Firefly Space : Company and Development General Thread

[TrevorMonty]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firefly-aerospace-to-automate-composite-rocket-production-with-ingersoll-machine-tools-301162238.html?tc=eml_cleartime

[AirmanPika]

Almost gone...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firefly-aerospace-to-automate-composite-rocket-production-with-ingersoll-machine-tools-301162238.html?tc=eml_cleartime

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1324374351047725058

3D Printing Industry has a great article on Firefly’s implementation of Ingersoll’s Automated Fiber Placement technology, which will allow us to manufacture our all-composite Alpha rocket airframe in just two weeks!
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/firefly-aerospace-to-utilize-ingersoll-machine-tools-afp-systems-for-alpha-rocket-airframe-178510/

[harrystranger]

It appears Firefly has begun to clear SLC-20 again.

Image from Sentinel-2 @ 2020-11-04 16:15:31 UTC.

[Robotbeat]

I wonder how fast they can churn out these engines. Based on what I've read about the Firefly engines is that their liners are machined from forgings, and the jacket is electrodeposited on. That electrodeposition process isn't necessarily a fast process or a common place process. I'd think they need to go to specialized vendors to do that electrodeposition process and that they don't have that capability in house.

Are you saying that the jacket is electroplated over the waxed liner that is shown on slide 7 in the attachment?   I do know that other methods would electroform the jacket on a machined mandrel, remove from the mandrel & then selectively electrodeposit brazing metals ( or alloys ) and mate/bond the jacket & liner in a brazing furnace.  This was done in house the the rocket engine mfg. I know of. 

Modern high speed acid copper electrodeposition can deposit metal in excess of 10 microns per minute, so even a thick jacket ( or liner) can be electroformed in a relatively short time if the electroplating tool is optimized for the geometry of the part.

AFAIK, they aren't deposited all in one go, but in many passes. I don't have direct experience with fully electrodeposited jackets, so no idea on the actual timeframe. It seems like days at a time just for a jacket. Where printed chamber is days for a chamber.

Real cool video of the Vulcain engine being fabbed (electrodeposited jacket @ 24 min): 

3D printed chambers are usually just printed, cleaned out, heat treated, then machined.

Copper liners do get nickel plated prior to brazing, but it's your typical nickel plating process with only thicknesses in the order of 10s of microns. In a hip brazed chamber, it's still a lot of manual processes like close out welds and leak tests, ect prior to the actual braze then a lot of machining away of metal. Lots of touch labor going into that part. I could be wrong, but looking at the finished chamber, the Firefly engines do not look like a HIP Brazed chamber, but more like an electrodeposited one. Like the lack of a throat support makes me think it's not HIP Brazed, but electro deposited.

Either way, both those are labor intensive processes to do a close out. Printed chambers are just a lot faster turn around time than both those methods.


edit: Makes me think if they are already bothering with traditional manufacturing methods, why don't they go for a single engine or dual engine system. Wonder if it's due to the limitations of the turbopump Ukraine is allowed to export. I'd think just a single Merlin class engine would save them weight, complexity in plumbing, and time by just making a single engine. The upper stage and first stage engines are already different, so it's not about keeping commonality of the engines.

Also let me rethink about the chamber manufacturing technique used. They also can be just vacuum brazing the chamber as well.

edit 2: Confirmed they are electrodeposited jackets. Found a Powerpoint on google that confirmed that they are "Copper / nickel plated thrust chamber"

Large printed chambers can take months just to print.

[Robotbeat]

We used it at Rotary on the Jet A fuel tank and I got Scaled to quote a honeycomb-cored composite tank for QuickReach (for the DARPA-AirLaunch FALCON program) but that program ended before we could implement it.

(Edit: added a photo of the Rotary Roton fuel tank fabrication.)

I did not know that. I don't have any sort of feel for relative cost in this area. Skin-and-core sounds expensive. How do you wrap a honeycomb around a relatively low radius? The easiest way I can figure to use this sort of construction is actually foam core. That seemed a lot more forgiving, but I'm not sure the property increases you get are worth the mass and complexity. 

Did you use the design freedom of using different thickness skins on inside and outsider?

