Introducing Firefly Space Systems

[QuantumG]

http://www.hedgeyetv.com/v/33581/real-conversations-how-firefly-founder-tom-markusic-is-changing-the-new-space-paradigm

[Beittil]

That video was already posted here over a month ago

[mhlas7]

Firefly Space Systems on Track for 2017 Debut Launch: http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/04/06/firefly-space-systems-on-track-for-2017-debut-launch/

Summary:
Seeking $85m to finish development
Engine test site nearing completion. First test firings could start in May
Tank design to be completed by the end of the year
Expendable at first, reusable later
Talking to 5 launch site providers. Decision by the end of the year
No launch insurance needed for satellites. Free re-flight if the rocket fails
Goal of 7 launches after the first successful launch
Firefly Beta will lift 1.1T

[TrevorMonty]

Having an operating engine on test stand this summer should help with fund raising.
Offering 120kg to 500km SSO for $4.95m to compete with Rocket lab 110kg for $4.9m.
Firefly may struggle to sell these launches, given Rocket lab will have 2year head start, should be commercially flying in 2016.

Pressure feed engine has a few pluses to make up for its lower performance. Quicker and cheaper to develop/build and should be more reliable. The most important thing is to get flying ASAP and start earning money.

I'm picking their long term plan is to develop a pump feed version.

Expect a lot of innovations from Firefly and Rocket Lab even after they are flying successfully. Especially if they are competing with each other.

[Silversheep2011]

A paper from J.M.Meyers titled "ME239:Rocket Propulsion Over and Under expanded nozzles and nozzle Configurations".
 
The relevance to "FireFly discussion" is that mid-way through the presentation is what some of us would  call an 'easy to understand' slides of what makes Aero spike nozzle designs work  and some not normally seen detail of  how they function. Likely to be interesting.
 relates to  a few pages previously in the forum.

[credit: to mtnspirit at reddit for finding this one.]

[Robotbeat]

Firefly Gamma is a reusable flyback rocket: https://twitter.com/marsbeyond/status/602008558834569216

[Robotbeat]

And another one about the simulation of the aerospike with ANSYS Multiphysics:
https://twitter.com/k2thefea/status/590572507989745664

[TrevorMonty]

Firefly Gamma is a reusable flyback rocket: https://twitter.com/marsbeyond/status/602008558834569216

Any payload figures for the flyback version?.
.

[Robotbeat]

Firefly Gamma is a reusable flyback rocket: https://twitter.com/marsbeyond/status/602008558834569216

Any payload figures for the flyback version?.
.

Looking at the picture at a little higher resolution, look to be about 5000kg. Hard to tell though.

[Robotbeat]

Also, it looks like Beta's strap-on boosters are reusable.

[Zed_Noir]

Firefly Gamma is a reusable flyback rocket...

They say how they are landing Firefly Gamma? (e.g. conventional landing gear, parachutes & airbags,...)

[matthewkantar]

Firefly Gamma is a reusable flyback rocket: https://twitter.com/marsbeyond/status/602008558834569216

Any payload figures for the flyback version?.
.

Looks like payload is 5000 Kg on the slide in the second image, not totally sure. Big machine if this is the correct number, 200 tons or so at lift off.

Looks like 13 engines on the second graphic, I wonder if that is for the Gamma, or if they have upped the engine count for the Alpha.

Matthew

[meekGee]

5 tons, I like.

You can't build a company on launching one small-sat at a time, and so 5 tons is a good spot for the constellation market.

Now - How does Gamma work?   Drop-off boosters?

[ChrisWilson68]

Gamma could be a success, but they'd need to be able to beat the price of Falcon 9 (not per kg, but per launch).  It's plausible they could because it's a smaller vehicle.  But SpaceX has economies of scale and a head start.  I think Falcon 9-class payloads will be much more common, partly because if large constellations of smaller satellites do materialize, they'll be able to launch large numbers at a time to the same plane.  Firefly could make a go of it, but it will be tough.

