Author Topic: Introducing Firefly Space Systems  (Read 340678 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #220 on: 08/29/2014 04:59 am »
Opps, I see where I missed the second stage of the Firefly having a "conventional" bell nozzle. Funny that I'd think they'd use aerospikes all around due to the bell size for orbital flight.

Multiple engines exhausting into a single bell maybe? Or a whole new engine?

Randy

The second stage has just one engine, so I don't think bell size is going to be much of a problem.  And vacuum-optimized bell is probably more efficient than an aerospike for vacuum-only flight.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #221 on: 09/02/2014 05:31 pm »
For 2nd stage they use a bell nozzle optimized for vacuum. No need for aerospike as atmospheric pressure is constant ie vacuum.
The second stage has just one engine, so I don't think bell size is going to be much of a problem.  And vacuum-optimized bell is probably more efficient than an aerospike for vacuum-only flight.

All true, however I'll point out that it "helps" a lot down the line if you're looking for reusability in that you don't have to rotate the rocket for reentry and the multiple engines gives a wider "throttle" range....

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #222 on: 09/03/2014 01:42 pm »
1. Is it possible to the heat propellants with pipework  for the pressure feed just within the plug former itself?
Yes. The standard (Sutton) comment is the plus is "more difficult to cool." And that's it.  :(
Quote
3. It seem doubtful that second stage would have a 'plug' as this would increase total height, maybe a very short version  as height same as nozzles?
Wrong again. Historically plub nozzles have  been proposed for 2nd stages and especially for "space tug" missions for prolonged in space multiple ignition  missions. It was proposed because for example a 500:1 expansion ratio nozzle on a bell is much longer than an equivalent plug (as is the interstage to house it.).
Quote
4, Is it 'preesure-fed' or 'pressure-fed   see firefly-b specs?  :)
I feel a more important question is wheather it will be available in "Periwinkle Blue."  :)
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #223 on: 09/04/2014 04:20 pm »
I'm not sure how "all pressure fed" translates into cost savings. Yeah, pumps are expensive to develop, but they're not the cost driver they used to be.

I wonder whether advances in composites make the difference.  Firefly claims it can make a first-stage tank in two days.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #224 on: 09/12/2014 05:39 am »
I will interrupt this debate about ideal paint jobs for rocket engines with actual news about Firefly Systems:

Report: Rocket company eyes Austin area for headquarters, test facility

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/techflash/2014/09/report-rocket-company-eyes-austin-area-for.html

Firefly Space Systems, a California-based satellite launch company working on more efficient rockets, has made a big land buy in Burnet County and plans to relocate its headquarters to Central Texas, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

According to the report, the company recently bought 200 rural acres near Briggs in Burnet County where it plans to test its new rockets and is looking at Austin’s northern suburbs – Cedar Park in particular – for office space for its new headquarters, which could eventually house more than 200 employees.

In August, the company announced a collaboration with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at the University of Texas to help design its new launch system. Firefly CEO Thomas Markusic, in announcements posted on the company website, said their designs could potentially cut the cost of small satellite launches by millions of dollars.

In July, the company announced that its still-developing Firefly Alpha launch vehicle could launch a 400 kilogram object into low earth orbit for as little as $8 million.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 05:40 am by Danderman »

Offline Silversheep2011

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Austraila
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #225 on: 09/12/2014 06:14 am »
And an update from Firefly's news website part
Nozzles have gone from an 8 up to 10 up configuration:
-nothing about new paint schemes though :(-

To quote from the article a few paragraphs: "In Firefly’s planned “Lumen” engine, which uses what is known as a plug aerospike configuration, a ring of 10 combustion chambers surrounds a truncated spike (see inset illustration).  As the plumes from the combustors expand with the dropping ambient air pressure as the vehicle ascends, the interior parts of them push against the so-called plug to generate additional thrust.

“We come off the pad with, effectively, a 30:1 area ratio nozzle, which dramatically increases our performance,” Markusic says. “That’s the theory. In practice it doesn’t quite work that way. The aerospike actually goes through kind of a closed-wake and an open-wake regime, and you really don’t start seeing the benefits until the pressure starts going down a little bit in practice. But if you integrate over the whole boost trajectory you definitely see an enhancement.”"

http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-alum-goes-after-falcon-1-market-firefly

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #226 on: 09/12/2014 03:06 pm »
I should interject a note of reality here:

There is a list of technologies that are invoked when programs are in trouble, or if they are a long shot. Off the top of my head, there are a couple that come to mind, perhaps others can list more:

Slush hydrogen
Aerospike engines
added: Hydrogen peroxide oxidizer

History tells us if companies or agencies invoke these, it is time to run.



« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 01:44 am by Danderman »

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 5971
  • Likes Given: 700
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #227 on: 09/12/2014 07:13 pm »
Firefly is flying from California, SpaceX loses a neighbor. 

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20140911/hawthorne-based-rocket-company-to-move-to-texas

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #228 on: 09/12/2014 07:56 pm »
Aerospike engines

History tells us if companies or agencies invoke these, it is time to run.
What about Rocketdyne?  It extensively and successfully tested J-2 class annular aerospike engines during the late 1960s and very much wanted to propose one for SSME, but was bullied by Mueller into developing and proposing a high pressure engine instead.  Rocketdyne won the competition, but many of its engineers remained convinced that an annular aerospike would have been a better, (and yes, cheaper and faster) solution.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 04:55 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #229 on: 09/13/2014 07:58 am »
I should interject a note of reality here:

There is a list of technologies that are invoked when programs are in trouble, or if they are a long shot. Off the top of my head, there are a couple that come to mind, perhaps others can list more:

Slush hydrogen
Aerospike engines
added: Hydrogen peroxide oxidizer

History tells us if companies or agencies invoke these, it is time to run.

