Introducing Firefly Space Systems

[sublimemarsupial]

I like their system design trade offs for the vehicle (as compared to Falcon 1), giving up some performance to reduce system complexity by going pressure fed and trying to make up for it with a higher ISP propellent combo, altitude compensating engine, and lower dry mass (with the composite tanks). Am curious why they went with different diameter first and second stages though. Hope they can make it work successfully, and we'll see an Alpha up and flying in a few years.

[A_M_Swallow]

SpaceX is going to Mars paid for by trips to the ISS.

Firefly Space Systems could for example go to the Moon paid for by taking cargo to the commercial LEO spacestation(s).

[Davidthefat]

They want "NewSpace" engineers.
The ideas are basically the same - start up small and simple, then make your way towards bigger and possibly reusable rockets. And common parts between stages.

I think that's just part of iterative engineering. You have to build upon your successes and learn from failures. That requires prototyping and lots of iterations.

I like their system design trade offs for the vehicle (as compared to Falcon 1), giving up some performance to reduce system complexity by going pressure fed and trying to make up for it with a higher ISP propellent combo, altitude compensating engine, and lower dry mass (with the composite tanks). Am curious why they went with different diameter first and second stages though. Hope they can make it work successfully, and we'll see an Alpha up and flying in a few years.

Their "heavy" vehicle has the same diameter upper stage and fairing while the boosters are smaller diameter: http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-b

I found that interesting.


I also found some assets they have not published: http://imgur.com/a/Mt6zq

[meekGee]

They want "NewSpace" engineers.
The ideas are basically the same - start up small and simple, then make your way towards bigger and possibly reusable rockets. And common parts between stages.

I think that's just part of iterative engineering. You have to build upon your successes and learn from failures. That requires prototyping and lots of iterations.

I like their system design trade offs for the vehicle (as compared to Falcon 1), giving up some performance to reduce system complexity by going pressure fed and trying to make up for it with a higher ISP propellent combo, altitude compensating engine, and lower dry mass (with the composite tanks). Am curious why they went with different diameter first and second stages though. Hope they can make it work successfully, and we'll see an Alpha up and flying in a few years.

Their "heavy" vehicle has the same diameter upper stage and fairing while the boosters are smaller diameter: http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-b

I found that interesting.


I also found some assets they have not published: temp bana/Mt6zq

The -b url, heh, not-even-obscurity ...

Your last line, I don't follow.

[Cinder]

It looks like a URL-shortener format, but using that URL segment on the top few URL shortener websites' syntax doesn't seem to work.

[Prober]

Our team consists of highly experienced aerospace engineers that have spent the better part of the past decade working at various New Space companies, including Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic.

worth the note..

[meekGee]

As much as I appreciates's SpaceX's mojo, I don't generally subscribe to "newspace" as anything that has promise. 

Especially since half of newSpace is sub-orbital stuff which is really completely different from orbital launch (a distinction they work very hard to blur).  Snother thing that characterizes lots of newspace companies is that the PR is not in proportion to anything they actually achieve.

To me, Firefly stands out from the crowd and looks like a worthy effort (can't really know more at this early stage), but hiring people from newspace companies is not something I'm impressed with.

[Coastal Ron]

...but hiring people from newspace companies is not something I'm impressed with.

Working on a startup takes a different mentality than working at a large, established company.

A startup is about risk, since there are so many unknowns.  Steve Blank, a famous entrepreneur and educator says of a startup:

"A startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model."

An existing company has already proven out it's business model, and the employees it hires perpetuate that business model.  They don't have to think "outside the box" so to speak.

So if you're starting up a "NewSpace" company, you're more likely to hire people that have come from prior startups than you are from "OldSpace" companies.  And people that work on startups are more likely to be self-starters, independent workers, and able to do more than just their discipline.

That's not to say those types of people don't exist in large, established companies, but unless they are working on new projects they tend not to stay.

[meekGee]

...but hiring people from newspace companies is not something I'm impressed with.

Working on a startup takes a different mentality than working at a large, established company.

A startup is about risk, since there are so many unknowns.  Steve Blank, a famous entrepreneur and educator says of a startup:

"A startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model."

An existing company has already proven out it's business model, and the employees it hires perpetuate that business model.  They don't have to think "outside the box" so to speak.

So if you're starting up a "NewSpace" company, you're more likely to hire people that have come from prior startups than you are from "OldSpace" companies.  And people that work on startups are more likely to be self-starters, independent workers, and able to do more than just their discipline.

That's not to say those types of people don't exist in large, established companies, but unless they are working on new projects they tend not to stay.

Firefly has to hire people that are comfortable working at a startup environment.  Sure.  It's a necessary condition, but not sufficient

Firefly are trying to build a kick-ass rocket.  They need good engineers, whether they come from established or startup companies. 

The track record of BO is not stellar.  VG, don't even get me started.  SpaceX ex-employees?  by definition it's a problematic approach.

