F-1 Engine Recovery | Hacker News Reader

F-1 Engine Recovery

bezosexpeditions.com

152 pointsthematt63 comments

Insightful and clever. Not only is it an intrinsically awesome thing to do for curiosity/posterity, but this way Blue Origin gets a look at real flight test data from real F-1s.

The F-1 was an achievement. The turbopumps are of particular note.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1

How much can really be usefully gleaned from an engine that's spent nearly half a century at the bottom of the ocean? It seems like the long-term salt water exposure would obliterate anything useful for actual engineering. However, I don't know this stuff well, and would love some details on why I'm wrong if I am.

I'd bet that there's still stuff to be learned, especially in metallurgy. Some types of cracking, especially within the bulk of metal, should be well-preserved.

Wear patterns should still be visible, even after corrosion.

Some chemical changes only take place at high temperature.

Furthermore, if any old NASA designs were lost (or if details are classified), salvaging the hardware guarantees you access to flight hardware.

From reading about the SpaceX program there are remarkably very little left of the Apollo program engines. Having a real model even in disarray would be a useful study.

No, there are complete F-1 engines in storage. They fired up the gas generator from one of them just a few months ago:

    http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_test.html

There's a proposal to build new F-1B engines to power liquid boosters for the SLS (as a future replacement for the shuttle-derived boosters that will be used for the first few flights).

Still awesome to get some of the old ones back, though!

How so? There is an Apollo rocket at Kennedy Space Centre complete with engines. Surely there are others around?

I had the joy of seeing 2 F-1 engines in one week. The first is at the old RocketDyne (now Pratt & Whitney) facility in Woodland Hills, CA (on Canoga, I think), and the second at the NM Air and Space Museum in Alamogordo.

http://campl.us/jisP4TQtMJg (Alamogordo) http://campl.us/i26CYMtwf8K (Woodland Hills)

* Confirmed, an F-1 engine stands tall [1] outside Rocketdyne corporate HQ on Canoga Ave just north of Victory Blvd in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. One can walk right up to the engine and have a gander; it's 18 feet tall. You can admire the maze of cooling pipes on the upper half of the nozzle and imagine the heat and roar.

* In decades past, during development of the Apollo space program, Rocketdyne tested engines at its Field Laboratory test facility in the Santa Susana Mountains a few miles West. The sustained outdoor roar of those engine tests was audible better than 7 miles away. Source: My elementary school classmates, blase about the whole thing, saying "Oh, that's just Rocketdyne testing again".

* Lots of facility pictures of several of the Rocketdyne facilities (with engines under assembly) in the Rocketdyne Archives [2]

* It's a safe bet the name "Rocketdyne" would be a portmanteau of "Rocket Dynamics".

* Some rocket equations and stability discussion at [3]

[1] http://www.dailynews.com/ci_21138479/pratt-whitney-rocketdyn...

[2] http://www.rocketdynearchives.com/canoga.html

[3] http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/~space/ess472/Lecture_Roc...

Last Saturday I met and spent a little time with one of the guys that rode one of these engines. Amazing. That's two I've met now - Charlie Duke (Apollo 16) and Al Worden (Apollo 15).

They were charming men, and while it's true that they were "on duty" and hence it was their job to be nice to us, they also came across as rather straight-talking individuals. I don't think it was an act.

Amazing men, amazing technology, amazing times.

Inspiring.

Worden's episode in "From the Earth to the Moon" was my favourite. You can see his double act with Farouk El-Baz at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59HpmdIqI-g

So I figured this was Formula One Engines......

As did I, given its that time of year. I think the correct abbreviation of Formula One is F1 (no hyphen).

At first I was thinking this was a headline from that Refrigerator Magnet App posted the other day (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5395348).

edit: The original headline said "Jeff Bezos Recovers F-1 Engines from the Atlantic Ocean"

For anyone wondering the same thing I was: these F-1's were dropped into the Atlantic when Apollo 11 jettisoned its first stage.

Five F-1's per Saturn V, and there were 13 launched from Kennedy Space Center:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(rocket_family)#Launch_h...

So there's 65 first stages out in the Atlantic. The particular engines being recovered are from Apollo 11 as you say.

A discussion from Dec 2006 discussing 1st stage re-entry, whether NASA knew/recorded the splashdown locations, etc:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5881.0

It is not known yet that the located engines are from Apollo 11.

"Many of the original serial numbers are missing or partially missing, which is going to make mission identification difficult."

Is it just me, or is half the craziness of this that Jeff Bezos took off 3 weeks to be at sea?

The ship was at sea for three weeks. I doubt that Bezos was.

From the article: "While I spent a reasonable chunk of time in my cabin emailing and working, . . . " He worked from "home".

