Firefly Space : Company and Development General Thread

[edzieba]

Sound is extremely difficult to record for rocket engines: the max levels are absurd and the dynamic range huge. A big block of clipped noise is your most likely outcome for anything vaguely nearby.

[ParabolicSnark]

True, but the green I'm talking about is in the 'tail' of the plume after ignition has occurred, not the startup transient. They could just be free-flowing TEA-TEB during operation too, but that doesn't seem like a great idea.

If you look at the frame rate and frame count on the bottom you'll see this is only the first 0.5 second of startup. When igniting an engine with TEA-TEB, you need to maintain its flow long enough for the systems to confirm that the RP-1 is combusting or you risk detonating. The TEA-TEB overlaps with RP-1 flow for about 1-3 seconds before turning off.

You can see that transition on Firefly's Lighting in this video (TEA-TEB is on from t=2 to t=4 seconds):
and on Virgin Orbit's Newton 4 in this video (TEA-TEB is on from t=7 to t=10 seconds):

Sound is extremely difficult to record for rocket engines: the max levels are absurd and the dynamic range huge. A big block of clipped noise is your most likely outcome for anything vaguely nearby.

Exactly. The sound you're hearing is basically the microphone screaming in agony.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1174743233030742022

Mordor or the Firefly Aerospace Test Site?

[novak]

If you look at the frame rate and frame count on the bottom you'll see this is only the first 0.5 second of startup. When igniting an engine with TEA-TEB, you need to maintain its flow long enough for the systems to confirm that the RP-1 is combusting or you risk detonating. The TEA-TEB overlaps with RP-1 flow for about 1-3 seconds before turning off.

Yeah.  It only seems to be a long time after ignition because that video is slowed down.  Looks typical to me.

Exactly. The sound you're hearing is basically the microphone screaming in agony.

And it's only going to be more bizarre if you sync it to a slowmo video.

I actually have heard good sound from engine tests but it's from a microphone specifically tuned to catch the "rumble" and less of the acoustic assault of over-expanded mach 3 fuel-rich gas slamming into dense air and re-igniting. 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1175026652016807936

Alpha first stage four-engine Reaver cluster is on the test stand.  This is a key milestone for our team, which has been making rapid strides to get Alpha to the launch pad! #Firefly #Reavers!

[spacevogel]

Big interview with Max Polyakov and Yuriy Zabiyaka of Firefly, mostly about Ukrainian space sector policies. Article is in Russian, so Google Translate is your friend.

Bits relevant to Firefly's business:
Talking about the proposed bill (which is supposed to reform Ukrainian space sector and give more freedom to private companies; the bill in question, I should add, was quite criticised, namely because it would be a) giving too much freedom and not enough accountability to private sector; b) and thus, risking breaching of international agreements such as Outer Space Treaty, MTCR, etc; so bill likely to be reworked quite a lot before it's passed):

- Let's summarize. The main plus of the law?
YZ: It allows to make rockets here. And export opportunities would become greater because the law removes the old licensing system.
- So you'll build a rocket here?
YZ: We will be able to greatly expand the possibility of a full cycle of engine production. This is a very large part of work. In fact, the law would make it possible for Ukraine to recapture all the parts for which it was responsible during the USSR. This is engine building, integration, etc.
We can expand the spectrum. We can test here. While we will not do a rocket, let alone Firefly, here, because it is an American rocket.
- And what parts can you do here now?
MP: Engines and everything related to them. Only tanks and avionics remain.

On current state of affairs in Firefly:

- How is your R&D? What about the projects?
YZ: We designed valves and turbopumps. The equipment capacity was greatly increased, because we bought two more 3D printers, added heat treatment, test sites, and expanded equipment for the materials science laboratory. We are already considering the possibility of building our own factory - we cannot fit where we are right now.
- Grew up in people?
YZ: 20% more in a year.
- Will the launch of your rocket be in December as planned?
MP: In February. The American Air Force has not confirmed certification for the flight termination system - it does not depend on the rocket. Because of this, the launch was postponed from December 16 to February 19. This system explodes a rocket if it suddenly isn't flying like it should. This is certified by the military. If something went wrong, the lieutenant presses a button - and the rocket explodes.
- If I understand correctly, your local R&D produces and sells components to the American Firefly, and there everything comes together?
YZ: Yes. The rocket is ready. Now wiaiting for permissions.

