Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bezos Finds Apollo 11 F-1 Engines  
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos claims to have found the F-1 engines from Apollo 11.

If true this would be a major, major find with huge historical significance.

Let's hope he can raise one, hopefully all, from 14000 ft down on the ocean floor.

http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/engine-recovery.html


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15647 times:

This would be a major undertaking for anyone. A burnt out F-1 engine weighs more than 20,000 lbs, not counting the the weight of the wreckage of the S-1C-6 they are attached to, or at least near the wreckage of it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-1_rocket_engine.jpg

The general location has been known since the July 1969 launch, but I think this is the first time anyone has looked for the wreckage.

http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geoha...gename=S-IC&params=30_13_N_74_2_W_


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15616 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does this count as treasure if he gets it from the surface? Can he legitimately claim it as his?

Fred


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 15600 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 2):
Does this count as treasure if he gets it from the surface? Can he legitimately claim it as his?

Fred

It's all in the link the OP posted.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15409 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
This would be a major undertaking for anyone. A burnt out F-1 engine weighs more than 20,000 lbs, not counting the the weight of the wreckage of the S-1C-6 they are attached to, or at least near the wreckage of it.

Don't forget you also have to consider the weight of several miles of lift cable. IIRC when Liberty Bell 7 was raised several years ago the lift cable far outweighed the capsule itself.

Besides, Bezos has enough money - he could charter the Glomar Explorer and bring up the whole S-IC.  
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The general location has been known since the July 1969 launch, but I think this is the first time anyone has looked for the wreckage.

My understanding is that a number of the S-ICs, including Apollo 11s, came down in the same 16X5 mile area. So I'm wondering how it is that Bezos knows that he got Apollo 11? This will be interesting to watch regardless.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3296 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15327 times:

Assuming the S-IC survived the splashdown fairly intact with the F-1s still attached, and the necessary raising equipment is in place...Would it be harder to try to separate an individual engine from the stage in a way not contrary to respecting the stage's historical significance, or just raise the entire stage in one piece?

[Edited 2012-03-29 18:21:37]

[Edited 2012-03-29 18:21:59]


"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 15101 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):This would be a major undertaking for anyone. A burnt out F-1 engine weighs more than 20,000 lbs, not counting the the weight of the wreckage of the S-1C-6 they are attached to, or at least near the wreckage of it.
Don't forget you also have to consider the weight of several miles of lift cable. IIRC when Liberty Bell 7 was raised several years ago the lift cable far outweighed the capsule itself.

Very good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 4):
My understanding is that a number of the S-ICs, including Apollo 11s, came down in the same 16X5 mile area. So I'm wondering how it is that Bezos knows that he got Apollo 11?

They know the positions of each crash site for S-1C-3 to S-1C-12. Yes, all of these are in the same 65 mile by 10 mile box. S-1C-6 should be the furthest one to the east in the NE courner of the box. The closest S-1C wreckage to the -6 wreckage should be S-1C-8 (Apollo-13), which should be about 2 miles west of S-1C-6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC#Stages_built


User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12587 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Since it's been almost a year since Bezos made his initial announcement I expect we'll hear from him again soon.

I thought it might be interesting to discuss what he might have found as well as what condition it might be in. See if we can guess what he's got before the announcement.

I speculate that last year he had found all of the S-1C crash sites, or at least the ones likely to be Apollo 11. He may even have been able to do some sonar imaging to confirm that the site was an S-1C. How will he know which is Apollo 11?

First problem is base heating. As you can see in these pix the S-1C got pretty well charred up during it's short flight:

Courtesy: NASA

Courtesy: NASA


Base heating is caused by the low pressure area at the back of the vehicle recirculating the exhaust gases. Effect is enhanced as the vehicle accelerates and as atmospheric pressure drops in relation to altitude. As you can see the charring effect takes place over a good bit of the S-1Cs surface area. Yes, the exhaust gases recirculate up the side of the stage!

This youtube is also a good visual of the process:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKtH0uzg8wU

If the charring isn't too bad and if the stage isn't completely broken up one thing he might look for is this marking on the lower half of the stage:

Courtesy: Scott Jacobson


S-1C-6 is the Apollo 11 first stage. Pix was taken at the KSC visitor center on the restored stage there, which is definitly not the Apollo 11 stage.

