Introducing Firefly Space Systems

[A_M_Swallow]

This does sound like vexatious litigation designed to harass and spy on a new competitor. The law is different in each state.

Here is a paper about Connecticut law.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0101.htm

[Danderman]

Firefly talks about payload to an equatorial orbit, but how does the payload get into equatorial orbit - is there a launch site near the Equator?

[Danderman]

A F9 dedicated for cubesat rideshare, if fully utilized, could carry ~3000 cubesats to orbit, scattering them into glorious nebula moving in evening sky.

One F9 per 3 month, 12,000 cubesats per year?

Too many to fit in VHF/UHF amateur band radio frequencies used for cubesats now. May require develop of Kxxx band transceivers and frequency bidding cost, or laser communication?

At least for recent technology and market of cubesats, dedicated small launchers have unique niche markets free from mainstream large launchers.

This ignores the reality of the CubeSAT market. Not all CubeSAT developers want to fly into the same orbit or the same altitude.

[Danderman]

Well, let me try my question this way: where is this company going to launch from?

[Prober]

Well, let me try my question this way: where is this company going to launch from?

Don't think I've heard yet, they seem to be working on the launcher but do have that legal matter to get out of the way first.


Some small updates on the Firefly "vegas' court

01/29/2016           CANCELED   Motion to Compel  (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Bulla, Bonnie)
02/03/2016           Motion for Discovery  (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Bulla, Bonnie)
Plaintiff's Motion, on Order Shortening Time, to Conduct Early Discovery Pursuant to NRCP 26(a) and to Set Hearing on Virgin Galactic, LLC's Motion to Enforce Foreign Subpoena
02/23/2016           Motion to Dismiss  (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Cadish, Elissa F.)
Defendant Michael Blum's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Virgin Galactic, LLC's Complaint


Edit: moved materials to the proper thread

[Danderman]

Well, let me try my question this way: where is this company going to launch from?

Don't think I've heard yet, they seem to be working on the launcher but do have that legal matter to get out of the way first.

I am not an attorney, but I play one in real life. Let me provide a free opinion of what I have seen in the news about this case:

First off, Virgin Galactic is not suing Firefly itself, and as far as I can tell, they are not suing Markusic either. They are suing the outside investor to comply with an arbitrator's request for documents from the outside investor. In any case, there is no lawsuit against Markusic, there is an arbitration case. The reason for this is that Markusic was probably working under contract with VG, and that contract had an arbitration clause. So, the worst case is that Markusic loses the arbitration case and is fined by the arbitrator personally. I do not believe that the arbitrator has the power to shut down Firefly; more to the point, if the fine is large, the only way that Markusic could probably pay is from profits from Firefly.

But, let's go through that worst case scenario: the arbitrator rules that Markusic owes $10 million to VG. Markusic can't pay. In that case, VG seeks a judgment against Markusic.  That is another case (enforcement of the arbitrator's ruling). So, then VG has to enforce the judgment, again, another legal battle. Markusic finally ends up in a debtor's exam, which reveals he can't pay the judgment, and VG can seize some of his assets. Presumably, Markusic has a minority holding in Firefly and so worst case, VG could either seize his shares or if Firefly is a Texas LLC, maybe foreclose on his holdings or have a charging order against his interest (depending on how Texas law works).  Again, worst case, all Markusic makes off Firefly is his salary, which also may be garnished by VG.  However, holding a minority share in a company doesn't give VG the power to stop Firefly. It might give VG leverage to buy out the other shareholders, but that would take a lot of cash.

This worst case scenario is intended to show that the VG action against Markusic by itself is not going to stop Firefly. What would stop Firefly is a legal injunction issued by a judge, but there is no publicly know legal action along those lines.

One way to resolve all of this would be for some Firefly derivative to serve as Launcher Two.

[Danderman]

The obvious market for a  Falcon 1 class launcher today passes through Stratolaunch.

Please don't run us through the 3 percent of orbital velocity issue, you would be missing the point.

Stratolauncher gives a Falcon 1 launch vehicle some additional performance, not just from the extra velocity and not just from the altitude, but also from allowing use of higher efficiency nozzles for greater ISP. But that is not the win.

The win is that such a combination would allow virtually instant replacement of failed communications satellites. Providing an in-plane in-slot replacement quickly for Iridium or Globalstar or SkyBox or any smaller satellite in LEO that is part of an ordered group is a big deal. Yes, Launcher One is coming on line, but it is much less capable than an airlaunched Falcon 1 class vehicle, and may only be able to handle Orbcomm replacements.

[ChrisWilson68]

The obvious market for a  Falcon 1 class launcher today passes through Stratolaunch.

Please don't run us through the 3 percent of orbital velocity issue, you would be missing the point.

Stratolauncher gives a Falcon 1 launch vehicle some additional performance, not just from the extra velocity and not just from the altitude, but also from allowing use of higher efficiency nozzles for greater ISP. But that is not the win.

The win is that such a combination would allow virtually instant replacement of failed communications satellites. Providing an in-plane in-slot replacement quickly for Iridium or Globalstar or SkyBox or any smaller satellite in LEO that is part of an ordered group is a big deal. Yes, Launcher One is coming on line, but it is much less capable than an airlaunched Falcon 1 class vehicle, and may only be able to handle Orbcomm replacements.