If the technical leadership is in place (which the CEO had better taken care of as he was establishing the company) then what he needs is just good all-around engineers with open minds.  You can find those in many places.

[ChrisWilson68]

If the technical leadership is in place (which the CEO had better taken care of as he was establishing the company) then what he needs is just good all-around engineers with open minds.  You can find those in many places.

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of company culture.  As someone who has worked at very small start-ups and a large company, I can tell you the difference is like night and day.  It's definitely not just a question of good engineers.  Good engineers in a large company learn ways of doing things that are very different from what good engineers at start-ups learn.  Also, the temperaments of people who choose the large companies tends to be very different from the temperaments of people who choose the start-ups.  The people who will work well in a start-up are far more likely to be found in another start-up than in a large company.  At least that's what I've found to be true in Silicon Valley.

[meekGee]

If the technical leadership is in place (which the CEO had better taken care of as he was establishing the company) then what he needs is just good all-around engineers with open minds.  You can find those in many places.

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of company culture.  As someone who has worked at very small start-ups and a large company, I can tell you the difference is like night and day.  It's definitely not just a question of good engineers.  Good engineers in a large company learn ways of doing things that are very different from what good engineers at start-ups learn.  Also, the temperaments of people who choose the large companies tends to be very different from the temperaments of people who choose the start-ups.  The people who will work well in a start-up are far more likely to be found in another start-up than in a large company.  At least that's what I've found to be true in Silicon Valley.

Not underestimating it at all.  Company culture is immensely important. And bad company culture is like a cancer that you often can't fix without killing the patient. And employees can carry company culture with them.  No argument there - seen it happen.

But I am not sure the company culture in some of the aforementioned start-ups is what you want.  Too often, especially since the .com age, you get start-ups whose culture is not that of engineering, but that of PR.  They do not even aim to become a viable company.  They follow the "paradigm dejour" instead of thinking things through from first principles.

Hiring is very difficult and critically important.  Firefly started off in a direction I like, I'd hate to see it become a talk-only company.

[Coastal Ron]

If the technical leadership is in place (which the CEO had better taken care of as he was establishing the company) then what he needs is just good all-around engineers with open minds.  You can find those in many places.

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of company culture.  As someone who has worked at very small start-ups and a large company, I can tell you the difference is like night and day.  It's definitely not just a question of good engineers.  Good engineers in a large company learn ways of doing things that are very different from what good engineers at start-ups learn.  Also, the temperaments of people who choose the large companies tends to be very different from the temperaments of people who choose the start-ups.  The people who will work well in a start-up are far more likely to be found in another start-up than in a large company.  At least that's what I've found to be true in Silicon Valley.

Well said.

Another difference too is that startups reward people that work without rules, whereas large established companies punish people that work without rules.

That's not a knock against large established companies, since if you remember what the definition of a startup is established companies have already figured out their winning formula, and for the most part they just need people with defined skill-sets to follow the formula.  So rules and procedures are key for them to provide a consistent product or service.

But startups aren't at that point yet, so different modes of operation are needed.

[ChrisWilson68]

If the technical leadership is in place (which the CEO had better taken care of as he was establishing the company) then what he needs is just good all-around engineers with open minds.  You can find those in many places.

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of company culture.  As someone who has worked at very small start-ups and a large company, I can tell you the difference is like night and day.  It's definitely not just a question of good engineers.  Good engineers in a large company learn ways of doing things that are very different from what good engineers at start-ups learn.  Also, the temperaments of people who choose the large companies tends to be very different from the temperaments of people who choose the start-ups.  The people who will work well in a start-up are far more likely to be found in another start-up than in a large company.  At least that's what I've found to be true in Silicon Valley.

Not underestimating it at all.  Company culture is immensely important. And bad company culture is like a cancer that you often can't fix without killing the patient. And employees can carry company culture with them.  No argument there - seen it happen.

But I am not sure the company culture in some of the aforementioned start-ups is what you want.  Too often, especially since the .com age, you get start-ups whose culture is not that of engineering, but that of PR.  They do not even aim to become a viable company.  They follow the "paradigm dejour" instead of thinking things through from first principles.

Hiring is very difficult and critically important.  Firefly started off in a direction I like, I'd hate to see it become a talk-only company.

I completely agree with you that there are PR-oriented start-ups and there are engineering-oriented start-ups.  Not all start-ups are created equal.  Hiring people from the wrong start-ups isn't very helpful.

[Coastal Ron]

But I am not sure the company culture in some of the aforementioned start-ups is what you want.  Too often, especially since the .com age, you get start-ups whose culture is not that of engineering, but that of PR.  They do not even aim to become a viable company.  They follow the "paradigm dejour" instead of thinking things through from first principles.

Not sure why you pick on startups about this, since large established companies do this all the time.  I remember when 6-Sigma was all the rage, but at least in our company it was just part of their PR, not part of the culture.

And let's remember that pretty much by definition most startups fail, for many reasons, but mainly because they don't get any "customer traction".  So PR is pretty much a requirement, especially these days when you pretty much have to manage your image as soon as you start because people are already talking about you on blogs...   