Here's another shot of the stage at KSC for perspective. The marking is just beneath the center of the shot:

Courtesy: KSC Visitor Center


If that doesn't work he might try to ID the stage by serial numbers from an engine. This pix of an engine serial number plate was taken at the I-10 rest stop just outside of the Stennis Space Center:

Courtesy: Scott Jacobson


Trouble with that though is that engines were covered with insulation before launch to protect from the aforementioned base heating. Not a great shot of the engines covered with insulation at launch. If I find some better ones I'll post them:

Courtesy: NASA


And of course the stage could be, and probably is, completely smashed & covered with mud and marine growth.

With any luck though he may pull up all five engines and the thrust structure. We can only hope:

Courtesy: Scott Jacobson



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12542 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Someone asked what the white spots are on the S-1C engine fairings in the shot taken after stage seperation. My thought is that this is caused by the firing of the solid retro rockets located in the fairing. I'm not sure by any means but that seems plausible.

Von Braun & his engineers added the retros to ensure the stages did not recontact after staging. Later stages had fewer retros to save weight but the capability was not entirely removed. S-II had them as well, however with the S-II they were located on the interstage structure between the S-II and S-IVB.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently onlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6384 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12340 times:

When the AF447 recorders could be retrieved, then this is certainly also possible.

The question is how interesting it is. 100,000 lbs of F-1 engines connected to an empty fuel tank will have come down tail first at considerable speed. Those engines may be broken in a thousand pieces, and what may remain will certainly be bent beyond recognition.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 11475 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 7):
And of course the stage could be, and probably is, completely smashed & covered with mud and marine growth.

There would be little, if any marine growth on it. Deep sea wrecks like Titanic, Thresher, and Scorpion are all deep, but not as deep as 14,000' and they have almost no marine growth on the wrecks.

My guess is that what survived the slash down at the ocean surface would have been crushed as the wreckage sank deeper into the ocean.

Titanic is at about 12,000' down, Thresher is at about 8,400' and Scorpion is in 9,800' of water. All of these wrecks showed crush damage when they were found.


User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Titanic is at about 12,000' down, Thresher is at about 8,400' and Scorpion is in 9,800' of water. All of these wrecks showed crush damage when they were found.

Thresher & Scorpion certainly imploded when they exceeded their crush depth. Titanic, on other hand, was open to the sea and could not have been crushed, aisde from isolated compartments collapsing or overpressurizing as she sank.

As far as the S-1C is concerned it seems unlikely that any of the major structures were intact enough to be crushed as the stage sank.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11034 times:

Does anyone know in what orientation the S-IC stage impacted the water? Did it continue on a ballistic trajectory or did use of the retrorockets cause it to tumble back to the ocean?

User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10996 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 8):
Someone asked what the white spots are on the S-1C engine fairings in the shot taken after stage seperation. My thought is that this is caused by the firing of the solid retro rockets located in the fairing. I'm not sure by any means but that seems plausible.

Von Braun & his engineers added the retros to ensure the stages did not recontact after staging. Later stages had fewer retros to save weight but the capability was not entirely removed. S-II had them as well, however with the S-II they were located on the interstage structure between the S-II and S-IVB.

I had never seen that photo, and it's amazing. I didn't notice the bright white spots-- I was too busy wondering how the lower stage was separating from the upper stage when it appeared there was still quite a large plume below the lower. And so you answered that. Retrorockets. Neat.


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10950 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 8):
Someone asked what the white spots are on the S-1C engine fairings in the shot taken after stage seperation. My thought is that this is caused by the firing of the solid retro rockets located in the fairing. I'm not sure by any means but that seems plausible.

Those bright spots are only light reflections off the F-1 engine fairings. The reason they're not the S-1C retro rockets firing is that they fire for only 0.541 seconds at stage separation. Look at the 3:04 minute mark on the following video and you'll see the short duration bright orange flame. these are the S-1C retros firing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKtH0uzg8wU

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 14):
Those bright spots are only light reflections off the F-1 engine fairings. The reason they're not the S-1C retro rockets firing is that they fire for only 0.541 seconds at stage separation. Look at the 3:04 minute mark on the following video and you'll see the short duration bright orange flame. these are the S-1C retros firing.

