

Jeff Bezos Finds Apollo 11 Rockets - josephmosby
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/amazons-jeff-bezos-discovers-historic-apollo-11-rocket-engines-at-the-bottom-of-the-sea/255190/

======
ChuckMcM
There is an interesting sub-text here which should probably get more
attention. Jeff Bezos funded this effort.

Let that sink in for a moment.

When the CIA wanted to get a peak at a Soviet Era sub that sank to 17,000'
they paid Howard Hughes to build the Glomar Explorer [1] to go retrieve it. It
was a mammoth undertaking which required the financial assistance of a nation
state to make it work.

In 1982 when Forbes first started listing the 400 richest people they had 13
billionaires and 75 million made the list [2], which is about 167 million in
inflation adjusted dollars [3], and the current lists #400 is is $1.05B so a
bit over 6x larger even after inflation is considered.

The interesting bit for me is that the cost of 'getting things done' has not
been going up in pace with the 'money people have' so wealth in the private
sector is enabling individuals to do what used to take governments. Worse
governments are horribly inefficient at doing things that individuals are
efficient at (given their fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers)

I talked with some folks at Scaled Composites a bit after their successful
X-Prize bid. A common theme was that they could have been successful earlier
if it had not been for the red tape put in their way by the government. (some
estimated two years earlier but I think that was optimistic).

And you look at the world concerns that arise when North Korea tests 'long
range' rockets because building a rocket that can get a meaningful payload
into orbit is 98% of the way to being able to drop something out of orbit
pretty much anywhere you want.

Its very different world, and I could imagine folks who would sign on for
orbital 'work' or excursions knowing that 5 - 10% of them would end up dying
horribly. Not something the government can generally tolerate but explorers
can.

The risk though is that you end up with a corporation that is has the
capability of exploiting space and corporations don't generally sign treaties.
That makes for interesting times indeed.

[1] <https://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer.htm>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_400> (hopefully it is accurate)

[3] <http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi>

[4]
[http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#p_40_s_arank_All%20industr...](http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#p_40_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20states_All%20categories_)

~~~
mcantelon
>The interesting bit for me is that the cost of 'getting things done' has not
been going up in pace with the 'money people have' so wealth in the private
sector is enabling individuals to do what used to take governments.

Wealth has been concentrating as well. If the rich continually get richer, it
makes sense that at some point their capabilities become comparable to nation
states.

~~~
seanp2k2
Hundreds of greedy individuals with more power than some countries. What could
possibly go wrong?

With barely any oversight, non-existent checks and balances, no social
responsibility, an the power to sway the laws that the rest of us must live
by, I urge you all to consider where we're headed. To me, at least, it seems
that the age of kings is once again upon us.

~~~
ekianjo
It's not like government officials are devoid of greed either, by the way.
Ever noticed that there are rarely any "poor" or even remotely middle-class
person in politics to be seen ?

Private parties are subject to the law. They can be sued. They can be made to
repair damage.

Governments ? They have no responsibilities whatsoever. Once their term is
done, everything's forgotten and forgiven. Where is their social
responsibility? Ever seen a president appear in court an unlawful attack on
another country ?

No ? That's what I thought.

~~~
Iv
> Ever seen a president appear in court an unlawful attack on another country
> ?

I have seen some presidents in courts of Justice. Bill Clinton, Jacques
Chirac, also in different categories, Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. I would
say that this is roughly as common as seeing a wealthy CEO charged for crimes
that his company made.

Basically, when you give power to an entity, you must keep in mind what it
will cost to remove it when it abuses its power. Corporations or public
authorities are not that different in this respect : if a fairly elected body
cannot keep them in check, or step in in case of abuses, don't give them
power, even if they look "nice".