For anyone wanting to get up close and personal to an F-1 Engine visit the Infinity Museum at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. They sit outside right at the entrance. It is truly a remarkable sight especially when you sit inside of the cone. http://www.visitinfinity.com/

It's interesting hearing about the thing my co-workers have been doing on the front page of HN before they tell me themselves.

At first I was thrown by the domain name.

I was totally looking forward to reading about the Bezo Sexpeditions.

I'm not an expert on the law of the sea, but it would seem that after NASA abandoned these engines in the ocean 50 years ago, they would belong now to whoever could salvage them.

It depends. If Bezos was to sell the engines, or receive some financial gain, it would revert from being a salvage operation to being a treasure hunt, which has different rules.

"Salvage" has a very specific legal definition, it means rescuing property that has been abandoned.

NASA didn't abandon the engines, they could claim that it simply wasn't cost effective to retrieve them.

A related case is the treasure hunters who discovered $500M worth of gold and silver coins on an old Spanish ship in the middle of the Atlantic. The Spanish government sued for recovery, and won:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/17/judge-rules-treasure-h...

That case made it all the way to the US Supreme Court, who did not overrule an earlier court ruling that Spain had sovereignty and property rights over the treasure.

In the case with the engines, Bezos' initiative is purely non-profit, so I doubt he and NASA will come into conflict. I believe he has said that the engines will be given to the Smithsonian.

If, however, somebody were to retrieve the engines for financial gain, NASA would have a case against them, and it is much easier to asset ownership over something from 50 years ago than it is with a sunken vessel from 250+ years ago.

Any idea how much this expedition cost him?

Less than an outage in AWS-US West will :-)

OK, I am reminded of Steve Yegge's famous posts about Bezos (no. 7 - he really does not give a shit about your day).

The Bezos I heard in this post is a very different beast from the one I heard in Yegge's writings. Maybe time at sea really does change a man, or more likely, there are many different sides to each of us.

Either way, I love the way the new rich are making something interesting happen.

I thought the exact opposite while reading this. If Bezos is constantly thinking about ambitious projects such as this, it's easy to see why "he really does not give a shit about your day."

Bezos spoke at my Baccalaureate in 2010 and I was seriously impressed with his talk.

Addressing a chapel full of entitled, confident graduates, Bezos chose his points well. I haven't read the transcript of the speech, but the thesis stuck with me and I hope others. I'll paraphrase: "You're all incredibly bright. When given the opportunity, choose to be kind, rather than clever if those two come into conflict with each other."

EDIT: Just glanced at the transcript, looks like my main takeaway was just a sub-point of his thesis, but it's what stuck with me.

OK, I'll be the nay-sayer in this thread.

I love space and tech. Love it. We go to JPL every chance we get. My brother in law is a PhD Physicist who works there. Great stuff.

Now, that said, I have to wonder how much time, effort, money and energy went into recovering junk from the ocean.

And, I have to wonder what other project could have been undertaken that would have produced far greater benefits for society than being able to look at a mangled rocket engine at the Smithsonian.

I get it. Guy with a ton of money playing with expensive toys. No problem. We all do that to some extent or another with our disposable income. The problem here, if there is one, is I don't really see much value from recovering this junk. I'd love to know how much the entire adventure (inception to engine-in-museum) will cost. It's probably an obscene amount of money that would have done far greater good elsewhere.

Bezos is taxed, and I imagine gives to charity. Why do his other endeavors have to be charity as well? I cannot understand this mindset at all.

Well, robomartin didn't say the money would be better spent on charity -- you're misstating the original comment.

The problem you should have with robomartin's mindset is that they are saying "Rich person spent $Money on Cool Thing X, when I think it should have been spent on Cool Thing Y! Why would they ever pick X over Y?!", without recognizing that "better-ness" of Y over X is probably very subjective.

In my view, expecting people to spend their money on something that benefits society rather than on what they otherwise want to spend it on is expecting an informal sort of charity.

If the view is that no person should have enough money after taxes to do this sort of thing, that I can understand. I wouldn't agree, but I would understand.

I've probably done a bad job of communicating the sentiment. As a Libertarian the ABSOLUTE LAST thing I am going to do is tell you how to spend your money.

That said, I can express opinion as to the choices you may have made. That does NOT mean I am right. It's just one man's opinion.

My general sentiment is that if you are in a position to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on pet projects you have a responsibility to society to make the right choices. Call it a moral or ethical judgement on my part. I do not resent him having money or having fun with it. That's OK. That's more than OK. Pulling up junk from the ocean bottom? Nah, that's bullshit.

And what if he both does what he wants, and what you want him to do? Is that acceptable, or will you remain disgruntled until he spends all of his money as you wish?

> or having fun with it. That's OK. That's more than OK. Pulling up junk from the ocean bottom? Nah, that's bullshit.

What? Have you considered that this is both to him? You make absolutely no sense at all.

