Firefly Space : Company and Development General Thread

[ncb1397]

It's not the size that worries me (it is unknown), it is the proportions of propellant tanks to airframe. This is thing will have a very bad dry mass ratio.

Does a high dry mass ratio on the 1st stage really matter that much though? It isn't an SSTO. If you are having problems wrapping your head around the concept, just consider it air launch but the airplane is rocket powered, not air breathing, and flies much faster than a normal sub-sonic air launch scenario that would normally require 2 stages+ after that.

Oh I can wrap my head around the concept just fine, it just looks so inefficient.

What is the alternative? If it masses X dry, the landing gear can land at speed Y, you need to generate Z lift roughly equal to X mass at speed <Y. If these constraints aren't followed, you slam into the runway and you would much better off just using a Firefly Alpha/Beta. Big wings also have the affect of spreading out the thermal load over a greater amount of TPS, meaning it might last for more flights.

What's the alternative? Are you seriously suggesting that this is the only way to do horizontal landing, with this configuration? Let me point you to to the X-37, Shuttle, and many more, that have actually flown. This shape or wing-to-body ratio is NOT necessary for winged landing. It's there to look cool. But prove me wrong, Firefly... Fly it. It does look cool.

The wing area may have more to do with RTLS requirements. Without using fuel, you have to be able to kill your forward velocity and still have enough altitude as a glider to get back to the launch site. If you can't do that completely aerodynamically, you have to use fuel to make up the difference. Big wings help you with both as you have more drag area for decelerating and it makes a more efficient glider. This is something that didn't really apply to Shuttle as it was orbital and went all the way around.

Consider this, if it takes holding back 10% of Falcon 9s first stage propellant load at staging to do a vertical landing back at the launch site, that is ~40,000 kg of mass in terms of fuel that is effectively "dry weight" as far as putting the payload into orbit. ~40,000 kg is the dry mass of a 737-800 - wings, fuselage, landing gear, etc. It isn't entirely clear that fuel and vertical landing beats giant wings in terms of what has more "dead weight". So, while it is true that this thing certainly has a horrible mass fraction, so does a Falcon 9 first stage if you count the fuel it requires for recovery.

[envy887]

Phantom Express does the same thing with rather smaller wings compared to it's tanks. Although PEs wings are relatively bigger than those on Shuttle or X37.

[TrevorMonty]

For large LVs vertical landing is only way to go, especially as it scales up. Smaller LVs have option of either HL and VL both have pros and cons. With HL they should nail landing first time every time while VL may result in a few craters before they get it right.

[russianhalo117]

This thread prompted me to look at their website again and found this:

https://fireflyspace.com/launch-gamma/

Looks like it shoots the second stage out the rear end and they are talking about cross feed. Pretty crazy stuff.

Yikes. Someone at Firefly really likes wings. I mean REALLY LIKES wings. Those wings and control surfaces are huge beyond practicality.

J-2T derived toroidal Aerospike engines from the previous FSS company are shown. Hope that doesn't bite them in the but again.

[russianhalo117]

This thread prompted me to look at their website again and found this:

https://fireflyspace.com/launch-gamma/

Looks like it shoots the second stage out the rear end and they are talking about cross feed. Pretty crazy stuff.

It reminds me of the A-5's "store train", consisting of disposable fuel tanks and a bomb, which was shot out of the rear of the aircraft. It never was very successful, though hopefully firefly will have better luck, as this will have significantly lower aerodynamic loads at separation.

Guide rails like Atlas ICBM/launcher family

[Craftyatom]

I'm glad someone is at least pitching horizontal landing, besides Phantom Express (which, with the best will in the world, I don't expect to influence the launch market much).  Always seemed like an "easy" return concept, at least relative to suicide burn landings - plus, I'd imagine it allows RTLS for a higher range of missions.  I wondered if the winged concept would die out after SX and Blue proved vertical landing was doable (and XCOR went under), which would be a shame IMO, but it seems there's at least an interest in it, regardless.

