Firefly Space : Company and Development General Thread

[JEF_300]

Firefly may want to solve their financial issues first before risking a launch.

Launching things is both how launch companies make money and, more importantly, how they prove to investors that they're worth investing in. Launching is how a launch company solves it's financial issues.

[trimeta]

Firefly may want to solve their financial issues first before risking a launch.

Launching things is both how launch companies make money and, more importantly, how they prove to investors that they're worth investing in. Launching is how a launch company solves it's financial issues.

That said, launching and failing is a good way to turn off investors. So if you can manage to convince more to give you money before the launch, that locks in their money regardless of how the launch goes.

[TrevorMonty]

Firefly may want to solve their financial issues first before risking a launch.

Launching things is both how launch companies make money and, more importantly, how they prove to investors that they're worth investing in. Launching is how a launch company solves it's financial issues.

That said, launching and failing is a good way to turn off investors. So if you can manage to convince more to give you money before the launch, that locks in their money regardless of how the launch goes.

Investors will accept a couple failures at beginning. Most expect it and launch companies should be budgeting for it.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[CameronD]

Firefly may want to solve their financial issues first before risking a launch.

Launching things is both how launch companies make money and, more importantly, how they prove to investors that they're worth investing in. Launching is how a launch company solves it's financial issues.

That said, launching and failing is a good way to turn off investors. So if you can manage to convince more to give you money before the launch, that locks in their money regardless of how the launch goes.

Investors will accept a couple failures at beginning. Most expect it and launch companies should be budgeting for it.

Indeed..  The best way to turn off investors is not to launch anything at all - and better than that is to never even try.

[Danderman]

Are they going to launch on 14th this month? Or there are delays?

There are delays.

The question is if they will launch this year.

[JEF_300]

Are they going to launch on 14th this month? Or there are delays?

There are delays.

The question is if they will launch this year.

I haven't seen any reason to believe they won't attempt a launch before the end of the summer.

[Alberto-Girardi]

Firefly may want to solve their financial issues first before risking a launch.

Launching things is both how launch companies make money and, more importantly, how they prove to investors that they're worth investing in. Launching is how a launch company solves it's financial issues.

That said, launching and failing is a good way to turn off investors. So if you can manage to convince more to give you money before the launch, that locks in their money regardless of how the launch goes.

Investors will accept a couple failures at beginning. Most expect it and launch companies should be budgeting for it.

Indeed..  The best way to turn off investors is not to launch anything at all - and better than that is to never even try.

Agree. But imo they will be carefull, bacause they are founded by others. I think they can't permit SpaceX style things.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.space.com/firefly-aerospace-alpha-rocket-launch-2021

Firefly Aerospace readies Alpha rocket for 2021 debut launch, ramps up operations
By Elizabeth Howell 5 hours ago

The company has big plans for this year.

Though Firefly Aerospace missed its own 2020 deadline to launch its Alpha rocket into space, the company says it's confident a 2021 debut is in the cards.

In an exclusive interview with Space.com, Firefly CEO Tom Markusic described the flurry of activity going on at his new home base at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, where he divides his time into two chief areas. Half of it is supporting launch teams for the first Alpha launch, which is expected to take place this spring, and the other half is looking at options for a very large fundraising round.

[trimeta]

https://www.space.com/firefly-aerospace-alpha-rocket-launch-2021

Firefly Aerospace readies Alpha rocket for 2021 debut launch, ramps up operations
By Elizabeth Howell 5 hours ago

The company has big plans for this year.

Though Firefly Aerospace missed its own 2020 deadline to launch its Alpha rocket into space, the company says it's confident a 2021 debut is in the cards.

In an exclusive interview with Space.com, Firefly CEO Tom Markusic described the flurry of activity going on at his new home base at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, where he divides his time into two chief areas. Half of it is supporting launch teams for the first Alpha launch, which is expected to take place this spring, and the other half is looking at options for a very large fundraising round.

Interesting that that article mentions that the first launch is "expected to take place this spring," with a link to an earlier Ars Technica article that described the launch as happening "mid-March." Since that deadline has passed, I don't know if it still counts as an authoritative source on when their first launch will occur (even though the Wikipedia does the same thing, using that article to support an "April (TBD)" launch date).

