TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Extraneous exchanges => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on March 21, 2013, 06:02:23 AM
-
Rocket engines that took astronauts to the moon have been recovered from the Atlantic in a Jeff Bezos-funded expedition
(http://tech.uk.msn.com/guardian/saturn-v-rocket-engines-recovered-from-seabed-36)
-
Let's have some discussion about this. Was it historically important to recover these engines? They were not lost. NASA knew where they were. They were judged at the time to be disposable. What is achieved by recovering them? What motivated their recovery? Without fairly elaborate and expensive conservation measures they will now probably corrode away. Does it matter?
-
Maybe I'm showing my age, but artifacts from the space program are pretty exciting to me. The F-1 engines are still an amazing accomplishment. There are some aspects of the early space program that we might not be able to duplicate today, so examples from the era are unique and valuable, at least to some people how appreciate the accomplishment. The technology of teh early space program was what got me interested in Aerospace Engineering, and led me to find a job developing and testing rocket motors - nothing as large as an F-1, but I'm proud to have had a hand in building hardware that now sits on Mars.
A slightly older generation might feel the same way about aircraft. Lockheed made some impressive machines, as I recall reading somewhere, and some old-timers think they're worth dredging up from the sea floor.
What will the next generation think is valuable enough to recover? An original smart phone?
-
Lockheed made some impressive machines, as I recall reading somewhere, and some old-timers think they're worth dredging up from the sea floor.
Those old-timers, whoever they are, should join TIGHAR.
Here's a question:
If Lambrecht had spotted AE waving from the beach and Itasca had come and rescued her and Fred (assuming he was still alive) would it now be worth spending millions to try to find some remnant of the airplane in the water? It would be a relic of Amelia's failed attempt to fly around the world but it wouldn't solve an epic mystery.
A thing is worth what someone will pay for it. The millions it undoubtedly took to find and recover those beat-up rocket engines was apparently worth it to Jeff Bezos but I've never heard of anyone else caring about them. It will be interesting to see what becomes of them now. NASA owns them but NASA is not going to spend money to conserve them. They'll probably end up on a Cape Canaveral scrap heap along with other relics of the Apollo program. In the end, what was accomplished? A splash of publicity for Jeff Bezos and Amazon?
-
I agree Ric.....who cares! It's just NASA's garbage they threw out. And there a lot of it down there. However, there is something that interests me........."The Bezos team sent remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to a depth of 14,000 feet to photograph and eventually lift the engine components, working in an environment he likened to the moon's surface."
Maybe there is something that can be learned, or of use, on the next trip to Nicku. By shipwreck standards, those engines were not large pieces.
-
I agree with Dan. The recovery of the engines was likely not the the point of the mission, but rather a benefit of it. I'm inclined to believe it (the mission) was more of a proof-of-concept of a new technology, procedure or technique. Even if the boosters were from the Apollo 11 mission it would be in my opinion, be like recovering Paul Revere's horse. I do however, think Paul's horse got a raw deal in the history books!
Dave
-
It will be interesting to see what becomes of them now. NASA owns them but NASA is not going to spend money to conserve them. They'll probably end up on a Cape Canaveral scrap heap along with other relics of the Apollo program.
This news piece http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/20/2-apollo-era-engines-pulled-from-depths-atlantic-by-amazon-ceo-expedition/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/20/2-apollo-era-engines-pulled-from-depths-atlantic-by-amazon-ceo-expedition/) say that this is what they plan on doing with them:
Bezos plans to restore the engine parts, which included a nozzle, turbine, thrust chamber and heat exchanger. Amazon.com Inc. spokesman Drew Herdener declined Wednesday to reveal the cost of the recovery or restoration.
NASA has previously said an engine would head for the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum. If a second was recovered, it would be displayed at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, where Amazon.com is based.
LTM,
Don
-
Bezos plans to restore the engine parts, which included a nozzle, turbine, thrust chamber and heat exchanger. Amazon.com Inc. spokesman Drew Herdener declined Wednesday to reveal the cost of the recovery or restoration.
Restore the engine parts??? The damage they suffered is part of their history. You can't Bondo a nozzle or bang the dents out of thrust chamber. Restore, in this context, means replace. So will we treated to pristine-looking rocket engine parts and be told that these once flew on an Apollo mission? The whole thing just sounds dumber and dumber.
-
From TIGHAR's Mission Statement (http://tighar.org/about.htm)...
