Firefly Space : Company and Development General Thread

[Craftyatom]

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.

Well, the Firefly-class ship in the series (a MkIII) has three different types of engine: the large Firefly drive at the back, two large swiveling dual-mode engines on the sides (which are said to replace the "Bussard Fusion Drives" of the MkI), and 36 small reaction thrusters for fine in-space maneuvering.  None of these engines share any resemblance with the engine discussed in this thread.

No, the engine discussed in this thread is incredibly loud, dangerous to be near, consumes large amounts of fuel (not to mention the TEA-TEB), and produces a sooty exhaust.  "Reaver" is rather fitting.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1181211551434280963

Over the weekend the Firefly test team successfully proofed the Stage 1 LOX tank. The mass of the Alpha S1 tank structure is less than 1% (0.91% to be precise) of total loaded mass. This is an excellent propellant mass fraction, a key measure of the quality of a rocket design.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1181569944623804416

"The Reaver Nebula”. A cool snap from the startup of Firefly Quad Reaver testing. #Firefly #Reavers #MakingSpaceForEveryone

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1182670869853638657

Firefly is proud to be selected by the USAF as a launch services provider for OSP-4. This contract will procure up to $986M in launch services over 9 years. Firefly looks forward to working with SMC’s Launch Enterprise to support future USAF missions.

[TrevorMonty]

Edit. The tweet is little misleading, they will be competing against other launch providers.

[gongora]

AR1 engines on Firefly Beta?

Aerojet Rocketdyne and Firefly Aerospace to Provide Flexible Access to Space

October 18, 2019 15:18 ET | Source: Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.; Firefly Aerospace, Inc.
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 18, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne and Firefly Aerospace, Inc. (Firefly) are pleased to announce a cooperative agreement that combines the capabilities of both companies to provide flexible, sustainable and highly competitive space access solutions.

Aerojet Rocketdyne and Firefly will serve the growing government and commercial market by providing dedicated small and medium launch capabilities to low Earth orbit (LEO), geosynchronous orbit (GEO) and the Moon. This collaboration will leverage Firefly’s new family of launch vehicles and in-space services with Aerojet Rocketdyne’s experience in propulsion development, additive manufacturing and mission assurance for commercial, national security and exploration missions.

“Our strategic alignment with Firefly will offer very competitive solutions to address emerging launch market demands. We will take advantage of Firefly’s mature launch vehicle designs, Aerojet Rocketdyne’s advanced propulsion systems and the world-class technological capabilities of both companies,” said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. “In particular, Firefly and Aerojet Rocketdyne will provide services to meet emerging national security space requirements.”

The first flight of Firefly’s small-satellite rocket, Alpha, is scheduled for launch in the first quarter of 2020 from Vandenberg AFB. At a dedicated mission price of $15 million, Alpha is currently capable of delivering one metric ton to LEO and 630 kg to sun-synchronous orbit (SSO). Aerojet Rocketdyne is contributing to the first flight of Alpha by providing additive manufacturing expertise for key Reaver first stage engine components. They will have increased influence on Alpha block two upgrades, on both the first and second stage engines, which will work toward an increased Alpha SSO payload performance to greater than 800 kg. These contributions will include expanded implementation of additively manufactured elements to reduce cost and increase reliability, as well as technical input to increase engine performance.

“We’re excited to work with Aerojet Rocketdyne under this new collaborative agreement because of their extensive experience and the unique mission solutions they offer. Combined with our already mature Alpha design, our cooperation with Aerojet Rocketdyne is a significant differentiator in the small to medium launch vehicle market and will enable rapid performance increases of the Alpha vehicle,” said Firefly CEO Tom Markusic.

Aerojet Rocketdyne’s unique additive manufacturing, chemical and electric in-space propulsion technologies also have direct applicability to Firefly’s Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV), which transfers small payloads between orbits. The OTV provides mission flexibility by deploying payloads into unique orbits and reaching altitudes and inclinations that are out of reach for many small launch vehicles.

Dr. Markusic added, “Firefly is committed to flying Beta, our medium class launch vehicle. Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 engine, which incorporates the latest advances in propulsion technology, materials science and manufacturing techniques, is incredibly well suited to power Beta given its cost-effective, high performance capabilities. By cooperating on this development, we are accelerating our time to market and providing our customers with high confidence in Beta’s schedule, performance and reliability.”

Citing threats to U.S. space capabilities, senior defense officials have emphasized the need to shift toward space architectures that use smaller spacecraft that can be developed and launched quickly. Offerings from Firefly supported by Aerojet Rocketdyne are ideal to meet these evolving national security requirements.

About Aerojet Rocketdyne: Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader that provides propulsion systems and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, and tactical systems areas, in support of domestic and international customers. For more information, visit www.Rocket.com and www.AerojetRocketdyne.com. Follow Aerojet Rocketdyne and CEO Eileen Drake on Twitter at @AerojetRdyne and @DrakeEileen.