Yeah, the guys is a bit incoherent. He claims he is a libertarian while at the same time opining how bezos should spend his money. Money that nobody else has a claim to it anymore but bezos. As long as he is not breaking any laws whom am I to even think what he should do with his money. That is how a true libertarian should think.

The fact he doesn't think this way means he is just trying to bullshit us by claiming he is a libertarian or he simply does not understand what the word means [1].

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Brother, where did I try to tell him how to spend his money?

All I said is that spending it raising crap from the bottom of the sea is bullshit.

I also indicated this is based on my moral conviction that if you achieve success at that level you have a responsibility towards society not to do crap like that.

If you choose to do crap like that, live long and prosper. Your choice. I just don't think it's morally supportable in the context of all else that really needs doing.

Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as an example of what I think is role-model behavior for the uber-rich. I don't require they behave this way. They are absolutely free to do as they wish. They can even make a big pile with their money and burn it. I am merely stating that from my point of view what Bezos is doing isn't right. That's all.

None of this negates a Libertarian doctrine. I should at the same time note that Libertarianism isn't a cookie-cutter system, just like saying someone is a Democrat or a Republican doesn't mean they adhere to 100% of what Wikipedia might say these doctrines consist of. Pure Libertarianism can be a bit extreme.

For example, we still need government officials to be there and throw parties when foreign dignitaries visit. Yes, it's a joke!

So, how about this: Let's agree to disagree. Back to coding and making money I can then burn.

> Brother, where did I try to tell him how to spend his money?

> I am merely stating that from my point of view what Bezos is doing isn't right

What. The. Fuck.

You are clearly beyond rational discussion.

Nope. You continue to read what you want my statements to read. The stuff you quoted can only be interpreted as telling him what to do by twisting it around. No other way.

I can look at someone smoking and say "I think that is wrong because of...". That does not, in any way, that I am trying to force or tell the person not to smoke. Now, you might choose to read it that way but that doesn't change what it says.

You clearly only want to disagree with me for the sport of it so I'll agree to disagree and give you the last word because it seems you need to win. Go for it. The stage is yours.

Are you a native English speaker? Because I can't figure out how you are reading these things into what I say. I can try a couple different languages if you'd like.

I don't want him to do anything in particular.

I did not say that.

I said that it is MY MORAL JUDGMENT that spending money on this particular endeavor is a waste and that it could find better use elsewhere.

I also said that it is MY MORAL JUDGMENT that the uber-rich have a social responsibility to not do crap like this.

In another reply I mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as what I think is a perfect role model.

Beyond that, you are making it all up. I am not here to force anyone to do anything. If the guy wants to make a huge bonfire with a hundred million dollars he is free to indulge. I'll even volunteer to light it. And, yes, I'll still be of the opinion that it would be morally wrong.

You know then engines he is recovering? Here they are, being test fired on January of THIS YEAR. Yeah. Crazy. We still have at least one we can fire! Probably more!

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_test.html

This is what I think is going on: Rich guy competition. James Cameron did the Titanic. Bezos wants to play and get something from the bottom of the ocean and here we are probably spending hundreds of millions of dollars lifting twisted and rotted junk up to the surface. All that while a mere two months ago NASA was test firing the real thing. You should be laughing your ass off at this one.

  s/what do want him to do/what do you think would be moral for him to do/

A trivial modification that should be inferred. Are you a native english speaker?

Regardless, what non-charity hobbies do you think it would be moral for rich people to have? How much would Bezos hypothetically have to give to charities before this operation stopped being "immoral" in your book? Is there an amount?

You really are trying to tell rich people how they should spend their money, even if you think yourself a libertarian. The cognitive dissonance here is astounding.

I have trouble combining these two sentences:

> I do not resent him having money or having fun with it.

and

> Pulling up junk from the ocean bottom? Nah, that's bullshit.

What if he enjoys pulling junk up from the bottom of the ocean?Is it still bullshit if he's just doing it for fun?

And, really, he's doing the future people a favour in reducing the number of future 'Antithykera mechanisms' to baffle future archeologists.

And that's OK. This is my moral stance and mine only. Let's not make more of this than what it really is.

And I say you are completely wrong. Even though you are saying you are not trying to tell him what to do in really you are trying to tell him what to do with his money.

If you were truly a libertarian you would not even comment about how he should be spending his own money.

> If you were truly a libertarian you would not even comment about how he should be spending his own money.

Oh, please.

It's interesting that my gut reaction to one guy spending a chunk of money is much stronger than a million people spending a couple of bucks - I waste money everyday, so why am I not angry about this chronic wastage?

For the same reason that three hundred million people are not on the street protesting each and every day as our governments runs us into the ground through bullshit wars, inaction on important matters (patents, guns, waste, corruption, etc.).

