Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bezos Expeditions Recovers Pieces of Apollo 11 Rockets

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the treasure-finder dept.

NASA 119

skade88 writes "Jeff Bezos has been spending his time fishing up parts of the Apollo 11 rockets. From his blog 'What an incredible adventure. We are right now onboard the Seabed Worker headed back to Cape Canaveral after finishing three weeks at sea, working almost 3 miles below the surface. We found so much. We've seen an underwater wonderland – an incredible sculpture garden of twisted F-1 engines that tells the story of a fiery and violent end, one that serves testament to the Apollo program. We photographed many beautiful objects in situ and have now recovered many prime pieces. Each piece we bring on deck conjures for me the thousands of engineers who worked together back then to do what for all time had been thought surely impossible.'"

cancel ×

119 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dammit, editors! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229271)

Nothing here says there were from Apollo 11! Included in the post is the statement:

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

Re:Dammit, editors! (0)

Aeros (668253) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229489)

Jeff Bezos has been spending his time fishing up parts of the Apollo 11 rockets.

?!?

Duty of a CEO (-1, Flamebait)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229979)

What's the duty of a CEO ?

Is it to make the company better, or to fish out rockets from deep sea ?

What kind of message a CEO wants to send to his/her colleagues in the company ?

That I am here working with you to make our company better ...

or

That I am the CEO and a I can do whatever FUCK I want to and you can't do nothing about it

Re: Duty of a CEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43230049)

What a dumb remark!

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

sirsnork (530512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230087)

Well the second one happens with or without the first one :)

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

braeldiil (1349569) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230093)

Or, perhaps That everyone is entitled to vacations or Have fun with your hobbies, no matter how weird You know, positives.

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230825)

Everyone is indeed, entitled to vacation or hobby of one's choice

That is, as long as the vacation and/or hobby does not take away the time, the needed attention and the effort of a CEO in steering the company to new heights

As a CEO myself I know my priority and arrange my daily life accordingly

Re:Duty of a CEO (2)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232319)

There are different ways to get the results. Your style evidently involves taking a hands on approach and being there the whole time. If that's what works for you great.

Bezos style differs. It looks as though he operates strategically and allows his reports to do the day to day management. I daresay that they can contact him when necessary and that he's able provide the leadership necessary remotely.

Is one style better than the other? I would say that depends on the capabilities of the team around the CEO and the comfort that CEO has in letting go a little.

Me, I'd delegate and respond better to someone that felt that they could delegate responsibility than to someone that felt they always hand to be there keeping an eye on things.

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

g1powermac (812562) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232865)

I think it even more depends on who you have working under you, and what kind of talent you have access to. As a small business owner, it's not so easy getting good people that you know can get the job done without constant overview. Ideally, you want to hire good people you can trust to get their jobs done, but sometimes, especially since I'm in a rural area, they are really hard to find. With really large businesses, you have much better access to better talent.

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233433)

A clear part of their duty is leadership, which requires communication and inspiration. Love him or hate him, you have to acknowledge that "Each piece we bring on deck conjures for me the thousands of engineers who worked together back then to do what for all time had been thought surely impossible" is a very nice bit of communication.

Re:Duty of a CEO (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230117)

If you think this makes him an incompetent CEO, then you should do something about it. You should immediately divest yourself of Amazon stock, because he is obviously taking the company in the direction of ruin. I'll be happy to buy up all your stock at half the current market price, which would be a bargain for you since you obviously believe this action will drive it straight to zero.

Oh, you don't believe that? Then shut the fuck up.

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

Wovel (964431) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230581)

Well, since this expedition started, the company went from making money to losing money. Maybe he should sell it. Even at half price Amazon is one of the most overvalued stocks on the market.

Re:Duty of a CEO (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231363)

Hugely overvalued from what I'm seeing.

Amazon: Makes products that almost nobody wants to buy, sells mostly stuff that other people make, is a middleman that would collapse tomorrow if Google ever decided to get serious about having a products marketplace, is at least lately losing money or barely breaking even, has over $3B in long-term debt, and misses earnings. Current P/E: 714.

