Author Topic: Introducing Firefly Space Systems  (Read 340696 times)

Offline Beittil

Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #320 on: 01/12/2015 07:53 am »
It is an openly admitted fact by NASA anyway that they are willing to put down a little more tax payer money for some proven/legacy tech!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #322 on: 02/04/2015 05:44 pm »
NasaWatch is tweeting right now from FAACST2015:

NASA Watch ‏@NASAWatch  8m
Tom Markusic - what is going on now is bigger than @SpaceX #faacst2015

NASA Watch ‏@NASAWatch  7m
Tom Markusic says that there is a lot of need right now for a Falcon 1 class rocket #faacst2015

NASA Watch ‏@NASAWatch  4m
Tom Markusic our goal is to get to space as soon as possible - very low cost, mass produced launch vehicle at FIrefly #faacst2015

NASA Watch ‏@NASAWatch  3m
Tom Markusic: None of the technology in Firefly rocket is new - someone else has already used this. We've been at this for 1 yr #faacst2015

NASA Watch ‏@NASAWatch  2m
Firefly is pressure-fed, aerospike vehicle using carbon composite structures #faacst2015
« Last Edit: 02/04/2015 05:44 pm by Lars-J »

Offline fthomassy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Austin, Texas, Earth, Sol, Orion, Milky-Way, Virgo, Bang 42
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 2952
gyatm . . . Fern

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #324 on: 02/24/2015 09:53 pm »
https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/42456-real-conversations-how-firefly-ceo-tom-markusic-is-changing-the-parad

Enjoy!

Don't you actually have to change the paradigm before you can talk about how you are changing the paradigm? I wish them well, but so far there is a lot of talk and not a lot to show for it.

When can we expect to see some hardware components being tested?

Offline Beittil

Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #325 on: 02/25/2015 07:21 am »
Hmm, to bad it doesn't really have any new information on where they are technically. How is the development going, when can we expect to see machined parts being tested, how is the selection for a launch site going, etc...

Offline bstrong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 454
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #326 on: 02/26/2015 04:01 pm »
I've been pondering possible sources of funding for Firefly lately and thought I'd share my conclusions:

I think it will be very challenging for Firefly to secure venture funding. Despite their reputation as risk takers, VC's are generally quite wary of capital-intensive businesses with uncertain payoffs over a long time horizon. Especially ones started by unproven entrepreneurs. They will, however, all happily take meetings with Firefly in order to learn about the smallsat market. I hope Markusic isn't wasting too much time pitching to them.

That said, I think there are a number of entities that would invest for strategic reasons, even absent a clear business model. A few general categories:

1) Google's competitors, who, after the Google-SpaceX deal want to make sure they have a launch partner in case they decide to build their own constellation. Someone like Facebook might do this purely for option value, even if they have no concrete plans today. If they did have concrete plans, they could effectively bring their own market.

2) Commercial satellite operators who want to help grow a low-cost competitor to SpaceX, so they aren't forced to buy launch services from a competitor. They will be more interested in the follow-on vehicle than the the F1-class launcher, but they may find a way to throw some small payloads Firefly's way, both to help them get off the ground and as a way to start gaining direct experience with smallsats, so they are prepared in the eventuality that they turn out to be a competitive threat to their core businesses.

3) An aerospace company (i.e., Boeing/LM) who knows they are incapable of building a low-cost vehicle internally but would like to have the option of acquiring one if it is successful. Again, probably more interested in follow-on vehicles, but everyone knows you have to start somewhere.

4) An ego-driven, space-crazed billionaire who wants to be mentioned in the same sentence as Elon. There are a surprising number of these in the world.

In order to attract one of these types of investors, the main thing Markusic needs to do is prove that he and his team have the technical chops to pull off what he is promising, which is hopefully an easier problem than proving that a market for an F1-class launcher exists.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #327 on: 02/26/2015 04:17 pm »
I think Firefly has a chance, if they can execute.

There is a significant (though small) market in the Falcon 1/1e and Minotaur range. It's a challenge to compete there, but I it's not impossible.

And long-term (12+ years), even if everything goes SpaceX's way and SpaceX dominates the market (BFR, MCT, maybe a mini-BFR to replace Falcon Heavy, Mega-Constellation, etc), SpaceX may even abandon the Delta II payload class, leaving opportunity for a fully reusable rocket in that range. Nobody knows for sure, but in order to take advantage of opportunities like that, you have to be around and competing.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Beittil

Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #328 on: 02/27/2015 09:21 am »
Update from their Facebook page:

Quote
Our recently installed Liquid Oxygen storage tank at the test site — in Briggs, Texas.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #329 on: 02/27/2015 08:53 pm »
The Briggs test site is only 200 acres, and reportedly is adjacent to U.S. Highway 183 and near County Road 210 (possibly just southwest of that intersection).  That seems quite close to Briggs itself, and to other neighbors.  I wonder why they settled in so close to other people in a state so big?  My guess is that the neighbors won't be happy, although their primary concerns voiced to date have been about water use.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/27/2015 08:56 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #330 on: 02/27/2015 09:15 pm »
Makes logistics easier. People don't always bring bag lunches.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #331 on: 02/28/2015 05:18 am »
https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/42456-real-conversations-how-firefly-ceo-tom-markusic-is-changing-the-parad

I finally watched this video, and apparently they are targeting one launch a week.  :o To be fair he did mention that they could be profitable doing less. But still - that's a lot. Call be a skeptic, but yes I am skeptical, and will continue to be so until they launch something.

There appears to be no mention of reusability of either stage, so I guess they are betting on being able to produce a lots of cheap expendable rockets.

Is there any word on a launch site? If you plan on capturing most of the launch market for this light class payloads, I would presume that you need a launch site where you can launch to a lot of orbits from. Wallops might be interested in another user. Otherwise I guess they can try to wrangle a pad from Space Florida/KSC/CCAFS. I don't see how a Texas launch site (near Boca Chica?) would provide the support the kind of orbits their customers would need.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 05:21 am by Lars-J »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #332 on: 02/28/2015 02:51 pm »
They have mentioned they intend to pursue reusability.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #333 on: 03/09/2015 11:09 pm »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #334 on: 03/11/2015 06:15 am »
http://www.fireflyspace.com/newblog

Interesting.

They seem to be saying the right things.  Not much in the way of differentiators from SpaceX, though.

One difference from SpaceX is that they plan to fly their first stage sub-orbitally before putting a second stage on it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #335 on: 03/11/2015 06:27 am »
One difference from SpaceX is that they plan to fly their first stage sub-orbitally before putting a second stage on it.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Sounds like an easy way to get flight experience.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #336 on: 03/11/2015 06:34 am »
From Tom's blog:

Quote
Development milestones for Firefly’s first vehicle are: full-scale core propulsion and structures technology demonstration, first stage ground test, sub-orbital first stage flight test, second stage ground test, full vehicle orbital flight test.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #337 on: 03/11/2015 07:13 am »
Thanks, I missed that!
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #338 on: 03/11/2015 10:48 am »
They seem to be saying the right things.  Not much in the way of differentiators from SpaceX, though.
I think it is pretty deliberate. Use what worked for SpaceX. For example, they want to make expandable first, partially reusable later too.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline fthomassy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Austin, Texas, Earth, Sol, Orion, Milky-Way, Virgo, Bang 42
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 2952
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #339 on: 03/11/2015 03:17 pm »
Thanks, I missed that!
Yeah ... where's a S#!+ Tom says site when you need one :D
gyatm . . . Fern

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1