It's cheaper to just launch a spare or two into each orbital plane while launching the constellation on a larger launcher with multi-satellite launches.  For replacing the spares, there's no big rush, so no win for air launch over ground launch.

[Danderman]

Murphy's Law tells us that the number of failures in a plane is proportional to the number of spares, ie if you have 2 spares, you will have 3 failures.  Or the reverse, ie you will never have a failure.

If you think about it, a spare strategy using Air Launch and spares on the ground is actually more cost effective than filling your planes with spares when you don't know which satellites are going to fail.

[ChrisWilson68]

Murphy's Law tells us that the number of failures in a plane is proportional to the number of spares, ie if you have 2 spares, you will have 3 failures.  Or the reverse, ie you will never have a failure.

If you think about it, a spare strategy using Air Launch and spares on the ground is actually more cost effective than filling your planes with spares when you don't know which satellites are going to fail.

Iridium, Globalstar, and GPS use on-orbit spares and I don't remember them ever having coverage gaps because of unlucky failures.  Globalstar had coverage issues with its first-generation constellation just because its satellites had a design flaw that made them likely to die young, but that's different from not having spares in the right planes.

Future constellations are expected to have many more, smaller birds, so there will be more in each plane and the chances of all the failures hitting a particular plane will be even less.

[QuantumG]

Looking back through the thread I don't see this press release mentioned:

http://www.fireflyspace.com/news/ournews/nasa-awards-usd5.5m-venture-class-launch-services-contract-to-firefly

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CEDAR PARK, Texas, October 14, 2015

Demonstration CubeSat launch set for early 2018

Firefly Space Systems, Inc., a New Space leader in the development of dedicated small satellite launch vehicles has been selected by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to conduct a demonstration CubeSat launch by March 2018. The Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contract to Firefly is valued at $5.5M.

Mark Wiese, chief of the Flight Projects Office for NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP), based at Kennedy Space Center, described VCLS contracts as representing “NASA’s investment in the future of the commercial launch industry for SmallSats.”

Since there hasn’t been a dedicated launcher available, CubeSats have flown into orbit as auxiliary payloads that are released after the booster has achieved the primary mission. They have also been sprung into the orbital void from canisters aboard the International Space Station to conduct research missions. In both cases though, the CubeSats are at the mercy of the primary payload and the orbit it must fly in.

“The CubeSat and small satellite engineers and scientists are coming up with missions that justify flying unique orbits and at altitudes that are not available if we only fly as secondary payloads,” said Garrett Skrobot, lead for the Educational Launch of Nanosatellites (ELaNa) mission for LSP. “These are still experimental satellites, but the technology they are employing is mature enough to use in these new ways.”

That’s where Firefly and its family of launch vehicles comes in. Since its inception, Firefly’s mission has been to dramatically reduce the cost of commercial launch services for small satellites and science missions across the entire sub-1 metric ton payload segment. The company is focusing on the development of low-cost, high-performance space launch capability for the under-served small satellite market. Firefly Alpha, the company’s first rocket, will be capable of lifting 400kg to a 400km equatorial orbit or 200kg to a 500km Sun-synchronous orbit

“Being recognized by NASA with a VCLS contract is a tremendous honor for the Firefly team. We have worked tirelessly during the last 18 months to develop Firefly Alpha, a vehicle that will be different from anything that has come before it. NASA’s vote of confidence in our technology and team is a significant boost to our efforts of ‘Making Space For Everyone’” said Dr. Thomas Markusic, Firefly’s CEO.

Added Maureen Gannon, Firefly’s Vice President of Business Development: “We are greatly encouraged knowing that NASA shares our industry’s vision for low-cost boosters to enable ever more exciting missions in exploration, science and education.”

I remember talking about it, but I guess it wasn't on this thread. Anyway, it's good to preserve press releases in the thread as sometimes they just evaporate.

[Beittil]

Firefly dropped a groupshot on social media:

Over 100 Fireflies and counting. Welcome to all of our new teammates as we join forces to 'Make Space For Everyone'.

[Beittil]

During the SpaceX Thaicom 8 mission Firefly posted a status from their own MCC, first images of that I think Needs some computers though

Cheering for our friends @SpaceX from Firefly's own MCC in Cedar Park.

[savuporo]

Just to be sure:
https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/736325648931688449

WE ARE HIRING! Since Jan 1, we have hired 79 folks. Firefly staff now totals over 140 people. Need to add >60 more before year end.

[AncientU]

Just to be sure:
https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/736325648931688449

WE ARE HIRING! Since Jan 1, we have hired 79 folks. Firefly staff now totals over 140 people. Need to add >60 more before year end.

That would be 230% growth in one year.
Yeah!

[savuporo]

That would be 230% growth in one year.
Yeah!

Big teams can do big things. Yeah indeed

[TrevorMonty]

I know of a few XCOR staff looking for new job.

[Beittil]

Firefly Space ‏@Firefly_Space 46s46 seconds ago

The 1st of 12 engines has been mounted and tested on our aerospike live ring.

Sexy!

[Robotbeat]

I'm skeptical that aero spikes are worth the hastle, but it sure will look awesome.

[whitelancer64]

I'm skeptical that aero spikes are worth the hastle, but it sure will look awesome.

Performance is improved, though by exactly how much depends on the design. I'm not sure if Firefly has said how much of a performance boost is gained with the aerospike compared to if the aerospike were removed from the design.

I'll ask on Twitter, who knows if they'll respond, though.