We used foam on the LOX tank and Nomex core on the fuel tank, and definitely did use differing densities of core materials as well as skin thickness.  The typical cost was about $150/lbm of finished structure using the hand layup prototyping techniques that were available to us – but that was over 20 years ago, and some things are cheaper to do and some things more expensive these days.

looks like there is a new article up from composites world at least from this tweet https://twitter.com/CompositesWrld/status/1318567874701778946?s=19

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-alpha-launch-vehicle-designing-performance-in-cost-out

Looking at Ingersol Machine videos on Youtube, these are composite 3D printers. Firefly are 3D printing most of LV much same as what Relativity keeps publicizing, but Firefly have flight ready LV.
Ingersol are definitely expertise in there field and have worked with lot of large aerospace companies.

Not remotely the same sort of composite. Ingersoll themselves show the Masterprint being used to print the tooling used for creating CFC parts, not for those parts themselves.
Specifically, they print bulk thermoplastic with embedded short fibres (the same technique as used on desktop FFF machines), which have the limitation in that fibre orientation is determined by print plane. The bulk of the material by volume and by mass is plastic, with the fibre providing some isotropic reinforcement in effectively one plane.
Firefly's rocket body (and other CFC aerospace parts) use multiple layers of carbon fibre woven in multiple orientations, with the 'fibre plane' effectively normal to the surface of the part. The goal is to maximise the mass that is the carbon fibre itself, and use as little epoxy as possible. The plastic used is thermoset, not thermosoftening.

'3D printing' high performance CFCs in free air is a non-trivial task that I do not think I have seen anyone accomplish yet. However, computer-controlled fibre layup onto tooling is not a new technique: Northrop were early adopters for the B2 manufacture, so the technique is at least 3 decades old. Most oft the time that sort of fibre placement is not necessary, so for cylindrical rocket bodies (and COPVs) much simpler fibre laying robots like those used by Rocketlab are all that is needed.

Meh, AFP isn’t much different than 3D printing. AFP is an additive process and very similar to continuous fiber 3D printers. The only major difference is with AFP, a lot more material is laid down at a time and the “print bed”/tool is not always (and usually isn’t) just a flat surface. So I guess that means you have more tooling cost, but that allows you to make much stronger and more optimized parts than with just regular “3D printing” approaches.

AFP can use either thermoset or thermoplastic matrices. Same for 3D printers, actually, but thermoplastic is more common for 3D printing and thermoset is more common for AFP.

But yeah. In actuality, there’s no an enormous distinction between AFP and 3D printing.

[Davidthefat]

Large printed chambers can take months just to print.

Manufacturing time all really depends on the design of the chamber itself and the organization if it leads to parallel processing of the parts vs sequential and how many outside vendors need to be dealt with. Like a brazed or electrodeposited chamber will require a liner be machined before closing out; no way around that. Even more machining and welding after the close out. With a printed chamber, you are making the liner and the jacket in one go before the machining and other post processing. Even with multi piece printed assemblies, you can print and machine multiple parts in parallel.

Again, all depends on the design of the specific engine, and the processes the organization has internally. Is it a deal breaker? No, but seeing the size of the Firefly chambers, it did cross my mind why not just go big if they can. The idea to be able to use the engine as an upper stage engine for a future vehicle makes sense on why they went with the smaller engines.

[lrk]

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

Is this new?  If not apologies, but I haven't seen any recent discussion here. 

Return of the plug-cluster aerospike, but this time as a space plane?  Upper stage + payload deployed in flight from the rear of the vehicle?  Certainly some unconventional choices, but I don't see any obvious reasons why it wouldn't work. 

[russianhalo117]

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

Is this new?  If not apologies, but I haven't seen any recent discussion here. 

Return of the plug-cluster aerospike, but this time as a space plane?  Upper stage + payload deployed in flight from the rear of the vehicle?  Certainly some unconventional choices, but I don't see any obvious reasons why it wouldn't work. 

No. It was intentionally hidden since site relaunched after the end of the lawsuit. I don't know when they made the page accessible without having to guess the URL.

[JEF_300]

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

Is this new?  If not apologies, but I haven't seen any recent discussion here. 

Return of the plug-cluster aerospike, but this time as a space plane?  Upper stage + payload deployed in flight from the rear of the vehicle?  Certainly some unconventional choices, but I don't see any obvious reasons why it wouldn't work.

Not new at all. In fact, I first remember seeing Gamma on their site back in 2014, when they were still Firefly Space Systems.

