ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Reality of Apollo => Topic started by: scooter on March 28, 2012, 03:29:41 PM
-
Saw that Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com's bazillionaire owner, has found the SIC that boosted Apollo 11 on it's way, in about 14000 ft of water. Wants to bring one or more of the engines up, if their condition allows.
If nothing else, it would put a final nail in Mt Kaysing's "dumped in the South Atlantic" mantra (or so one would think...).
-
It survived!
-
Some pictures would be nice.
-
If we are able to recover one of these F-1 engines that started mankind on its first journey to another heavenly body,
Nitpick: Doesn't he mean third journey?
Fred
-
Well, do you define 'journey' as landing or orbit?
It could be nitted either way.
-
Saw that Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com's bazillionaire owner, has found the SIC that boosted Apollo 11 on it's way, in about 14000 ft of water. Wants to bring one or more of the engines up, if their condition allows.
If nothing else, it would put a final nail in Mt Kaysing's "dumped in the South Atlantic" mantra (or so one would think...).
How does he know that it is Apollo 11's, couldn't it easily be from another mission?
-
I admire his bazillionairishness. If we could make a rocket engine that can be sold on amazon for £13.99, we could be bazillionaires too.
-
If nothing else, it would put a final nail in Mt Kaysing's "dumped in the South Atlantic" mantra (or so one would think...).
It also rather undermines Pokrovsky's claims about low performance.
-
If nothing else, it would put a final nail in Mt Kaysing's "dumped in the South Atlantic" mantra (or so one would think...).
It also rather undermines Pokrovsky's claims about low performance.
Well, it didn't make it into space, now did it?
Lots of rockets blow up and land in the ocean as failures. This rocket landed in the ocean. Therefore it too must have blown up and failed. :-)
-
How does he know that it is Apollo 11's, couldn't it easily be from another mission?
The impact sites are known...
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-22_Saturn_Stage_Earth_Impact.htm
It looks like the closest to the Apollo 11 site is Apollo 13, which impacted about 4.5 km to the southwest. Hopefully that's far enough away to prevent misidentification.
-
http://io9.com/5897262/jeff-bezos-has-located-apollo-11s-long+lost-engines-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean (http://io9.com/5897262/jeff-bezos-has-located-apollo-11s-long+lost-engines-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean)
-
This raises the question of whether the US government will claim ownership to the spent rocket and block his effort? Or perhaps they will claim ownership and cooperate with his recovery.
-
If you read the articles, it's explicitly said that the artifacts are NASA property. Bezos is in talks with NASA, apparently. He's hoping that, if recovered, an engine will be displayed in the Smithsonian.
-
You'd have a hard time depriving NASA of a proprietary claim under maritime law. The S-1C and its equipment would likely be considered jetsam (the only ambiguity being the purpose for its jettison) and therefore remain the property of its original owner. Proprietary claims are amplified when the owner is a sovereign nation, as opposed to a nationally-flagged private owner.
A salvor has the right to compensation for risking life and property in the salvage, but he is not automatically the owner of the salvaged property. Personally if I had a kajillion dollars and wanted to drag an F-1 up from the bottom of the ocean, I'd want to see it displayed prominently somewhere. It wouldn't do any good for it to sit in my living room.
-
Well, you see tables made out of engine blocks. Bit of glass across the top and Bob's your mother brother.
Need long arms though to reach the coffee cups.
-
Fond this on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17544565
My immediate thought was "how do they know they are the Apollo 11 engines?" but I would surmise that they have trajectory records to try and pin down the final impact point....
Doh! Of course, I didn't manage to see Scooter's post until AFTER I had posted this one!
-
NASA - NASA Administrator Supports Apollo Engine Recovery (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-102_Bolden_Bezos_Ap_Eng.html)
WASHINGTON -- The following is a statement from NASA Administrator Charles Bolden regarding the efforts announced this week by Jeff Bezos to recover main engines from the Saturn V first stage rocket of Apollo 11:
“I would like to thank Jeff Bezos for his communication with NASA informing us of his historic find. I salute him and his entire team on this bold venture and wish them all the luck in the world.
“NASA does retain ownership of any artifacts recovered and would likely offer one of the Saturn V F-1 engines to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington under long-standing arrangements with the institution as the holder of the national collection of aerospace artifacts.
“If the Smithsonian declines or if a second engine is recovered, we will work to ensure an engine or other artifacts are available for display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, as Jeff requested in his correspondence with my office. I have directed our staff to begin work to exercise all appropriate authorities to provide a smooth and expeditious disposition of any flight hardware recovered.
