Score: 1

      Correct.

      Essentially all rocket and spacecraft technology is on the US munitions list, whether it makes sense or not.

    11. Re:i wonder... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, let me amend that to say that in 44 years you could build it :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:i wonder... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The fact that it could be used in an ICBM makes it a munition.

      But seriously, why would anyone put a B-1 in an ICBM?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    13. Re:i wonder... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      does this mean his company can reverse engineer the rocket and sell the design to the highest bidder?

      Are you asking if he can reverse-engineer an entire Saturn V rocket because he recovered a used and damaged engine that was sitting on the bottom of the ocean for 44 years? Do you understand how large a Saturn V is? Here is a component view of the Saturn V. That's not even a blueprint, not even close, it just shows where selected components are in the rocket.

      There's something wrong with that diagram. I don't see where the sea urchins, sponges, crabs and other organic life that was obviously used in the one they recovered.

    14. Re:i wonder... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Right, but he's building rockets right now.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:i wonder... by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the B-1 design belongs to Rockwell. The F-1 design belongs to Rocketdyne. Just because it was built for NASA, doesn't mean that NASA (or by extension, the American people) have any claim to the designs.

    16. Re:i wonder... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Whoosh...

    17. Re:i wonder... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be a 44-year-old jet engine that was never a weapon. An original 747 engine, for instance.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:i wonder... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      So do you think you could build an SR-71 then? ;-)

    19. Re:i wonder... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be a 44-year-old jet engine that was never a weapon.

      Oh, come on, you're not one of those "truther" loonies, are you?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:i wonder... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oh, that would be awesome. I don't see why not... people buy and fly these old fighter jets. I don't imagine the plans are available, though.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unrelated, but Houston NASA has a Saturn V rocket on display. The scale is really astounding when you're standing at one end looking at this.

    22. Re:i wonder... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Yes but he is not selling rocket technology to others.

    23. Re:i wonder... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You know I was talking about the rocker engine in the original post.

    24. Re:i wonder... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      I think the main point is to mount this in Bezos' man cave next to the Labatt neon sign and pool table.

    25. Re:i wonder... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. There was no sarcasm in the post I responded to. Some people are legitimately clueless.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    26. Re:i wonder... by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      Since when do we hold title to anything the gov does anymore?

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    27. Re:i wonder... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I do appear in a truther video, but they use me as an example of the deluded masses! LOL, I was living in NYC at the time and happened to be shopping at Century 21 near ground zero. I walked by and they interviewed me with my 2-year old on my shoulders.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:i wonder... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Oh, that would be awesome. I don't see why not... people buy and fly these old fighter jets. I don't imagine the plans are available, though.

      Almost all US military jets are only sold as scrap and there are restrictions on selling the functional parts. F-104's are about the only jet plane that I know of that civilians own and fly in the US. I heard that one of the Blue Angels F-18's was sold as scrap but someone screwed up and did not issue the proper paperwork that limited it to being non-flyable. All of the other jet fighters that I'm aware of have been MIGs and other foreign built airframes. I'm not sure how it would work if you tried to build it yourself. My guess is that they would find a way to withhold certain resources. Since you would have to develop your own tech, you may stumble onto something revolutionary. In which case as a US citizen, the military has the right to annex it.

      I agree, it would be awesome to have and be able to fly an SR, but from everything I've seen they are not the easiest plane to fly. The whole "unstart" thing is a little scary. Plus the cost and difficulty of having to fuel it in the air after takeoff.

    29. Re:i wonder... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of a barbeque.

      How long does medium-rare elephant take, anyone?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:i wonder... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would require a billionaire :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    31. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F1 was designed and built by Rocketdyne (now Aerojet Rocketdyne after a few M&As).

      I worked for a contractor on rocket parts before and the contractor kept the design private to be able to sell to other customers.

    32. Re:i wonder... by akluge · · Score: 1

      And at the bottom of the engine - that's a person. The scale of this achievement is awesome.
      - Someone who still remembers the Apollo-11 launch.

