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

[abaddon]

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.

I doubt their plan assumes a 100% successful recovery rate.

[M.E.T.]

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.

Yeah the cash flow impact is what really matters for them in the near term. But wasn’t it said in the recent private SpaceX talk that got taken down from Youtube that they have something like a dozen boosters just hanging around waiting to be used?

[su27k]

According to Celestrak pre-launch TLEs derived from SpaceX data, nominal direct insertion elliptical orbit would be 220/393km/53°.
Another difference, no NOTMAR/MOTAMs Hazard Area for Stage2 Debris Reentry issued for this launch.

Looks like they're skipping stage 2 deorbit burn, fits what was said on livestream that stage 2 will be made passive and deorbit in a few months. Probably to save more landing fuel for stage 1.

[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:

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.....

Can you show a screen caps. or time stamp of those occurrences? I watched (2 x speed) previous daytime launches of CRS and StarLinks and didn't catch *rings in them. Plenty of flat ice condensation but not rings with 'leaking icicles'.

_{* Job for Sonic}

[DistantTemple]

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.

The grid finds are very expensive, they will want to recover them.

Yes that's what I thought, and what I thought EM had said a couple of years back.
However the current price of Titanium is low.... or very low. Its hard to get a reliable figure but $9K per tonne for "US Sponge" is an indication. So the metal is not worth a great deal of risk to recover.
Then there is the manufacture. EM proudly talked about the forging process, and how grid fins were likely the largest Titanium castings worldwide. So there is likely quite a cost there... but would it reach millions! or even $1M I doubt it. (Marginal cost of manufacture). They would have to be recovered in a reusable condition to be worth the effort... so no heavy smashing against the side of a ship etc. At least they are resistant to salt water.

[AndrewRG10]

I'm starting to feel 2017 was a fluke for landing successes. 2016 had 3 failures, 2018 had 2, 2019 had 1 and 2020 has had 1 so far. I guess landings just really are hard, and 2018/19 were not flukes, they were the norm. Which sucks cause 2017 was an awesome year of no loss of payload or booster, reused boosters 5 times for the first time and FH was on the pad.

[A12]

Any word about fairings recovery?

[meekGee]

I'm starting to feel 2017 was a fluke for landing successes. 2016 had 4 failures, 2018 had 2, 2019 had 1 and 2020 has had 1 so far. I guess landings just really are hard, and 2018/19 were not flukes, they were the norm. Which sucks cause 2017 was an awesome year of no loss of payload or booster, reused boosters 5 times for the first time and FH was on the pad.

I don't think we'll ever find out...

[whitelancer64]

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.

The grid finds are very expensive, they will want to recover them.

Yes that's what I thought, and what I thought EM had said a couple of years back.
However the current price of Titanium is low.... or very low. Its hard to get a reliable figure but $9K per tonne for "US Sponge" is an indication. So the metal is not worth a great deal of risk to recover.
Then there is the manufacture. EM proudly talked about the forging process, and how grid fins were likely the largest Titanium castings worldwide. So there is likely quite a cost there... but would it reach millions! or even $1M I doubt it. (Marginal cost of manufacture). They would have to be recovered in a reusable condition to be worth the effort... so no heavy smashing against the side of a ship etc. At least they are resistant to salt water.

Reports of the initial cost of the titanium grid fins put them at about $1 million, the most expensive single part on the Falcon 9. Cost comes from both the casting and post-cast machining of the grid fins, which isn't easy. Plus they're massive. I have no doubt that their production methods have been refined, reducing costs, but they are likely still quite expensive.

[flexbuffchest]

I'm starting to feel 2017 was a fluke for landing successes. 2016 had 4 failures, 2018 had 2, 2019 had 1 and 2020 has had 1 so far. I guess landings just really are hard, and 2018/19 were not flukes, they were the norm. Which sucks cause 2017 was an awesome year of no loss of payload or booster, reused boosters 5 times for the first time and FH was on the pad.

This has me worried about SS. Any human rated SS has to be a lot more reliable.

[DistantTemple]

I'm starting to feel 2017 was a fluke for landing successes. 2016 had 4 failures, 2018 had 2, 2019 had 1 and 2020 has had 1 so far. I guess landings just really are hard, and 2018/19 were not flukes, they were the norm. Which sucks cause 2017 was an awesome year of no loss of payload or booster, reused boosters 5 times for the first time and FH was on the pad.

