SpaceX F9 : Starlink 5 (v1.0 L4) : Feb. 17, 2020 : Master Thread

[ZachS09]

Looks like they another one to sink at sea... 
I hope this time they got a better plan besides running it over with a boat out of Bermuda... 

And it’s highly likely that B1056 is done for. I don’t think there’s a way to refurbish it because of the saltwater exposure.

[envy887]

I feared that when the piece broke loose from the grid fin.

That exact same thing fell of on CRS-16, I was feeling like it was gonna fail and I worry the grid fins failed again

I seem to recall that a ring-shaped thing floating off the grid fin area with some regularity, and not being related to landing success.

[MKremer]

T+6 minuets. Everything is looking awesome!

Darnit, Steven!  lol

[yokem55]

Looks like they another one to sink at sea... 
I hope this time they got a better plan besides running it over with a boat out of Bermuda... 

And it’s highly likely that B1056 is done for. I don’t think there’s a way to refurbish it because of the saltwater exposure.

If the sea isn't too rough they might get the grid fins back before scuttling the rest of it.

[ZachS09]

Looks like they another one to sink at sea... 
I hope this time they got a better plan besides running it over with a boat out of Bermuda... 

And it’s highly likely that B1056 is done for. I don’t think there’s a way to refurbish it because of the saltwater exposure.

If the sea isn't too rough they might get the grid fins back before scuttling the rest of it.

So they can’t tow it back?

[joseph.a.navin]

I feared that when the piece broke loose from the grid fin.

That exact same thing fell of on CRS-16, I was feeling like it was gonna fail and I worry the grid fins failed again

I seem to recall that a ring-shaped thing floating off the grid fin area with some regularity, and not being related to landing success.

I saw the same thing! It was just prior entry burn.

[.Scott]

Something tiny separated from the 1st stage booster at T+3:46 (screen left).  Then something a bit larger separated at t+4:22.
At about T+5:10, a loop can be seen from that same area.  It separates from the booster and drifts away at about T+6:00.

[M.E.T.]

From the overall Starlink campaign perspective, how much money does this failed landing cost Spacex? $30m booster, 4th flight.

Assuming a $10m refurbishment cost, is the loss equivalent to the $20m difference between refurbishment and new booster construction? Or, if that new booster eventually flies 5 times, then do you spread that $20m over 5 flights, meaning only $4m loss to SpaceX from this missed landing?

Or do you look at depreciated value and say this was a $30m booster, intended to depreciate by 10% per flight over 10 flights, so it was 40% depreciated, meaning still worth $18m?

Gets confusing after a while, to me at least.

[TorenAltair]

From the overall Starlink campaign perspective, how much money does this failed landing cost Spacex? $30m booster, 4th flight.

Assuming a $10m refurbishment cost, is the loss equivalent to the $20m difference between refurbishment and new booster construction? Or, if that new booster eventually flies 5 times, then do you spread that $20m over 5 flights, meaning only $4m loss to SpaceX from this missed landing?

Gets confusing after a while, to me at least.

I think you would only need to factor in a new booster if you don't have enough available. So the cost I would say is actually zero as there are imo enough boosters available. Perhaps the costs for the grid fins.

Regarding the grid fins: does anybody has an approximate mass for those things?

[MKremer]

Accounting-wise, most of the booster value has probably been amortized already.

[HVM]

I feared that when the piece broke loose from the grid fin.

That exact same thing fell of on CRS-16, I was feeling like it was gonna fail and I worry the grid fins failed again

Yes I don't try either claim anything but:

[niwax]

Looks like they another one to sink at sea... 
I hope this time they got a better plan besides running it over with a boat out of Bermuda... 

And it’s highly likely that B1056 is done for. I don’t think there’s a way to refurbish it because of the saltwater exposure.

If the sea isn't too rough they might get the grid fins back before scuttling the rest of it.

So they can’t tow it back?

I would not expect them to over a few hundred miles of sea. Even at full speed the barge takes days to return, with something in tow would be even slower. If it even survived, you'd get a core that's spent days in salt water.

Let's just hope here is no thruster damage on the barge, it looked like it was far enough away to not be too bad.

[MKremer]

Possibly the barge goes back home while the other support vessel waits for a salvage crew.

[abaddon]

Let's just hope here is no thruster damage on the barge, it looked like it was far enough away to not be too bad.

It was a soft landing.  Unless the booster was close enough to fall on the drone ship (in which case it wouldn't be intact), why would it hurt anything?

It's kinda crazy how good they've gotten at landing boosters that this feels like a surprise.  Hopefully the can get good data out of it and find/fix whatever happened.

[quagmire]

I feared that when the piece broke loose from the grid fin.

That exact same thing fell of on CRS-16, I was feeling like it was gonna fail and I worry the grid fins failed again

Yes I don't try either claim anything but:

We have seen that plenty of times. Just ice that formed over the vents.....

Note where the liquid O2 is venting right above the grid fin is exactly where that ice ring came off from your screenshot above the grid fin.....

[su27k]

From the overall Starlink campaign perspective, how much money does this failed landing cost Spacex? $30m booster, 4th flight.

Assuming a $10m refurbishment cost, is the loss equivalent to the $20m difference between refurbishment and new booster construction? Or, if that new booster eventually flies 5 times, then do you spread that $20m over 5 flights, meaning only $4m loss to SpaceX from this missed landing?

Or do you look at depreciated value and say this was a $30m booster, intended to depreciate by 10% per flight over 10 flights, so it was 40% depreciated, meaning still worth $18m?

Gets confusing after a while, to me at least.

Depends on how they accounted for the $30M initial cost in previous missions. If they amortize the $30M over 10 missions, this means they just lost $18M, but it would also mean the first flight of the booster only costs $3M and the 2nd/3rd/4th only costs $13M. On the other hand, if they fully amortized the $30M cost in previous missions, for example accounted for it in the first CRS mission, then this booster is basically free and they lost nothing.

So the concept of "loss" is relative, what matters is they spent $30M + $30M = $60M and got 4 uses of the booster, so average cost of the booster for each flight is $15M. If they were able to make 10 uses of it, the average cost would be $12M, the difference is not that big, since the refurbishment cost dominates  in this case.

[CorvusCorax]

Like with any "mishap" there is "value" in the data gained. Whatever caused this booster to miss the barge, they now have one more unexpected data point that will likely make F9 better and more reliable (and maybe Starship, too)

The long term value of this data might surpass the hardware value significantly.

This might actually be a good reason to tug the booster back to shore, to have a good look at it. Even if it won't ever fly again and costs them hundreds of thousands of not millions extra to do so.

[Exci]

Was that an aircraft in the S1 feed around 3:43 elapsed time lasting ~10 seconds? 

[cyloncat]

Aside from amortization and accounting, they will need a replacement booster sooner than otherwise. So that impacts production planning and cash flow, since a new booster is definitely not free.

[nuukee]

Was that an aircraft in the S1 feed around 3:43 elapsed time lasting ~10 seconds?

Very likely a piece of ice falling off, just like that ring.