Apple: Makes products that almost everybody wants to buy, sells mostly stuff that they designed, is a middleman mainly for software (and cannot be easily replaced in that capacity, at least in iOS, without replacing the hardware), made $13.1 billion in profit last quarter, has $137B in cash and liquid assets (with no debt), and usually makes or beats all but the most absurd estimates. Current P/E: 10.25

In no universe does this make sense except perhaps in one where the stock price is the multiplicative inverse of earnings. To give folks an idea of how jaw-droppingly bizarre this is, you need to factor in the cash/debt position of both companies. If you subtract Apple's cash per share from their stock price, and you get about $410, which is about 33.33 times their earnings last quarter. If you take Amazon's last-quarter EPS of 9 cents and multiply by 33.33, you get $3 per share. If you then subtract their debt per share ($3B / 454.55M shares outstanding comes to about $6.59), then by that same standard, Amazon's share value would be worth a whopping negative $3.59 per share....

Note that I'm not actually saying Amazon stock is worthless—I'd consider it to be worth about $30-50 per share, using last year's annual EPS and a sane 30x multiplier—but that still makes it overpriced by a factor of 8 even if you ignore this bad quarter. And that's assuming that Amazon straightens up their act and starts being profitable again in a quarter or two. If last quarter's trend continues for two or three more quarters, I'd expect Amazon's stock to be delisted for falling below a buck by this time next year, and if that doesn't happen, it means investors are asleep at the switch.

Re:Duty of a CEO (-1, Offtopic)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230867)

Then shut the fuck up

Ooooh, what hostility !!

I guess you must be a bozo fanbois, huh ?

As one of the 2nd batch pioneers (since late 1970's) of the Silicon Valley I have assembled myself a portfolio of very lucrative investments, including, but not limited to Amazon

As for the divestment of the Amazon stocks, rest assure --- even if I sell out the stocks I will not sell them to you

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

waterwingz (68802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231223)

I don't know squat about your "investments" but I bow to your 4 digit slashdot ID.

Re:Duty of a CEO (4, Funny)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230655)

What's the duty of your job? Does it include making dumb comments on Slashdot, or is that just something you do in your spare time?

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232435)

What's the duty of a CEO ?

Is it to make the company better, or to fish out rockets from deep sea ?

What kind of message a CEO wants to send to his/her colleagues in the company ?

That I am here working with you to make our company better ...

or

That I am the CEO and a I can do whatever FUCK I want to and you can't do nothing about it

You are aware that the company in question is likely Blue Origin, right? And that they are about to get a pretty big bump in engine technology if this pans out: engines which can boost a rocket to the moon.

That puts them ahead of SpaceX and all the other companies, if they learn anything useful from the engines about engine design.

Re:Duty of a CEO (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233673)

Or maybe "I'm a really rich mutha and can do whatever the f I want with my time and money, because I already hired good people to run the company and make my life simple."

God you're an idiot.

Re:Dammit, editors! (3, Informative)

voidptr (609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229681)

He stated a year ago he was looking specifically for Apollo 11 and started with estimates of where that particular flight profile would have ended up.

It's possible this stage is from another launch with a similar ground track and they can't confirm it until they find an intact serial number, but it's likely these are Apollo 11.

Re:Dammit, editors! (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231173)

It's possible this stage is from another launch with a similar ground track and they can't confirm it until they find an intact serial number, but it's likely these are Apollo 11.

You can't make that assessment. There were 10 test launches, each of which would have left some debris in the ocean. There were an additional 6 unmanned launches, and 12 manned missions. There were an additional 5 launches using the same launch technology. That's a total of 33 flights which had the same hardware as the materials they've recovered. Only one of those 33 was Apollo 11. You can't say it's likely -- the odds are against it. At best, it's an educated guess.

Re:Dammit, editors! (5, Informative)

sahonen (680948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231873)

The F1 engine only ever flew aboard the Saturn V, and only 13 of those were ever launched. Still not the greatest odds, but much better than 1/33.

