Firefly Space : Company and Development General Thread

[JEF_300]

I think we oversell the "culture" aspect because it makes for a good narrative. The comments here reek of revisionist history.

In particular it's a more palatable narrative than the "space is hard" trope. Sometimes a little luck goes a long way. For all we know losing the nozzle is a remote failure scenario that happened to materialize, in the absence of which the rocket would have been a resounding success. We also don't know how close to failure Blue Ghost came - very possible that it too experienced anomalies that simply never escalated to the point of mission failure.

All in all, unless there's actual evidence to this end, I hesitate to throw out baseless speculation on culture or people being responsible for this. Sometimes you take your best shot and you strike out.

Sure... but obviously, luck is not the ONLY thing that matters, right? So I guess my question is, how many failures does it take before we start talking about real factors instead of luck? The rocket has a 33% success rate, and currently has an average flight rate of 1.5 times a year. That's really bad. How much worse does it need to get before you'll feel comfortable ruling out bad luck?

[JEF_300]

Nonetheless, I think the real lack of cadence is hurting Firefly severely. 6 launches in 4 years (albeit with geopolitical shenanigans impacting some of this time) is definitely a concern. Compare that to Electron, which flew 20 times within its first 3 years, with a similar amount of failures.

This is a really good point. Now, since they do have a manifest with quite a few flights in it, I'm inclined to say that the low flight rate is a rocket problem not a payload problem, which kind of brings us back to the same place anyway? But if they could get the flight rate up, even if half of them failed, they'd at least be working through the bugs.

EDIT: Vandenburg could also be part of the flight rate problem. Both in that it stops them from doing lower inclination missions, and that, from what I've heard, the base has been difficult to work with for multiple companies.

[textbookwarrior]

Is MLV's culture more like Alpha or Blue Ghost?

I don't have enough info to say,  but I would bet things are better/smarter on MLV than on Alpha.

[sstli2]

I think we oversell the "culture" aspect because it makes for a good narrative. The comments here reek of revisionist history.

In particular it's a more palatable narrative than the "space is hard" trope. Sometimes a little luck goes a long way. For all we know losing the nozzle is a remote failure scenario that happened to materialize, in the absence of which the rocket would have been a resounding success. We also don't know how close to failure Blue Ghost came - very possible that it too experienced anomalies that simply never escalated to the point of mission failure.

All in all, unless there's actual evidence to this end, I hesitate to throw out baseless speculation on culture or people being responsible for this. Sometimes you take your best shot and you strike out.

Sure... but obviously, luck is not the ONLY thing that matters, right? So I guess my question is, how many failures does it take before we start talking about real factors instead of luck? The rocket has a 33% success rate, and currently has an average flight rate of 1.5 times a year. That's really bad. How much worse does it need to get before you'll feel comfortable ruling out bad luck?

I already eviscerated them for this track record above - no need to convince me.

"Luck" is just an analogy, it's not central to my point. The point I'm specifically making is regarding the contention that this is an issue of "culture" or "people". Culture is a hand-wavy thing you point to in the absence of actual technical details. To this point, I welcome a discussion of "real factors".

Smart, good people can fail, and that very well may have happened here. I don't think it makes sense to discredit them, because, as I said before, space is hard and hard things on small budgets and short timelines can be challenging. That is my point.

[JEF_300]

Smart, good people can fail, and that very well may have happened here. I don't think it makes sense to discredit them, because, as I said before, space is hard and hard things on small budgets and short timelines can be challenging. That is my point.

I don't think pointing to culture discredits the Firefly team. On the contrary, I think the alternative is to say that the team just made a system which just simply isn't up to par. And to me, that is what would actually discredit them.

I also agree that culture is a hand-wavy thing we point to in the absence of evidence. That's basically true. And yeah, it can get used badly. But I think that when culture IS the problem, what it usually looks like is a bunch of failures and delays for no clear reason, right? And when you don't have any strong evidence in any direction, you've kind of gotta guess a little.

And to that point, it's not like I assertively stated for sure that culture was the issue; I DID say up front in my first post about culture that it was purely a hunch.