About Firefly Aerospace: Firefly is developing a family of launch and in-space vehicles and services that provide industry-leading affordability, convenience and reliability. Firefly’s launch vehicles utilize common technologies, manufacturing infrastructure and launch capabilities, providing LEO launch solutions for up to four metric tons of payload at the lowest cost/kg in the small-lift class. Combined with Firefly’s in-space vehicles, such as the Orbital Transfer Vehicle and Genesis Lander, Firefly provides the space industry with a one-stop shop for missions to the surface of the Moon or beyond. Headquartered in Cedar Park TX, Firefly has additional presence in Washington, D.C., Dnipro, Ukraine and Tokyo, Japan. Firefly is financed by Noosphere Ventures of Menlo Park, CA.

[JEF_300]

I was about to post that! Here's the tweet.

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1185284767509385216

Some specific quotes.

This collaboration will leverage Firefly’s new family of launch vehicles and in-space services with Aerojet Rocketdyne’s experience in propulsion development, additive manufacturing and mission assurance for commercial, national security and exploration missions.

Dr. Markusic added, “Firefly is committed to flying Beta, our medium class launch vehicle. Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 engine, which incorporates the latest advances in propulsion technology, materials science and manufacturing techniques, is incredibly well suited to power Beta given its cost-effective, high performance capabilities. By cooperating on this development, we are accelerating our time to market and providing our customers with high confidence in Beta’s schedule, performance and reliability.”

Immediate takeaways:

1. There are likely long-term concerns with the Reaver.
2. Firefly Beta is probably not multi-core anymore.
3. AR have finally managed to sell AR-1.

I think this will probably turn out well for all parties in the end.


Edit with further thoughts:

To me, securing a large engine like the AR-1 suggests a pivot by Firefly away from a focus on small to medium launch. With the smallsat market so crowded, this could make sense. Rather than directly compete Rocketlab, Virgin Orbit, Relativity, etc., compete with just their upper payload margins, and the lower payload margins of SpaceX, ULA and NGIS.

That said, it probably only makes sense if:
A. The Firefly Beta, and thus the AR-1, are relatively cheap to build and operate.
B. The Firefly Beta is a reusable vehicle, for basically the same reasons that Rocketlab is looking into reuse.
(I've discussed the potential of a glide/jet-back medium-lift booster on the forum before, and Firefly has shown interested in glide-back before with the Firefly Gamma, but I'm probably projecting now, so back to my main point.)

[TrevorMonty]

This explains where SEP OTV is coming from, thought it was big project for startup like Firefly. Gives them lot creditability with AJR excellent propulsion record and finanicial backing.

[Navier–Stokes]

Firefly partners with Aerojet Rocketdyne, mulls AR1 engine for Beta launch vehicle

Watt said Beta has been redesigned from a triple-core rocket, akin to SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, to a single core in order to increase how much it can lift. That rocket, featuring a reusable first stage, will be able to lift 8,000 kilograms to LEO, he said.

In a statement, Firefly CEO Tom Markusic praised the AR1 as an engine well suited for Beta, but stopped short of saying the engine’s selection is a done deal.

“Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 engine, which incorporates the latest advances in propulsion technology, materials science and manufacturing techniques, is incredibly well suited to power Beta given its cost-effective, high performance capabilities,” Markusic said.

Firefly hasn’t decided for certain that Beta will use the AR1. Aerojet Rocketdyne has been seeking a small- to medium-class launcher for the AR1 after ULA chose Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine to power its Vulcan rocket.

[TrevorMonty]

How will they recover Beta.?
With multiple Reavers its possible to do propulsive VL. A single AR1 couldn't, but could with additional Reavers for landing burn.   Would performance gains justify development of AR1 especially as it would be low volume engine when fitted to RLV.

AJR partnership does give them option of using RL10 for US.

[ncb1397]

How will they recover Beta.?
With multiple Reavers its possible to do propulsive VL. A single AR1 couldn't, but could with additional Reavers for landing burn.   Would performance gains justify development of AR1 especially as it would be low volume engine when fitted to RLV.

AJR partnership does give them option of using RL10 for US.

Pretty simple answer. They aren't planning on recovering Beta and the vehicles they are planning on trying to recover don't use VL.

[GreenShrike]

Pretty simple answer. They aren't planning on recovering Beta and the vehicles they are planning on trying to recover don't use VL.

I think you missed the SpaceNews quote stating that Beta was switching from a triple core design, to a single core reusable.

Watt said Beta has been redesigned from a triple-core rocket, akin to SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, to a single core in order to increase how much it can lift. That rocket, featuring a reusable first stage, will be able to lift 8,000 kilograms to LEO, he said.

Well, if Beta is reusable, that would greatly mitigate concerns over the cost of AR1s, as they could obviously spread the costs of a single engine over multiple flights. Might be a bit painful during testing if they lose more cores than budgeted for, though.

With a single, AR1-powered, reusable medium lift core, I wonder how they're getting it down again? I don't think it'll be on a tail of flame from the AR1. Reaver vernier/landing engines? Helicopter mid-air recovery like Electron?