The foundation devotes its resources to the saving of endangered historic aircraft wherever they may be found, and to the education of the international public in the need to preserve the relics of the history of flight. (italics mine)
Ric, As such, would it be out of line for you to reach out to Mr. Bezos in an effort to keep him from doing a dumb thing?
-
The fascination with really powerful engines seems to be universal. No engine made by man has been more powerful than the F-1, and only about 70 were ever made. Only 2 or 3 survive, none in running condition. Those are the conditions that drive enthusiasts nuts when they have the opportunity to get their hands on one. The company I work for, like Rocketdyne, got rid of their design notes from the days when they built those engines. The designers are all dead. As a result, now-days, we have to reverse-engineer the engines from back then, and it's often an eye-opener to the "young" engineers what was accomplished back then. This article describes the test firing of the Gas Generator (in my industry simply called a "GG"):
<snip>...The most notable aspect of these firings is the sheer power when the gas generator creates roughly 31,000 pounds (14,000 kilograms) of force. When the original F-1 lit up, the gas generator powered the enormous turbomachinery that pumped almost three tons of propellant each second into the thrust chamber and accelerated through the nozzle, creating an incredible 1.5 million pounds (680,000 kg) of thrust.
Modern instruments, testing and analysis improvements learned over [the past] 40 years, and digital scanning and imagery techniques are allowing us to obtain baseline data on performance and combustion stability," said Nick Case, an engineer from Marshall's propulsion systems department. "We are even gathering data not collected when the engine was tested originally in the 1960s." <end snip>
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/nasa-engine-test-parts-saturn-v-rocket-moon_n_2534361.html
The engines designed and built by the company I work for are still amazing to me, although that feeling isn't shared by the current management. I feel honored to have been mentored by the Engineers who built them. The current version of the company doesn't have the talent or ability to recreate those engine designs, so the skill is dying off and may never reappear. Recovering an example of a lost art from the seafloor seems like an important thing to me. Restoring it to original condition is also important when there are few original examples to be found.
It's part of our technical heritage. I would think that the value of preserving historical heritage would be obvious to TIGHAR members. It's a passion very similar to TIGHAR's interest in finding what happened to Amelia.
-
Again I agree with Ric. Restoring them is a waste of time. Leave them just as they are. That's how they were meant to be. However, I am still intrigued by the fact that they found them and how........
"the Bezos team used sonar to spot the sunken engines resting nearly 3 miles deep....."
There may be some useful technology for Tighar's deep search.
-
Ah, I did enoy Cussler's search and finding of the Hunley - no tax dollars involved in the search, and a mystery solved! He hunts ships and we deal with airplanes, strictly on a donor basis.
Ex: There are only so many taxpayers available, and so many tax-funded projects already that are unconstitutional. I personally love TIGHAR's and Cussler's work, as well as good painting - but I am mad as Hades that my tax money goes to "art" which offends me or that I cannot afford to go see in the first place........... Why should anyone have to pay for museums to house what they don't like?
Again, I like TIGHAR's work, and will send more money as soon as I'm able (after tax day!). Whatever someone wants to do/buy, if they want to pay for it themselves, go for it! Just don't grab my tax money down the road to help out somehow, as usually happens...... :-*
-
... I do however, think Paul's horse got a raw deal in the history books!
Dave
You just don't read the right books: http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Revere-Account-Episodes-Revealed/dp/0316517291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363956048&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+revere%27s+horse (http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Revere-Account-Episodes-Revealed/dp/0316517291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363956048&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+revere%27s+horse)
Didn't Nasa recently fire up one of those engines that had been in storage, with the idea of recreating them with modern technology/materials for the current or future space program?
-
Well said Lauren!
-
"So some people are against preserving the heritage of the space race?"
I'd say "yes", especially if it uses tax dollars against their wishes.
The test firing that Tim mentioned was just of the Gas Generator section of the engine, not the whole engine, and yes it was to learn about how things were done in the 1960's so the lessons can be applied to today.
-
Again I agree with Ric. Restoring them is a waste of time. Leave them just as they are. That's how they were meant to be. However, I am still intrigued by the fact that they found them and how........
"the Bezos team used sonar to spot the sunken engines resting nearly 3 miles deep....."
There may be some useful technology for Tighar's deep search.
It's not, pardon the expression, rocket science. Because the initial launch profiles of Apollo missions were pretty much the same, the separated stages fell back to earth and landed in roughly the same part of the ocean. The area is an underwater junkyard. Finding junk in a junkyard is no great feat. The effectiveness of side-scan sonar is largely dependent upon the underwater topography over which it is deployed. The steep, unstable reef slope at Nikumaroro is a worst-case scenario for side-scan.