That is a simple principle to avoid violent conflicts. If NASA says it wants
to start inject cesium in huge quantity in the atmosphere, vote them out in
the next term (yes, voting can work, even in America). If Exxon wants to do
the same, make sure that a justice+police environment exists that can forbid
them and coercively force them to not do that.

~~~
ekianjo
Wrong answer - you mention presidents who were in trial not for unlawful
attacks on other people (Chirac and Clinton) and others who were anyway losing
the war they were involved in (Milosevic and Hussein) which is a totally
different situation. I have yet to hear about presidents of "democracies"
being charged of crimes of war, for example.

> hen you give power to an entity, you must keep in mind what it will cost to
> remove it

Agree with you, but why is it that in so many countries, elected officials are
beyond the law in so many ways ? In France, for example, elected officials
benefit of immunities and they cannot be sued during their mandate. How is
that fair ?

> voting can work, even in America

Even in America ? A country when you only have a choice between 2 parties does
not really qualify as "it's working" to me. It's like choosing between plague
and cholera: you basically wonder every time which one is less harmful than
the other.

We don't need more policies to protect the environment. If you gave actual
ownership rights on the environment, people who own them would defend their
ownership and sue polluters for damages and reparation. It's a well known
problem called as "tragedy of the commons". When nobody owns anything,
everyone will keep destroying the resource until it's gone. That's what's
happening with Tuna fishing in the Mediterranean Sea currently. Ownership is
the only answer to ensure there will be balance and retribution for unlawful
acts.

------
siavosh
Since I was a kid, space has always been a deep source of curiosity and wonder
for me. With events like James Cameron's dive last week, Elon Musk's work, and
this, it heartens me that private citizens are attempting rekindle the wonders
they felt when they were younger for a new generation. All in reaction to the
governments budget cuts and the limited ambitions of today's industry titans.

The longer term solution maybe showing tax payers scientific/statistical
evidence that these sorts of 'stunts' really do yield an impressive ROI. It's
a tough thing to do, but might be our way back to places like Mars.

~~~
sopooneo
How strange that this amazing dream, now rekindled, was originally born of
cold war.

~~~
ericd
It's not that strange, competition breeds ambition and innovation. It's in
humans' fundamental nature to compete by out-innovating, which is one of the
strongest arguments for free markets. Since the fall of the USSR, more
competition has been inward focusing, between companies. Most companies tend
to compete at a lower level than nation-states, which is why you don't see as
many of these huge projects. I think if the US became openly competitive with
China, you'd start to see some very large projects again.

------
Jun8
"Though they've been on the ocean floor for a long time, the engines remain
the property of NASA."

Interesting, I thought Law of Finds stated that abandoned property belongs to
the person who salvages it (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6896645.stm>),
or maybe the engines were not abandoned?

~~~
lotharbot
government agencies do not relinquish their claims lightly. They don't
consider their hardware to be "abandoned", merely "very hard to get to".

My ex-coworkers at the Museum of Flight (in Seattle, mentioned in this
article) know the exact location of a WWII-era fighter aircraft that crashed
in Lake Washington. They recovered and restored one aircraft from the crash
site at least a decade ago, but the Navy will not let them touch the other
one.

~~~
georgek
this may be because there are human remains at the second site, which makes it
a war grave. its against federal law to disturb those IIRC

~~~
lotharbot
It was a "non-fatal collision" between the two aircraft [0]. Both pilots were
rescued [1]. One aircraft was recovered without incident; the other sits
corroding at the bottom of the lake. While the second corsair is in worse
shape than the first one and therefore a much more significant challenge to
recover, I know several people who would jump at the chance to try if they
could get permission from the Navy.

[0] [http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/goodyear-
fg-1d-corsai...](http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/goodyear-
fg-1d-corsair) [1]
<http://www.dcsfilms.com/Site_4/Corsair_lake_washington.html>

------
stcredzero
This is what gets me about the moon-shot deniers. If NASA was motivated to
save expense and risk, doesn't the act of launching the first stages of a
bunch of Saturn rockets going to mostly squash any savings flat?

Those things are _huge_ , their launch was witnessed by many 10's of
thousands, and their flight was tracked by the USSR and anyone else with the
technical capability to do so. (Admittedly, the latter is probably only
sporadic, but still an effective deterrent.) The second stages -- also huge,
also tracked by the USSR and anyone else with the technical capability to do
so. The third stages: the same. Even the command module+LEM: freaking
conspicuous. And it's not as if you can send them up there, then fake the
thing coming back -- you had to actually bring the freaking things back so the
USSR and everyone else could track it then too.

So, after going to all that trouble, exactly how much money is going to be
saved? How much risk is going to be saved? If you're faking a flight to the
moon, and your fake command module misses its burn and flies off into the
void, you're going to have to fake the deaths or kill off those astronauts
anyways. If anything, one has greatly increased the risks by engaging in a
such a huge and technically challenging conspiracy.

Kudos to Bezos for finding the engine!

~~~
droithomme
The audacity of the Apollo program and the amazing engineering successes were
so incredible that I am not surprised there are still skeptics lurking about.
They are incorrect in their belief, but their doubt is reasonably based.
Landing on the moon and returning safely only 66 years after the first powered
flight and only a few years into the age of transistors and computers was to
put it simply, a completely unbelievable accomplishment and without precedent
in human history.

~~~
ComputerGuru
I honestly cannot think of anything since that has rivaled it in terms of
sheer audacity and a leap of pure faith.