It's also interesting that they cite difficulty in qualification issues with an FTS as one challenge to launch...do we know if Rocket Lab builds their own AFTS, or if they outsource? Since we know that difficulties certifying their AFTS seem to be what's holding up launch from Wallops.

Finally, I don't know how having a "more crack- and leak-resistant propellant system" is really a differentiator for Firefly, as this article claims...aside from Rocket Lab also using carbon composites (albeit without the extra insulating layer that Firefly seems to be using), are cracks and leaks really a big problem with rocket tanks? Falcon 1 Flight 4 was able to dent and get blown back out without getting a crack or leak, it doesn't seem like this is a limiting factor for metal tanks.

[Davidthefat]

Finally, I don't know how having a "more crack- and leak-resistant propellant system" is really a differentiator for Firefly, as this article claims...aside from Rocket Lab also using carbon composites (albeit without the extra insulating layer that Firefly seems to be using), are cracks and leaks really a big problem with rocket tanks? Falcon 1 Flight 4 was able to dent and get blown back out without getting a crack or leak, it doesn't seem like this is a limiting factor for metal tanks.

A big thing about carbon composite liquid oxygen tanks in the past has been the cryogenic temperatures that make the epoxy brittle and potentially susceptible to cracking. I am not 100% sure on the history of composite tanks, but I think the biggest project that was attributed to signing off against composite tanks was the X-33 project. One thing to consider that X-33 was a LH - LOX vehicle; liquid hydrogen is even colder than LOX. Also I believe the tanks had to be none cylindrical shapes; I think the downfall was contributed to the composite tanks failing. But I reckon the lower temperature and the non cylindrical shape of the tanks (stress concentrations) really attributed to the failure of the tanks. Not the fact they were composite in the first place.

Another thing about cracking is that there's a chance in igniting the carbon as fresh carbon gets exposed to the LOX during sudden delamination of the composite tank. But I think at that point, if your tank is failing from buckling or impact, it's failing structurally as well and you'll end up with an exploded tank regardless of if it's composite or metal.

edit: to add on, I also think the need for a small mass fraction for the X-33 for SSTO drove the thicknesses of the composite face skins to be thinner and thinner. It used a honeycomb core material, meaning it's a double walled tank. They were expecting the honeycomb to provide the rigidity but, that leaves a relatively insulated honeycomb cavity. I am not certain, but I can imagine the cryogenic fluid flashing into a gas as it leaks into the relatively warm honeycomb section as it leaks through the thin inner faceskin. Leading to a cascading effect of the gas expanding and blowing through more honeycombs and the outer faceskin. To give you an idea, the expansion ratio of Liquid Hydrogen is 1:848 and LOX is 1:861. That's the ratio of volume from liquid to gas as it vaporizes.

[trimeta]

Finally, I don't know how having a "more crack- and leak-resistant propellant system" is really a differentiator for Firefly, as this article claims...aside from Rocket Lab also using carbon composites (albeit without the extra insulating layer that Firefly seems to be using), are cracks and leaks really a big problem with rocket tanks? Falcon 1 Flight 4 was able to dent and get blown back out without getting a crack or leak, it doesn't seem like this is a limiting factor for metal tanks.

A big thing about carbon composite liquid oxygen tanks in the past has been the cryogenic temperatures that make the epoxy brittle and potentially susceptible to cracking. I am not 100% sure on the history of composite tanks, but I think the biggest project that was attributed to signing off against composite tanks was the X-33 project. One thing to consider that X-33 was a LH - LOX vehicle; liquid hydrogen is even colder than LOX. Also I believe the tanks had to be none cylindrical shapes; I think the downfall was contributed to the composite tanks failing. But I reckon the lower temperature and the non cylindrical shape of the tanks (stress concentrations) really attributed to the failure of the tanks. Not the fact they were composite in the first place.

Another thing about cracking is that there's a chance in igniting the carbon as fresh carbon gets exposed to the LOX during sudden delamination of the composite tank. But I think at that point, if your tank is failing from buckling or impact, it's failing structurally as well and you'll end up with an exploded tank regardless of if it's composite or metal.

edit: to add on, I also think the need for a small mass fraction for the X-33 for SSTO drove the thicknesses of the composite face skins to be thinner and thinner. It used a honeycomb core material, meaning it's a double walled tank. They were expecting the honeycomb to provide the rigidity but, that leaves a relatively insulated honeycomb cavity. I am not certain, but I can imagine the cryogenic fluid flashing into a gas as it leaks into the relatively warm honeycomb section as it leaks through the thin inner faceskin. Leading to a cascading effect of the gas expanding and blowing through more honeycombs and the outer faceskin. To give you an idea, the expansion ratio of Liquid Hydrogen is 1:848 and LOX is 1:861. That's the ratio of volume from liquid to gas as it vaporizes.

