Firefly Space : Company and Development General Thread

[Gliderflyer]

I can't remember if this has been posted here before, but here is Firefly's engine patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11008977B1/

[butters]

So Markusic announces in August that Firefly is delivering about 50 engines to an undisclosed company developing their own launch vehicle. Turns out the agreement is for "up to" 50 engines, and Astra denies it's going to be 50, and the delivery is not the beginning of a customer engine deal but rather part of an IP deal where Astra will produce the engines themselves. Firefly tried to sell engines but Astra declined and insisted on licensing IP instead.

Sounds like Markusic really felt the need to make that announcement to drum up interest from investors. Obviously we don't know how much Astra is paying for the IP, but it'll be nothing like what investors might have imagined when they heard that Firefly was delivering 50 engines to a mystery launch provider and could be poised to be become a major engine supplier. Instead they're helping a competitor which will offer much lower pricing for customers whose payloads are less than twice the mass of a Starlink. Shut up and take my money?

[trimeta]

I think Firefly and Astra are only in separate markets insofar as Firefly is trying to escape the small-launch market with the Beta, while Astra wants to be the low-cost leader of the small-launch market. Both of those are perhaps aspirational. That said, if both companies achieved their respective goals, Firefly would be happy to get some extra revenue from Reaver IP by helping someone in a market they no longer care about.

[JEF_300]

I think Firefly and Astra are only in separate markets insofar as Firefly is trying to escape the small-launch market with the Beta, while Astra wants to be the low-cost leader of the small-launch market. Both of those are perhaps aspirational. That said, if both companies achieved their respective goals, Firefly would be happy to get some extra revenue from Reaver IP by helping someone in a market they no longer care about.

At the present time, Astra launches rocket that will hopefully put 50 kg into orbit, and Firefly has launched a rocket that will hopefully put 1,000+ kg into orbit. There's not going to be any payload overlap between them, so I think we can safely say their in different markets.

[PM3]

At the present time, Astra launches rocket that will hopefully put 50 kg into orbit, and Firefly has launched a rocket that will hopefully put 1,000+ kg into orbit. There's not going to be any payload overlap between them, so I think we can safely say their in different markets.

The 50 kg is to 500 km SSO, which compares to 630 kg with Firefly Alpha.

Those engines are for future Astra rockets. Rocket 4 is announced with 200 kg to SSO, and Rocket 5 is envisioned with 500 kg.

[JEF_300]

At the present time, Astra launches rocket that will hopefully put 50 kg into orbit, and Firefly has launched a rocket that will hopefully put 1,000+ kg into orbit. There's not going to be any payload overlap between them, so I think we can safely say their in different markets.

The 50 kg is to 500 km SSO, which compares to 630 kg with Firefly Alpha.

Those engines are for future Astra rockets. Rocket 4 is announced with 200 kg to SSO, and Rocket 5 is envisioned with 500 kg.

Well if we're just gonna assume that Astra will successfully transition to their later Rockets, I think we also have to assume that Firefly does too. So then we're at 4-6 tons vs 500 kg, which is just a larger version of the same situation.

[PM3]

Well if we're just gonna assume that Astra will successfully transition to their later Rockets, I think we also have to assume that Firefly does too. So then we're at 4-6 tons vs 500 kg, which is just a larger version of the same situation.

So you assume that Firefly will scrap the Alpha when Beta is launching? I did not consider this, but yes, it makes lots of sense, as Alpha ist not competitive against ABL's low-cost RS1 launcher. But Beta - if it is still based on the Alpha design - will not be competitive against Rocket Lab's Neutron, and of course not against Starship.

So selling engine licenses (and maybe moon landers) may be the only business case left for Firefly. Assuming they are getting per-piece fees from Astra.

[TrevorMonty]

Well if we're just gonna assume that Astra will successfully transition to their later Rockets, I think we also have to assume that Firefly does too. So then we're at 4-6 tons vs 500 kg, which is just a larger version of the same situation.

So you assume that Firefly will scrap the Alpha when Beta is launching? I did not consider this, but yes, it makes lots of sense, as Alpha ist not competitive against ABL's low-cost RS1 launcher. But Beta - if it is still based on the Alpha design - will not be competitive against Rocket Lab's Neutron, and of course not against Starship.

So selling engine licenses (and maybe moon landers) may be the only business case left for Firefly. Assuming they are getting per-piece fees from Astra.

Just because company is making medium or large LVs doesn't mean they will retire their small LV especially if there is enough launches a year to make them profitable. The small LVs maybe good way to attract new customers. If maiden launch of new satellite goes well there is good chance customer will use the larger LVs for their constellation deployment. Sales aren't always about cheapest price, business relationships and trust are also very important.


Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

[JEF_300]

Well if we're just gonna assume that Astra will successfully transition to their later Rockets, I think we also have to assume that Firefly does too. So then we're at 4-6 tons vs 500 kg, which is just a larger version of the same situation.

So you assume that Firefly will scrap the Alpha when Beta is launching? I did not consider this, but yes, it makes lots of sense, as Alpha ist not competitive against ABL's low-cost RS1 launcher. But Beta - if it is still based on the Alpha design - will not be competitive against Rocket Lab's Neutron, and of course not against Starship.

So selling engine licenses (and maybe moon landers) may be the only business case left for Firefly. Assuming they are getting per-piece fees from Astra.

I suppose I didn't explain that assumption huh? It's a rather long explanation, but I suppose it's all relevant to the thread.

My assumption is based on my (non-scientific) evaluation of the entire "1-ton" market (hereafter referred to as "Falcon 1-class").

- If you want a dedicated launch for your smallsat, a reusable Electron or an Astra Rocket will almost always be able to do it, and for cheaper.
- If you want to launch a constellation, a larger rocket could launch even more of it at once, for less money overall.

Now, don't misunderstand or misquote me here; there are definitely scenario's where using a Falcon 1-class launcher makes sense. But I worry that by virtue of being in the middle of the market, those rockets will have to simultaneously deal with the flaws of either extreme; they won't be the cheapest option, nor will they be the option with the lowest $/kg. So I think that in general, the Falcon 1-class launcher will prove to be- well, not a super niche product, but a niche product relative to the likes of the Soyuz and Electron-class launchers.

Now, there is general agreement that there are more Electron-class launchers out there (mostly still under development) than the market can handle. There also seems to be general agreement, at least among the CEOs of smallsat launcher companies, that the number of options that market can handle, in the US, is 2 or 3. By comparison, there seem to be only 3 launchers being developed in the Falcon 1-class, which would seem to be a good sign. But remember, I think the Falcon 1-class will prove to have a smaller space in the market than the Electron-class. I don't think the market has room for 3x Falcon 1-class launchers.

I suspect that something similar to this analysis above, combined with Starship's progress, is the reason that Relativity and Firefly have both started moving to larger vehicles so quickly, before even making orbit with their first vehicle.

Of the rockets in the Falcon 1-class, the Firefly Alpha, which I love dearly, is definitely the one which will be first to go. It's more expensive than it's competitors, carries less payload than the competitors, can't launch from anywhere like ABL can, has a smaller fairing than Relativity has, etc. It's best hope at being competitive is to be the first to prove itself (reminder that ABL still claims they will launch this year; Firefly being first is not guaranteed), or to get a lot of private work from Firefly's owner, which I did hear (from someone who knew someone in the company) is the reason he bought it in the first place.

So the summary here is that I think Alpha is an excellent rocket using excellent designs and technology, which will have a very short shelf life, but be an excellent way for Firefly to have cut it's teeth.

[ringsider]

Now, there is general agreement that there are more Electron-class launchers out there (mostly still under development) than the market can handle. There also seems to be general agreement, at least among the CEOs of smallsat launcher companies, that the number of options that market can handle, in the US, is 2 or 3. By comparison, there seem to be only 3 launchers being developed in the Falcon 1-class, which would seem to be a good sign. But remember, I think the Falcon 1-class will prove to have a smaller space in the market than the Electron-class. I don't think the market has room for 3x Falcon 1-class launchers.

Is this correct? There are hundreds of wannabes with websites, but if you look only at the most credible projects there are a lot of 1 ton launchers.

Astra is currently just 25-50kg which is probably so small it could be called "sub-micro" launcher... That is a small niche, not sure who else plans to enter that domain. Vector (RIP) was one of the only players. Actually Astra's nutty business plan of 300 rockets a year by 2024 sounds very similar to what Jimmy Cantrell was promising.

If you classify anything from 50kg up to circa 400-500kg as "true micro" launchers, that covers two operational outfits, Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit and up-and-comers like Launcher domestically and overseas players like Gilmour, Skyrora and OrbEx. I count 6 players, all seeking payloads <500kg (most actually 200-300kg) to fly full rockets. If they stay small, they would probably seek to fly 5-10 rockets annually, so around 7,500-15,000 kgs of payload mass. That is a trivial amount of payload in the broader scheme, and probably relatively easy to close an economic model.