Why are you putting the mocker on hydrogen peroxide or HTP? It was successfully used on the Black Knight and Black Arrow programs. None of the failures of these vehicles were related to using HTP. I'm pretty sure any other vehicle that used HTP that has failed to be developed (for example the Beal Aerospace BA-1 and BA-2) was not due to using HTP. They failed either for political or other economic reasons (and certainly not due to the cost of HTP). The same can be said for Aerospike engines and slush hydrogen. There are also plenty of other vehicles that have used traditional technologies that have also failed to get off the ground or failed to continue after a handful of flights. Examples include N-1, Energia, Falcon 1, Titan III, Delta III, Athena I, Athena II, Conestoga, Taurus and Taurus XL.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 08:05 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #230 on: 09/15/2014 08:27 pm »
I should interject a note of reality here:

There is a list of technologies that are invoked when programs are in trouble, or if they are a long shot. Off the top of my head, there are a couple that come to mind, perhaps others can list more:

Slush hydrogen
Aerospike engines
added: Hydrogen peroxide oxidizer

History tells us if companies or agencies invoke these, it is time to run.

Why are you putting the mocker on hydrogen peroxide or HTP?

'Cause he don't like those "technologies" don't ya know :)

Seriously the ONLY one of the three that hasn't been "proven" is the slush-hydrogen and in fact we KNOW we can make and use it... Just not very well or operationally :)

HTP is in fact a pretty damn good oxidizer, (and not just because it's my favorite for vehicle dimension reduction reasons :) ) and has a long history of being under-rated :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #231 on: 09/15/2014 09:11 pm »
Moon express are using HTP plus RP1 for their lander. I think PRs Arkyd 300 uses same fuels. For low power thrusters HTP is used on its own. If HTP was going to provide technical difficulties I doubt they would have used it.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #232 on: 09/28/2014 08:55 am »
Apparently Firefly got a grant from Cedar Park, Texas after relocating there.

Parabolic Arc article...

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/09/26/firefly-space-systems-awarded-12-million-economic-development-grant/

Offline breadfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #233 on: 10/14/2014 01:38 am »
Great profile of Markusic on spacenews: http://spacenews.com/article/features/42177profile-thomas-markusic-founder-and-chief-executive-firefly-space-systems

goes into his personal motivations, and some new information about their game plan and future aspirations. I'm sure some of the more knowledgeable folk here can glean more out of this than I can.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #234 on: 10/14/2014 06:32 am »
Great profile of Markusic on spacenews: http://spacenews.com/article/features/42177profile-thomas-markusic-founder-and-chief-executive-firefly-space-systems

goes into his personal motivations, and some new information about their game plan and future aspirations. I'm sure some of the more knowledgeable folk here can glean more out of this than I can.

I found this interesting:

Quote
Alpha is just the simplest rocket we can build the soonest to establish that we can go to space. Next will be Beta, which we want to service the whole small-satellite range, up to a metric ton. Beta would use the same technologies as Alpha, except it’s parallel-staged. Beta looks like a Falcon Heavy Jr. or a Delta Heavy Jr., with three cores from Alpha. Next is Gamma, which is basically a Beta vehicle with side boosters that can be recovered. How they’re recovered I’m not sure yet. The boosters could be recovered with wings — a glide-back — or parachutes. Ultimately where we’d like to go is to have a reusable flyback stage, and that is our Delta vehicle, which looks more like a rocketplane — a rocketplane augmented with airbreathing propulsion that can do these sub-million-dollar smallsat launches. Delta might also be a platform to do point-to-point passenger travel. But that’s an aspirational thing right now; it’s something we don’t work on at all.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #235 on: 10/14/2014 07:36 am »
All good up to Gamma but the manned p2p dreams seems to go off on a tangent.

I like his reasoning for leaving "big newspace" for own startup, especially this:

Quote from: Thomas Markusic
In particular, I thought that the small-satelllite market was being underserved and not properly addressed, and I feel strongly that it is an area that would help with the movement.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #236 on: 11/30/2014 06:33 pm »
More coverage from Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/11/firefly-space-systems-charges-full-speed-toward-low-earth-orbit/1/

Author (self admittedly) doesn't know much about space, so it's full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Still an interesting read :)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #237 on: 11/30/2014 07:30 pm »
Great find Crispy.

Offline lee_ars

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #238 on: 11/30/2014 07:39 pm »
More coverage from Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/11/firefly-space-systems-charges-full-speed-toward-low-earth-orbit/1/

Author (self admittedly) doesn't know much about space, so it's full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Still an interesting read :)
I said in the piece that I'm no rocket scientist, not that I don't know much about space! I've written a ton of content about NASA, including touring historical MOCR2 with Sy Liebergot, a lengthy piece on how the NBL works, spending time at MSFC with the propulsion engineers firing the rebuilt F1 gas generator, visiting the ISS FCR and talking with flight controllers about how ISS debris avoidance works, a deep-dive into the CAIB Appendix D.13 Atlantis/Columbia rescue plan, and a number of other pieces. I'm not an engineer, but after growing up within a few miles of JSC and spending ten years in the industry before coming to work at Ars, I like to think I can hold my own.

Everything in the Firefly piece is as accurate as I can make it, and I had multiple follow-up conversations with the Firefly folks to make sure the piece was factual (especially the layman's explanation of how an aerospike engine works). If there are any inaccuracies and misunderstandings, I'm extremely interested in hearing about them so that I can fix them!

Offline Beittil

Re: Introducing Firefly Space Systems
« Reply #239 on: 11/30/2014 07:44 pm »
I like it that you actually get to see some insides from their offices, the people and overviews of the test area :)

Tags:
 

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