chunks of saturn 5 first stage

[parker]

Will any sizeable pieces of Saturn V first stage be littering the Atlantic? I understand that any unburned debris woud hit the ocean about 500km from the cape, does anybody have any idea how much might survive?

Somebody call Bob Ballard and ask him to get me one of the fins or an F1

[echnaton]

Whatever parts are on the bottom of the ocean are claimed by the US government. If you want to argue with them over that claim, go for it. But I am loath to take on an organization that is one of the largest employer of attorneys in the world.

[scooter]

I would be under the impression they would be "salvage", since there has been no effort to recover them by the "owners" over the decades.
But since they were mostly steel, I suspect they're basically little "artificial reefs" now.

[JayUtah]

Yes, I would have thought they'd fall under deep-sea salvage laws as well, referring to the case of Finders v. Keepers.

If you could find any casing or tanking pieces larger than a table top I'd be surprised. You could expect to find the F-1 thrust chamber and some of the lower piping, which was of substantial construction. But it wouldn't be worth anything except gawking value. Warm salt water has a tendency to wreak considerable havoc on exotic metallurgy.

[echnaton]

The parts might be salvage under international law, my memory on this stuff from college is not very good, but I recall that property of governments falls into a different category than merchant ships and cargo. I don't know if the US would press a claim, but if the US government wants to argue the point, it is going to get expensive. They could also bully any company that one might want to contract with out of helping.

According to this site.

The United States has taken the position, and it is generally accepted in maritime law, that a sovereign government never abandons its vessels or aircraft. Thus, whenever a military wreck is discovered, whether it be a vessel or a plane, the United States still asserts its ownership interest. However, in a recent Federal Court case involving salvage rights to a submerged World War II Navy plane allegedly in 500 feet of water less than one mile off the coast of Miami the court rejected the Navy's claim and sided with the private salvor. This was an important case for those interested in salvaging the many scattered World War II Navy planes on the bottoms of Lake Michigan and Lake Washington.

So there is some hope.

[LunarOrbit]

I'm not sure if the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 covers this or not, but it does say this:

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

[JayUtah]

I would argue that the Apollo missions were not military missions, and that the United States specifically disavowed that they were military in nature or aimed at conquest. And although their spacecraft borrowed technology from the military, they were not themselves military in whole nature. That the S-1C and S-II may be adapted for military use is certain, but no more indicative of its intent or nature than the use of civilian airframes and ship hull designs also for military purposes. Thus if the claim of a sovereign nation upon its registered vessels depends upon their designation as military vessels, then I argue that the Saturn first and second stage remnants are not so protected.

A salvor's right is not always ownership of the salvaged property. A private salvor may be deprived of ownership of the Saturn stages and engines upon recovery, but not without fair compensation for having imperiled himself in their recovery. The final owners of the artifacts may not enjoin private salvage except as they have themselves won lawful salvage rights as finders. So there exist two distinct rights: the right of renumeration for imperilment of the salvor, and the property right and title to the salvaged vessel, goods, or persons. The salvor may fail to obtain title to the goods, but can nevertheless compel a reward by possessing and holding lien over the property until his reward is paid.

The question of whether the salvor can obtain clear title to the property by finding and retrieving it depends upon whether the owner has abandoned it by a clear action or statement. The staging of a rocket is a deliberate act of jettison; and the description of the S-1C and S-II as "expendable" stages -- i.e., not to be reused or considered for further service -- followed by no attempt to search for its remains, would argue quite favorably for the clear abandonment of those components.

Typically a vessel has not been left on the bottom of the sea on purpose, and had not some hazard befallen it would have continued to serve its owners. This careful distinction excludes spent rocket stages that are discarded specifically because their usefulness is at an end; this is similar to a vessel that has been scuttled versus one that has been sunk by an enemy or lost by accident.

As to the Space Treaty of 1967, it excludes the military doctrine of salvage by expressly demilitarizing the exploration of space. It would be difficult on that basis to argue that any part of the Apollo spacecraft or its launch vehicle qualifed as a "military vessel" protected by sovereign privilege.

Article VIII is a generalization of the notion that a vessel operating on the high seas is to be considered the property -- and in some cases the sovereign territory -- of the nation to which it is registered regardless of its location or condition. This establishes, for example, the United States' continued ownership of the Eagle descent stage at Tranquility Base.