If Rocket Lab, after gaining a good deal of flight experience, has abruptly done an about-face and switched to reusability, I wonder if Firefly is not-so-much reading tea leaves, but choosing to crib the latest page from Rocket Lab's playbook. It got to be easier to design in reusabilty than bolt it on later, Falcon 9 notwithstanding.

And of course, then there's that page from SpaceX's playbook -- build a vehicle cheap enough to expend in the first place. Gluing an AR1 to the bottom of it may preclude that, if a single AR1 ends up costing Firefly more than nine Merlins cost SpaceX. As 8t to LEO isn't completely ridiculous for a Falcon 9 flight, Beta will potentially be directly competing with F9, which might get a bit tight if Beta is expendable while F9 continues to improve its reusability. A reusable Beta might manage to carve off for itself the lower end of F9's potential payload range, though.

I wonder if ULA's deal with Blue stops Blue from selling the BE-4 elsewhere? After all, AR1 lost the Vulcan contract for reasons in addition to the fact that it was well behind BE-4 in development. Then again AR1 may be completely secondary, and Firefly is more buying Aerojet's expertise elsewhere, with AR1 merely a potential option.

[Lars-J]

I can only assume that both AR and Firefly were desperate - desperate enough to agree to this shotgun wedding. Or is AR buying a significant stake in Firefly?

AR is pretty much the opposite kind of partner a space startup would like to have. Expensive and slow moving, our way or the highway kind of company. So there must be something else going on behind the scenes, especially since Firefly appear to be making good progress on their in-house propulsion.

But I guess you never know, AR could be turning over a leaf and changing things up. But that's a lot of corporate inertia to overcome.

[JEF_300]

Firefly partners with Aerojet Rocketdyne, mulls AR1 engine for Beta launch vehicle

Watt said Beta has been redesigned from a triple-core rocket, akin to SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, to a single core in order to increase how much it can lift. That rocket, featuring a reusable first stage, will be able to lift 8,000 kilograms to LEO, he said.

In a statement, Firefly CEO Tom Markusic praised the AR1 as an engine well suited for Beta, but stopped short of saying the engine’s selection is a done deal.

“Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 engine, which incorporates the latest advances in propulsion technology, materials science and manufacturing techniques, is incredibly well suited to power Beta given its cost-effective, high performance capabilities,” Markusic said.

Firefly hasn’t decided for certain that Beta will use the AR1. Aerojet Rocketdyne has been seeking a small- to medium-class launcher for the AR1 after ULA chose Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine to power its Vulcan rocket.

Wel given this, I'd say pretty much all of my speculation up thread was spot on. AR1 is too big to propulsively land a stage this size, and they've shown interest in glide-back in the past (If you haven't yet, check out this page on their website with the, presuambly outdated, Firefly Gamma design. https://firefly.com/launch-gamma/), and so I feel fairly confident assuming this new Firefly Beta will be a reusable glide-back design powered by the AR1.

8 tons to LEO is a little bit bigger than I would've guesseed they go. That would make it comprable to Antares or Soyuz. I don't know how much more of a market there is for a vehicle of that size now, but it's not unreasonable to assume there will be a bigger market in the future. Especially if you assume there will be a few private station in the mid to late 2020s that will need resupply.

[TrevorMonty]

Beta is up first 2021, Gamma is long range project 2024-25. 2021 is tight to get AR1 to flight ready status.

NB 8000kg maybe expendable performance. Which would be about right for AR1 + 3-4 Reavers for landing.

[Tywin]

Well very soon, happened, my speculation about the AR1 and this new rivals, for the space launcher market...

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38582.msg1989677#msg1989677

It's easy to understand why Spacex is trying to squeeze the small launcher market now...

[JEF_300]

Beta is up first 2021, Gamma is long range project 2024-25. 2021 is tight to get AR1 to flight ready status.

NB 8000kg maybe expendable performance. Which would be about right for AR1 + 3-4 Reavers for landing.

I absolutely understand that Gamma is a far future project. What I'm saying is why would you develop propulive vertical landing at all if you're more interested in glide-back in the long run? It seems much more likely to me that Beta will just also be glide-back.

There also probably won't be reusability on Beta's first launch, so the timeline is a little less tight than 2021.

[Lars-J]

It's easy to understand why Spacex is trying to squeeze the small launcher market now...

It's not clear what is cause & effect here. A lot of things are happening as a response to the moves of SpaceX. The market window may be closing for the small launchers far quicker than they imagined, thus leading to this. Or perhaps this has been in the works for a long time.

[gongora]

Wouldn't Beta with 8000kg to LEO be using a pair of AR1 engines?

[JEF_300]

Wouldn't Beta with 8000kg to LEO be using a pair of AR1 engines?

That would be my first assumption. There was some discussion in an Antares thread at some point about replacing the RD-181s on Antares with AR1s. As I recall, the general conclusion was that it possible, but the AR1s may have to be throttled down. I think that a fresh stage designed for 2x AR1s would be able to handle them non-dethrottled, but that's pure speculation, especially since I don't have a great grasp of just how carbon fiber tanks compare to traditional tanks.