[lightleviathan]

Smart, good people can fail, and that very well may have happened here. I don't think it makes sense to discredit them, because, as I said before, space is hard and hard things on small budgets and short timelines can be challenging. That is my point.

Emphasis on the “short timelines”- Alpha was developed in a little over 4 years, and features a lot of innovative technology (large CF tanks, first orbital tapoff, etc)

[trimeta]

Just like ABL, Astra, Relativity, with MLV I see Firefly attempting the same "pivot after mediocre results" approach. The latter two pursuing the "pivot up in complexity" option, which itself is questionable.

I don't think this is quite an accurate view of what Firefly did. Pretty much as soon as they came back from bankruptcy, exactly when they were starting work on the version of Alpha that actually exists, they were also talking about an Antares-class "Beta" rocket, which eventually became MLV. They were talking about building a medium-lift vehicle while Peter Beck was still saying that Rocket Lab would never make a bigger rocket. So Firefly didn't really pivot, because this was always the plan.

Have you compared the designs of the original "Firefly Beta" with the current MLV? There's basically no hardware in common: Firefly Beta was a three-core rocket that used components from Firefly Alpha (which actually explains Firefly Alpha's unusual design choices: Alpha has four Reavers on the first stage and one Lightning on the second stage, Beta would have had three four-Reaver first-stage cores and one Reaver on the second stage), with a payload closer to Stoke Space's Nova than to Rocket Lab's Neutron. MLV is practically a clean-sheet design, with its Miranda engines only sharing a cycle with Reaver and Lightning. Pivoting from Beta to MLV was perhaps a softer pivot than from "we'll never build a bigger rocket" to "we'll build a bigger rocket" (as Rocket Lab did), but it's still a complete shift in concept for what "a bigger rocket" means.

[JEF_300]

Just like ABL, Astra, Relativity, with MLV I see Firefly attempting the same "pivot after mediocre results" approach. The latter two pursuing the "pivot up in complexity" option, which itself is questionable.

I don't think this is quite an accurate view of what Firefly did. Pretty much as soon as they came back from bankruptcy, exactly when they were starting work on the version of Alpha that actually exists, they were also talking about an Antares-class "Beta" rocket, which eventually became MLV. They were talking about building a medium-lift vehicle while Peter Beck was still saying that Rocket Lab would never make a bigger rocket. So Firefly didn't really pivot, because this was always the plan.

Have you compared the designs of the original "Firefly Beta" with the current MLV? There's basically no hardware in common: Firefly Beta was a three-core rocket that used components from Firefly Alpha (which actually explains Firefly Alpha's unusual design choices: Alpha has four Reavers on the first stage and one Lightning on the second stage, Beta would have had three four-Reaver first-stage cores and one Reaver on the second stage), with a payload closer to Stoke Space's Nova than to Rocket Lab's Neutron. MLV is practically a clean-sheet design, with its Miranda engines only sharing a cycle with Reaver and Lightning. Pivoting from Beta to MLV was perhaps a softer pivot than from "we'll never build a bigger rocket" to "we'll build a bigger rocket" (as Rocket Lab did), but it's still a complete shift in concept for what "a bigger rocket" means.

I think you're forgetting that there was a single core Beta design, and that it was around for a long time before it became MLV. Multi-core Beta first shows up in this thread in 2018. Single core Beta first shows up in October of 2019. Peter Beck didn't eat his hat until 2021. And back in 2019, we thought it was gonna use AR1s, so also a clean sheet design.

Link to the post that confirmed Beta was now single core: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2006589#msg2006589

So I mean... maybe that's a pivot? But the quote from the CFO at the time said "Beta has been redesigned", so it's clearly a continuation of the same project within the company. And even if we count it as a pivot, it's a pivot made 2 years before any of their competitors, as well as 2 years before the first Alpha launch attempt. So calling it a "pivot after mediocre results", as the post I was originally responding to did, is clearly wrong. The arguable pivot was made years before any results.

[trimeta]

Just like ABL, Astra, Relativity, with MLV I see Firefly attempting the same "pivot after mediocre results" approach. The latter two pursuing the "pivot up in complexity" option, which itself is questionable.