This has me worried about SS. Any human rated SS has to be a lot more reliable.

Yes.... however, if this F9 had somehow been carrying humans (Yes I know they absolutely can't), they would almost certainly have survived unscathed. A controlled water ditching, is what the D2 does anyway! Also we don't know if the (non-) divert to water landing as a safety measure to protect the drone ship, was actually necessary. It will have been because the landing was off-nominal, but how off, we don't know. Was it rotating, unable to sufficiently control its "flight", was there an issue with the engines, or fuel?
And of course this is a "secondary" desired outcome, not a critical part of a HSF mision.

[A12]

... fins put them at about $1 million, the most expensive single part on the Falcon 9.

Really?
How much for a Merlin engine?

[whitelancer64]

... fins put them at about $1 million, the most expensive single part on the Falcon 9.

Really?
How much for a Merlin engine?

"some fraction of a million dollars"

https://zlsadesign.com/post/tom-mueller-interview-2017-05-02-transcription/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Launch photo from SpaceX website

[Elthiryel]

This has me worried about SS. Any human rated SS has to be a lot more reliable.

They said at the beginning of the webcast that this landing will be more challenging because of different flight profile (with direct orbital insertion). I highly doubt the risky flight and landing profile would ever be used for any of their crewed flights.

[jcm]

Map of Launch Hazard Areas of this mission, according to issued NOTMAR/MOTAM messages.

B1056.4 droneship landing as usual 629km downrange, based on issued FCC application.
Orange Area B shorter than in previous Starlink launches. Fairing recovery vessels stationed ~700km downrange (~50km closer than last time, as the fairing deployment is 14sec earlier).

According to Celestrak pre-launch TLEs derived from SpaceX data, nominal direct insertion elliptical orbit would be 220/393km/53°.
Another difference, no NOTMAR/MOTAMs Hazard Area for Stage2 Debris Reentry issued for this launch.

If there were a stage 2 deorbit, it might be in the Atlantic or Indian oceans instead of the usual location - are we sure there
wasn't one?

[Elthiryel]

If there were a stage 2 deorbit, it might be in the Atlantic or Indian oceans instead of the usual location - are we sure there
wasn't one?

There were no NOTAMs published and I'm pretty sure they said during the webcast (some time after satellite separation I believe) that stage 2 will only be passivated and not actively deorbited.

EDIT: Go to 24:15 in the webcast for that piece of information.

[acsawdey]

If there were a stage 2 deorbit, it might be in the Atlantic or Indian oceans instead of the usual location - are we sure there
wasn't one?

There were no NOTAMs published and I'm pretty sure they said during the webcast (some time after satellite separation I believe) that stage 2 will only be passivated and not actively deorbited.

EDIT: Go to 24:15 in the webcast for that piece of information.

Maybe they can get away with that because of the low perigee? Also it seems like this minimizes the lifetime of those separation rods as well as any starlink satellites that don't get their solar panel deployed and Krypton-ion engines online right away.

[jcm]

If there were a stage 2 deorbit, it might be in the Atlantic or Indian oceans instead of the usual location - are we sure there
wasn't one?

There were no NOTAMs published and I'm pretty sure they said during the webcast (some time after satellite separation I believe) that stage 2 will only be passivated and not actively deorbited.

EDIT: Go to 24:15 in the webcast for that piece of information.

Yes,  "the stage will be passivated and be safely deorbited (sic) within months". Ok, so uncontrolled reentry after natural decay.
I think that's acceptable with this low perigee, although one might have concerns giving the high launch rate.

[anof]

I'm starting to feel 2017 was a fluke for landing successes. 2016 had 4 failures, 2018 had 2, 2019 had 1 and 2020 has had 1 so far. I guess landings just really are hard, and 2018/19 were not flukes, they were the norm. Which sucks cause 2017 was an awesome year of no loss of payload or booster, reused boosters 5 times for the first time and FH was on the pad.

This has me worried about SS. Any human rated SS has to be a lot more reliable.

Elon has said that F9 landings are not a primary mission and do not have a lot of system redundancy. For SS, landing will be mission critical so there will be more redundancy built in.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1070388894875545600

Pump is single string. Some landing systems are not redundant, as landing is considered ground safety critical, but not mission critical. Given this event, we will likely add a backup pump & lines.