If you then go to a "small" class - around, say, 500kg to approx. 2000kg - you find numerous players: Vega is already there for Arianespace, with several credible efforts well in work: ABL, Firefly, Relativity, Rocket Factory Augsburg, Isar Aerospace, HyImpulse, and ISRO's PSLV (maybe also SSLV - arguably). And Astra has announced plans to move to the sector as well with Rocket 4. So that's 9 advanced players in that sector, all hunting payloads to fill around 1,000kg of nosecone. If you said each plans to fly 5-10 mission annually, that's 45-90 rockets each carrying nominal 1,000kg, so 45-90 tons of payload mass.

That starts to be a lot of mass to find annually. They probably all looked at the forecasts from analysts and thought "the 1 ton market looks the juiciest" but they forgot that most of those networks will be captive to 1-2 launchers e.g. Starlink and OneWeb.

Those rockets are much more expensive to develop than the "sub-micro" or "true micro" class - witness Rocket Lab spending about $100m for first orbit versus Relativity, Firefly, ABL, Isar raising $200-$1000m even prior to first flight. The scale and power is almost literally an order of magnitude higher than a "micro" class, which leads to bigger problems during R&D - larger assets, bigger facilities, higher power, more difficult testing, tougher integration etc. etc.

So who is most likely to face a demand issue? A niche looking for 15 tons annually or a niche looking for 90 tons annually?

The 1 ton class has many of the issues of rideshare, but much higher capex and ongoing costs versus the micro / sub-micro dedicated classes. That's a poisonous mix unless you have a captive customer.  All those 1 ton guys are targeting lower prices for constellation launches. But you would suspect that they can't all fill a 1 ton fairing and make the business work. Just the other day Isar Aerospace was trumpeting a contract win for 10 x 3U satellites. Great, but they are still probably 2-3 years away from launch, and that is 10% of a single rocket. For Rocket Lab that's a full launch, and the customer can leave almost on demand instead of waiting for the rocket to be ready or for the fairing to fill up.

If you look at what Rocket Lab chose to do next, they went much bigger - 8,000kg. Maybe they understand the 1 ton range is a witches brew. And the timing of the RL announcement is also clever in terms of payload bookings; people looking at those 1 ton vehicles that are close to flying will have another option in the market soon, and if Rocket Lab gets that Neutron vehicle flying on time basically all those 1 tonners will wither. That's why Firefly and Relativity have to make matching announcements - in fact, in making those announcements they are almost admitting the 1 ton class is dead on arrival - but they lack credibility on the larger class when the first one hasn't flown / flown to orbit yet.

That probably means the niche to be in right now is the "sub-micro" or "true micro" domain. It's cheaper to develop, has a solid price point based on dedicated service, a differentiated marketplace for smaller customers / one-off payloads, and time-to-orbit advantages against rideshare. Selecting that niche as your first rocket makes a lot of sense as it creates a clear positioning versus rideshare, probably delivers a decent small business, and it gives strong credibility to take another step later.

[trimeta]

If you classify anything from 50kg up to circa 400-500kg as "true micro" launchers, that covers two operational outfits, Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit and up-and-comers like Launcher domestically and overseas players like Gilmour, Skyrora and OrbEx. I count 6 players, all seeking payloads <500kg (most actually 200-300kg) to fly full rockets. If they stay small, they would probably seek to fly 5-10 rockets annually, so around 7,500-15,000 kgs of payload mass. That is a trivial amount of payload in the broader scheme, and probably relatively easy to close an economic model.

I tend to agree with the general sentiment that there's less opportunity in the 1-ton space, but you're neglecting a whole lot of sub-450kg launchers (all payloads to 500km SSO): SPACE ONE's KAIROS (150kg), Skyroot Aerospace's Vikram I (225kg), Perigee Aerospace's Blue Whale 1 (<50kg...so maybe in your "sub-micro" category), Equatorial Space System's VOLANS (<150kg, but probably above the sub-micro line), AgniKul's Agnibaan (<100kg, but again probably over 50kg), and TiSpace's Hapith V (350 kg). And that's just the relatively viable companies.

In the 1-ton space, other than the ones you mentioned, the only company I'm aware of is Vaya Space, and they're frankly in the "less viable" category that I wouldn't have bothered including in the previous paragraph: there are a dozen more companies I could have added to that paragraph, if I were going with "as realistic as Vaya Space." Which, granted, is probably too low a bar.

Basically, I think you only arrive at "there are more one-ton launchers than true micro" if you exclude everyone less credible than Relativity, because then you've got four US-based vehicles (including Astra's), Vega, and PSLV, compared with just Electron and LauncherOne. Perhaps that's a reasonable line to draw, but I think demand for non-US-based options will keep at least some of those true micro projects alive -- at least to the same extent that it keeps Isar, RFA, and HyImpulse alive.