[Craftyatom]

Here's the press release from Firefly about their recent award with NASA's CLPS program (emphasis mine):

CEDAR PARK, Texas, Nov. 29, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Firefly Aerospace, Inc. (Firefly), a provider of economical and dependable launch vehicles, spacecraft and in-space services, announced today that they have been selected by NASA for award of a Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contract. The principal purpose of NASA’s CLPS program is to acquire end-to-end commercial payload services between the Earth and the lunar surface for NASA Headquarters’ Science, Human Exploration and Operations, and Space Technology Mission Directorates (SMD, HEOMD, and STMD). The CLPS contractor(s) shall provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, accommodate, transport, and operate NASA payloads using contractor-provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander spacecraft, lunar surface systems, Earth re-entry vehicles, and associated resources.

With this initial CLPS competitive procurement, NASA has made multiple awards of Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with the ability to issue Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) task orders. The contracts will have an effective ordering period of 10 years from the contract’s effective date of January 2, 2019 or sooner. The maximum cumulative value of all CLPS task order awards is $2.6 billion over the life of the contract. The multiple CLPS contract award winners are now eligible to compete for specific task order awards including the first commercially provided NASA science payload delivery mission to the Moon. The start of the competition for the first CLPS full lunar mission task order award is expected to be announced by NASA in the near future.

“This contract award recognizes Firefly’s viable technical approach to deliver NASA science payloads and other commercial cargo to the lunar surface, along with the viability of its business plan and financial resources to develop Firefly’s CLPS system,” said Firefly CEO Dr. Tom Markusic. “In conjunction with our Beta launch vehicle and our partnership with Intuitive Machines, Firefly will provide an integrated lunar services offering, from the launch pad to the surface of the Moon. We are honored to partner with NASA in an extraordinary effort that will broaden humanity’s knowledge of the cosmos and inspire a new generation of space entrepreneurs.”

[jamesh9000]

I know it's getting some love on the CLPS thread, but that Beta launcher looks like an engineering nightmare. Considering the troubles that much larger, more well funded companies have had with triple sticks, this just doesn't seem anywhere near doable for a small startup. But hey, I was wrong about SpaceX making it, and I'd love to be wrong here too.

[TrevorMonty]

I know it's getting some love on the CLPS thread, but that Beta launcher looks like an engineering nightmare. Considering the troubles that much larger, more well funded companies have had with triple sticks, this just doesn't seem anywhere near doable for a small startup. But hey, I was wrong about SpaceX making it, and I'd love to be wrong here too.

Firefly and their partners plan to use Beta for launching their lunar lander. Wouldn't be  my first choice of LVs given its just paper rocket at present and funding is likely to be depended on Alpha success.

Alpha would've of been better choice of LV to design a lander around even if it is only 100kg to surface.

[theinternetftw]

Firefly and their partners plan to use Beta for launching their lunar lander. Wouldn't be  my first choice of LVs given its just paper rocket at present and funding is likely to be depended on Alpha success.

I'm not sure Intuitive is necessarily tied to using Firefly as Launch Vehicle.  My best guess for why they were both on the podium, as opposed to one or the other, is Firefly won by offering the entire service while using Intuitive landers, and Intuitive won offering the lander directly, using whatever LV is ready at the time.  It definitely makes sense to bid both.  Winning both was probably a surprise, but it means NASA would like both options on the table.