Re:Dammit, editors! (5, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230147)

I'm not sure how much I buy that... even partial serial numbers should be enough to determine that they pieces are likely to be from mission 'x' and not from mission 'y'. Enough partials and the level of confidence as to which mission they came from can get pretty high.

You can also compare the recovery location to the impact point for each mission - Apollo By The Numbers [nasa.gov] has a table giving the impact locations [nasa.gov] for the S-IC and S-II stages. I'd have to plot it out to see how far apart they are, but at first glance they're modestly well scattered. (Anyone know how to convert those lat/long coordinates into WGS-84 or Google Earth coordinates?) Again, not a smoking gun but definitely a way to increase the confidence level.

Re:Dammit, editors! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232775)

> (Anyone know how to convert those lat/long coordinates
> into WGS-84 or Google Earth coordinates?)

don't worry about it, just treat them as WGS84. The datum conversion differences (at most a couple hundred meters) is generally less than the loran-c or earlier positioning tech accuracy.

wolfram alpha does the great circle distance calculations for you, our download PROJ.4 and use the geod program to do them yourself.

Re:Dammit, editors! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233729)

Easy enough to plot at batchgeo.com, have a look at href= http://bit.ly/149KhSt

Re:Dammit, editors! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233055)

Sorry, but because of the "Cold War" on government employees, all the records you are seeking on development and research of, for the F-1, have been destroyed.
Or has our manpower dump in the US cut too far back in our education and deleted our american engineers to fooreign countries. Or have our business interests, really sold us down the river? Just because some like the koch'es believe in a flat earth where they are the king. Damn, thats treason.

Re:Dammit, editors! (0)

MiG82au (2594721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230423)

And who the fuck is stupid enough to attribute multiple rockets to one mission?

Re:Dammit, editors! (1)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232411)

And who the fuck is stupid enough to attribute multiple rockets to one mission?

Saturn 5 rokets had 5 F1 engines. Google Saturn V Booster.

Re:Dammit, editors! (1)

MiG82au (2594721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233221)

I know, but I and the article specifically said "rockets" not "engines". One mission, one fucking rocket. Rockets = Apollo more-than-one-number.

Re:Dammit, editors! (1)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231571)

I am just curious. Why a rocket engine has a turbine inside? One of the photos on Jeff's blog is of a turbine. Anyone is aware?

Re:Dammit, editors! (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231631)

Gotta pump fuel into the combustion chamber somehow.

Re:Dammit, editors! (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231663)

It's a 55,000 brake horsepower fuel pump motor, used to drive both the kerosene fuel and the liquid oxygen pumps.

Re:Dammit, editors! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232055)

wow - what the hell drives the fuel pump motor? more fuel?

Re:Dammit, editors! (1)

SteveAstro (209000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232375)

Find yourself an F-1 engine primer.... The turbines were powered by a BIG generator based ( I think) on hypergolic fuels. 170 pounds of gas a second pushing a , pumping around 500 gallons a second of kerosene into the combustion chamber by a turbine powered pump.

First designed in 1957 !!!

Steve

Re:Dammit, editors! (1)

twosat (1414337) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232817)

That's a good question and it does. The fuel and oxygen are combined together in the gas generator which drives the compressor turbine. The incompletely combusted exhaust from the turbine is either diverted into the engine nozzle bell to add extra power (Rocketdyne F-1) or is vented through a small rocket nozzle near the main engine nozzle (SpaceX Merlin).

I'm glad somebody is doing it (0)

SampleFish (2769857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229277)

It's a shame that there is so much space-age trash in the ocean. I can just imagine how each piece has destroyed some part of the reef. Although it would be interesting to see a reef that grew around a rocket. We should make an effort to remove much of that junk.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229353)

Why? If a reef is growing around it, it is habitat for fish and other sea life. Many reefs have been seeded with man made objects.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

Grisstle (2798631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229355)

You see trash, I see a tangible piece of human history that marks our transition into the space age. What I wouldn't give just to put my hand on such a piece of history and now I might be able to. And while it is possible that these parts could have damaged reef, the pictures indicate that these particular pieces were pulled from the sandy bottom. I understand where your thought is coming from but I see these as so much more than junk.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229851)

It's nice he went and fished them out... Wait for it....