“I sincerely hope all continues to go well for Jeff and Blue Origin, and that his team enjoys success and prosperity in every endeavor. All of us at NASA have our fingers crossed for success in his upcoming expedition of exploration and discovery.”
For more about the Saturn V’s F-1 engine, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/f1_engine.html
-
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/f1_engine.html
What an awesome piece of hardware.
I have a few questions for the rocket scientists in the audience:
- Aside from ones on display, would there still be F-1's in storage somewhere? Or are all the remaining examples displayed somewhere?
- If ones existed in storage, what are the chances they could be made flight-ready?
- Would it be practical or even feasible to use the F-1 or an F-1-based design (similar size, specs, performance, etc) as an engine for future rocket designs?
Just asking out of sheer curiosity... :)
Cz
-
I'm eagerly awaiting Jay's comments on this question.
For high-thrust first stage engines the trend seems to be toward large solid rockets and away from big bipropellant engines like the F-1. As impressive as the F-1 certainly was, it just wasn't that efficient; the sea-level Isp is listed as only 263 seconds, vs 311 seconds for the RD-180, a more modern LOX/RP-1 engine with about half the thrust of the F-1.
As uneasy as I am with flying humans on solid rockets or even handling the things, I suspect their simplicity and high thrust-to-weight ratio makes them a lot more cost-effective than large liquid fueled rockets, at least when throttling isn't required.
-
You'd have a hard time depriving NASA of a proprietary claim under maritime law. The S-1C and its equipment would likely be considered jetsam (the only ambiguity being the purpose for its jettison) and therefore remain the property of its original owner. Proprietary claims are amplified when the owner is a sovereign nation, as opposed to a nationally-flagged private owner.
I'm no lawyer, but a quick search for the definitions of these terms shows that jetsam (stuff purposely jettisoned at sea) is the property of the salvor. Flotsam (cargo or debris floating on the water after an accident) remains the property of the original owner.
Unlike much of the law, this actually makes logical sense to me. When you accidentally lose something, most people with a sense of fair play would agree that it's still yours and the finder should try to return it to you, possibly for a reward. But when you deliberately throw something away, you're explicitly saying that you don't want it anymore and anyone who finds it can have it. That would be true even if you're throwing it away only because you don't feel like carrying (or cannot carry) it anymore, not because it has become worthless. (This would apply, for example, to the Apollo artifacts on the moon with the exception of the LRRRs since they're still in use.)
That said, I doubt that Bezos and NASA will have any reason to fight over this. Bezos will certainly get the credit he wants for having found and recovered the engines, NASA will get some welcome publicity for its "glory days", and both will be happy to have them exhibited to the public in museums, which is really the only place they have any value.
-
According to the Apollo 11 Saturn V flight report, the S-IC impacted at T+543.7 seconds at 30.212N, 74.038W. That was 661.4 km downrange and 8.8 km crossrange, roughly halfway to Bermuda. By my reading of Google Earth the ocean there is about 14,000' deep.
If Bezos wants to look for the S-II, he should start at 31.535N, 34.844W. 4,392.5 km downrange, 143.0 km crossrange. That's about 1,000 km SW of the Azores. The ocean there is about 12,000' deep.
-
That's some deep water. :o
Is it at all common for artefacts of this kind of size being recovered from that deep?
-
Personally if I had a kajillion dollars and wanted to drag an F-1 up from the bottom of the ocean, I'd want to see it displayed prominently somewhere. It wouldn't do any good for it to sit in my living room.
But we already know what a magnanimous guy you are. What was unsure is how magnanimous Bezos is, at least to those of us that had only skimmed headlines. When you are a bezos-aire you can be magnanimous about a great many things. ;)
The main reservation about recovering an F-1 is that there are several of them already on display. We have six of them in Houston. Five mounted on a Saturn 5 and one sitting on the ground. Certainly a flow engine is somewhat different and would be one of a kind, in that regard. Still it is his dream and I wish him success.
-
That's some deep water. :o
Is it at all common for artefacts of this kind of size being recovered from that deep?
The Titanic is about 12,000' down, and James Cameron practically commutes to the thing.
-
That's some deep water. :o
Is it at all common for artefacts of this kind of size being recovered from that deep?
The Titanic is about 12,000' down, and James Cameron practically commutes to the thing.
Yes, but does he bring stuff this size back with him? They're almost the size of the Alvin submersible itself.
-
This raises the question of whether the US government will claim ownership to the spent rocket and block his effort? Or perhaps they will claim ownership and cooperate with his recovery.
I believe The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (http://www.thespacerace.com/encyclopedia/documents/treaties-and-laws/the-outer-space-treaty-1967/) covers this question of ownership.
Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
-
An F-1 engine is smaller than a deep water blow-out preventer. I can't see this being particularly prohibitive.
-
For high-thrust first stage engines the trend seems to be toward large solid rockets and away from big bipropellant engines like the F-1. As impressive as the F-1 certainly was, it just wasn't that efficient; the sea-level Isp is listed as only 263 seconds, vs 311 seconds for the RD-180, a more modern LOX/RP-1 engine with about half the thrust of the F-1.
I just made a post on this topic in the It really is rocket science (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=55.60) thread. Since we already have an ongoing rocket discussion in another thread, we probably should resist the urge to take this thread off topic with what appears to be a near duplicate discussion.
-
An F-1 engine is smaller than a deep water blow-out preventer. I can't see this being particularly prohibitive.
Thank you, that was the kind of answer I was looking for. But . . .what's a deep water blow-out preventer? Google has been surprisingly little help.
-
An F-1 engine is smaller than a deep water blow-out preventer. I can't see this being particularly prohibitive.
Thank you, that was the kind of answer I was looking for. But . . .what's a deep water blow-out preventer? Google has been surprisingly little help.
It's that thing that failed to do what it was supposed to two years ago this month.
-
Thank you, that was the kind of answer I was looking for. But . . .what's a deep water blow-out preventer? Google has been surprisingly little help.
It's that thing that failed to do what it was supposed to two years ago this month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
-
I just made a post on this topic in the It really is rocket science (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=55.60) thread.
Oops. Is there a way to move my existing posts to another thread?
-
In short, a BOP is a machine that sits right on top of an well that is designed to stop unwanted flows out of a well. When drilling an oil well you send fluids down the inside of the pipe to the bottom of the well. That fluid carries the cuttings made by the drill bit back up to the surface. The weight of the fluid also serves to keep pressure at the bottom so when the well hits oil, it doesn't just come bursting up the well. Unfortunately, sometimes the oil pressure is too high and it starts to come up the well anyway. When that can't otherwise be controlled, the BOP kicks in. It can both clamp down on drill pipe to hold it in place and prevent fluids from coming around the pipe and cut through the pipe and clamp off flows inside the pipe.
-
Thank you. :) Sorry to go all tangent in this thread but I like to know these kinds of things.
-
It can both clamp down on drill pipe to hold it in place and prevent fluids from coming around the pipe and cut through the pipe and clamp off flows inside the pipe.
In theory, anyway.
Did anyone ever figure out why the one on the Deepwater Horizon failed? Oil exploration isn't my field.
-
It can both clamp down on drill pipe to hold it in place and prevent fluids from coming around the pipe and cut through the pipe and clamp off flows inside the pipe.
In theory, anyway.
Did anyone ever figure out why the one on the Deepwater Horizon failed? Oil exploration isn't my field.
The FBI took possession of it when it was recovered. I shouldn't really say anymore.
-
It can both clamp down on drill pipe to hold it in place and prevent fluids from coming around the pipe and cut through the pipe and clamp off flows inside the pipe.
In theory, anyway.
Did anyone ever figure out why the one on the Deepwater Horizon failed? Oil exploration isn't my field.
Not really "in theory." In a properly engineered well, BOP's have a good track record of working. Among the problems with DwH was that the concrete casing was inadequate for the pressure encountered and the oil broke through the casing and started coming out underneath the BOP. I won't presume to understand the complexity of engineering deep water wells, but from what I have read, BP followed their typical approach of making the lower cost decisions to managing projects when the more expensive way was implied but not fully indicated by the situation. Conservative capital spending has long been part of their corporate culture.
For those unfamiliar with drilling, when starting a well, the driller makes a large diameter bore hole. On land, this hole goes down to a level at least below the fresh water table. The drill string is removed from the hole and tubing is run down, Then concrete is pumped down the hole and back up to the surface on the outside of the tubing to permanently isolate the well from the surrounding environment. That concrete layer is called the casing. Then a smaller bit is used to drill a narrower hole to the next depth.
-
There is no concrete. Cement is used to seal the casing (the metal pipe, which is this context isn't called tubing, that's something else) against the formation.
This discussion is also off-topic as well as prejudicial to an ongoing legal investigation. I submit this be stopped now.
-
There is no concrete. Cement is used to seal the casing (the metal pipe, which is this context isn't called tubing, that's something else) against the formation.
Correct on both. It's obviously been too long since I've had an association with the business. The pipe used for casing a well is called casing or casing string. Tubing is the pipe that is inserted in the casing when producing form the well.
-
There is no concrete. Cement is used to seal the casing (the metal pipe, which is this context isn't called tubing, that's something else) against the formation.