Few people are willing to step out of crowd behavior and stick their heads out.

On the subject of wasting personal money, well, for me it's a matter of moral or ethical nature. A billionaire has a responsibility to do good. That's my own moral standing. And I say this as a Libertarian. Picking up junk from the ocean floor is bullshit. It's no different than filling a garage full of every exotic car in production. Senseless.

> It's no different than filling a garage full of every exotic car in production. Senseless.

So do you have a problem with Jay Leno now too? I am having a really hard time believing that " I do not resent him having money or having fun with it. That's OK. That's more than OK."

Tell me, what hobbies can rich people have that wouldn't bother you? Any examples?

No problem with Jay Leno. No problem with anyone.

Can a guy express an opinion based on a personal moral stance without others twisting it into thinking he wants to take over the world and tell everyone what to do and think?

It is simply amazing to me how people read what THEY want to read into a statement as opposed to what is actually being said. It's far more of a surprise on HN, where I generally thought people are more intelligent than to do that.

> No problem with Jay Leno.

No problem with Jay Leno... but you think his hobby is immoral? You have a very disturbed definition of "no problem".

Troll. I should have ignored you long ago. Go away.

Yes, that is right. Anyone who questions you is a troll.

Do you feel compelled to spend your excess money in a way that's most beneficial for humanity? If not, why should Bezos?

Shoot the messenger, ignore the substance of the argument. Yeah, that works.

You didn't answer either of my questions. I'm not shooting anyone, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

You are attacking me instead of the argument. Your logic is incorrect. Here are your questions:

>Do you feel compelled to spend your excess money in a way that's most beneficial for humanity? If not, why should Bezos?

Let's apply the same logic to another issue:

"You say doing drugs is bad for you yet you do drugs. Why should I listen to you and not do drugs?"

It is a basic idea in logical reasoning that the messenger and the message are separate. An valid argument can and should stand on its own regardless of who and how it is delivered. The "drugs are bad for you" argument is equally valid if delivered by a Nobel Prize winning PhD in Biology or a homeless high-school drop-out bum with only one tooth.

So saying "Well, if you don't do it why should he not do it?" just doesn't address whether or not the original premise and argument is valid or not, even if the messenger is a deranged lunatic.

To repeat myself, what I have said in many words is that it is my moral judgement that the uber-rich ought to get behind projects with far more significant and measurable social benefits than lifting junk from the bottom of the ocean.

I further put-up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a role model.

I also pointed out that we have FULLY WORKING versions of these very engines, at least one of which was test fired a couple of months ago:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_test.html

And, of course, we have a number of them on static display at various locations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1

So, yeah, from my vantage point, it looks like a waste of money.

Is he entitled to do it? Absolutely. Without a doubt.

Am I still entitled to my opinion? Yup.

Are you entitled to a diametrically opposed opinion? Certainly.

See, it all works out in the end.

That's quite a rant. I have to wonder just how confident you are in the ideas you're espousing if such simple questions trigger such a defensive reaction.

You say I'm attacking you rather than the argument. This is a strange statement! I'm not attacking anything. I just asked a couple of simple questions. Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether you think this obligation extends to everybody or just the wealthy, and if the latter, why. But you're far too busy complaining about being persecuted to actually explain your position, apparently.

Artifacts from mankind's first expedition to the moon are "junk"? Isn't recovering them meaningful, to help us understand what happened more fully, and by extension to help support interest in space exploration?

I suspect that there are a lot of people who disagree with you about the social value of what they're doing. Judging from the coverage that this is getting.

Have you been to the Smithsonian? I have. More than once. It's all there. Yes, this stuff is junk. It will inspire no one to do anything. Don't believe me? Take a bunch of kids to the Air and Space Museum and have them choose between looking at one of the many rocket engines and going in a flight simulator or one of the other exhibits, their choice. Whatch how long they spend in front of the engine vs the other exhibits.

Look, I love this stuff. I am the guy spending thirty minutes looking at the amazing mechanical engineering at these exhibits. At the same time I recognize this is not what inspires youngsters.

I'd prefer this money had gone toward directly funding a Mars mission, vs. indirectly recovering items which might be useful for Mars, and I suspect Bezos may feel the same way.

Unfortunately there isn't a Mars mission which is "shovel ready" today.

Hopefully the Amazon products I bought this week contribute in an indirect way to Bezos's wealth which is later spent directly on a Mars mission.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. I would assume most of the cost of this recovery went to pay labor or procure equipment (whose main cost is also labor, or equipment cost... this is a recursion). That labor cost goes back into the economy, where a portion of that eventually goes to many good causes through taxes or individual charitable donations.

The energy (fossil fuel) used to power the ships & equipment is possibly the only cost of this expedition that is used up and gone forever.

w00t. Nice work boss.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com