The news will say " These belong in a museum! " and the govt will categorize them as "military wrecks" as soon as he has them on deck and verified and they will go straight to a shelf to rot somewhere.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230217)

But they can't be military wrecks, NASA is (ostensibly) a civilian organisation.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230107)

What I wouldn't give just to put my hand on such a piece of history and now I might be able to

It's not that difficult - there are hundreds of artefacts from the Apollo and other space programs in museums around the world that you can touch. Even if there isn't such a museum in your country, all that's needed is a flight ticket to one that has one, so all you'd have to give is the price of that ticket. Simples!

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

LesFerg (452838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230523)

When I was very young a capsule was brought here on tour (New Zealand, sometime around 1970-ish), but I cannot find out which one it was. I assume it was an Apollo re-entry capsule. Would somebody have a history of such things?

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230611)

Sure, here you go:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+space+capsules [lmgtfy.com]

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (2)

LesFerg (452838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232667)

Thanx man, but I'm pretty sure I have tried searching on all the terms I could think of.
There does not seem to be a lot of history recorded on what space capsules they hauled over here to New Zealand to show us.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230845)

There was a Gemini capsule 'on tour' in NZ not sure which one. But I do remember seeing it. I'm from Hawkes Bay so it would have been either in Hastings or Napier.

The interest in space declined a lot in the 70's - I can remember going to a )free) showing of film from the last Apollo mission at the State theatre. there was on;y a handful of people there.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

LesFerg (452838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232693)

Hard to remember exactly what I saw back then, but pics I have found rule out an Apollo, it could have been a Gemini or Mercury module.
Its only curiosity, but I won't be getting close to a space museum in the near future to see anything like it.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

f1rb (644076) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232705)

There was a Gemini capsule at MoTaT in Auckland for many years, maybe that went on tour? It's been given back now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_12#Spacecraft_location/ [wikipedia.org]

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

LesFerg (452838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232813)

Thanx, that sounds like a likely contender. Last time I was at MOTAT they only had a scale model of a capsule.
Still, nice to know what it was.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (2)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229369)

Which "reef" are you talking about?

The Remotely Operated Vehicles worked at a depth of more than 14,000 feet, tethered to our ship with fiber optics

Do reefs grow that low?

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229393)

It's a shame that you got such a bad education. You should track down your teachers and kick them in the cunt.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43231673)

You should track down your teachers and kick them in the cunts

FTFY.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (2)

dugjohnson (920519) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229399)

I'm not sure reefs grow at that depth. Even deep water reefs are barely over a mile deep. I'm not saying NOTHING is down there, but the junk at 3 miles down isn't keeping a reef from growing.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229609)

Look at the photos. Do you see reefs? No? Do you know why? I'll give you a hint: because it is an abyssal plain! An abyssal plain is the 'desert' of the ocean (in contrast, a tropical reef is like a rainforest). While there is life, it survives by eating small amounts of down-falling material or vents in the sea floor. At these depths, multicellular life is rare. At one point in time abyssal plains were thought to be a good place to store nuclear waste because they are so boring. If those engines would have fallen into an actual reef, they would be but scraps of metal by now. The low oxygen content of the abyssal plain preserved them.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230007)

Look at the photos. Do you see reefs? No? Do you know why?

Lack of sunlight.Or more to the point, PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation)

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229611)

I can just imagine how each piece has destroyed some part of the reef.

What do you mean "the reef"? Which reef grows 3 miles under the Atlantic several miles offshore? I'm not seeing much of a reef around this [bezosexpeditions.com] .

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229641)

Reef aquariums take an ungodly amount of light to get things to grow right. There's no light penetrating 3 miles of water...

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230029)

Reef aquariums take an ungodly amount of light to get things to grow right.

Which in many cases is less than a tenth of the light of a natural tropical reef at noon.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229983)

It's a shame that there is so much space-age trash in the ocean. I can just imagine how each piece has destroyed some part of the reef. Although it would be interesting to see a reef that grew around a rocket. We should make an effort to remove much of that junk.