Correct on both. It's obviously been too long since I've had an association with the business. The pipe used for casing a well is called casing or casing string. Tubing is the pipe that is inserted in the casing when producing form the well.
In my business, the technical difference between pipe and tubing is how the diameter is measured - it has nothing to do with the application in which it is used. Tubing is measured by the outside diameter, while pipe uses nominal diameter. For instance, a 1-inch tube has an outside diameter of 1-inch. The outside diameter of pipe varies depending on the type; however, 1-inch nominal steel pipe has an outside diameter of 1.315 inches. The inside diameter of 1-inch pipe depends on the wall thickness, and the wall thickness is defined by the pipe's schedule. For example, schedule 80 pipe has a thicker wall, and therefore can withstand a higher internal pressure, than schedule 40 pipe.
-
*facepalm* What have I done. :o
-
Please start a new thread in General Discussion if you'd like to continue discussing blow out preventers or the BP oil spill, unless if can be tied back in with the discovery of the Apollo 11 SIC engines. I don't have a problem with the discussion, it's just off-topic in this thread. Thanks.
-
If nothing else, it would put a final nail in Mt Kaysing's "dumped in the South Atlantic" mantra (or so one would think...).
It also rather undermines Pokrovsky's claims about low performance.
Kidding, right? Bezos' just another gubmint shill who uses his company to let big brother spy on citizens interests! Need I say Bilderberg?
;)
That's some deep water. :o
Is it at all common for artefacts of this kind of size being recovered from that deep?
16,000 ft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian Been a while though.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/f1_engine.html
What an awesome piece of hardware.
I have a few questions for the rocket scientists in the audience:
- Aside from ones on display, would there still be F-1's in storage somewhere? Or are all the remaining examples displayed somewhere?
- If ones existed in storage, what are the chances they could be made flight-ready?
- Would it be practical or even feasible to use the F-1 or an F-1-based design (similar size, specs, performance, etc) as an engine for future rocket designs?
Just asking out of sheer curiosity... :)
Cz
Apparently NASA have five in storage.
Five engines were in storage at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1)
Lots more interesting F-1 tidbits in the article
-
Images of a recovered engine: Thrust chamber and fuel manifold - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/2300-10797_3-10016189-6.html)
-
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/25/nasa-tests-vintage-apollo-11-rocket-engine-for-ideas-for-new-us-missions/
According to this story, they lit the preburner to a F1 engine. As I understand it, this is the gas generator, which drives the turbopumps, which in turn feeds the F/O to the rocket engine's injectors.
-
The video recovering the engines under the sea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwV_8BeaQg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwV_8BeaQg)
Bezosexpeditions http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html (http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html)
-
The video recovering the engines under the sea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwV_8BeaQg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwV_8BeaQg)
FAKE! Nothing moves like that underwater! It had to have been filmed in space!
Sorry, couldn't resist. The whole recovery project is just unbelievably cool.
Now, if we could just recover that third stage from Apollo 12.
-
Cool, though it's disappointing (but not too surprising) that it's just bits and pieces.
-
http://www.bt.dk/udland/fantastiske-billeder-milliardaer-finder-legendarisk-rumraket-paa-bunden-af-havet
Here's a few pictures. I can identify some of the parts, but not all.
-
+++Thread necromancy alert+++Thread necromancy alert+++Thread necromancy alert+++Thread necromancy alert+++
News update on this. The parts have been conserved and the Apollo 11 pieces will be on display at the Smithsonian at some point. Some of the parts are from other missions.
http://io9.com/jeff-bezos-recovered-apollo-rocket-parts-have-been-pres-1722897200
Since their recovery, conservationists at the Cosmosphere International SciEd Center and Space Museum have been hard at work preserving the machines.
“We were able to identify part numbers and serial numbers as we got deeper into the treatment process,” Remar said. “There was a stencil painted on one of the Apollo 12 thrust chambers that was still visible, so we were able to identify that via the stencil. But other components were [discerned by] finding the part number and serial number.”
Additionally, they discovered that they had recovered “a thrust chamber, a liquid oxygen (LOX) dome and injector plate, a turbo pump and a heat exchanger from Apollo 11,” as well as “two thrust chambers and a LOX dome with an injector plate from Apollo 12 and a heat exchanger, a turbine and inlet manifold from Apollo 16.” The conservators also believe that they have some parts from Apollo 13.
There’s no word yet on when the parts will go on display, but according to CollectSpace, the Apollo 11 parts will be headed for the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum, while the conservators are working with other locations.
-
Perhaps those that have insinuated the first stage did/could not have sufficient thrust as NASA posted given the distance from the Cape they were found.