I always thought the bright orange flame at staging was S-II Ignition. The third bright spot, on the left, is in shadow.

On the other hand there's little point in having retros fire when already well clear of the S-II. Maybe the bright spots are some after effect of the retro firing? Post firing burning or maybe some effect caused by the retro cover being blown off...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seachaz (Reply 12):
Does anyone know in what orientation the S-IC stage impacted the water? Did it continue on a ballistic trajectory or did use of the retrorockets cause it to tumble back to the ocean?

My guess would be that the stage tumbled due to the fairly light overall structure and dense engines at the back. Then broke up due to aerodynamic forces while tumbling.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10763 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 15):
I always thought the bright orange flame at staging was S-II Ignition. The third bright spot, on the left, is in shadow.

On the other hand there's little point in having retros fire when already well clear of the S-II. Maybe the bright spots are some after effect of the retro firing? Post firing burning or maybe some effect caused by the retro cover being blown off...

The video is really interesting to look at and understand the staging process. The large orange fireball is from the S-IC retros and as soon as the fireball dissipates you can see the residual plumes from the retros in the fairings.The S-II ignition is rather benign looking as it used LOX and LH2 for oxidizer and fuel. The J-2 engine starts up without any red/orange flame. When you look closely at the video you can also see the S-II ullage rockets firing(very faint) while the J-2 engines are starting up. The S-IC retro rockets were very powerful at 75,800 lb thrust each x8 in comparison to the ullage rockets on the S-II at 23,000 Lbs thrust each x4 so they look dramatically different in operation.

If the visual effect was caused by post retro burn out you would think that the third fairing in shadow would be emitting light as well.

Anyway this all really has no bearing on the subject of the post.

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 16):
My guess would be that the stage tumbled due to the fairly light overall structure and dense engines at the back. Then broke up due to aerodynamic forces while tumbling.

I have the same idea in that the tank structure would have not have survived the fall, or if it did, it was totally destroyed on impact with the ocean. I feel the only real chance at anything surviving the impact would have been the thrust structure and the upper elements of the F-1 engines themselves.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 17):
The S-IC retro rockets were very powerful at 75,800 lb thrust each x8 in comparison to the ullage rockets on the S-II at 23,000 Lbs thrust each x4 so they look dramatically different in operation.

I was reading up on the retros last night in the Apollo 8 S-V manual - they were rated at 88,000 lb thrust each there  Wow!



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10524 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 18):
I was reading up on the retros last night in the Apollo 8 S-V manual - they were rated at 88,000 lb thrust each there Wow!

Yes indeed. I got the 75,800 number out of the SA 507 Saturn V manual. The S-IC retros on SA 503 were definitely 87,913 lbs thr. and also fired for a fraction of a second longer. No wonder the retro fireball was impressive.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 19):
Yes indeed. I got the 75,800 number out of the SA 507 Saturn V manual. The S-IC retros on SA 503 were definitely 87,913 lbs thr. and also fired for a fraction of a second longer. No wonder the retro fireball was impressive.

Downsized for weight reduction I suspect...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2838 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10088 times:

They're out of the water now. Cnet has some photos of the recovered equipment.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-10797_3-10016189.html



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10075 times:

Reported here, too: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...lo-rocket-engines-from-ocean-floor

User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2838 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10036 times:

Glad to hear some of it is coming to the Museum of Flight. They have a lot of room left in that building the shuttle trainer got displayed.


The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10030 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Brought up parts for two engines. Also found portions of the S-1C structure, not clear if that was recovered or not...

Won't be able to confirm they're from Apollo 11 until hardware is stabilized...

