Introducing Firefly Space Systems

[hop]

and realized the barriers to entry are much lower for smallsat launchers.

That was SpaceX's strategy too. 

...and SSIA, and Orbital, and a bunch more space startups that never made it off the ground. To date, no one has made much of a business on dedicated smallsat launches. SpaceX got out of that sector as fast as they could, helped along by windfall in the form of CRS.

Can Firefly buck the trend? Time will tell...

[go4mars]

I think it's awesome that they're stepping into new, highly scalable tech.  If they get the reusable baby rocket right, they'll be either a great target for acquisition or (hopefly) large scale investment.

[Jason1701]

I think it's awesome that they're stepping into new, highly scalable tech.  If they get the reusable baby rocket right, they'll be either a great target for acquisition or (hopefly) large scale investment.

Is Firefly's rocket designed to be reusable?

[TrevorMonty]

Composite fuselage and tanks are one of the more interesting technologies they plan to use. If they can automate the production of the tanks and fuselage that would be a huge cost saving plus the technology could potentially be scaled up eg 3.6-5metre LVs. I'd be surprised if ULA and Spacex aren't watching them closely along with RocketLab who are also making composite LV. NB The production of fuselage is being outsource under NDA to another company. See Lee_ars article.

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

Here is quote from the article.

The company is also watching the results of composite tankage tests just wrapping up at Marshall Space Flight Center.

NASA scuttled the X-33 program in part because an experimental composite liquid hydrogen tank failed during tests at Marshall in 1999. Boeing built the tanks used in the tests this summer using a new out-of-autoclave curing process, and  Markusic—who worked at Marshall for five years—says he and his colleagues have been following the test series closely. Firefly has just signed a Space Act Agreement with NASA for help with the tank technology and other development issues.

[ChrisWilson68]

I think it's awesome that they're stepping into new, highly scalable tech.  If they get the reusable baby rocket right, they'll be either a great target for acquisition or (hopefly) large scale investment.

Is Firefly's rocket designed to be reusable?

No.  They talk about wanting to eventually make a reusable version at some point in the future.

[Lars-J]

and realized the barriers to entry are much lower for smallsat launchers.

That was SpaceX's strategy too. 

...and SSIA, and Orbital, and a bunch more space startups that never made it off the ground. To date, no one has made much of a business on dedicated smallsat launches. SpaceX got out of that sector as fast as they could, helped along by windfall in the form of CRS.

Can Firefly buck the trend? Time will tell...

I do find it amusing how people seem to want to portray their entry into the smallsat market as some kind of business genius. What choice do they have - Start with something even bigger? SpaceX had to start with something small, even though they were backed by Musk. Without someone like Musk, what else can they do? They are already a long shot as it is.

[edkyle99]

I think there is a market for dedicated launch, for both commercial and military small satellites. 

It would be a small market (no pun intended), and apparently a shrinking market.  Since 1990, there have only been 69 U.S. based launches using vehicles capable of 1 tonne or less to LEO (with 10 failures).  That's less than three attempts per year.  Since 2000 there have only been 21 attempts with 3 failures, an average of only 1.5 per year.  This year there have been none.


 - Ed Kyle

[dcporter]

and realized the barriers to entry are much lower for smallsat launchers.

That was SpaceX's strategy too. 

...and SSIA, and Orbital, and a bunch more space startups that never made it off the ground. To date, no one has made much of a business on dedicated smallsat launches. SpaceX got out of that sector as fast as they could, helped along by windfall in the form of CRS.

Can Firefly buck the trend? Time will tell...

I do find it amusing how people seem to want to portray their entry into the smallsat market as some kind of business genius.

If I'm "people", you're misreading me.

[NaN]

I think there is a market for dedicated launch, for both commercial and military small satellites. 

It would be a small market (no pun intended), and apparently a shrinking market.  Since 1990, there have only been 69 U.S. based launches using vehicles capable of 1 tonne or less to LEO (with 10 failures).  That's less than three attempts per year.  Since 2000 there have only been 21 attempts with 3 failures, an average of only 1.5 per year.  This year there have been none.


 - Ed Kyle

They're certainly hoping that the small market grows, or is elastic. But I found this quote telling in the arstechnica article: "Markusic assured us that aerospike engines scale massively and could be used for heavy lift roles". They're trying to not paint themselves into a corner.
I hope they find success because a healthy market needs more than one competitor and they will help keep SpaceX from getting fat and complacent. Plus, aerospike, cool.

[guckyfan]

They're certainly hoping that the small market grows, or is elastic. But I found this quote telling in the arstechnica article: "Markusic assured us that aerospike engines scale massively and could be used for heavy lift roles". They're trying to not paint themselves into a corner.

The aerospike concept may scale massively. Pressure fed first stages don't IMO. They have a long and hard way up from Firefly.

I hope they find success because a healthy market needs more than one competitor and they will help keep SpaceX from getting fat and complacent. Plus, aerospike, cool.

And Elon Musk would agree. He too is in favor of competition. He stated that on many occasions in different contexts.

BTW, Aerospike cool. Not a valid argument for me.

[TrevorMonty]

We are getting a head of ourselves, competing with SpaceX is looking to far out.

I would be happy to just see a aerospike engine working on a test stand.

[ChrisWilson68]

We are getting a head of ourselves, competing with SpaceX is looking to far out.

I would be happy to just see a aerospike engine working on a test stand.