[hkultala]

Their "heavy" vehicle has the same diameter upper stage and fairing while the boosters are smaller diameter: http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-b

I found that interesting.

So the heavy has boosters and bigger second stage.
Payload wil propable be about 3 times more to LEO, or even more improvement to higher orbits (due more effective stages).

There does not seem to be any details about the beta rocket just the picture.

The engine configuration of the boosters looks strange though. Less engines than on the core stage??

It would be logical to have more, to give better T/W ratio and to get rid of the boosters earlier.

[Prober]

...but hiring people from newspace companies is not something I'm impressed with.

Working on a startup takes a different mentality than working at a large, established company.

A startup is about risk, since there are so many unknowns.  Steve Blank, a famous entrepreneur and educator says of a startup:

"A startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model."

An existing company has already proven out it's business model, and the employees it hires perpetuate that business model.  They don't have to think "outside the box" so to speak.

So if you're starting up a "NewSpace" company, you're more likely to hire people that have come from prior startups than you are from "OldSpace" companies.  And people that work on startups are more likely to be self-starters, independent workers, and able to do more than just their discipline.

That's not to say those types of people don't exist in large, established companies, but unless they are working on new projects they tend not to stay.

Firefly has to hire people that are comfortable working at a startup environment.  Sure.  It's a necessary condition, but not sufficient

Firefly are trying to build a kick-ass rocket.  They need good engineers, whether they come from established or startup companies. 

The track record of BO is not stellar.  VG, don't even get me started.  SpaceX ex-employees?  by definition it's a problematic approach.

If the technical leadership is in place (which the CEO had better taken care of as he was establishing the company) then what he needs is just good all-around engineers with open minds.  You can find those in many places.

Nothing wrong with "seasoned engineers" brought in from different company cultures.   If decent management is there they can focus on a good product and service. 

From the looks of it, the company is going from some old concepts, and reworking them with modern methods.  The proof will be in the finished product
 

[meekGee]

But I am not sure the company culture in some of the aforementioned start-ups is what you want.  Too often, especially since the .com age, you get start-ups whose culture is not that of engineering, but that of PR.  They do not even aim to become a viable company.  They follow the "paradigm dejour" instead of thinking things through from first principles.

Not sure why you pick on startups about this, since large established companies do this all the time.  I remember when 6-Sigma was all the rage, but at least in our company it was just part of their PR, not part of the culture.

And let's remember that pretty much by definition most startups fail, for many reasons, but mainly because they don't get any "customer traction".  So PR is pretty much a requirement, especially these days when you pretty much have to manage your image as soon as you start because people are already talking about you on blogs...   

I wasn't picking on start-ups in general.

I was responding to the original line of "They are hiring people from BO, VG, and ex-SpaceX employees" yay!

Just didn't feel that enthusiastic about this hiring profile.  Coming from a start-up is not necessarily a good indicator that you're a good open minded engineer.  That's all.


Plus, what Prober just said.

[Davidthefat]

They want "NewSpace" engineers.
The ideas are basically the same - start up small and simple, then make your way towards bigger and possibly reusable rockets. And common parts between stages.

I think that's just part of iterative engineering. You have to build upon your successes and learn from failures. That requires prototyping and lots of iterations.

I like their system design trade offs for the vehicle (as compared to Falcon 1), giving up some performance to reduce system complexity by going pressure fed and trying to make up for it with a higher ISP propellent combo, altitude compensating engine, and lower dry mass (with the composite tanks). Am curious why they went with different diameter first and second stages though. Hope they can make it work successfully, and we'll see an Alpha up and flying in a few years.

Their "heavy" vehicle has the same diameter upper stage and fairing while the boosters are smaller diameter: http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-b

I found that interesting.


I also found some assets they have not published: temp bana/Mt6zq

The -b url, heh, not-even-obscurity ...

Your last line, I don't follow.

Sorry it's imgur. It seems to be banned here for some reason.

[Coastal Ron]

Coming from a start-up is not necessarily a good indicator that you're a good open minded engineer.  That's all.

And coming from an "OldSpace" company shows that you are a good open minded engineer?

I'm not saying that good open minded engineers don't exist at "OldSpace" companies, just that by virtue of how startups work that you have to be at least open minded.  As to the rest, as with any company, YMMV.

[meekGee]

Coming from a start-up is not necessarily a good indicator that you're a good open minded engineer.  That's all.

And coming from an "OldSpace" company shows that you are a good open minded engineer?

I'm not saying that good open minded engineers don't exist at "OldSpace" companies, just that by virtue of how startups work that you have to be at least open minded.  As to the rest, as with any company, YMMV.

Sure, but your choices are not limited to "newspace" and "oldspace"...

If your tech leadership is in place, there are plenty places to get recruits from.  Also, young ones in oldSpace companies may not be broken yet.  They've seen a few useful things, and some may be frustrated at how these companies are led.

It takes time to ruin a soul...