-
#220
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 20 Mar, 2024 16:04
-
https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1770495311867261096We're pumped to share our latest Miranda hot fire that successfully tested our proprietary tap-off combustion cycle.! This development engine features a truncated nozzle to enable rapid iteration while characterizing engine performance. Stay tuned for more updates as we gear up for our next big milestone: the first Miranda hot fire on our brand-new multi-bay engine test stand.
-
#221
by
JEF_300
on 20 Mar, 2024 20:10
-
https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1770495311867261096
We're pumped to share our latest Miranda hot fire that successfully tested our proprietary tap-off combustion cycle.! This development engine features a truncated nozzle to enable rapid iteration while characterizing engine performance. Stay tuned for more updates as we gear up for our next big milestone: the first Miranda hot fire on our brand-new multi-bay engine test stand.
So that's a test fire with the turbopumps, if I'm understanding the tweet correctly.
Although it also seems to imply that they've patented the tap-off cycle, which they obviously cannot, so I will not begrudge anyone that doesn't take the tweet at it's word.
-
#222
by
lrk
on 26 Mar, 2024 13:49
-
Although it also seems to imply that they've patented the tap-off cycle, which they obviously cannot, so I will not begrudge anyone that doesn't take the tweet at it's word.
In Everyday Astronaut's interview with Tom Markusic a couple years ago, Tom mentioned that they are doing something special with the injector/chamber design to allow tapping off combustion gasses to run the turbopump, without needing to inject additional fuel to lower the temperature. I bet that is the "proprietary" bit that the tweet is referencing.
-
#223
by
the_big_boot
on 27 Mar, 2024 14:50
-
https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1770495311867261096
We're pumped to share our latest Miranda hot fire that successfully tested our proprietary tap-off combustion cycle.! This development engine features a truncated nozzle to enable rapid iteration while characterizing engine performance. Stay tuned for more updates as we gear up for our next big milestone: the first Miranda hot fire on our brand-new multi-bay engine test stand.
So that's a test fire with the turbopumps, if I'm understanding the tweet correctly.
Although it also seems to imply that they've patented the tap-off cycle, which they obviously cannot, so I will not begrudge anyone that doesn't take the tweet at it's word.
Pretty sure this is the patent in question
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220268239A1/
-
#224
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Mar, 2024 18:42
-
https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1773072691102183682 Test Stand 1, home of our Reaver and Lightning engines, got our Miranda engine through its initial development testing. As we send Miranda off to its brand new, multi-bay test stand (Test Stand 5), check out our engines in all their glory. These engines have quickly scaled up using the same flight-proven architecture.
-
#225
by
TrevorMonty
on 17 May, 2024 21:42
-
NG now has MLV information on their webpage, probably been there for a while.
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/medium-launch-vehicleIn performance there isn't anything between MLV and Neutron if flown as ELVs and both will use same launch site.
MLV seems to fly under radar a lot on this forum even through its direct competitor to Neutron and could fly before it as development seems to be going well. Operational reuse is likely to take longer than Neutron as it is being flown as ELV first.
-
#226
by
WmThomas
on 20 May, 2024 00:15
-
I guess I missed a beat. The MLV is now an all-liquid propulsion vehicle.
I thought NG was going to keep using solid upper stages. But I guess there is now one vehicle branded MLV under both NG and Firefly.
-
#227
by
TrevorMonty
on 20 May, 2024 00:17
-
I guess I missed a beat. The MLV is now an all-liquid propulsion vehicle.
I thought NG was going to keep using solid upper stages. But I guess there is now one vehicle branded MLV under both NG and Firefly.
Plan was to use Antares solid US for Cygnus missions. Before moving go liquid US. Not sure what plan is now.
-
#228
by
trimeta
on 20 May, 2024 01:26
-
My understanding has always been that Antares 330 is a vehicle with a liquid-propelled first stage (built by Firefly, using their Miranda engines) and the same solid second stage (built by Northrop Grumman) as previous Antares rockets. MLV uses the same first stage as Antares 330, but with a second stage that's basically just a shorter version of that first stage (and with one of Firefly's engines). So "MLV" has been the all-liquid version all along, but initial flights would be the Antares 330 configuration (e.g., using Northrop's solid second stage, not Firefly's liquid second stage).
-
#229
by
Rik ISS-fan
on 20 May, 2024 14:38
-
If Firefly MLV ends up to be named Antares, I think it would be called Antares 340.
And I hope there are also 34x, versions coming available, when in orbit / kick stages are added.
The Antares launcher family has number designations for the first, second and third stages.
The first digit indicates the first stage. With 1 for 2x AJ26-62 engines, 2 for 2x RD-181 engines and 3 for the MLV first stage.
The second digit indicates the second stage. 1 = Castor 30A, 2=Castor 30B & 3= Castor 30XL
I think the MLV second stage with Vira engine could get designated to the number 4.
The third digit indicates the third stage, this hasn't been used jet. 0 indicates no third stage.
1=BTS, bipropallent third stage, 2=STAR48BV and 3= Orion38, hopefully several non toxic bipropallent third stage options are added. And possibly
So the Antares 330 has the firefly MLV first stage and a Castor 3XL second stage.
The Firefly MLV, with the first stage and second stage could get named Antares 340.
The last digit changes from 0 to another number when a kick-stage is added.
But Antares is a launcher brand used by NGIS. Firefly could chose not to use the Antares name for their MLV.
Hopefully the NGIS Antares 330 and Firefly MLV get other launch sites than Wallops LP-0A.
So also a launch pad at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg AFB.
