Firefly switched to RP1 because they couldn't make pressure fed Methane work.
Quote from: Katana on 01/15/2017 05:24 amQuote from: Nomic on 01/12/2017 01:28 pm"Stabilization fins (not shown) reduce range requirements and associated fees per launch", ehh?Lox/methane aerospike first stage, warm gas pressurization, image shows a tank on top of the two main tanks, so maybe warm helium rather than autogenous. 1426 Kg seems very light.The Trailblazer is totally different, LOX Alcohol , aluminium tank, conventional nozzle.This launcher is more likely a fiction added over real buisness projects. Similar buisness PR may become ubiqous in the world after SpaceX claimed ITS.There's no evidence that ITS is fiction over real business projects, and lots of evidence it is not fiction at all.I also see no evidence that this company's real business is radiation testing. Is that just speculation because some of the key people have experience in that area or is there any actual evidence?
Quote from: Nomic on 01/12/2017 01:28 pm"Stabilization fins (not shown) reduce range requirements and associated fees per launch", ehh?Lox/methane aerospike first stage, warm gas pressurization, image shows a tank on top of the two main tanks, so maybe warm helium rather than autogenous. 1426 Kg seems very light.The Trailblazer is totally different, LOX Alcohol , aluminium tank, conventional nozzle.This launcher is more likely a fiction added over real buisness projects. Similar buisness PR may become ubiqous in the world after SpaceX claimed ITS.
"Stabilization fins (not shown) reduce range requirements and associated fees per launch", ehh?Lox/methane aerospike first stage, warm gas pressurization, image shows a tank on top of the two main tanks, so maybe warm helium rather than autogenous. 1426 Kg seems very light.
Quote from: Katana on 01/13/2017 06:21 amNote the Japanese JAXA SS-520-4 Cubesat launcher, 4kg/2.6t, $250k, even not a commercial one. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40509.0There may be 5~10 more tiny launchers emerging in this category, since the average success rate of VC is around 10%, suppose 1 success.http://www.spaceflightinider.com/organizations/jaxa/smallest-orbital-class-rocket-launch-ends-failure/
Note the Japanese JAXA SS-520-4 Cubesat launcher, 4kg/2.6t, $250k, even not a commercial one. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40509.0There may be 5~10 more tiny launchers emerging in this category, since the average success rate of VC is around 10%, suppose 1 success.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/14/2017 02:42 pmFirefly switched to RP1 because they couldn't make pressure fed Methane work.To nuance this a bit, I believe the issue it wasn't that pressure-fed methane flat out couldn't be made to work, but rather that . it was going to analyzing the cooling was going to be a research project all by itself.
Quote from: Katana on 01/14/2017 09:04 amQuote from: Vultur on 01/14/2017 04:45 amQuote Not a single one of them seems to have any experience whatsoever working for any launch vehicle company. The head of the propulsion department's main experience is designing electronics and vacuum chambers. In fact, every single person on their list seems to have more professional experience in electronics, computers, or "STEM outreach" than designing rocketsI think that's exactly it. They seem to be talking about transferring 'electronics industry thinking' to rockets.And attract investors from electronics industry?It is quite doubtful how much does investors from electronics industry knows about rocktary.I think their only hope of getting funded is to find investors who don't know much about rocketry. And who don't know much about business in general, actually. Even investors who know nothing about rocketry should be able to see this crew is among the weakest in an overcrowded field. They need to find people with a lot of money, a romantic desire to own a rocket company, and no investment sense.Excalibur Almaz was able to find some such investors, so it's not impossible.
Quote from: Vultur on 01/14/2017 04:45 amQuote Not a single one of them seems to have any experience whatsoever working for any launch vehicle company. The head of the propulsion department's main experience is designing electronics and vacuum chambers. In fact, every single person on their list seems to have more professional experience in electronics, computers, or "STEM outreach" than designing rocketsI think that's exactly it. They seem to be talking about transferring 'electronics industry thinking' to rockets.And attract investors from electronics industry?It is quite doubtful how much does investors from electronics industry knows about rocktary.
Quote Not a single one of them seems to have any experience whatsoever working for any launch vehicle company. The head of the propulsion department's main experience is designing electronics and vacuum chambers. In fact, every single person on their list seems to have more professional experience in electronics, computers, or "STEM outreach" than designing rocketsI think that's exactly it. They seem to be talking about transferring 'electronics industry thinking' to rockets.
Not a single one of them seems to have any experience whatsoever working for any launch vehicle company. The head of the propulsion department's main experience is designing electronics and vacuum chambers. In fact, every single person on their list seems to have more professional experience in electronics, computers, or "STEM outreach" than designing rockets
Anyone have an idea what they could be burning to get that bright yellow flame? Their website only says they're using green, high density hypergolic propellants'.
Quote from: Kryten on 11/13/2018 09:02 amAnyone have an idea what they could be burning to get that bright yellow flame? Their website only says they're using green, high density hypergolic propellants'.Hydrogen peroxide and ethanolamine, along with a special additive. The fireball has a green tint, so I'm guessing the additive has copper in it, possibly CuCl2.
Quote from: Gliderflyer on 11/13/2018 11:46 amQuote from: Kryten on 11/13/2018 09:02 amAnyone have an idea what they could be burning to get that bright yellow flame? Their website only says they're using green, high density hypergolic propellants'.Hydrogen peroxide and ethanolamine, along with a special additive. The fireball has a green tint, so I'm guessing the additive has copper in it, possibly CuCl2.What do we know about the density and Isp of that combination? How green is it (figuratively, not literally!) if it is spewing copper compounds into the atmosphere?
Here are the slides from Aphelion Orbitals' last pitch deck before winding down operations. We had a good plan, ambitious yet competent. It's so sad we just ran out of time.
From the tank volumes, looks like they are using HTP. Also looks like there is a third kick stage, like on Electron.
So what went wrong? The last update I can find is his "Aphelion Orbitals Journey" post also on LinkedIn, from only about 2 weeks earlier, and it seems pretty optimistic still, no mention of any trouble or of any contracts/grants/investment rounds that could have been at risk. Were they expecting some investment contingent on that static fire, and the investor wasn't satisfied with "it blew up, but look how easy the cleanup was!"?
More information on this former founder's GoFundMe page. Also shows the ugly, but more common than not, side of "startups".https://www.gofundme.com/i-lost-everything-when-my-business-closed