Apollo 11 SIC found?

[ipearse]

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!

[Chew]

NASA - NASA Administrator Supports Apollo Engine Recovery

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

[Czero 101]

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

[ka9q]

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.

[ka9q]

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.

[ka9q]

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.

[raven]

That's some deep water.
Is it at all common for artefacts of this kind of size being recovered from that deep?

[Echnaton]

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. 

[ka9q]

That's some deep water.
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.

[raven]

That's some deep water.
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.

[LunarOrbit]

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 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.

[Glom]

An F-1 engine is smaller than a deep water blow-out preventer.  I can't see this being particularly prohibitive.

[Bob B.]

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 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.

[raven]

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.

[Glom]

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.