As the S-1C rises only to an altitude of about 40 miles, below the threshhold of "outer space" (ca. 50 miles), it cannot be considered an "object launched into outer space," but rather a vehicle operating within the ordinary airspace of the United States, and later in airspace corridors designed for that use and governed not by the Outer Space treaty but by other treaties concerning the use of international airspace.

The S-II may have entered what is generally accepted as space, so its return to Earth may be governed by the outer space treaty. The problem is that it applies only to its signatories, which are numerous but not universal. The intent of Article VIII is to repatriate crews and payloads that have landed in places controlled by or accessible to signatory nations. While it is intended to apply to components of significance, it may be interpreted to apply also to components identified as expendable or judged to have been abandoned.

[parker]

Oh yes, I certainly meant only for "gawking value" and I realise that salt water is not at all kind to metals. Would the casing of the Saturn 5 not be made from aluminium? (again, salt water is still bad news)
A large chunk of skylab, a pressurised nitrogen bottle I think, survived to be found in Australia and that really did come from orbital space.
As for warm water (I nit pit like a real pro here) the bottom of the Alantic is far from warm, it is 3 or 4 degrees celsius. Unfortunately it is also extemely deep on average - 2 or 3 km so I will just have to fantasise about having one of the fins.

[echnaton]

While the S-V is not military, the question is would the US government claim it as sovereign property, press a case and prevail. As the booster was US property when it hit the ocean, my bet is on the first two. I'd not make guess on prevailing.

[JayUtah]

Would the casing of the Saturn 5 not be made from aluminium?

Yes, probably of the 7000 series or perhaps also 2000 or 3000 materials. I don't recall what specific alloys were used.

(again, salt water is still bad news)

Agreed; I've seen sea water go to town on aluminum fittings.

As for warm water (I nit pit like a real pro here) the bottom of the Alantic is far from warm, it is 3 or 4 degrees celsius.

Yes, quite true. That will retard corrosion significantly. My personal experience is with aluminum at reef temperatures.

I will just have to fantasise about having one of the fins.

I wouldn't expect much of the fins to survive the mechanical stress of impact.

[parker]

Oh, I just checked the depth of the ocean east of the cape is more like 5 km (at a distance of 500km) not that that makes the slightest bit of difference to recovering the tiniest scrap of SV

[JayUtah]

While the S-V is not military, the question is would the US government claim it as sovereign property, press a case and prevail.

Yes, undoubtedly. As with all things legal, the only meaningful test is to try the arguments in court. Therefore I'm listing the arguments I would present.

It's not often logical or obvious why laws are the way they are. So because I'm not really an expert in maritime law, I'd want to know more about whether the sovereign property right is affected specially by military application in a way that affects title assertions from the salvor. To my knowledge the doctrine of perpetual title to sovereign wrecks has been applied only to military wrecks, and actually derives from the rights and obligations of military vessels upon the high seas or in territorial waters. A warship has limitations on its operation and as such enjoys special privilege when distressed or lost, whereas a government vessel that is not specifically a man-of-war, or a commercial vessel operating under impressment or other force of government, may not be so enjoined and therefore not under the same privilege. Some nations' definitions of sovereign and state vessels, however, can be applied generally enough to the S-1C and S-II as aircraft owned or operated by the state and used at the time of their sinking for a government, non-commercial purpose (cf. various wordings, e.g., Law of the Sea Convention Art. 95f, Communications from U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.) I am aware of no non-military vessel for which sovereign immunity has been claimed and tested. I would not want to be the one to test it.

As the booster was US property when it hit the ocean, my bet is on the first two.

There is absolutely clear title to the S-1C and S-II up until the moment they separated from the ascending vehicle. However, sovereign title is not absolute.

The principal conditions under which sovereign title to a wreck may be challenged are:

1. An express act of abandonment or transfer of title.
2. Capture or surrender of the vessel in battle.

Obviously we would consider whether the S-1C and S-II have been abandoned. The key legal point is the "express" act of abandonment. Simply leaving a wreck alone does not constitute abandonment. (Contrary to my assertion yesterday, the failure to attempt to recover a wreck does not affect title or abandonment.)