    33. Re:i wonder... by cusco · · Score: 1

      In 1980 I hitch hiked to Cape Canaveral to watch the third launch of Colombia. Outside the visitor center, baking in the sun, lay a Saturn 5. Inside was the Command Module, LEM and Rover from the same craft. I cried looking at them. All the hardware was bought, paid for and delivered, the crews trained, even the fuel had been delivered. All the expensive part of the project was paid for, all that remained was the least expensive part of the project, the actual launch and mission. The sponsors of the congresscritters had made their money, most of the rest of the expense was going to just be spent on NASA staff and equipment, so the bastards canceled it. Truthfully it made me sadder than any funeral that I've ever attended.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    34. Re:i wonder... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I was lucky enough to see the one on display at Kennedy. It's pretty impressive to walk through the doors and be met with this. The first stage of that one is part of a test platform, but the second and third stages are from the vehicle that was designated for Apollo 18 or 19.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    35. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we should really get our money's worth with these scumbag contractors.

    36. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. But there are still some in storage or museums. In fact, that is just what NASA has used to help with development of the F1B, along with some of the tricks they learned from Russian rockets.

      There was a great article on this a few months ago...wired, gizmodo, ars technica, or watever, leading up to firing one of the originaf F1 turbopumps...

    37. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, everything created by the US Govt is under public domain, meaning that its owned by the people. There is no copy right. Patents are different though. The whole IP law domain is confusing

    38. Re:i wonder... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      That would be 1981, not 1980.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    39. Re:i wonder... by dantotheman · · Score: 1

      Took him a year to hitch hike across the country from California.

    40. Re:i wonder... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right. Moved to St. Pete in '80, and left at the end of the '80-'81 theatre season. My ferret and I hitched from St. Pete to Cape Kennedy (it was still called that), and watched the launch from Cocoa Beach. It was the only days off that I got between New Years and the end of the season in May. Moved from there to Seattle then, which was about as far as I could get from both Florida and Michigan without jumping off.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    41. Re:i wonder... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wasn't a Sony Playstation, made by a company based in Japan and made in China, restricted by a court injunction due to an insane US munitions law? Wasn't another RSA encryption which meant the company had to base itself overseas if they wanted their stuff to be used by banks for international transactions? Didn't SuperMicro get in deep shit and have to pay a huge fine when their motherboards ended up in the wrong place (yet HP, IBM etc were let off in the same circumstances)? A lot of it doesn't make sense, especially when real US military hardware ends up in the wrong place (eg. Iran) and nobody gets charged.

    42. Re:i wonder... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      engine that has been corroding for 44 years

      Some of those alloys used are such that a lot of those parts are going to look the same as new after four hundred years in seawater let alone forty years. The aluminium panels on the side will corrode in preference. Plus there's not a lot of oxygen deep in the ocean so corrosion is going to be very slow anyway - people are bringing up iron nails from ships four hundred years old that are in deep enough water.
      From what I've heard from a person that restored a sunken ship's cannon, a few years in a tank of water with some electrodes and you could get all the diffused sodium and chlorine ions out of the thing and put it on display without having to worry about anything other than keeping the rain off it.

    43. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading a history of these engines when Elon Musk's company (SpaceX) was reviewing the design of these engines prior to building their engines. These engines were never the same. Their design was good, but iterative. There was no computational fluid dynamics, and testing was done incrementally. Build a piece, add it to the rest, then test. If it works to specs, move on, otherwise fix it and test till it works, then move on. They were 99.9995% similar, but not exact copies. There are a lot of newer engines with less but similar performance (and if their specific impulse is more, then the lift can be as large or larger). Newer engines are also more efficient.

    44. Re:i wonder... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      You could build a B-1 with passenger seats and no radar-evading skin and sell it if you wanted.

      There was the Concorde already, not a very useful plane. It's like they made it and operated it (the french and british) just so that people can fap at it. A bit like the space shuttle. Waste of money and time.

