Firefly Space (Formerly Firefly Aerospace)

[russianhalo117]

News: Tom Markusic is stepping down as Firefly Space
 CEO. He will transition to full-time board member and Chief Technical Advisor.

A search for a new CEO is underway. In the interim, Peter Schumacher, partner at AE Industrial Partners will serve as CEO.



https://twitter.com/payloadspace/status/1537186994932985856

That's not good.

Tom previously hinted that him being CEO would be a short term affair. Now the formality has occurred.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firefly-aerospace-ceo-tom-markusic-transitions-to-full-time-board-member-will-continue-to-serve-as-chief-technical-advisor-to-firefly-301569039.html

Firefly Aerospace CEO Tom Markusic Transitions to Full-Time Board Member; Will Continue to Serve as Chief Technical Advisor to Firefly

NEWS PROVIDED BY
Firefly Aerospace
Jun 15, 2022, 17:15 ET

Search Underway to Lead One of the Premier Providers of Launch and In-Space Vehicles

CEDAR PARK, Texas, June 15, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Firefly Aerospace ("Firefly" or the "Company"), an emerging leader in economical launch vehicles, spacecraft, and in-space services, announced today that CEO and co-founder Tom Markusic will transition from CEO to full-time board member and Chief Technical Advisor to Firefly effective tomorrow June 16, and remains a significant minority investor in the Company. Peter Schumacher, Partner at AE Industrial Partners ("AEI"), will take over CEO responsibilities in the interim, as a search for a successor is underway.

"I'm proud of the company I co-founded and built, and confident that Firefly is well positioned to seize upon the tremendous opportunities and investment in the space industry today," said Mr. Markusic. "The future for Firefly is bright, and the time is right for a new leader with the necessary skills to lead the company into its next stage of growth and development."

In March, Firefly received a $75 million Series B funding round led by AEI, a U.S-based private equity firm specializing in aerospace, defense and government services, space, power and utility services, and specialty industrial markets. The financing is providing capital for Firefly's growth, including future Alpha flights, the Blue Ghost Lunar Lander Program, and the development of additional launch and in-space solutions. AEI also completed its acquisition of a majority stake in the Company in March.

"Tom has worked tirelessly over the last eight years to start and build Firefly into the innovative company it is today, and we thank him for his vision and leadership," said Kirk Konert, Partner at AEI. "With new ownership and funding, Firefly has been reinvigorated. The Company is entering a new phase of growth, highlighted by the upcoming second launch of Alpha, Firefly's flagship launch vehicle, this summer. We are confident that we will soon find the right person to build upon this momentum and collaborate with the talented Firefly team to help the Company continue its success."

Firefly recently confirmed the expected second launch of Alpha this summer with both stages and the payload currently on site at Vandenberg, and recently completed the Integration Readiness Review (IRR) with NASA on the Blue Ghost Lunar Lander Program, paving the way for assembly of the flight vehicle. The company has also begun development of its Beta medium launch vehicle with a target introduction in 2024.

[Tomness]

News: Tom Markusic is stepping down as Firefly Space
 CEO. He will transition to full-time board member and Chief Technical Advisor.

A search for a new CEO is underway. In the interim, Peter Schumacher, partner at AE Industrial Partners will serve as CEO.


https://twitter.com/payloadspace/status/1537186994932985856

That's not good.

Tom previously hinted that him being CEO would be a short term affair. Now the formality has occurred.

Yeah,  on the eve of Astra failing again with word on the street is that Firefly sold them engines.... Don't get me wrong he could at least be their CTO like Masten did when he sold his company. It seems at wrong time.

[russianhalo117]

News: Tom Markusic is stepping down as Firefly Space
 CEO. He will transition to full-time board member and Chief Technical Advisor.

A search for a new CEO is underway. In the interim, Peter Schumacher, partner at AE Industrial Partners will serve as CEO.


https://twitter.com/payloadspace/status/1537186994932985856

That's not good.