[yg1968]

NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Demonstration 2 Contract

-Firefly Black LLC of Cedar Park, Texas: $9.8 million

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-venture-class-launch-services-demonstration-2-contract

[PM3]

So Firefly re-acquired their lost VCLS launch contract of 2015 with a $ 4.3 M premium:

In October 2015, NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) — also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites — access to low-Earth orbit.

The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:

• Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
• Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
• Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million

https://eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/vcls-1

NASA also awarded Venture Class Launch Services contracts in 2015 to Firefly Space Systems and Virgin Galactic. Firefly lost its contract when the company went through bankruptcy, reemerging as Firefly Aerospace.

https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launches-cubesats-for-nasa/

[yg1968]

Firefly Black, the national security and civil space subsidiary of Firefly Aerospace, has been awarded a $9.8M contract for Mission 2 of VCLS Demo 2. The entire Firefly team looks forward to executing this mission with NASA!

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1338510965172822023

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1340337528872849411

The first launch of our Firefly Alpha rocket is coming up and @seeker stopped by to interview Firefly CEO Dr. Tom Markusic about Alpha, our DREAM payloads and more!

[trimeta]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1340337528872849411

The first launch of our Firefly Alpha rocket is coming up and @seeker stopped by to interview Firefly CEO Dr. Tom Markusic about Alpha, our DREAM payloads and more!

You can't pretend Rocket Lab doesn't exist by saying things like "What's different about Alpha is that it's an all-composite rocket, it uses carbon-fiber composite," and then pretend only Rocket Lab exists, by saying things like "Amongst our competitors, we are kind of the 'big' small rocket company. So we have a large small launcher, and that one metric ton is significantly larger than our competitors" and "Firefly's goal is to make these launches as affordable as they can, which in the space industry means about $15 million." Either ABL Space Systems and Relativity Space don't exist, in which case Firefly is substantially more expensive than Rocket lab and Astra (but do in fact provide substantially more payload mass), or ABL and Relativity do exist, in which case...well, they're also advertising prices cheaper than Firefly, despite having around 1.3x the payload mass.

I'm omitting Virgin Orbit, because they're charging as much ABL or Relativity despite having less than half of those companies' payload masses. I have a hard time imaging how VO can remain competitive if either ABL or Relativity survives: basically, VO needs to be the biggest surviving smallsat launcher (or the "equatorial LEO" market they're uniquely able to serve needs to grow substantially), otherwise they're outcompeted by everyone.

IMO, Firefly isn't in as bad a position: if only one of ABL/Relativity survives, Firefly can serve as the "other" large smallsat launch vehicle. Especially if their plans to substantially uprate the Alpha (or complete work on the Beta) come to fruition: at that point they may be competing more directly, rather than relying on customers wanting to maintain two viable companies.

[PM3]

IMO, Firefly isn't in as bad a position: if only one of ABL/Relativity survives, Firefly can serve as the "other" large smallsat launch vehicle.

Add Starship, which aims for < 10 M$ cost per launch.

[TrevorMonty]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1340337528872849411

The first launch of our Firefly Alpha rocket is coming up and @seeker stopped by to interview Firefly CEO Dr. Tom Markusic about Alpha, our DREAM payloads and more!

You can't pretend Rocket Lab doesn't exist by saying things like "What's different about Alpha is that it's an all-composite rocket, it uses carbon-fiber composite," and then pretend only Rocket Lab exists, by saying things like "Amongst our competitors, we are kind of the 'big' small rocket company. So we have a large small launcher, and that one metric ton is significantly larger than our competitors" and "Firefly's goal is to make these launches as affordable as they can, which in the space industry means about $15 million." Either ABL Space Systems and Relativity Space don't exist, in which case Firefly is substantially more expensive than Rocket lab and Astra (but do in fact provide substantially more payload mass), or ABL and Relativity do exist, in which case...well, they're also advertising prices cheaper than Firefly, despite having around 1.3x the payload mass.

I'm omitting Virgin Orbit, because they're charging as much ABL or Relativity despite having less than half of those companies' payload masses. I have a hard time imaging how VO can remain competitive if either ABL or Relativity survives: basically, VO needs to be the biggest surviving smallsat launcher (or the "equatorial LEO" market they're uniquely able to serve needs to grow substantially), otherwise they're outcompeted by everyone.