Points in favor of abandonment are, as already stated, the design purpose of S-1C and S-II, which are to be discarded from the vehicle in its normal course of operation and from which no further service is to be expected. This differs markedly from ships and aircraft that find their way to the sea floor through accident or hazard of battle, modes of operation not generally accounted for in design. The final resting places of the S-1C and S-II are the result of a deliberate, intended, and forethought operation, with full understanding that they would serve little if any future purpose. The status of these stages is closer to that of discarded auxiliary fuel tanks dropped from aircraft.

Points against abandonment include the lack of a sufficiently express act of abandonment. While the points above express the intent to abandon the rocket stages after use, "express" requires typically an instrument of communication relinquishing title by identifying the property to be abandoned. Abandonment argued by inference from action or non-action is always sticky legal territory. The passage of time does not establish abandonment, nor does the cessation of use.

A more salient point of law does not fall under maritime law or salvage law, but rather the international accords on the subject of historical or cultural curation. Rather than argue whether the U.S. has abandoned title to the spent stages, it is simply easier to declare them artifacts of national historical significance and cultural relevance. Whether they lie at the bottom of the sea or the top of a mountain, sovereign nations may enjoin the intrusion into artifacts deemed of historical significance to their people.

[JayUtah]

...not that that makes the slightest bit of difference to recovering the tiniest scrap of SV

I once lost a Rocketdyne H-1 thrust chamber in an ordinary building and spent the day looking for it. I can't imagine searching the ocean bottom at 5,000 meters' depth for an F-1 thrust chamber.

[echnaton]

Nice review Jay. Undertaking this kind of venture would be a business decision. The main priorities would be to analyze the risk and rewards.

The legal risks on a high profile salvage operations seem pretty well known. The value of the risks are unclear to me. The costs and challenges of winning a legal battle would need further analysis. If the web site I quoted above is accurate, then there is some president for cost of a law suit and perhaps for winning. Actual salvage costs and the chance for success could probably be reasonably well estimated.

The benefits would be another item. Just what is the value of a recovers S-V booster? I suppose that people in the space artifacts business could put some value on that. Many people (including me) would love to have a F1 engine, but it would take a pretty large foyer to put it on display. More space than is in double height entry of a typical McMansion. On the other hand they are in very limited supply an unlikely to ever go back into production, so scarcity value is their favor.

My philosophy of investing is to stay away from enterprises that are fighting with the government over a large piece of their primary business. Others choose to tackle that task, or but stock in companies that do, and are justified in any rewards they get by winning. But with outside financial backers then why not go for it.

[JayUtah]

Recall that there are two rights in play: salvage rights and ownership rights. In the case of a sovereign wreck, salvage rights are reserved to the nation, not just ownership. In other cases, one may act as salvor and obtain a salvage fee without having title to the recovered goods.

In the case of an ancient Spanish galleon in international, there is no title in force either to the vessel or to its cargo. A salvor may recover the cargo of, say, precious gold and keep it under the right of finds. He may recover also the cargo of precious straw packing material, if it survives; but I doubt he would be interested its inherent value.

In the case of the sunken vessel MS Acme Roadrunner in international waters, a private salvor may recover its cargo of hot pants, and may be entitled to the salvage fee for having done so, but he does not obtain title to the hot pants. He may possess them and/or hold them in lien until the owner pays the salvage fee. Obtaining salvage rights to the wreck is simply a matter of getting there and getting the hot pants. The Acme Corporation, as legal owners of the wreck and its cargo, may also obtain salvage rights by getting there, but may not exercise any prior restraint (e.g., in court) against voluntary, private acts of salvage.

In the case of the sunken U.S. Navy vessel USS Gunnysack sunk by enemy action in the War of Western Incredulity, no salvage rights subsist in the arrival of some private (or state) entity at the wreck site. The wreck may not be disturbed or entered without the permission of the Navy. This right is both inherent to sovereign privilege and to its likely role as the gravesite of any crew who went down with the ship. So much for salvage. Title to the wreck remains in perpetuity with the United States, divestable only by an act of Congress or the delegated act of divestiture on the part of the U.S. Navy.

However, if the Gunnysack had just been surrendered to the victor by its commanding officer as a prize of war, and then had sunk from its wounds, title to the wreck would pass to the victor of the battle and be governed by sovereign privilege in favor of the victor. Typically such titles ultimately award to the prevailing party in the war, so long as it is between sovereign nations.