Tom previously hinted that him being CEO would be a short term affair. Now the formality has occurred.

Yeah,  on the eve of Astra failing again with word on the street is that Firefly sold them engines.... Don't get me wrong he could at least be their CTO like Masten did when he sold his company. It seems at wrong time.

Made an agreement to sell them Reaver-X's. No flight engine transactions AFAIU have occurred between the companies to date for Rocket 4.0 except for loaned high fidelity mockup and pathfinder engines for the Rocket 4.0 pathfinder.

[TrevorMonty]

I think it's good idea, he is engineer, leave day to day managing of company to someone with better skill set. He will still have big say in company's direction.

[chopsticks]

Hopefully this isn't a bad thing, I'm not sure why it technically would be. I wish Firefly much success whoever is CEO.

[Lars-J]

I think it's good idea, he is engineer, leave day to day managing of company to someone with better skill set. He will still have big say in company's direction.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yes, but if he wanted to have have the maximum impact as an engineer, being on the board is not the place to be.

Sent from my %#$&% PLEASE TREVOR CHANGE YOUR TAPATALK SETTINGS! 

[Robert_the_Doll]

It seems that Firefly has been switching back and forth with various schemes to provide engines to themselves, then contract out engines from others (Aerojet Rocketdyne and AR1), and now sell the in-house built engines to others.

Quite an interesting and convoluted story.

[M.E.T.]

Astra being on the brink of going under means a key customer for Firefly’s engines is now doubtful, so their revenue model is under (even more) pressure than before.

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1537204522694676481

Employees were apparently told this about an hour before the news release went out. No rationale was given for Markusic’s departure. When I spoke to him a few weeks ago he was really enthusiastic about Alpha’s second flight, so this came as a surprise to me.

[Phil Stooke]

Lars-J:  "... if he wanted to have have the maximum impact as an engineer, being on the board is not the place to be."

Tweet:  "He will transition to full-time board member and Chief Technical Advisor"

CTA might be better than CEO for impact as an engineer.

[edzieba]

While a leadership shakeup is not a surprise after the forced sale from Polyakov to an investment fund, its certainly not a welcome one. It usually indicates the new owners did not buy the company to continue whatever it was doing prior to the purchase.

Astra being on the brink of going under

Astra have a half billion dollars in the bank as of Q1 2022. Astra's Q1 2022 loss was $85mn. They can operate for another year and a half at their current burn rate even without selling any further launches and whilst blowing up as many vehicles as they can build.
We know you think every small launch provider is "on the brink of going under", but just repeatedly asserting it does not make it so.

[imprezive]

While a leadership shakeup is not a surprise after the forced sale from Polyakov to an investment fund, its certainly not a welcome one. It usually indicates the new owners did not buy the company to continue whatever it was doing prior to the purchase.

Astra being on the brink of going under

Astra have a half billion dollars in the bank as of Q1 2022. Astra's Q1 2022 loss was $85mn. They can operate for another year and a half at their current burn rate even without selling any further launches and whilst blowing up as many vehicles as they can build.
We know you think every small launch provider is "on the brink of going under", but just repeatedly asserting it does not make it so.

Astra had $161M in cash and $93M in securities. A far cry from half a billion.

https://investor.astra.com/static-files/6a41061e-3754-4130-a264-7e2feeddd20a

[rsdavis9]

So somewhat off topic.
According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems

The only small, new, private, usa launchers that have made it to orbit are:
rocket lab (electron) - 26
virgin orbit (launcher one) - 4
astra (rocket 3.2) - 3
firefly (alpha) - 1

The number is orbital launches including failures.
Maybe there is a different thread to keep track? Lots of upcoming. (as always)

[Comga]

So somewhat off topic.
According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems

The only small, new, private, usa launchers that have made it to orbit are:
rocket lab (electron) - 26
virgin orbit (launcher one) - 4
astra (rocket 3.2) - 3
firefly (alpha) - 1

The number is orbital launches including failures.
Maybe there is a different thread to keep track? Lots of upcoming. (as always)

You can try this new small launcher thread.