I don't think this is quite an accurate view of what Firefly did. Pretty much as soon as they came back from bankruptcy, exactly when they were starting work on the version of Alpha that actually exists, they were also talking about an Antares-class "Beta" rocket, which eventually became MLV. They were talking about building a medium-lift vehicle while Peter Beck was still saying that Rocket Lab would never make a bigger rocket. So Firefly didn't really pivot, because this was always the plan.

Have you compared the designs of the original "Firefly Beta" with the current MLV? There's basically no hardware in common: Firefly Beta was a three-core rocket that used components from Firefly Alpha (which actually explains Firefly Alpha's unusual design choices: Alpha has four Reavers on the first stage and one Lightning on the second stage, Beta would have had three four-Reaver first-stage cores and one Reaver on the second stage), with a payload closer to Stoke Space's Nova than to Rocket Lab's Neutron. MLV is practically a clean-sheet design, with its Miranda engines only sharing a cycle with Reaver and Lightning. Pivoting from Beta to MLV was perhaps a softer pivot than from "we'll never build a bigger rocket" to "we'll build a bigger rocket" (as Rocket Lab did), but it's still a complete shift in concept for what "a bigger rocket" means.

I think you're forgetting that there was a single core Beta design, and that it was around for a long time before it became MLV. Multi-core Beta first shows up in this thread in 2018. Single core Beta first shows up in October of 2019. Peter Beck didn't eat his hat until 2021. And back in 2019, we thought it was gonna use AR1s, so also a clean sheet design.

Link to the post that confirmed Beta was now single core: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2006589#msg2006589

So I mean... maybe that's a pivot? But the quote from the CFO at the time said "Beta has been redesigned", so it's clearly a continuation of the same project within the company. And even if we count it as a pivot, it's a pivot made 2 years before any of their competitors, as well as 2 years before the first Alpha launch attempt. So calling it a "pivot after mediocre results", as the post I was originally responding to did, is clearly wrong. The arguable pivot was made years before any results.

I'll grant that Firefly's pivot to MLV was materially different from ABL, Astra, and Relativity's "pivots after mediocre results." Even if we take the first announcement of MLV itself (which occurred in August of 2022), that was after only one Alpha launch, and Firefly didn't immediately abandon Alpha (making it necessarily a softer pivot than those other three companies).

I'll also add that the switch from using AJR's AR1 engine to the in-house Miranda seems to have doubled MLV's payload, but you already acknowledged that implicitly when describing Beta as "Antares-class," since Antares has half the payload of the currently-planned MLV. Switching from externally-purchased to internally-built engines doesn't count as much of a pivot, though.

[Robotbeat]

Relativity’s pivot was also not just for “mediocre results.” The entire smallsat launch market is kind of pointless when you can just do medium or heavy launch for the same cost, with reuse. The only real reason for it is maybe military applications.

[edzieba]

The 'regressions' in behaviour (e.g. recontact or other first stage issue after 4 successful flights of the first stage) and slow flight rate may indicate that Firefly are not struggling to perfect a launcher design, but instead following an iterative development approach whilst getting customers to pay for it. Whether that is a wise approach depends on whether the goal is to get to a stable but more performance Firefly Alpha design, or to get out ahead on MLV development at subscale.
In other words: is Flight 6 Alpha a less successful Flight 3 Alpha, or is it a heavily modified vehicle sharing a name? Firefly keep pretty quite about the details of Alpha development.

[JEF_300]

I'll also add that the switch from using AJR's AR1 engine to the in-house Miranda seems to have doubled MLV's payload, but you already acknowledged that implicitly when describing Beta as "Antares-class," since Antares has half the payload of the currently-planned MLV.

Yes, MLV is absolutely a far bigger rocket than the old Beta designs.

There was a long period before MLV was announced (a year or two, don't remember exactly) where we received no new information on Beta. So I have been assuming for a while now, and I think it's a pretty safe assumption, that the transition from the last Beta design we saw to the current MLV design was more gradual and continuous within the company than it appears to have been for us looking in from the outside. I probably should've stated that assumption outright in my last post.