IMO, Firefly isn't in as bad a position: if only one of ABL/Relativity survives, Firefly can serve as the "other" large smallsat launch vehicle. Especially if their plans to substantially uprate the Alpha (or complete work on the Beta) come to fruition: at that point they may be competing more directly, rather than relying on customers wanting to maintain two viable companies.

RL maybe competitive $/kg if they start reusing boosters.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Firefly Aerospace and Adaptive Launch Solutions Sign Multi-Launch Agreement
December 23, 2020 04:30 PM Eastern Standard Time

CEDAR PARK, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Firefly Aerospace, Inc., a leading provider of economical and dependable launch vehicles, spacecraft, and in-space services, and Adaptive Launch Solutions (ALS), a designer of multi-manifest hardware, avionics and sequencers, and an integrator of single and multiple satellites, today announced they have signed a multi-year Launch Services Agreement (LSA) which includes four Alpha launches beginning in 2021.

“Firefly is very pleased to welcome ALS as a customer and partner for missions in 2021 and beyond”

“Small launch provides small satellite owners right sized, right priced access to space meeting their program and business goals,” said Phil Smith, CEO of ALS. “Our agreement with Firefly Aerospace will provide the flexibility and responsiveness demanded by government operators and commercial owners. Under the agreement, ALS is the launch service provider for Alpha Flights 2 and 3, planned for launch in 2021. These two missions offer our customers the earliest commercial launch opportunities on Firefly Alpha. ALS brings to our Firefly partnership decades of launch integration experience, most recently utilized on the United States Space Force (USSF) Launch Manifest Systems Integrator (LMSI) program. The LMSI program team delivers capabilities and integration approaches that establish U.S. government enterprise-wide capability for small satellite delivery to space.”

“Firefly is very pleased to welcome ALS as a customer and partner for missions in 2021 and beyond,” said Dr. Tom Markusic, Firefly CEO. “In addition to providing launch services to ALS, Firefly plans to leverage ALS’ unique primary and secondary payload integration capability, processing experience and proprietary hardware for current and future launch campaigns.”

Firefly is preparing for the first launch of the Alpha vehicle in early 2021. Acceptance testing of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 for Flight 1 have been completed, and Firefly’s Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 2 launch site is nearing completion and activation.

“Firefly’s agreement with ALS will allow us to pursue strategic opportunities to support Firefly on both our Western and Eastern ranges,” added Firefly’s Chief Revenue Officer Bradley Schneider. “Firefly has now nearly filled our 2021 launch manifest and is focused on finalizing our 2022 flight opportunities. The demand for access to Low Earth Orbit is rapidly expanding, and Firefly will provide the most dependable and economical small launch vehicles in the industry.”

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 ten metric tons of payload at the lowest cost/kg in the small-lift class. Combined with Firefly’s in-space vehicles, such as the Space Utility 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 Vandenberg, CA and Washington, D.C.

ABOUT ADAPTIVE LAUNCH SOLUTIONS

ALS is a Small Disadvantaged Business providing: Aerospace engineering design and analysis services, qualified flight hardware, launch integration, and mission engineering services for spacecraft and payloads, all accomplished with a team of deeply experienced staff who provide complete mission and launch engineering, direct engagement with LV provider to deliver Integrated Multi-manifest Carrier design, fabrication, assembly, test, flight readiness from a complete in-house small satellite systems integration lab while providing integration and interface requirements and all necessary support through direct engagement with SV owner/operators and program offices.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201223005542/en/Firefly-Aerospace-and-Adaptive-Launch-Solutions-Sign-Multi-Launch-Agreement

[vaporcobra]

Firefly Aerospace and Adaptive Launch Solutions Sign Multi-Launch Agreement
December 23, 2020 04:30 PM Eastern Standard Time

Firefly is preparing for the first launch of the Alpha vehicle in early 2021. Acceptance testing of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 for Flight 1 have been completed, and Firefly’s Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 2 launch site is nearing completion and activation.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201223005542/en/Firefly-Aerospace-and-Adaptive-Launch-Solutions-Sign-Multi-Launch-Agreement

Not a huge surprise but Alpha Flight 1 has slipped into 2021.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1346596013679771651

Caught up with the awesome people at @Firefly_Space today! I can’t wait to see their Alpha rocket launch early this year! It’ll be the largest carbon fiber rocket, first tap-off cycle orbital rocket and frankly awesome looking!!! Think they’ll make orbit on their first attempt?