I certainly believe that Firefly's all-composite tanks are better at avoiding cracks and leaks than historical attempts that never made it to the launch pad, but describing them as a "differentiators from other startup rockets"...the only other "startup rocket" that's even using composite tanks is Rocket Lab, and obviously they worked out the "cracks and leaks" issue. Well, I guess Virgin Orbit, Orbex, Skyrora, and Equatorial Space Systems also use carbon composite tanks, so maybe this separates Firefly from the latter bunch which haven't reached orbit yet. It doesn't seem like something which sets Firefly apart from their actual direct competitors (ABL and Relativity, neither of which use carbon composite tanks), though.

[bstrong]

I certainly believe that Firefly's all-composite tanks are better at avoiding cracks and leaks than historical attempts that never made it to the launch pad, but describing them as a "differentiators from other startup rockets"...the only other "startup rocket" that's even using composite tanks is Rocket Lab, and obviously they worked out the "cracks and leaks" issue. Well, I guess Virgin Orbit, Orbex, Skyrora, and Equatorial Space Systems also use carbon composite tanks, so maybe this separates Firefly from the latter bunch which haven't reached orbit yet. It doesn't seem like something which sets Firefly apart from their actual direct competitors (ABL and Relativity, neither of which use carbon composite tanks), though.

Exactly. From listening to Markusic (and Tim Ellis for that matter), you'd think that winning in the launch business is all about having the most technologically advanced tanks.

Peter Beck, on the other hand, seems to have fully internalized the lessons of SpaceX and talks mostly about flight rate and reuse these days. Tank construction is an implementation detail that is best not to be too wedded to.

[TrevorMonty]

https://www.space.com/firefly-aerospace-alpha-rocket-launch-2021

Firefly Aerospace readies Alpha rocket for 2021 debut launch, ramps up operations
By Elizabeth Howell 5 hours ago


It's also interesting that they cite difficulty in qualification issues with an FTS as one challenge to launch...do we know if Rocket Lab builds their own AFTS, or if they outsource? Since we know that difficulties certifying their AFTS seem to be what's holding up launch from Wallops.

Electron first few launches had humans in loop,  which cause induced human error causing maiden launch to be terminated.
All NZ launches now use AFTS. Wallops launches are being delayed by NASA certification of AFTS.






Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[trimeta]

Firefly received an SBIR contract for work on their "Space Utility Vehicle (SUV)" kick/transfer stage. One thing I noticed here which I don't think I'd picked up on before: they intend for the SUV to be in-orbit refuelable, so it can be launched once and then used on multiple missions. That raises questions about "getting it into position to rendezvous with a fuel tank," "building and launching a separate fuel tank," and "whether the first two steps are easier than just launching a fresh SUV."

https://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/21/sbir/phase1/SBIR-21-1-Z8.09-1597.html

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1375542104978505733

Firefly Research has been selected to receive a NASA contract to support development of a revolutionary new spacecraft called the Space Utility Vehicle (SUV).  The SUV provides the in-space bridge between Firefly’s Alpha launch 1/2 sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts…

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1375542106517823490

vehicle and its Blue Ghost lunar lander, allowing Firefly to provide the only complete end-to-end space transportation solution in the industry. More information on the SUV: https://firefly.com/launch-suv/

[TrevorMonty]

Firefly were partnering with Aerojet on somethings, most likely this SUV's propulsion.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[Jrcraft]

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1381789854858629121

Today, on the 60th anniversary of man first reaching space, we fully installed Alpha and rotated vertical on Firefly’s Vandenberg launch pad. We will soon perform a static fire test prior to our inaugural launch!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1381990651324203010

4 years of hard work from the Firefly team compressed into 4 seconds. Check out an animation of yesterday's Alpha lift!

[Steve G]

They certainly have the best livery in the rocket business.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1384949884848156675

Clair, one of Firefly’s engineering managers, put together a cool time-lapse of a recent Alpha lift. Thanks Clair! #Firefly #MakingSpaceForEveryone