FTS "working almost 3 miles below the surface." Not much of what wold be defined as "reef" at those depths.

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43230865)

A reef? At that depth? Are you fucking retarded?

Re:I'm glad somebody is doing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43230957)

You have clearly never been diving in the ocean. Now if they were dropping this junk on a coral reef sure but they wouldn't because that would be too close to humans.

The vast, vast, vast majority of the ocean is a desert at the bottom. If you dump a large chunk of metal it will create an oasis of life in short order. Many cities dump things like bridge spans or ships to create an artificial reef. Near the item the fish are so think they block out the sun sometimes. Get 20 feet off the item and there is nothing. It looks like a desert wasteland with no fish.

Ah! The life of a billionaire. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229319)

Now if he adds, "Oh, btw! While looking for these rockets, I'm banging a super model and a porn star at the same time in my disposable Ferraris!", I'm going to go and kill myself.

Re:Ah! The life of a billionaire. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229373)

Now if he adds, "Oh, btw! While looking for these rockets, I'm banging a super model and a porn star at the same time in my disposable Ferraris!", I'm going to go and kill myself.

Why kill yourself now? Wait for the video to be "leaked" first to see if it was worth it... "One night in Paris..." I think I will pass.

Re:Ah! The life of a billionaire. (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229855)

Ms. Hilton is neither super model or porn star. To use a car analogy, I'd say she's a Honda popular and reliable (in her own way), but I hate to insult Honda in that way. A Saturn would be more appropriate. Comes from big money, cheap and plastic. Poseur.

What about the manganese nodules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229361)

Did he find any of them? Wasn't that what he was supposed to be looking for?

Turbine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229385)

I'm not a rocket scientist, but what is the large turbine for?

See this pic:
http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/img/gallery/image_6_lg.jpg

I know they used turbo pumps to pressure feed the fuel, but... that looks more like a jet engine part, to me.

Re:Turbine? (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229431)

How different do you think a jet engine, a combustion turbine and a turbo pump are?

You answered your own question.

Re:Turbine? (2)

Brett Buck (811747) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229755)

Well, one of them burns some sort of fuel to drive an impeller wheel connected to another impeller wheel to compress a working fluid, and the other, er, never mind...

Re:Turbine? (1)

norpy (1277318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229873)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SaturnF1EngineDiagram.png [wikipedia.org]
Keeping in mind that this diagram is of something the size of a semi trailer, see that thing labelled "turbine"?

Also you should probably read this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet [wikipedia.org] it will tell you the names of all the major bits of a "jet engine".

Oh Gawd... (4, Funny)

qw(name) (718245) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229523)

He's turning into some super villain. Wait, he was already one. nvm...

Re:Oh Gawd... (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229871)

He's secretly shopping for new underwater-volcano lair sites!!!

Re:Oh Gawd... (1)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229997)

Let me guess: the captain of the ship is a beautiful bikini-clad woman named Shirley Goesdown? The first mate is Jaws? Instead of sailors, he has henchmen?

Damn, that would totally elevate him a couple notches in my mind!

Re:Oh Gawd... (4, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230253)

You are thinking of Larry Ellison.

The pastime of a billionaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43229739)

Sigh... back to work for me.

Ownership of recovered artifacts (1)

Eric Smith (4379) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229777)

NASA claims that the US government still owns these artifacts. I think they're mistaken. The artifacts are not salvage, but rather abandoned property. NASA intentionally allowed them to be abandoned more than 40 years ago with no stated or demonstrable intention of ever recovering them. Since they were outside the territory of any US state, I don't think they are subject to any form of escheat. I think Bezos has clear title and ownership. If there's some US law providing to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing the legal citation.

If Bezos wants to give them to NASA out of his own generosity, that's great, but I don't think he's under any actual legal obligation to do so.

Re:Ownership of recovered artifacts (4, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43229899)

Military ships remain the property of the owning government.

Spain has used this to claim the salvage of gold from treasure ships and won.