Possibly they could design two transporter, erector & launcher structures for, one for Alpha and the other for MLV/Antares 330. AFAIK the flame trench for Delta II is large enough for MLV/Antares 3xx.
-
#230
by
edzieba
on 20 May, 2024 16:34
-
NG's PDF on MLV makes it clear: it's not a new Antares but a successor, and Antares will get one last variant (Antares 330 with a Firefly first stage) before replacement.
-
#231
by
trimeta
on 20 May, 2024 16:46
-
NG's PDF on MLV makes it clear: it's not a new Antares but a successor, and Antares will get one last variant (Antares 330 with a Firefly first stage) before replacement.
We'll see, I'm kind of in agreement with Rik ISS-fan on this that "MLV" is a placeholder name (it's literally just "Medium Launch Vehicle"), and once Northrop finalizes the acquisition of Firefly and integrates their launch services team into Northrop Grumman Space Systems, the vehicle will be renamed Antares 340. Or possibly 344, when using the Elytra kick stage.
-
#232
by
russianhalo117
on 20 May, 2024 17:01
-
NG's PDF on MLV makes it clear: it's not a new Antares but a successor, and Antares will get one last variant (Antares 330 with a Firefly first stage) before replacement.
We'll see, I'm kind of in agreement with Rik ISS-fan on this that "MLV" is a placeholder name (it's literally just "Medium Launch Vehicle"), and once Northrop finalizes the acquisition of Firefly and integrates their launch services team into Northrop Grumman Space Systems, the vehicle will be renamed Antares 340. Or possibly 344, when using the Elytra kick stage.
AFAIU: NG have strongly hinted through wording choices and PR spin, since the Antares-300 series/MLV codevelopment joint venture was created, that NG intends on retiring and moving on from their Antares product family and name upon existing/long lead procurement inventory depletion and completion of their currently contracted USOS commercial cargo manifest. MLV will receive an official name at a later date.
-
#233
by
trimeta
on 20 May, 2024 17:08
-
NG's PDF on MLV makes it clear: it's not a new Antares but a successor, and Antares will get one last variant (Antares 330 with a Firefly first stage) before replacement.
We'll see, I'm kind of in agreement with Rik ISS-fan on this that "MLV" is a placeholder name (it's literally just "Medium Launch Vehicle"), and once Northrop finalizes the acquisition of Firefly and integrates their launch services team into Northrop Grumman Space Systems, the vehicle will be renamed Antares 340. Or possibly 344, when using the Elytra kick stage.
AFAIU: NG have strongly hinted through wording choices and PR spin, since the Antares-300 series/MLV codevelopment joint venture was created, that NG intends on retiring and moving on from their Antares product family and name upon existing/long lead procurement inventory depletion and completion of their currently contracted USOS commercial cargo manifest. MLV will receive an official name at a later date.
We'll see. It depends if they want to emphasize heritage or innovation, and in the end it's just a name.
-
#234
by
XRZ.YZ
on 22 May, 2024 18:34
-
-
#235
by
trimeta
on 22 May, 2024 18:43
-
-
#236
by
TrevorMonty
on 22 May, 2024 20:25
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-22/firefly-aerospace-backers-said-to-explore-1-5-billion-sale?srnd=homepage-americas
Firefly Aerospace Inc. investors are considering a sale that could value the closely held rocket and moon lander maker at about $1.5 billion, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
With Firefly on sale. Will NG just buy it?
Or this is too risky for defense prime?
Considering the close involvement of Firefly and Northrop Grumman's rocket programs, it would seem even risker to let some other company take control of Firefly. Especially if they ended up being a competitor of Northrop's.
NG hasn't really been competing in launch industry for few years, so losing to competitor isn't big deal. Antares only flys Cygnus once year and Pegagus hasn't flown for years with last mission it should've won going to F9R, thanks to SpaceX heavily discounting it.
-
#237
by
trimeta
on 22 May, 2024 21:49
-
NG hasn't really been competing in launch industry for few years, so losing to competitor isn't big deal. Antares only flys Cygnus once year and Pegagus hasn't flown for years with last mission it should've won going to F9R, thanks to SpaceX heavily discounting it.
Perhaps, but as you pointed out in the other thread, if someone like Sierra Space bought Firefly, their cargo vehicle would be a competitor to Cygnus. Not exactly comfortable to buy your payload's ride from someone building a competing payload (as all the commsat constellations buying rides on Falcon 9 can attest).
-
#238
by
trimeta
on 22 May, 2024 21:57
-
To put it another way: Peter Beck often speaks of the virtues of holding the "keys to space" (that is, access to your own in-house launch vehicles) while also being an "end-to-end space company" (which is to say, building your own payloads and operating them directly to make a profit). A Northrop Grumman which owns Firefly Alpha, MLV, Elytra, and Blue Ghost -- not to mention products they acquired from Orbital ATK, like Cygnus and MEV -- would be well-positioned to compete in this manner.
-
#239
by
Asteroza
on 23 May, 2024 00:27
-
To put it another way: Peter Beck often speaks of the virtues of holding the "keys to space" (that is, access to your own in-house launch vehicles) while also being an "end-to-end space company" (which is to say, building your own payloads and operating them directly to make a profit). A Northrop Grumman which owns Firefly Alpha, MLV, Elytra, and Blue Ghost -- not to mention products they acquired from Orbital ATK, like Cygnus and MEV -- would be well-positioned to compete in this manner.
The implication is in the (new)space business, being an integrated vertical with mostly in-house stuff may be a competitive advantage, though that is still slightly orthogonal to industry consolidation issues. Customers actually want payloads in orbit, so anyone that can roll up launch and spacecraft bus and ops as a complete service solution is in theory superior.