Switching from externally-purchased to internally-built engines doesn't count as much of a pivot, though.

You know, at the time when it came up, I was very on board with Firefly using AR1. It was a promising looking engine, and taking on a program to develop a large engine seemed very risky for Firefly. But in hindsight, with how smoothly Miranda development has gone, it's really obvious that "just make a bigger Reaver" was clearly the correct choice.

[StraumliBlight]

First flight dome complete for Antares 330 & MLV! Built on our Automated Fiber Placement machine, this breakthrough tackles one of the biggest challenges of composite manufacturing by allowing us to rapidly develop complex domes that are both lighter and stronger. Learn more about how we were able to accomplish this feat from our lead structures engineer.

[achicharo]

They’ve continued their Alpha-launcher approach of building the domes and barrels separately, then integrating them in a later assembly step. I find it puzzling how they achieve a structurally sound joint, since it appears to rely solely on adhesive (no bolts can be seen in other footage in this zone). Given that the assembly requires a sliding motion to fit the two concentric pieces together, it’s hard to imagine how the adhesive is kept in place and uniformly distributed, in order to form a reliable bond. Maybe they use some sort of adhesive injection process after positioning the dome, but I’d be interested to hear if anyone has more insight into how this joint is actually accomplished. 

[Danderman]

Concerning the Alpha second stage, what capabilities does it have after orbital insertion? Does it have an extended lifetime with multiple engine restarts?

[edkyle99]

Concerning the Alpha second stage, what capabilities does it have after orbital insertion? Does it have an extended lifetime with multiple engine restarts?

It has done one restart during a couple of missions, for demonstration or deorbit purposes after payload separation.  It has yet to successfully do a two-burn payload insertion mission, though it has tried a couple of times.  Its two successful missions only used a single, direct insertion ascent burn.

The Alpha Payload User's Guide shows a two-burn Stage 2 ascent, followed by a collision avoidance maneuver and passivation at T+4,026 seconds as an example of a standard mission.

 - Ed Kyle

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1933209945589055813

Our Spectre engines are breathing fire again at @agile_space's test facility! First used in space during our historic #BlueGhost Mission 1, these proven engines will power our next Blue Ghost mission to the far side of the Moon and future Elytra spacecraft missions

[StraumliBlight]

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1937862629135188349

SSC and Firefly Progress Towards Orbital Launch from Esrange Following TSA Signing Between Sweden and the U.S [Jun 25]

Swedish Space Corporation (SSC) and Firefly Aerospace are moving closer to a historic first satellite launch from Esrange Space Center in Kiruna, Sweden, following a Technology Safeguards Agreement (TSA) that was signed between Sweden and the United States on June 20.

The bilateral agreement, signed at the Embassy of Sweden in Washington D.C., provides the legal and technical framework for U.S. commercial launches from Swedish spaceports while ensuring proper handling of sensitive technology. This agreement – only the sixth TSA signed by the United States with another country – allows SSC and Firefly Aerospace to continue building a comprehensive satellite launch service at Esrange Space Center and meet the increasing demand for orbital launch capabilities from mainland Europe.

“I could not be more excited that the U.S. and Sweden have now finalized the TSA,” said Ulrika Unell, President Orbital Launch & Rocket Test division at SSC. “This agreement enables us to move forward into the next important phase of the infrastructure establishment at the spaceport of our Esrange Space Center – allowing for this comprehensive launch service to soon enter the market.”

Infrastructure development at SSC’s Esrange Space Center is progressing for Launch Complex 3C where Firefly’s Alpha rocket will launch. The tracking and control systems, security and depot facilities, and the Launch Control Center have already been stood up.

“Finalization of the TSA gets us one step closer to launching our Alpha rocket from Sweden and filling a void for the European satellite market,” said Adam Oakes, Vice President of Launch at Firefly Aerospace. “In collaboration with SSC, we’re building on the existing infrastructure at Esrange to move quickly and meet the responsive space needs of our NATO partners and commercial customers. This TSA agreement removes the regulatory barriers and provides customers with additional assurance that the U.S. and Sweden are committed to an orbital launch capability from Esrange.”