    45. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://xkcd.com/984/

    46. Re: i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fucking unacceptable. Don't insult the STS. Fuck you.

    47. Re:i wonder... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Then they would have to sell it through a third-party, just like everybody else does.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Interesting indeed by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    I wonder how corroded it is after all this time, I know they used some space age materials (heh) but With all the lost paperwork over the years. I wonder if there is anything to be learned from this new found treasure

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:Interesting indeed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that back then, all the stuff was essentially hand-built. These days, you let CNC machines do the dirty work. That essentially means that while the geometry of the nozzle etc. is still valid, you can't simply manufacture old stuff the new way. So the "lost paperwork" probably wouldn't be all that helpful anyway. Also, if you want to learn from the Saturn V hardware, you don't need to learn to swim.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Interesting indeed by willith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "paperwork" has never been lost—every shred of documentation is intact and on file. In fact, engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center have been spending the past year busily disassembling and working with components from several stored F-1 engines. They've constructed highly detailed CAD models of the engines, and even done hot firing on one of the gas generator segments.

      I penned a very detailed piece on this over at Ars Technica earlier this year, including photos and video of one of the gas generator hot-fires. The piece includes multiple interviews with senior propulsion scientists at MSFC, and thoroughly debunks the "but the blueprints are lost!" urban myth.

    3. Re:Interesting indeed by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Damn, well thank you for passing this along. I like to consider myself an apollo buff, although I havent kep up on it as much as I got older (im one of those who was lucky enough to go to space camp as a child in the early 90s) I saw a program about the time the new moon missions were planned that said alot of the blueprints and paperwork were lost over the years. I never bothered to look into it but I had always hoped what i saw was wrong.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Interesting indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was really impressed by that piece. Thank you.

      Posting AC to not throw away +1 insightful

    5. Re:Interesting indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [I]f you want to learn from the Saturn V hardware, you don't need to learn to swim.

      FWIW, they have one at the Kennedy Space Center Rocket Garden too.

      Visiting was one of the great days of my life.

    6. Re:Interesting indeed by decsnake · · Score: 2

      Thanks, that was a great article, but apparently it could still use more debunking, because that myth seems to be as firmly entrenched as ever.

    7. Re:Interesting indeed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a strange claim in your article:

      In addition, the city of Huntsville has grown up considerably since the Apollo era; lighting off an engine the size of an F-1 at Marshall today would likely blow out every window in the entire city.

      That does not compute to me. When cities grow, their old parts tend to stay where they are. If engine tests didn't blow out windows in the older and smaller version of the city, how come that the same windows in the old parts of the city are now under threat from the same engine? I don't see how the city growing could make them more brittle or anything.

      Otherwise, a nice article, and even nicer pictures.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Interesting indeed by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The "paperwork" has never been lost—every shred of documentation is intact and on file. In fact, engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center have been spending the past year busily disassembling and working with components from several stored F-1 engines. They've constructed highly detailed CAD models of the engines, and even done hot firing on one of the gas generator segments.

      I penned a very detailed piece on this over at Ars Technica earlier this year, including photos and video of one of the gas generator hot-fires. The piece includes multiple interviews with senior propulsion scientists at MSFC, and thoroughly debunks the "but the blueprints are lost!" urban myth.

      The first stage rocket engine is not a complete rocket. Aruably the engine is very important, but many other things are important too. The underlying point is we can't built a Saturn 5 again. We would need to basically redesign the whole rocket to get there.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    9. Re:Interesting indeed by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I am going to assume that in the 60s there were not buildings near the old test location and in the past 50 years buildings have been built in what was once forrest or otherwise land not inhabited.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:Interesting indeed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that back then, all the stuff was essentially hand-built. These days, you let CNC machines do the dirty work. That essentially means that while the geometry of the nozzle etc. is still valid, you can't simply manufacture old stuff the new way.

      You can simply manufacture old stuff the old way. There may be a shortage of machinists, but they aren't nonexistent.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Interesting indeed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the old parts of the city. The claim is that all windows in the city would get destroyed, therefore, the windows in the old parts of the city would get destroyed, but the distances and pressure levels for those wouldn't have changed since the 1960s. Therefore, the claim doesn't make sense.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Interesting indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your great write-up makes me wonder...What is the advantage to Bezos restoring this engine? Since non-fired examples already exist for people to admire, I would think this thing would be cooler to see in its current state. Put it at a facility with one of the unfired examples as a before/after display :). Sure it's cool that it was on 11, but it seems like a waste to restore it by putting parts on there that were not used in flight to make it look better.