[PM3]

Big interview - Will the launch of your rocket be in December as planned?
MP: In February. The American Air Force has not confirmed certification for the flight termination system - it does not depend on the rocket. Because of this, the launch was postponed from December 16 to February 19. This system explodes a rocket if it suddenly isn't flying like it should. This is certified by the military. If something went wrong, the lieutenant presses a button - and the rocket explodes.

This explanation of the launch delay is dishonest. Statement by Les Kovacs, "vice president of business development" at Firefly Aerospace, of May 2019 (Spacenews):

“So we will probably push into some time in 2020.”

As usual with new rocket projects, Firefly is far behind development schedule, they knew already months ago that they won't make the December 2019 deadline (but still show that date in their website). I stay with my estimate given above in this thread: First Alpha launch is NET Q3 2020, if Polyakov has enough money to keep the company alive. They will have huge cashburn in the upcoming 12 months. Build rocket factory, set up launch pads, prepare launches. And SpaceX is giving them pressure on the revenue side with Smallsat Rideshare Program.

Firefly claims they have dozends of Alpha launches in the orderbook, but so far not a single customer did publicly commit to launching on Alpha. In contrast to Relativity, who offer exactly the same service. Launch cutomers flying on a new rocket will do a due diligence to decide which company they trust - and so far there seems to be little trust in Firefly being able to launch even by 2022. That is the timeframe of published orders for Relativity's launcher.

[edkyle99]

I'm trying to understand what parts are being built where.  Employment seems to be almost 50-50 between Texas and Ukraine, but the interview suggests that only some "metal parts" are being fabricated in Ukraine - so far.  This suggests that final engine build-up is in Texas, but I wonder.  I've run across presentations stating that composite production is "in-house", apparently in Texas.

 - Ed Kyle     

[playadelmars]

Relativity appear further behind on tech dev and launch schedule but much farther ahead on customer sales (Telesat, Spaceflight, mu Space, now Momentus). I think for VC backed company the business and who is winning there will matter to get the resources and catch up.

[novak]

I'm trying to understand what parts are being built where.  Employment seems to be almost 50-50 between Texas and Ukraine, but the interview suggests that only some "metal parts" are being fabricated in Ukraine - so far.  This suggests that final engine build-up is in Texas, but I wonder.  I've run across presentations stating that composite production is "in-house", apparently in Texas.

 - Ed Kyle     

Everything, including all engine components tested to date have been built in the USA.  Some engine component were designed in Ukraine.  This is also in presentations that can be found by a little google-fu.

Relativity appear further behind on tech dev and launch schedule but much farther ahead on customer sales (Telesat, Spaceflight, mu Space, now Momentus). I think for VC backed company the business and who is winning there will matter to get the resources and catch up.

Personally, I'll take my odds with the people who are ahead technically.  I may be biased because I designed a significant fraction of the Firefly engines.  But I'm not going to believe that Relativity is in the same league until they run a full engine and probably demonstrate autogenous press. 

At this point, from my view, they have a paper rocket. Their whole business plan is going from paper to reality in record time, so I compare Firefly Aerospace's time of 16 months from founding to first full engine cycle start, and stage MDC 7 months later (and yeah, first ever LOx RP tapoff cycle ever) to Relativity doing... what, exactly?  A couple component tests?  In WELL over the 23 months it took Firefly.

Not claiming that I'm not biased, just saying Relativity is eating Firefly's dust.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1176150593360076801

We are running 4 test stands at Firefly as we move towards first flight. Currently on TS-2 we are performing Stage 2 Qualification testing. This video shows Thrust Vector Control (TVC) during a recent test. #Firefly #MakingSpaceForEveryone

Edit to add:

[gongora]

1821-EX-ST-2019

Explanation
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
USC Space Engineering Research Center has a student class project to build and launched a 1U Cubesat into LEO. FireFly has offered a free launch spot, and the 1U will enter LEO orbit. Expected to only last 1-3 months in the orbit. Our Cubesat is using a UHF Beacon only to send information down, no active control and no uplink capability. STA requested to allow us to transmit the data down in UHF amateur band.

