Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2023 12:28 amI actually think Firefly has a good shot of survival because they're providing the first stage for the new Antares. Northrop Grumman would buy their assets in the worst case.Personally, I think "get acquired by Northrop Grumman" is also their best case.
I actually think Firefly has a good shot of survival because they're providing the first stage for the new Antares. Northrop Grumman would buy their assets in the worst case.
Quote from: trimeta on 03/31/2023 12:41 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2023 12:28 amI actually think Firefly has a good shot of survival because they're providing the first stage for the new Antares. Northrop Grumman would buy their assets in the worst case.Personally, I think "get acquired by Northrop Grumman" is also their best case.Tend to disagree that being merged with ineffective engineering organization (you heard me northrop) is anyone's best case.I also don't think firefly is on death's doorstep after being killed once in 2016 and almost again by CIFIUS, there is a lot of fight there while also quietly outperforming every other small company besides (to date at least) rocketlabs, who is ahead of everyone. Can't predict anyone's future but coming off huge contract wins and also orbital insertion is pretty different than most competitors (granted not the target orbit but compare that to others in their weight class blowing up right off the pad or flying a nose cone and a dual burn flight + payload deployment is actually pretty aggressive and impressive even if it fails to achieve the target orbit) My perspective is that this is exactly how you want to fail, fail learning forward, don't build a nosecone and try nothing. We'll see how this ages but I like firefly's odds over the next couple years.
Firefly Alpha lost an engine 15 seconds into its first flight which led to a loss of control at max q, although I don't think the vehicle had sufficient engine-out capabilities to have reached orbit even if it had remained in control. It wasn't until the second flight when it reached (an) orbit. Now, 15 seconds is over four seconds longer than RS1's first launch went before failure (in their case, a fire in the avionics bay), but Firefly's outcome was more similar to this than to the first Terran 1 launch, which proceeded entirely through the boost phase and only failed on second-stage ignition.Since neither RS1 nor Terran 1 have had a second launch, it seems premature to say that both of them are significantly behind in terms of engineering (relative to their pace as companies): "At least Firefly got to orbit, which is more than ABL or Relativity can say" is kind of missing the point when Firefly has tried twice. Yes, this does mean Firefly is ahead temporally, and that does have advantages (like the Victus Nox contract), but unless they run out of money, there's no reason to think ABL or Relativity won't get to where Firefly is now.As for being acquired by Northrop, I don't think it's as terrible a fate as you make out. Orbital ATK was likewise acquired, and merged into Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (now Northrop Grumman Space Systems), but Cygnus and Antares are still flying. When the war in Ukraine made Antares' first stage unfeasible, Northrop could have said "we gave launch a good go, but it's obviously not working; let's just subcontract to SpaceX forever." They didn't: instead, they decided to work with Firefly on a new first stage for Antares. Northrop is also explicitly called out as working with Firefly on MLV. I expect that post-acquisition, that would continue: Antares 330 will prove out the Miranda-based first stage, and MLV (maybe renamed Antares 340?) will be a version with a liquid-fueled upper stage and a reusable first stage. The engineers of Firefly will be able to build the rocket they want, with the financial backing of Northrop.
I'd agree that relativity had a better flight 1 than firefly but I would reject the flight 1 failures of RS-1 and alpha as being directly comparable, in the industry clearing the pad and your GSE is very important and failure to do so is considered the worst possible type of failure. Alpha did clear the pad and as a result gathered a lot more flight data even if it was in fact already doomed.
You can see the progress we are making on developing the Medium Launch Vehicle when you drive up to our 200-arce Rocket Ranch in Briggs, TX. As our production facilities have doubled in size, from 95,000 to nearly 200,000 sq. ft
In these new buildings, teams will manufacture the 1st and 2nd stage MLV structures by using Auto Fiber placement technologies, cutting production time from weeks to days!
Concurrently we are adding two unique test stands - for structure testing and a multi-bay engine stand to hot fire test the powerful Miranda engine.Hats off to this hard-working team for adding the final beam to the frame ahead of building completion this summer.
Blue Ghost Mission 1 Update: The team is making incredible progress on our Spectre thrusters – designed and built in-house. We’ve completed 400+ seconds of runtime and 3,000+ starts on our combustion chamber at @MoogSDG facilities ahead of final engine qualification this summer.
Firefly expects its two-stage medium vehicle, projected to lift 16,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit.
The company said in a statement to SpaceNews that it has built development hardware and testing is underway for the MLV’s propellant tank ahead of a structure critical design review planned in May. Firefly says it has developed multiple chamber and turbopump parts for the MLV Miranda engines. The first Miranda hot fire is planned for this summer.
Something's up with Firefly Aerospace, or at least with the firefly.com domain. This morning the website had the usual stuff. Tonight the domain is for sale. Their Twitter account still has it as the link.
Quote from: Ken the Bin on 04/26/2023 04:39 amSomething's up with Firefly Aerospace, or at least with the firefly.com domain. This morning the website had the usual stuff. Tonight the domain is for sale. Their Twitter account still has it as the link.Not sure what is going on. The expiry date on the domain is 2030-05-29 with the domain registry information last updated on 2021-08-31. Firefly does have another domain https://fireflyspace.com/ which is working.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 04/26/2023 07:47 amQuote from: Ken the Bin on 04/26/2023 04:39 amSomething's up with Firefly Aerospace, or at least with the firefly.com domain. This morning the website had the usual stuff. Tonight the domain is for sale. Their Twitter account still has it as the link.Not sure what is going on. The expiry date on the domain is 2030-05-29 with the domain registry information last updated on 2021-08-31. Firefly does have another domain https://fireflyspace.com/ which is working.Apparently they started redirecting https://firefly.com/ to https://fireflyspace.com/ back in January. (I'm surprised I didn't notice.)They should have changed the link in their Twitter bio.
That's such a small difference. I guess that their spaceplane is cancelled then.
Quote from: lightleviathan on 04/26/2023 07:30 pmThat's such a small difference. I guess that their spaceplane is cancelled then.The vehicle they used to call Gamma? I think that's been gone for a while...although see my earlier note about taking what their website does and doesn't say as gospel...
Quote from: trimeta on 04/26/2023 07:45 pmQuote from: lightleviathan on 04/26/2023 07:30 pmThat's such a small difference. I guess that their spaceplane is cancelled then.The vehicle they used to call Gamma? I think that's been gone for a while...although see my earlier note about taking what their website does and doesn't say as gospel...Yep. It's been gone since the website got updated though, so that might not be the reason