    13. Re:Interesting indeed by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1
      The old way? You mean with computer-controlled CNC machines?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1g1b_EeVHw&feature=player_detailpage#t=416s

      1963.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    14. Re:Interesting indeed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There may be a shortage of machinists, but they aren't nonexistent.

      But I've read that this is precisely the problem: the old generation that worked on this retired (and partly died) without passing the skills to the new one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Interesting indeed by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There may be a shortage of machinists, but they aren't nonexistent.

      But I've read that this is precisely the problem: the old generation that worked on this retired (and partly died) without passing the skills to the new one.

      While it would take some doing it could be done. Obviously, since it was done once. What is more likely is a sort of updated F-1, designed to make use of modern production methods, perhaps to even be reuseable.

      The Saturn 5 was an amazing, mighty machine. Our ability to produce something like that again is more dependent on the will to do so, than on our abilities. We have the ability to make even better Rockets now. The will? I think we are more geared to servicing stockholders than sending people to space and bringing them back. And I'm not talking about ISS stuff, that LEO stuff has been old hat since the early 60's. We really don't have teh will any more. Though apparently China does. One day we'll wake up, and they'll have a moon base, and the same people who don't want to fund anything now will be screaming about how we "let this happen".

      Notice that NASA's budget is apparently going to get another cut.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:Interesting indeed by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The underlying point is we can't built a Saturn 5 again. We would need to basically redesign the whole rocket to get there.

      And of course, why would we? The F1 and the Saturn 5 body were amazing machines, but we could design something much better today. Will we? Nah, we are a nation devoted to servicing stockholders now, and sadly, the Chinese will probably take over where we left off.

      http://news.yahoo.com/proposed-nasa-budget-cuts-spark-bitter-debate-congress-151811266.html

      Read into that what you will.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:Interesting indeed by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      There may be a shortage of machinists, but they aren't nonexistent.

      But I've read that this is precisely the problem: the old generation that worked on this retired (and partly died) without passing the skills to the new one.

      I can guarantee you could buy the parts, there's machining shops that can do the parts(and more), it would take a few years of course like buying anything so specialized. we(the west) could in few years ramp up production for some blackbirds too. it would just be very expensive, the top machinists and machining firms are busy producing parts for the jumbos, airbusses and other existing profitable paying real money projects.

      the problem is that it gets real, real expensive and you would have to run the test series again if you were sane. might as well build a better rocket or buy few smaller boosters from russians(you could dock the parts in orbit for the lunar trip if that was the aim, sure a bigger rocket might be the better choice but there's a ready production chain for the other rockets).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:Interesting indeed by starseeker · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that article - awesome and interesting reading.

      --
      "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    19. Re:Interesting indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nerd in me has to ask - I don't suppose we can download the CAD model they made of the F1 engine somewhere? If it were available as a STEP file something like FreeCAD might be able to open it and let us expore it - super cool Apollo tech history coming to life in 3D.

    20. Re:Interesting indeed by willith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably too late to pick up any moderation points, but no. The CAD files are considered export-controlled technology and are not publicly available. I asked this specifically when I was talking with the engineers involved in the effort. It's also why the article I wrote (linked up-thread) lacks images of the disassembled F-1 engine and its components. I desperately wanted to photograph the lab and its awesome assortment of rocket parts, but NASA and the US government did not allow pictures of export-controlled technology.

    21. Re:Interesting indeed by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There may be a shortage of machinists, but they aren't nonexistent.

      Those old retired machiners from the rocket program are still around in unlikely places. I met one that was making duck lures - a little pipe calling in the male duck in the hope of sex with a female duck.

      So that's the way this problem can be solved.
      All we need is a duck sex machiner.

  3. Important Question by errxn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does it qualify for Super Saver Shipping?

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    1. Re:Important Question by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Only if you drop-ship it to an Amazon Warehouse first.
      The same goes for Amazon Prime.

      http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-elephant-in-amazons-mail-room-2012-11-28

      So what's the heaviest item Amazon will ship for free? The company declined to say, but the makers of a 1,509-pound safe (shipping weight: 1,672 pounds) claim the prize for biggest bang for one's 79 bucks.