Or start your own with all the statistics you want in an updatable first post like the SpaceX Manifest.

[AnalogMan]

NASA is to negotiate a VADR contract with Firefly.

https://sam.gov/opp/e4490eb5703041f19289ff9a52240032/view

Notice of Intent to Sole Source
Notice ID 80KSC022NOI01
Jul 01, 2022

NASA/Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has a requirement in support of the Launch Services Program (LSP) for a small-lift launch vehicle capable of delivering dedicated payloads under the Venture-Class Acquisition of Dedicated and Rideshare (VADR) Launch Services contract for missions requiring launch by 2024. The VADR contract is a multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract through which KSC is establishing an industrial base of launch vehicles for a variety of NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads with requirements to reach a variety of orbits including escape.  Within the contract, launch vehicle capabilities for dedicated launch services can be subdivided into the following three capability groupings:  below 500 kg, 500-1000 kg, and above 1,000 kg.  Under each grouping, NASA has a need to have multiple providers capable of providing a cost-effective dedicated launch service to meet spacecraft requirements over the next several years.

For the 500-1,000 kg grouping, there are only two known providers expected to have a launch vehicle in place to support missions through 2024; however, only one of these providers is on the VADR contract.  Accordingly, NASA LSP intends to enter sole source negotiations to establish a VADR IDIQ contract with Firefly Black, LLC (Firefly) in order to satisfy the need for multiple providers for spacecraft in the 500-1,000 kg grouping.  Firefly is the only launch vehicle provider in this grouping that has completed development and conducted its first test launch of their Alpha Launch Vehicle. The need for multiple providers in this grouping is further compounded by the fact that all of the launch vehicles in this range are under development and a single failure, with only one provider on contract, will detract from NASA’s ability to successfully fly existing and near future missions.

[niwax]

I know it's just an artifact of the way these contracts work, but something about sole-sourcing for multiple providers just tickles me.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1549008068540776448

Some highlights:

- Launch scheduled for late August or early September, pending licensing and range availability;
- Firefly being added to NASA VADR contract now that it’s under new ownership;
- Hope to have new CEO in place by mid-August.

https://spacenews.com/firefly-gears-up-for-second-alpha-launch/

Note that the 2nd launch has its own thread.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1549511265122500610

🚀 Progress on Alpha Flight 3, our @NASA VCLS-2 mission.  Stage 2 being lifted onto our test stand in Briggs, TX,  in preparation for acceptance testing. This mission includes NASA's first demonstration of autonomous swam technologies. ow.ly/yYEp50JZF1f

[trimeta]

I just noticed that Firefly uploaded a new Payload User's Guide back in April, but something confuses me: both on page four of that document and on the main Firefly Alpha website, the payload to a 500 km SSO is listed at 745kg. Which is greater than was previously reported, but the first-stage thrust seems to have gone up too, so maybe that's intentional. Except, on page six of the Payload User's Guide, we get a diagram of payload masses to various orbits, and it looks like Alpha is carrying only around 645kg to 500km SSO -- only slightly more than the 630kg previously reported. The plot also shows lower-than-promised payload to a 200km mid-inclination orbit: Rather than 1,170kg, as promised on page four and on the website, it seems that launching due east from the Cape only gives 1,020kg (admittedly, still higher than the old value of 1,000kg).

Of course, there's a simple answer here: Whatever improvement occurred with first-stage thrust, these plots weren't updated to reflect it. I compared with the August 2019 edition of the PUG (which I had lying around), and while the plots were definitely redrawn with new colors and fonts, they do seem to contain the same information. I don't suppose anyone has a contact at Firefly whom they could nudge to release a "version 3.2" of the PUG with the actually-updated plots?