You'd think with all our technical marvels now, we'd have something that can
hold its own against the missions to the moon, but I'm honestly at a loss to
suggest anything here.

~~~
spking
I agree. If you haven't yet seen it, "Failure is not an Option" is an awesome
mini-documentary about mission control from the early years through the Apollo
program.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9mFBY1oT8>

------
grecy
I like where he says "I imagine that NASA would decide to make it available to
the Smithsonian for all to see." - creating enough publicity around it's
eventual public display that NASA will have no choice but to do just that.

~~~
josephmosby
It does make sense - the Apollo 11 command module is already on display in the
Air and Space Museum, as is one of the Saturn 5 rockets.

~~~
HCIdivision17
I remember as a kid going to Space Academy in Huntsville, AL. A camp counselor
told us how the engines came to find a home at the Rocket Park of the Alabama
Space and Rocket Center. NASA had placed the Saturn V on tour to show off this
amazing machine - this particular rocket never went in space, but it was a
_functional_ vehicle. The story goes that once the rocket was set up, the
governor rallied for the rocket to be labeled a historical landmark. And since
it really is an incredible chunk of American history, the motion passed.

And, as it turns out, you can't move historical landmarks. Apparently NASA was
furious, but played it cool.

Or so a museum counselor told a band of 7th graders.

More on this particular rocket:
[http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/butowsky4/sp...](http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/butowsky4/space12.htm)

------
fmstephe
I am glad that we have in this world at least a few rich people with
uncontrollable curiosity. It seems like wealth is wasted on some.

------
leeoniya
First James Cameron chills in Challenger Deep for 8 hrs solo, now this? What a
week!

Maybe James can use his new toy to go down there and hook up the tow cables to
bring the engines up!

------
tocomment
He say it's us government property but aren't there maritime laws related to
salvaging ships that say whomever does the salvage owns it?

------
bootload
_"... NASA is one of the few institutions I know that can inspire five-year-
olds. ..."_

Best quote.

------
ck2
This is a waste of time. It's a wealthy man's playtime.

How about we kill the F35 and F22 planes entirely and make a Mars mission
instead?

We're going to be neck deep in drones in this country and around the world
within a few years, expensive fighter jets are now worthless.

~~~
dkokelley
Your beef seems to be more with expensive fighter programs than expensive
salvage efforts. I don't see how this really relates to the discussion.

Don't underestimate the power of icons. These are the rockets that put us on
the moon, and a private citizen is planning on recovering them for posterity,
using his own money. Hopefully future generations will be inspired to explore
because of this wealthy man's efforts (or 'playtime', as you put it). This
should be celebrated.

------
ConnorWGarvey
I like how Jeff Bezos talking about hiring a team that found the engines ends
up with the headline, "Jeff Bezos Discovers ..."

~~~
johngalt
And Steve Jobs never wrote a line of code for the iphone. So he didn't create
it right?

~~~
pavanky
He did not.

------
snorkel
Ain't it sad that we are reduced to fishing for our own space trash remind us
of when we used to go to the moon?

------
mkopinsky
Side note: How is it that the Atlantic, despite having excellent quality in
their articles, manages to consistently attract crap in the comments section?
This is almost youtube-eque... (Might need to expand my "hide comments from
certain sites" greasemonkey script)

~~~
ars
It's not just the Atlantic - it's every single site. The age of comments is
just about finished, I expect more and more sites to remove them (unless the
ad views are so high that it makes up for it).

My theory is that the only (or the majority) people who have the time to post
are those too stupid to have anything else better to do. And once the majority
is stupid it becomes too toxic for anyone else to bother.

Good forums (like this one) require very careful curating.

------
joeblau
"tough stuff" -- I love Bezos' technical terminology.

------
Codhisattva
Cute but silly really. If you want to see a genuine Saturn V rocket there is
an actual one on display in the Apollo building at the Kennedy Space Center.
It's open to the public and it's intact and it's amazing.

I think Bezos is just pulling a publicity stunt here as he makes no mention at
all of the artifacts and treasures on display to the public at the inspiring
Kennedy Space Center.

~~~
waterlesscloud
There's one on display in Huntsville too.

------
_rj
What if Jeff Bezos took that funding how much ever that he used to find the
rockets and used that on education. There are many in different countries who
doesn't even have basic education needs. I am not saying Jeff is the doing the
wrong thing, he worked hard, he earned it, he might have or might be doing
charity work, but the satisfaction you get just by thinking that you can help
some kid get educated is more than finding rockets. Just my thoughts.