      "We charge customers around $700 to ship this safe, but when they buy it through Amazon they get it shipped for free," says Pasquale Murena, marketing manager for Cannon Safe. "As a result, we get orders through Amazon every day." In fact, Amazon will pick up the tab for shipping the safe even for non-Prime members, if they are willing to wait a few extra days for delivery. Like many items priced over $25, it qualifies for "Super Saver Shipping," which usually take five to eight days to arrive.

      What investors do know is this: [Amazon] reported $636 million in shipping losses in the quarter ended Sept. 30 ($2.8 billion in the past year) -- that represents 4.6% of its sales. Amazon reported a net $274 million loss that quarter, but "they would have earned a hefty profit were it not for the costs of free shipping," says Gillis. In fact, free shipping reduces Amazon's profit margin on any one item to about 1%, compared with the 5% retailers earn typically, he says.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  4. There's just one thing to say. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Informative

    It belongs in a museum! </Indy>

    1. Re:There's just one thing to say. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I agree, but the U.S. government made no real attempt to recover it for that purpose. Bezos should donate it to a museum, and hopefully get a nice name plaque next to it, but if he doesn't I can't see the U.S. government having the moral standing to force him to.

    2. Re:There's just one thing to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be 4 more from Apollo 11 and 30 more from the other missions to recover.

    3. Re:There's just one thing to say. by dacut · · Score: 3, Informative

      They remain the property of NASA, and Bezos acknowledges as much: "If we are able to recover one of these F-1 engines[...], I imagine that NASA would decide to make it available to the Smithsonian for all to see. If we're able to raise more than one engine, I've asked NASA if they would consider making it available to the excellent Museum of Flight here in Seattle."

    4. Re:There's just one thing to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still belongs to the US government. By international treaty, all property rights on spacecraft remain with the owning nation indefinitely; there is no salvage right under any circumstances. See the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967 and the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space of 1968 for full details.

    5. Re:There's just one thing to say. by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree, but the U.S. government made no real attempt to recover it for that purpose.

      They didn't need to. They had 2 complete Saturn V rockets leftover from the cancelled Apollo 19 and 20 missions. You can see them on display at the Johnson and Kennedy Space Centres. They also have a standalone F-1 in the rocket garden at the latter.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:There's just one thing to say. by jafac · · Score: 1

      No. It belongs on an SLS booster.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:There's just one thing to say. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Marshall Space Flight Center also has one, though it's built of prototype and QA versions of the various stages. None of its components were built to go into space.

      Nevertheless, they are not replicas.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  5. tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Recovery of anything from three miles beneath the ocean's surface is a significant achievement, of course, but the very rocket engines that flew humans to their first lunar landing are obviously of particular historical importance."

    Ok, now try to locate the recording tape of the landing... that is not even on the bottom of the ocean.
    If it is so historically significant, it probably wasn't thrown away.

    1. Re:tape by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      No, but it wouldn't be the first valuable recording to be taped over so save a few bucks....

  6. unamed conservator by jonnymacuser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who is this "intrepid conservator" who "kept digging for more evidence" and eventually found "Unit No 2044"??? Give the guy some recognition jeff!

    1. Re:unamed conservator by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Who is this "intrepid conservator" who "kept digging for more evidence" and eventually found "Unit No 2044"???

      Give the guy some recognition jeff!

      They tend not to give recognition to Top. Men.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  7. "Auspicious time" by swampfriend · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm glad that the scientific community will benefit from these good auspices. NASA's in-house seers predict this will totally compensate for the bad omen earlier this year, when seven ravens got incinerated on the launchpad.

  8. Thumbs up for rich person doing cool stuff w/ $$ by no1nose · · Score: 1

    I really admire him for spending time doing adventurous activities with his time. He doesn't seem wrapped up in just being wealthy. He wants to use that money to make spaceships and dig up sunken treasures. I pretty much live a Great-Value-Brand-Upper-Lower-Class lifestyle and rely on Super Saver Shipping for most purchases, but Bezos really sets the bar high for what a person could become. And he isn't all about the show.

  9. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When my daughter was about 7, we took her to the Kennedy Space Center.

    The look of joyous awe on her face when she came around the corner and looked up at the five F1s of the business end of the Saturn V there was timeless.

