Flying dutchman Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 The booster had already been used 4 times so the loss isn't that great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 32 minutes ago, ExtremeSquared said: Not really that cut and dry. The whole point of starlink is ultra low satellite cost and losing a booster increases that whether it's this one or the next one. Launch cost is already below 30M$ (that one talk that was on YT then disappeared said 28M, all in). Yeah, cost increases slightly, it's still far cheaper than any competitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 So 1 engine shut down early, and the remaining 8 burned a little longer to compensate. That puts the stage farther downrange. Entry burn could have been nominal, but ASDS is no longer in position. Wonder if it soft landed. They said 10s entry burn, I counted longer than that (one Mississippi style). Maybe it was trying to get it to the target location, and just couldn't do it? Fairings almost certainly took a swim as well (soft landing, hopefully). Same drill, they went farther downrange due to later MECO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 cut of the engine flameout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimumSky5 Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 If that was an engine failure, it looks like they lost the centre engine, given that the plume still looked mostly symmetrical after the anomoly. Probably reason for booster loss, given that they land the boosters on the centre engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, MinimumSky5 said: If that was an engine failure, it looks like they lost the centre engine, given that the plume still looked mostly symmetrical after the anomoly. Probably reason for booster loss, given that they land the boosters on the centre engine? The explosion/leak looks kind of asymmetric, though. Edited March 18, 2020 by Wjolcz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 There was a ton of roll following termination of entry burn shutdown, much more than typical. Grid fins working overtime. If the engine that shutdown ended up fragging, then it's possible that produced an aerodynamic asymmetry on re-entry that messed with stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 2 hours ago, tater said: Fifth use, and the first customer paid for it I could say that my car is 15 years old, so it's already earned its cost back. That doesn't mean if I crash it tomorrow that I don't lose anything. The relevant cost here is not what the booster cost back when it was first flown, but the need now to use a different booster on the next mission that otherwise would have used this landed booster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: The relevant cost here is not what the booster cost back when it was first flown, but the need now to use a different booster on the next mission that otherwise would have used this landed booster. I seriously doubt they had definite plans for B1048.6 as of this morning. Each life leader gets extensive reinspection before it's assigned to any upcoming mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 28 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: I seriously doubt they had definite plans for B1048.6 as of this morning. Each life leader gets extensive reinspection before it's assigned to any upcoming mission. I don't have definite plans for my car tomorrow. That's not the point. Sunk costs are sunk costs. The cost of losing a booster is due to the loss of future opportunities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 23 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Sunk costs are sunk costs. The cost of losing a booster is due to the loss of future opportunities. Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 (edited) This looks like today's batch? Will be visible from central Poland, if anyone's curious. Scratch that. They are from Januray. Edit: couldn't spot any of them. Edited March 18, 2020 by Wjolcz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Have SpaceX made any statements about whether this booster would have been used again, had it landed successfully? IIRC in the past, at least once they've announced ahead of time that a flight would be a particular booster's last, even if recovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngrybobH Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 At least they don't have to pay for the booster to be refurbished. I wonder what that costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 B1049 is the current flight leader that's still active, with 4 flights done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 (edited) I wasn't able to catch the launch live because of school, but oof, this launch didn't go too well. RIP B1048, you certainly paid for yourself... Did we get any more info on why the engine failed? I'd be interested to know its position in the octaweb as well. Presumably the remaining 8 engines had to burn for longer, so the booster missed OCISLY. Edited March 18, 2020 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: I wasn't able to catch the launch live because of school, but oof, this launch didn't go too well. RIP B1048, you certainly paid for yourself... Did we get any more info on why the engine failed? I'd be interested to know its position in the octaweb as well. Presumably the remaining 8 engines had to burn for longer, so the booster missed OCISLY. Basically, yes. The amount of excess propellant required was small, but MECO was ~10s late as a result, so it was ~21km farther downrange for all future events (typical stage sep seems to be around 2.1km/s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 22 minutes ago, tater said: Basically, yes. The amount of excess propellant required was small, but MECO was ~10s late as a result, so it was ~21km farther downrange for all future events (typical stage sep seems to be around 2.1km/s). a 10 secs more acceleration is way more than 21km downrange, you can see this in ksp too, it is more likely 60-80km more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 the way i see it the launch was succesfull in completing it's objective. the satelites were injected into the right orbit. the landing was a failure. but this seems to confuse some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 6 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said: the way i see it the launch was succesfull in completing it's objective. the satelites were injected into the right orbit. the landing was a failure. but this seems to confuse some people. Yes, the mission was successful but the recovery failed. This is disappointing but it’s another set of data points. SpaceX is in uncharted territory yet again, after Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Starlink is an extremely heavy payload as well. Can't have helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.