That's not going to happen unless they can convince investors they have a viable way to make money, and it's hard to see how they can have that without competing with SpaceX.

[Danderman]

We are getting a head of ourselves, competing with SpaceX is looking to far out.

I would be happy to just see a aerospike engine working on a test stand.

That's not going to happen unless they can convince investors they have a viable way to make money, and it's hard to see how they can have that without competing with SpaceX.

This company is based on the concept of not competing with SpaceX - they want to exploit the small payload niche that SpaceX has abandoned.

Given the lack of available "small" launchers for US customers, I could see a provider emerging to take advantage of this lack of supply.

[NaN]

BTW, Aerospike cool. Not a valid argument for me.

Fair enough   How about this:
Aerospike engines have been around for a while, and they appear promising in several respects. They have not been flown on an actual LV. If Firefly is able to perform significant development work and build a practical smallsat orbital launcher, it will advance the state-of-the-art for aerospike engines, potentially influencing others in the future.
This is similar to how SpaceX's first-stage reuse efforts, if successful, may well influence others' future developments; that concept has been around for a while but nobody has made a serious effort at it.
Regardless of how either company's attempts pan out, it is (IMO) good to see them willing to try new-yet-promising approaches to improving state-of-the-art rather than solely relying on what has already been proven.

[Vultur]

The aerospike concept may scale massively. Pressure fed first stages don't IMO.

Well, the Sea Dragon concept from the early 60s used a pressure fed first stage, IIRC. 80 million lb-f thrust engine, 550 metric tons to LEO

[quanthasaquality]

We are getting a head of ourselves, competing with SpaceX is looking to far out.

I would be happy to just see a aerospike engine working on a test stand.

That's not going to happen unless they can convince investors they have a viable way to make money, and it's hard to see how they can have that without competing with SpaceX.

This company is based on the concept of not competing with SpaceX - they want to exploit the small payload niche that SpaceX has abandoned.

Given the lack of available "small" launchers for US customers, I could see a provider emerging to take advantage of this lack of supply.

Didn't SpaceX discontinue the Falcon 1 from lack of customers? Doesn't the Epsilon rocket put over 1 ton into orbit, and Vega, about 2 tons?

On the small, and cheap side, there is Iran. It would help if they made a small third stage, or a good, high ISP kerolox, or methlox second stage for the Safir rocket. If solid fuel is cheaper, it would interesting to see a Sejil first and second stage, a safir second stage as third stage, and a small fourth stage.... This topic is close to the scud launcher thread.

I would not invest in Firefly Space Systems.

[go4mars]

The aerospike concept may scale massively. Pressure fed first stages don't IMO.

Well, the Sea Dragon concept from the early 60s used a pressure fed first stage, IIRC. 80 million lb-f thrust engine, 550 metric tons to LEO

I assume gucky is thinking apples to apples.  Like an 80 million pound of force parallel staged, composite tank, aerospike rocket designed 50 years later.

[gospacex]

If Firefly succesfully manages to set up shop in the smallsat market and manages to generate enough revenue there I don't see any hold back with developing an upgrade of their technology for the higher end market.

Other than Elon being able to resurrect Falcon-1 any time and bankrupt them?

That's silly talk.

- SpaceX has their plate full with bigger things.
- Falcon-1 used older versions of Merlin, upgrading the design to latest Merlin 1D is not free nor instant.

Oh, SpaceX may compete, but I'd expect it to be with "lets stack a lot of these small sats on a F9R or as secondaries on a bigger FH mission", not adding back a small launcher. That also means there will always be market for small payloads with requirements that prevent them to be candidates for a launch on a larger vehicle.

You miss the point.

If Firefly becomes significantly profitable, this will show Musk that there are money to be made in small launcher market.
Then Musk, leveraging his existing engine and mfg capability, can roll out F-1-esque competitor which would be even cheaper than Firefly.

The mere possibility of such scenario makes Firefly's business strategy more risky. If they fail to create a viable rocket, they fail. If they do create it, they get destroyed by Musk.

[mmeijeri]

The mere possibility of such scenario makes Firefly's business strategy more risky. If they fail to create a viable rocket, they fail. If they do create it, they get destroyed by Musk.

Or bought out.

[Zed_Noir]

If Firefly succesfully manages to set up shop in the smallsat market and manages to generate enough revenue there I don't see any hold back with developing an upgrade of their technology for the higher end market.

Other than Elon being able to resurrect Falcon-1 any time and bankrupt them?

That's silly talk.

- SpaceX has their plate full with bigger things.
- Falcon-1 used older versions of Merlin, upgrading the design to latest Merlin 1D is not free nor instant.

Oh, SpaceX may compete, but I'd expect it to be with "lets stack a lot of these small sats on a F9R or as secondaries on a bigger FH mission", not adding back a small launcher. That also means there will always be market for small payloads with requirements that prevent them to be candidates for a launch on a larger vehicle.

You miss the point.

If Firefly becomes significantly profitable, this will show Musk that there are money to be made in small launcher market.
Then Musk, leveraging his existing engine and mfg capability, can roll out F-1-esque competitor which would be even cheaper than Firefly.

The mere possibility of such scenario makes Firefly's business strategy more risky. If they fail to create a viable rocket, they fail. If they do create it, they get destroyed by Musk.

SpaceX will have an use for their end of the life Merlin engines, instead of junking them. After the Merlins go up a few times in the F9R.