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even as a 25 year old man, walking around the corner and looking up at the business end of a Saturn V was damn near a religious experience, for me.

  10. Dang. by antimatt · · Score: 1

    1%ers have way cooler hobbies than I do.

    1. Re:Dang. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I don't qualify as a 1%er, but some of my friends do. I can tell you that Jeff ain't just a 1%er :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. Designs were not lost but tooling is gone by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why would he have to reverse engineer it? The designs are property of the United States citizenry.

    And contrary to urban myth the designs were not destroyed or lost. However while we may have blueprints we no longer have the tooling, the machines and tools that make the Saturn 5 parts. Nor do we have the hands on expertise. That is the real reason we don't just crank out some more of these rockets.

    1. Re:Designs were not lost but tooling is gone by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A fun anecdote to this - I have an uncle who works at NASA and he said that the engineers of today were trying to figure out how the engineers of the Apollo program had solved a particular kind of problem. No documentation existed, and no one still working there had been part of the original program, so they had to go over to their own space museum to tear apart a section of the rocket to see how they'd done it. There's a lot of experiential knowledge that comes with actually solving problems, rather than just using someone else's notes, and a lot of that kind of information was lost.

  12. And that is where it is going. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though they've been on the ocean floor for a long time, the engines remain the property of NASA. If we are able to recover one of these F-1 engines that started mankind on its first journey to another heavenly body, I imagine that NASA would decide to make it available to the Smithsonian for all to see. If we're able to raise more than one engine, I've asked NASA if they would consider making it available to the excellent Museum of Flight here in Seattle.

  13. what a pity by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a pity this engine wasn't from Apollo 13. I bet Tom Hanks would have paid a pretty penny for an engine from the rocket he piloted, and then Bezos could have used the proceeds to retire a wealthy man, just like Cameron did when he salvaged the Titanic.

    --
    how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
    1. Re:what a pity by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      It's a pity this engine wasn't from Apollo 13. I bet Tom Hanks would have paid a pretty penny for an engine from the rocket he piloted, and then Bezos could have used the proceeds to retire a wealthy man, just like Cameron did when he salvaged the Titanic.

      May god have mercy on your soul.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  14. How 19 and 20 year olds keep the B-52 flying ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah that personal knowledge is pretty important, as is the chain where one "generation" passes it on to the next. Not everything is in the blueprints or the manuals. That's the only reason 19 and 20 year old aviation mechanics in the US Air Force can keep a B-52 from the 1950s flying. Personal experience and tips passed on from a guy working on the B-52 since the 2000s, who received it from a guy who had worked on them in the 1990s, ... in the 80s, ... in the 70s, ... in the 60s, who got it from a USAF aviation mechanic from the 50s who worked side by side with the Boeing engineers and technicians who designed and built the B-52.

    While NASA does not have the benefit of such a chain of knowledge regarding the Saturn 5 the young engineers at NASA and subcontractors are sometimes able to bring in retired engineers from the 60s and 70s to pass on what they remember.

  15. Pale imitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bezos is a pale imitation of Paul Allen, let alone James Cameron. Bezos Expeditions Inc. is just another commerical salvage group, except they go after museum pieces rather than gold coins. It sounds space-y and exploration-y, but it's salvage, pure and simple.

  16. Not Rockwell anymore... by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

    "Following the 'peace dividend' after the fall of the Soviet bloc, the company sold its defense and aerospace business, including what was once North American Aviation and Rocketdyne, to Boeing Integrated Defense Systems in December 1996."

    Fourth paragraph

  17. More than just the F104... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civilians in the US also own the following:
    Sea Harrier (ok, technically not a US military aircraft, but close to the USMC AV8B) :http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/10168

    F86: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Could-You-Fly-a-Sabre.html

    F4: http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0203003

    Refer to the Number Still Airworthy at the following links:

    A-37: http://www.warbirdalley.com/a37.htm

    A4: http://www.warbirdalley.com/a4.htm

    F100: http://www.warbirdalley.com/f100.htm

    T2: http://www.warbirdalley.com/t2.htm

    T38/F5: http://www.warbirdalley.com/t38.htm

    I've seen an F86 and T2 at the EAA Airshow in Oshkosh.