-
From TIGHAR's Mission Statement (http://tighar.org/about.htm)...
The foundation devotes its resources to the saving of endangered historic aircraft wherever they may be found, and to the education of the international public in the need to preserve the relics of the history of flight. (italics mine)
Ric, As such, would it be out of line for you to reach out to Mr. Bezos in an effort to keep him from doing a dumb thing?
We learned a long time ago that the most effective way to "educate the international public in the need to preserve the relics of the history of flight" is by example, not by wagging (or flipping) our finger.
I wonder, however, whether NASM has signed off on accessioning the the salvaged engine parts. Formally accepting objects into the collection carries with it a long-term commitment to curation and conservation plus, in most cases, exhibition and interpretation. NASM turns down lots of offered items.
-
There are only so many taxpayers available, and so many tax-funded projects already that are unconstitutional. I personally love TIGHAR's and Cussler's work, as well as good painting - but I am mad as Hades that my tax money goes to "art" which offends me or that I cannot afford to go see in the first place........... Why should anyone have to pay for museums to house what they don't like?
Again, I like TIGHAR's work, and will send more money as soon as I'm able (after tax day!). Whatever someone wants to do/buy, if they want to pay for it themselves, go for it! Just don't grab my tax money down the road to help out somehow, as usually happens...... :-*
I am afraid I find that to be a rather astonishing and short sighted attitude - why shouldn't we the citizens have part of our taxes used to preserve the cultural and historic objects of our shared history, far better that than funding another war. Why should the preservation of these things be left entirely to the whim of private owners, our shared culture is the sum of all of us. As for the recovery of the Saturn 5 engines - they were a part of one of the great achievements of the 20th century, which I think will be remembered long after Earhart has slipped into our social amnesia.
-
These philosophical questions always pervade discussions of historic preservation. Individuals are free to indulge their own interests at their own expense as long as they respect and obey relevant laws and regulations. Some keep their collections to themselves, others run privately owned museums that are open to the public. To what degree do governments have a responsibility to preserve the relics of the culture they govern? Which relics are worthy of preservation at tax-payer expense? Who decides?
Personally, I find the preservation/conservation and exhibition of the Apollo 11 command capsule worthy and appropriate for inclusion in the Smithsonian NASM collection which is maintained mostly at tax-payer expense. I don't feel that way about the recently recovered engine parts. Historic preservation resources are always limited. We can't save everything. Every piece of technology associated with the Apollo program does not need to be saved and enshrined. The same is true of every WWII airplane wreck. If we try to save everything it degrades our ability to save the few relics that should be saved. But again - who decides?
I think there is such a thing as public consensus. I think public consensus is expressed through public discourse (such as this forum), museum attendance, and voluntary financial and participatory support of historical projects. The Earhart Project is an expression of a clear public consensus that Earhart's fate should be discovered.
-
Well said, Ric!
As for someone else's comment about my "short-sighted" attitude, I only have so much money to spend. I wouldn't have a dime left for food if every government "wish-list" item were funded/passed (think Bridges to Nowhere !) ... :-*
-
No political commentary please.
-
Here, here, Ric. Here, here...
-
My reading of the article says to me that they are going preserve the engines against any corrosion and at private expense. On the broader scale a government in a democratic society represents the sum total of all the citizens and their culture so for a government to protect and preserve those things which display the great diversity of our collective positive aspirations is to me a good thing. Would TIGHAR accept a government research grant - I suspect it would and if such a thing was to occur who of us would object.
-
Would TIGHAR accept a government research grant -
Mmmmm....that would depend on what strings were attached. We would not relinquish control of the project. Personally, I think this sort of thing should be done with voluntary contributions from the interested public. That's how the U.S. tax-exempt nonprofit system is designed to work. The government recognizes the merit of voluntary donations to approved nonprofit organizations (like TIGHAR) and rewards taxpayers with deductions from the amount of tax they pay.
-
That's how the U.S. tax-exempt nonprofit system is designed to work. The government recognizes the merit of voluntary donations to approved nonprofit organizations (like TIGHAR) and rewards taxpayers with deductions from the amount of tax they pay.
So I guess in a way they are helping fund it by forgoing the extra tax revenue they are writing off as an allowed deduction. Simple constructive help for organizations like TIGHAR.