Purpose of Operation
Please explain the purpose of operation:    The purpose of the Cubesat flight is to allow students to build, integration and launch a 1U satellite within a single semester. The satellite (MAGNETO) will take magnetometer measurements during its orbit and send down to the USC ground station located in LA CA.

Requested Period of Operation
Operation Start Date:   03/01/2020
Operation End Date:   06/30/2020

[PM3]

Firefly has released a new Payload  Uer's Guide, "Version 2.0":

https://firefly.com/wp-content/themes/firefly_aerospace/files/Alpha%20PUG_20190830_Final_3.pdf

The Alpha has become larger:

- length increases from 29 to 29,75 m
-- first stage length increases from 18 to 18,8 m
-- second stage length shrinks from 6 to 5,75 m
-- payload segment length increases from 5,0 to 5,2m

Dry mass is almost unchanged for both stages, and gross takeoff weight just slightly increases from 54,00 to 54,12 t.

Engine and performance specs (thrust, ISP, max. payload to orbit, insertion accuracy) are unchanged. The MECO height has decreased by a whopping 27 km, but with a closer look they just fixed a typo: 96 => 69 km.

And they pimped the flight envelope: MECO and SECO occur a few seconds earlier at 3-4 % higher velocity (SECO 7,96 instead of 7,7 km/h), for the same 500 km orbital height. I am not into orbital mechanics, but after some Googling it suspect that 7,7 km/h would not have been enough to maintain this orbit.

[novak]

And they pimped the flight envelope: MECO and SECO occur a few seconds earlier at 3-4 % higher velocity (SECO 7,96 instead of 7,7 km/h), for the same 500 km orbital height. I am not into orbital mechanics, but after some Googling it suspect that 7,7 km/h would not have been enough to maintain this orbit.

After SECO, there is a second burn (otherwise, it's just the end of the mission).  So this higher velocity is essentially a slightly different elliptical orbit which would be circularized by a second burn.  The actual velocity that SECO occurs at would vary from mission to mission.

Engine and performance specs (thrust, ISP, max. payload to orbit, insertion accuracy) are unchanged. The MECO height has decreased by a whopping 27 km, but with a closer look they just fixed a typo: 96 => 69 km.

Probably.  But MECO varies strongly with mission also, so much so that it's easily conceivable that a single vehicle would have a range of MECO that large.  You don't see it as much with the big vehicles aiming for GTO but there is a massive difference between 200km and 500km.  For low altitudes like 200km, you generally see a vehicle fly straight up, then over (direct inject, which leads to very soft loads and high MECO) whereas for higher altitudes it will have to do more than one burn and will take a more optimized path towards that trajectory where it will gain more downrange velocity while still in the atmosphere (higher maxq, lower MECO).

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/americaspace/status/1179349722324185094

Reaver Borealis! #Firefly #Reavers #MakingSpaceForEveryone

[c4fusion]

https://twitter.com/americaspace/status/1179349722324185094

Reaver Borealis! #Firefly #Reavers #MakingSpaceForEveryone

I wonder why the bottom two are not firing in the pic?

[Lars-J]

They are probably gradually increasing the number of simultaneous running engines, to reduce the risk of a surprise harmonic or vibration issue that could wreck things.

[russianhalo117]

https://twitter.com/americaspace/status/1179349722324185094

Reaver Borealis! #Firefly #Reavers #MakingSpaceForEveryone

I wonder why the bottom two are not firing in the pic?

The set up necessitates 4 engines. They started firing 1 and are adding an engine every few tests.

[novak]

https://twitter.com/americaspace/status/1179349722324185094

Reaver Borealis! #Firefly #Reavers #MakingSpaceForEveryone

I wonder why the bottom two are not firing in the pic?

Here you go:

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1180177220087758852

[ChrisWilson68]

In the Firefly TV universe, the Reavers are space cannibal monsters.  It seems a strange choice to me that Firefly the company is using the name "Reavers" for something that's supposed to be good.