[Lars-J]

It's nice to see this kind of openness from Firefly - here is a video they shared of a failed test:

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1075480294294077440

[TrevorMonty]

It's nice to see this kind of openness from Firefly - here is a video they shared of a failed test:

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1075480294294077440

Blowing up engines while testing is OK, unfortunately its the test stand that gets damaged in process that puts hole in test schedule.
Blue built 2 stands for BE4 just to protect against this. Easy to do when funding isn't an issue.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1076936639602147330

Commencing stage qualification testing was one of Firefly’s primary goals for 2018. Mission accomplished! This video shows a recent test of the integrated Alpha second stage, which includes flight-configuration propulsion, structures and tankage, pressurization and (1/4)

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1076936643242807297

propellant management systems, and avionics. The stage operates  autonomously, controlled by Firefly-developed flight software. These tests also demonstrate full activation of Firefly’s large-scale vertical test stand, “TS2”, at Firefly’s Briggs, TX test facility.  (2/4)

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1076936644127793152

In 2019 Firefly will continue qualification testing of both the first and second stages of Alpha and begin flight acceptance testing in May, supporting our goal of December 2019 first launch from VAFB. We are very proud of the Firefly team’s 2018 accomplishments and (3/4)

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1076936644836712449

also applaud the significant progress of the entire newspace small launcher  community. We wish everyone Happy Holidays and great success in your 2019 endeavors! (4/4)

[catdlr]

YouTube version of the above:

2018 Qual Testing

Firefly Aerospace
Published on Dec 23, 2018

Commencing stage qualification testing was one of Firefly’s primary goals for 2018. Mission accomplished! This video shows a recent test of the integrated Alpha second stage, which includes flight-configuration propulsion, structures and tankage, pressurization and propellant management systems, and avionics. The stage operates autonomously, controlled by Firefly-developed flight software. These tests also demonstrate full activation of Firefly’s large-scale vertical test stand, “TS2”, at Firefly’s Briggs, TX test facility. 

In 2019 Firefly will continue qualification testing of both the first and second stages of Alpha and begin flight acceptance testing in May, supporting our goal of December 2019 first launch from VAFB. We are very proud of the Firefly team’s 2018 accomplishments and also applaud the significant progress of the entire newspace small launcher community. We wish everyone Happy Holidays and great success in your 2019 endeavors!

[gongora]

Firefly Aerospace is behind Florida rocket project: sources

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - Firefly Aerospace Inc, a resurgent rocket company founded by a former SpaceX engineer, plans to build a factory and launch site at Florida’s Cape Canaveral Spaceport in a $52 million deal, people familiar with the project said on Wednesday...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1091480640132767744

Hot out of the oven, the first Alpha 1st stage fuel tank barrel section.  The Firefly Alpha will be 29 meters tall and deliver 1,000 kg to LEO starting in December 2019. Great work by the Firefly composites team! #MakingSpaceForEveryone

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1092450633372848128

This video shows the first hotfire test of Firefly-engineered hydraulic thrust vector control actuators on our Lightning engine. More tests with larger sweep angles and both pitch and yaw coming!

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1092528281528614912

A newly integrated 2nd stage headed to the test stand. The Firefly structures team has developed an innovative composite boss for the LOx tank that eliminates issues around metal bosses mated to composite structures at cryogenic temperatures. Great work by the entire team!

[vaporcobra]

Totally missed these the last few weeks.

1. A nice side-by-side of Reaver and Lightning from Mark Watt.
2. COPV burst-test aftermath
3. Firefly's shop floor as of late January
4. Better photo of the S1 prop tank test article
5. High-quality tidbits (with good sound!) of a 200s Lightning test.
6. Alpha stage separation testing with Systima Technologies

[FutureSpaceTourist]

New article on Firefly, Tom Markusic and Max Polyakov:

After a remarkable resurrection, Firefly may reach space in 2019
"They said 'Screw it, let’s just do it and go to space.'"

Eric Berger - 2/11/2019, 12:45 PM

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/firefly-returns-from-the-dead-with-a-larger-rocket-and-lunar-aspirations/

Nothing specific on immediate progress but lots of good background on the company and potential future plans (including the Gamma space plane!).

[TrevorMonty]

No mention in the article about Virgin's law suit in 2016 against Markusic, which is why the investors deserted Firefly and let it fold.

[Lar]

No mention in the article about Virgin's law suit in 2016 against Markusic, which is why the investors deserted Firefly and let it fold.

Is there a good article that describes where things stand with that? Lawsuit settled, or still ongoing?