[ChrisWilson68]

Firefly Space Systems on Track for 2017 Debut Launch: http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/04/06/firefly-space-systems-on-track-for-2017-debut-launch/

Summary:
Seeking $85m to finish development
Engine test site nearing completion. First test firings could start in May
Tank design to be completed by the end of the year
Expendable at first, reusable later
Talking to 5 launch site providers. Decision by the end of the year
No launch insurance needed for satellites. Free re-flight if the rocket fails
Goal of 7 launches after the first successful launch
Firefly Beta will lift 1.1T

I don't get the bit about no need for launch insurance.  Customers generally want to insure their satellites.  Firefly can't just declare that launch insurance isn't necessary because they'll refly for free -- a free reflight doesn't cover the cost of building a  new copy of the payload, or the lost revenue from a delay while it's rebuilt.

At $5 million per launch we're not talking college students putting up cubesats built from spare parts.  I think a customer with $5 million to spend on a launch is going to want insurance.

[TrevorMonty]

Between aerospikes variable ISP and composite construction this RLV looks viable all they need is a little R&D $$$. $500m should do it.

[meekGee]

Firefly Space Systems on Track for 2017 Debut Launch: http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/04/06/firefly-space-systems-on-track-for-2017-debut-launch/

Summary:
Seeking $85m to finish development
Engine test site nearing completion. First test firings could start in May
Tank design to be completed by the end of the year
Expendable at first, reusable later
Talking to 5 launch site providers. Decision by the end of the year
No launch insurance needed for satellites. Free re-flight if the rocket fails
Goal of 7 launches after the first successful launch
Firefly Beta will lift 1.1T

I don't get the bit about no need for launch insurance.  Customers generally want to insure their satellites.  Firefly can't just declare that launch insurance isn't necessary because they'll refly for free -- a free reflight doesn't cover the cost of building a  new copy of the payload, or the lost revenue from a delay while it's rebuilt.

At $5 million per launch we're not talking college students putting up cubesats built from spare parts.  I think a customer with $5 million to spend on a launch is going to want insurance.

I think you can insure either or both of launch and payload.  He's saying you still need to insure the payload, but you don't need to insure the launch. 

Kind of.

If for whatever reason their launcher is not reliable, and a launch failed, they will give you a re-flight, but they won't reimburse the launch cost - so now you (and your payload insurer) have some thinking to do.

But - I think it's shrewd, and people will take them up on it.  Insurers understand how to weigh risks.

[Calphor]

Between aerospikes variable ISP and composite construction this RLV looks viable all they need is a little R&D $$$. $500m should do it.

How is the variable Isp on an aerospike any different than the variable Isp on a bell nozzle? The only major difference between the two is the slight dip in Isp that occurs in the wake closure regime. That shouldn't be that big of a challenge for a decent avionics package.

[TrevorMonty]

Between aerospikes variable ISP and composite construction this RLV looks viable all they need is a little R&D $$$. $500m should do it.

How is the variable Isp on an aerospike any different than the variable Isp on a bell nozzle? The only major difference between the two is the slight dip in Isp that occurs in the wake closure regime. That shouldn't be that big of a challenge for a decent avionics package.

Have a look at this paper on Aerospikes from one of the earlier links.
NB avionics will not change shape of engine bell during flight.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=33757.0;attach=829470

[Calphor]

Between aerospikes variable ISP and composite construction this RLV looks viable all they need is a little R&D $$$. $500m should do it.

How is the variable Isp on an aerospike any different than the variable Isp on a bell nozzle? The only major difference between the two is the slight dip in Isp that occurs in the wake closure regime. That shouldn't be that big of a challenge for a decent avionics package.

Have a look at this paper on Aerospikes from one of the earlier links.
NB avionics will not change shape of engine bell during flight.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=33757.0;attach=829470

I understand the theory on aerospikes. I just don't see that it is a major issue with regards to the Firefly system. If anything the modular approach that Firefly is using should make things easier since it eliminates one of the biggest issues that the J2-T-250 had during the testing that occurred before the program was cancelled, which was the toroidal combustion chamber and the combustion instabilities that developed during ignition and were not easily damped. The "shape" of the plume in an aerospike doesn't affect vehicle performance, except in the region of wake closure with a truncated spike.

Bell nozzles are actually trickier to design since you have to balance flow separation at low altitudes (over expansion) with performance at high altitudes (under expansion) with the variables of combustion pressure and turbomachinery complexity. Beside, with an aerospike, especially in a first stage engine application, you tend to lose a good bit of the weight associated with the bell nozzle.