Re:Ownership of recovered artifacts (2)

caffiend666 (598633) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230823)

Regardless of ownership of underseas artifacts, the finder only get's 10% . If they're taking from a civilian ship lost centuries ago, the finder only get's 10%. If the ship is a 'military' ship, salvaging a hold still only grosses the salvager 10%. But, the government doesn't necessarily own the military ships. Modern ships lost are often insured, in which case the insurance company owns the ship and it's contents, and the salvager still only get's 10%, the S.S. Port Nicholson is a good example where this is possible. I'm sure percentage is complicated if the 'owners' of a ship are unknown, EG ancient Roman ships; typically though the government which owns the territory 'owns' the territory the artifact is on and get's to keep 90%.

Now, I would enjoy hearing how it works out for Bezos claiming a 10% salvage lien on two priceless artifacts which cost many millions in the first place...

~

Re:Ownership of recovered artifacts (1)

Prokur (2445102) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232655)

Was Apollo 11 a military ship? And its main weapon was a pencil!

Re:Ownership of recovered artifacts (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233159)

Was Apollo 11 a military ship?

No, NASA is explicitly a civilian agency. Sometimes it runs military flights, but only those are military flights.

Re:Ownership of recovered artifacts (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230277)

ITAR! Don't be surprised if some guvmint type issues this claim. I heard a cutaway illustration poster of Saturn V was removed from KSC visitor center per this reason. I don't know if it was urban legend or if cooler heads said it was ok to return it.

Re:Ownership of recovered artifacts (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233637)

Let them try. Bezos has the resources to sue them to the Supreme Court.

A testament to obscene wealth (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43230013)

I'm glad the economy managed to concentrated so much wealth in one man so he could spend money scrounging up trash from the ocean floor while most of the planet's population lives in squalor.

Re:A testament to obscene wealth (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230043)

I don't mind a successful person. I just wish they didn't flaunt it about so often.

Re:A testament to obscene wealth (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230091)

or patent trivial actions

Re:A testament to obscene wealth (1)

mianne (965568) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230455)

I'd rather members of the 1% sought to eradicate world hunger, disease, and poverty... Oh wait, Bill & Melinda Gates, along with Warren Buffet are quite involved in that pursuit. Sure there should be more CEOs, hedge-fund managers, etc doing likewise.. but this is a free country right?

So beyond that, I'm pleased that Jeff Bezos is recovering and preserving important artifacts from history, rather than some other uber-wealthy [wikipedia.org] individuals [wikipedia.org] in recent memory.

Re:A testament to obscene wealth (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230595)

I most especially don't mind a successful person who earned his money providing a service that has made my life a little bit more enjoyable.

And then when he spends his winnings doing something that I'd do if I had that sort of money it's even better.

Re:A testament to obscene wealth (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231373)

You know, it's only a matter of time before we outsource the 1%. Somewhere in India, or Ukraine, or Thailand, there's a smart person who's not only capable of doing Bezos' job, but would be happy to do it for a measly 2-3 million a year.

Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43230373)

Jeff: People with your itinerary also have purchased:

  • Carribean Cruise with Carnival Cruise Lines
  • Cruise around Spain with Thomson Cruises
  • Mediterranean Cruise with Costa Cruises

Order by Thursday 5 PM for Free Baggage Checkin!

NASA can buy them back off Amazon (3, Funny)

new death barbie (240326) | about a year and a half ago | (#43230803)

F1 Rocket Engines

Just like the ones used in the Saturn-5 rocket.

0 available new
3 available used.

Premium members get free overnight shipping!

How About Taking $5 Off My Last Order Instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43230819)

If Bezos isn't spending money on fishing expeditions, he's spending it on saturating Seattle with robocalls for his rich people's private schools project. My last order at Amazon was my last order.

Re:How About Taking $5 Off My Last Order Instead? (1)

mianne (965568) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231229)

Then please tell us.. Why on Earth did you squander funds on something at Amazon for your personal use in the first place? You should give that money back to your employer or the clients it serves! Also, why are you posting on /.? You must cease squandering time on your personal pursuits and return to work or community service immediately!
/sarcasm
/AC troll food

He should get the Thresher (1)

wisebabo (638845) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231339)

Then he can REALLY be a super villain. (The Thresher, I believe, was armed with some nuclear weapons when it sank).