[Blackjax]

That probably means the niche to be in right now is the "sub-micro" or "true micro" domain. It's cheaper to develop, has a solid price point based on dedicated service, a differentiated marketplace for smaller customers / one-off payloads, and time-to-orbit advantages against rideshare. Selecting that niche as your first rocket makes a lot of sense as it creates a clear positioning versus rideshare, probably delivers a decent small business, and it gives strong credibility to take another step later.

I think this conclusion only follows if the % of payloads in this size range that demand their own launch is actually substantial.  If it is only a modest fraction and the rest can do rideshares (possibly with final positioning via some of the new tug players) then there isn't going to be much money in it.  Does anyone actually know the real size of that niche?

[Asteroza]

That probably means the niche to be in right now is the "sub-micro" or "true micro" domain. It's cheaper to develop, has a solid price point based on dedicated service, a differentiated marketplace for smaller customers / one-off payloads, and time-to-orbit advantages against rideshare. Selecting that niche as your first rocket makes a lot of sense as it creates a clear positioning versus rideshare, probably delivers a decent small business, and it gives strong credibility to take another step later.

I think this conclusion only follows if the % of payloads in this size range that demand their own launch is actually substantial.  If it is only a modest fraction and the rest can do rideshares (possibly with final positioning via some of the new tug players) then there isn't going to be much money in it.  Does anyone actually know the real size of that niche?

This is starting to get into a serious launch market digression but, at this point micro and submicro (and maybe a little smallsat) fill out market-wise there may be a play for country specific SSO weather sats (3-12U), but one could make an argument that a small SSO constellation of persistent platforms with country specific added observation payloads (accepting a certain amount of off-axis targeting) could cover that for smaller nations on a budget.

Tech demos are an unreliable market. Observation/surveillance generally pushes you to one-offs or larger constellations that benefit from rideshare/tug services due to bulk surge/intended use. Propellant depot delivery is a $/kg game. Delivering inflatable reentry pods for lowG fast small cargo return requires such a cargo to be expected to exist (space manufactured custom biologicals?). ZBLAN would probably prefer to bring home larger spools so that probably kicks it up a class or two in required reentry vehicle pushing it out of this space.

So what else is there? That are likely small constellations? Being a gapfiller for an existing constellation like the SDA one means 250kg so that writes out most of these newspace launch providers, and is highly dependent on sat failure/retire rate so unless you are on a government launch capability retention contract, that's also unreliable as an income source. I don't really see any provider yet being capable of true on-demand callup for rapid launch using stored sats (and a regularly refreshed pool of stored rockets for use)?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1443020424435183623

Today I got to stand only about 100 meters away from an orbital class rocket engine test fire! I had the pleasure of interviewing @Firefly_Space’s CEO, Thomas Markusic, and we caught a Reaver engine test too!!! 🤯 interview and factory tour comes out next week!

https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1443023817287294979

Wait until you see the high speed footage and all the up close and personal details Tom shows us on Reaver! It’s spectacular!!!

[catdlr]

Tour Firefly Aerospace's Factory and Test Site With Their CEO, Tom Markusic

Join me as I walk through Firefly Aerospace's Texas test site and factory with their CEO, Tom Markusic. This was a highly detailed tour where we got to learn a ton about their engines, their rockets, and rocket science in general. It was super fun chatting with Tom because he has a Ph.D. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, so I learned a lot!

[PM3]

So the failure cause were some bad ("sheered") pins inside an electrical connector for some valves of engine 2.

At 29:30 in the video:

"What is the timeline for your next launch?"

"We'll by ready in December, erm, b' we've got regulatory stuff, we got to go to through our investigation, get final buyoff (?) from the FAA, we want a slightly different trajectory, so the're some updates."

Sounds like NET Q2/2022 for next launch.

41:55
"By the end of next year, we want to have flown five more rockets."

Of course they won't. Two launches in 2022 would be a good achievement.

[Gliderflyer]

Just started watching the video. At about 8 minutes, he says that their tapoff doesn't need to add in any fuel to cool the drive gas, but the patent specifically calls out dumping fuel in to cool it. I wonder what changes they have made since the patent application.

Edit: Looks like the colander is only for the upper stage, and the first stage switched to a pintle injector.

[TrevorMonty]

No immediate plans to make Alpha reuseable. They putting all their effort into Beta, which makes sense as it is likely to be better revenue earner.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Robotbeat]

They say they never had a Reaver blow up. Sounds to me they aren't pushing hard enough.

(And maybe that's why they didn't engineer it for engine-out?)

[Gliderflyer]

They say they never had a Reaver blow up. Sounds to me they aren't pushing hard enough.

(And maybe that's why they didn't engineer it for engine-out?)

Lightning on the other hand.....

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

There some things in the video that "never happened" that happened, so I would also not be surprised if Reaver had dev issues as well.