After a remarkable resurrection, Firefly may reach space in 2019

[Jason]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/firefly-returns-from-the-dead-with-a-larger-rocket-and-lunar-aspirations/

[mclumber1]

At first I though the headline was referring to the TV show.

 

I'm glad to see more private companies jumping into the rocket game.  It's interesting how Firefly is trying to nest themselves in between the capability of the Electron rocket, which can deliver a few hundred kilos to orbit, and that of the Falcon 9, which can lift well over 10 tons to low earth orbit.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

I too thought it was the TV show. Thought somebody got confused on which forum they were posting on. 

 

I still think we should give NASA their funding back, increase it even, and get to being the pioneering space cowboys we were in the 60s. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I too thought it was the TV show. Thought somebody got confused on which forum they were posting on. 

 

I still think we should give NASA their funding back, increase it even, and get to being the pioneering space cowboys we were in the 60s. 

 

I don't think NASA should be in the business of building rockets.  Let them build the rovers and satellites that explore other worlds, but leave the launching to private corporations.  

[Jason]

15 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

At first I though the headline was referring to the TV show.

 

But wait, there's more!

 

Quote

About 30 miles up the road, near Briggs, the company has a test site on the rolling plains of the Texas Hill Country. There, Firefly is assembling the Lightning and Reaver engines (yes, the Reaver name is a nod to the Firefly TV show), putting them on test stands, and firing them up.

 

[TwinIon]

It's pretty cool that they're approaching cheaper space flight from a different angle. The more outside the box thinking the better.

 

48 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I don't think NASA should be in the business of building rockets.  Let them build the rovers and satellites that explore other worlds, but leave the launching to private corporations.  

 

The problem is that there haven't been a lot of private options for rockets, especially rockets that meet the demands of getting rovers and satellites outside earth orbit. The ones that do exist are primarily reliant on NASA funding and Russian engines. NASA has been embracing private lanches as they've become available, but it's not like there have been a lot of options for them until recently.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I don't think NASA should be in the business of building rockets.  Let them build the rovers and satellites that explore other worlds, but leave the launching to private corporations.  

 

When has NASA ever been directly in the business of building rockets? I agree that NASA has better things to do at this point than manage rocket contracts, but they'd still presumably contract it out. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I don't think NASA should be in the business of building rockets.  Let them build the rovers and satellites that explore other worlds, but leave the launching to private corporations.  

Definitely don’t want the people with a proven track record doing it. Better to have companies still trying to get their rockets off the ground without exploding to handle it. 

[mclumber1]

15 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

When has NASA ever been directly in the business of building rockets? I agree that NASA has better things to do at this point than manage rocket contracts, but they'd still presumably contract it out. 

 

That's true that NASA has never really built a rocket themselves.  The Saturn V, or even the Space Shuttle, were built by subcontractors for NASA, but was designed by NASA with oversight by the agency during construction.  With rockets like the Falcon 9, or the Electron, NASA didn't design them, and not much funding came from NASA to develop them, either.  NASA is simply buying launch services from these companies, and I think that's the way NASA needs to go in the future.  The SLS will be a beast of a rocket if it ever flies, but it won't fly that often.  

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Definitely don’t want the people with a proven track record doing it. Better to have companies still trying to get their rockets off the ground without exploding to handle it. 

 

Rocketry is now more of an engineering problem than a science problem, so it doesn't really make sense to keep it on NASA's docket.