Conversely he coud also try for the nuclear sub the Glomar Challenger (Howard Hughes) tried to raise. I believe they only got the crew compartment, the missiles and (nuclear tipped?)* torpedoes are still there.

Anyone know of any other nukes sitting on the sea floor in international water just waiting to be picked up? (Did they get all four of the H-bombs from the B-52 near Spain?). Of course they are probably damaged, highly corroded. Another possibility would be the RTGs from the Apollo 13 lunar module which went down in a trench in the pacific, even though the Pu is the wrong isotope for a nuke, it would be useful for a dirty bomb.

Hope Al-Qaeda doesn't get a deep sea submersible!

*actually I don't know if there is such a thing as a nuclear tipped submarine launched torpedo. It seems that it would all too likely destroy the submarine that launched it!

Re:He should get the Thresher (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231885)

a little bit of searching might answer some of your speculations

for instance, the Mk-45 had an ~11KT warhead, but couldn't be carried by Thresher - it used Mk-48s

Thresher did some SUBROC testing the year before she sank, but there's no mention that she was armed with them.

Re:He should get the Thresher (1)

matthewlw (1351307) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232027)

From general reports there isn't much left of the Thresher to recover. The pressure shredded it and in the debris field the most they could locate was a foot or so of marled pipe. This was of many thousands of pieces that were located.

Maybe not 11, but definitely Apollo (5, Interesting)

skidisk (994551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43231515)

The F1s were only used on the Apollo missions, and they were truly awesome -- they shook the ground like nothing you've ever experienced. My dad worked for NASA and we saw the flights. Even three miles away, it was scary powerful. To give you an idea, one of those F-1 has more power than 3(!) Shuttle MAIN engines -- and there were FIVE F-1s at the bottom of Saturn's first stage. So that's like fifteen shuttles taking off at once. You have no idea what that's like...

Re:Maybe not 11, but definitely Apollo (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232921)

Most of the noise of a shuttle launch came from its solid rocket boosters, not the main engines. It was actually nearly as loud as the Saturn V was on liftoff, but because of its superior intitial thrust:weight ratio (1.5:1 for shuttle, 1.1:1 for Saturn V), it spent less time near the ground where you can hear it. The Saturn V also had a greater low frequency component to its noise, by all reports, so the sound was physically felt as a series of slaps on the chest.

Re:Maybe not 11, but definitely Apollo (1)

Professeur Shadoko (230027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233539)

> The F1s were only used on the Apollo missions

And Skylab.

Re:Maybe not 11, but definitely Apollo (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233741)

And the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) on the sides of the Space Shuttle stack had a little more thrust than three and a half F-1 engines.

More value: buy NEW F1s instead. (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232187)

Nostalgia is nifty but we have two fully intact Saturn 5s (in Canaveral & Houston). We also have the designs and could rebuild Apollo which is something we realistically need to do before considering going out elsewhere. Repeating the Mercury and Gemini mission series is unnecessary as everything we learned from them we still use now. But we're 40 years' worth of rusty when it comes to leaving a comfortable Earth orbit.

Yes, we can modernise the systems, but should only do so where necessary, such as computers, cameras, lighting (LED vs. 24V bulbs), certain flight instruments, food, etc. Leave everything else alone: the original design was good enough to recover from XIII.

Do this first and then we can talk seriously about useful manned missions further out. And it would only cost a few billion.

Goodbye space program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232353)

This is what we're reduced to? Picking over the pieces of a space program from 40+ years ago? Sad!

Elon Musk > Jeff Bezos (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233635)

This is ancestral worship cargo-cultism of the highest order.
Bezos might as well be building a mockup of the command module from palm fronds on the lawn in front of congress.

Elon Musk has a much better name for a megalomaniacal billionaire super-villain anyhow.

Spend their money rescuing hubble (1)

sproketboy (608031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233651)

I wish one of these clowns would spend their money bringing Hubble home. It's done so much - it would be awesome to have it at the air and space museum. OR at least buy Captain Marvel from DC and give it to Marvel Comics. /s

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?