http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
25 ZANL188 : Looks like you called it. I don't see anything in the photos that appears to be the nozzle extensions, just the thrust chamber and upper bits of the
26 Post contains links zanl188 : Some pix from the Cosmosphere in Wichita showing the engines undergoing conservation. http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-052113b.html A bit surpris
27 rwessel : ??? Apollo 11.
28 11Bravo : I believe they are still looking for serial numbers or other marks to confirm the engines are from Apollo 11 rather than some other Saturn V booster.
29 zanl188 : Bezos backed off the Apollo 11 claim when they hauled them up. Given that NASA had a part # and paper trail for all the hardware in a Saturn V I'd thi
30 hangarrat : So, in the video you posted, there's a white object that breaks away from the vehicle at 3:35. This appears well after the first stage has separated
31 Post contains links Scooter01 : Most likely the Interstage structure(ring) falling away as seen at 50seconds in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1vy4xXZynI Scooter01
32 Post contains links zanl188 : Bezos confirms they found an Apollo 11 engine... http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html[Edited 2013-07-19 15:32:56]
33 tugger : Wow, to hit one from that mission, the one that launched the first humans to step foot on the moon, is pretty impressive.... and blind lucky. Tugg
34 rwy04lga : Thanks for the link! I was there for the launch of Apollo 8. I also attended the STS-3 launch.
35 zanl188 : Not much has been revealed about Bezo's initial recon expedition. I expect he had more going for him than blind luck though...
36 Post contains links zanl188 : F-1 Engine Recovery Team wins award from the Explorers Club. Buzz Aldrin presents award! http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html Video from the r
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Bezos Finds Apollo 11 F-1 Engines
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Apollo 11 Landing 39 Yrs Ago Today posted Sun Jul 20 2008 12:39:23 by KDTWFlyer
Apollo 11 - The Untold Story posted Thu Nov 29 2007 23:42:34 by Centrair
A Tribute To Apollo 1 posted Fri Jan 27 2012 15:18:37 by PSA53
C17 At DTW 11-12-11 Why? posted Sat Nov 12 2011 10:20:13 by falstaff
Air Force One And Orlando 10/11/11? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 20:59:24 by Plainplane
SF Fleetweek "11 Question posted Thu Sep 29 2011 10:15:10 by as739x
Apollo-Soyuz Mission - "Apollo 18" Mystery Link posted Mon Dec 13 2010 13:40:43 by retrolivery
Original Mercury 6, Apollo 13 Transcripts posted Mon Dec 6 2010 16:22:55 by NoUFO
Radioactive Contamination In Gas Turbine Engines posted Sat Nov 27 2010 01:09:54 by Starglider
Nasa WB-57 Orbiting At FL490 On 9/11 Scares Ppl posted Sun Sep 12 2010 16:14:19 by KDTWflyer
40th Anniversary Of Apollo 11 posted Fri Jul 10 2009 11:41:05 by TheSonntag
Apollo 11 Landing 39 Yrs Ago Today posted Sun Jul 20 2008 12:39:23 by KDTWFlyer
Apollo 11 - The Untold Story posted Thu Nov 29 2007 23:42:34 by Centrair
A Tribute To Apollo 1 posted Fri Jan 27 2012 15:18:37 by PSA53
C17 At DTW 11-12-11 Why? posted Sat Nov 12 2011 10:20:13 by falstaff
Air Force One And Orlando 10/11/11? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 20:59:24 by Plainplane
SF Fleetweek "11 Question posted Thu Sep 29 2011 10:15:10 by as739x
Apollo-Soyuz Mission - "Apollo 18" Mystery Link posted Mon Dec 13 2010 13:40:43 by retrolivery
Original Mercury 6, Apollo 13 Transcripts posted Mon Dec 6 2010 16:22:55 by NoUFO
Radioactive Contamination In Gas Turbine Engines posted Sat Nov 27 2010 01:09:54 by Starglider
40th Anniversary Of Apollo 11 posted Fri Jul 10 2009 11:41:05 by TheSonntag
Apollo 11 Landing 39 Yrs Ago Today posted Sun Jul 20 2008 12:39:23 by KDTWFlyer
Apollo 11 - The Untold Story posted Thu Nov 29 2007 23:42:34 by Centrair
A Tribute To Apollo 1 posted Fri Jan 27 2012 15:18:37 by PSA53
C17 At DTW 11-12-11 Why? posted Sat Nov 12 2011 10:20:13 by falstaff
Air Force One And Orlando 10/11/11? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 20:59:24 by Plainplane
SF Fleetweek "11 Question posted Thu Sep 29 2011 10:15:10 by as739x
Apollo-Soyuz Mission - "Apollo 18" Mystery Link posted Mon Dec 13 2010 13:40:43 by retrolivery
Original Mercury 6, Apollo 13 Transcripts posted Mon Dec 6 2010 16:22:55 by NoUFO
Radioactive Contamination In Gas Turbine Engines posted Sat Nov 27 2010 01:09:54 by Starglider

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format