News
DeepSpace: Firefly set for smallsat industry’s second place trophy, Rocket Lab leads the pack
This is a free preview of DeepSpace, Teslarati’s new member-only weekly newsletter. Each week, I’ll be taking a deep-dive into the most exciting developments in commercial space, from satellites and rockets to everything in between. Sign up for Teslarati’s newsletters here to receive a preview of our membership program.
In the race to a field dedicated smallsat launch vehicles, New Zealand startup Rocket Lab has already won first place, a fact that has been discussed several times in past Deep Space issues. After completing its first launch of 2019 on March 28th, Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket is ready for another mission as early as May 4th, a good sign for the company’s planned monthly launch cadence.
Despite Rocket Lab’s major success, there is plenty of room for additional competitors and/or complementary vehicles. Electron’s maximum payload hovers around ~225 kg (500 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO), limiting its usefulness for any payloads that are larger than truly tiny satellites or in need of higher orbits. Also discussed on DeepSpace, there are 10+ serious startups with funding and hardware in work attempting to build said smallsat launch vehicles, ranging from the extremely tiny (Vector: 60 kg to LEO) to much larger rockets from companies like Relativity, ABL Space, and more. Firefly Space, however, is the startup that has arguably broken away from the pack in the last few months, firmly setting itself up to be second in line behind Rocket Lab.
Build, test, qualify
- Firefly’s major leaps forward came in December 2018 and then April 2019, both related to testing the completed upper stage of the company’s Alpha rocket.
- In December, the upper stage ignited for the first time. In April, the same upper stage successfully performed a mission-duration static fire that lasted a full 300 seconds (five minutes), the same length required for a rocket to reach orbit after separating from Alpha’s first stage.
- For any launch vehicle development program, the first successful mission-duration test fire of an integrated rocket stage is arguably one of the most important milestones, second only to the same hardware’s inaugural launch.
- Simultaneously, Firefly began integrated testing of the thrust section and Reaver engines that will be the basis of Alpha’s first stage. The rocket’s Lightning second stage engine has been tested extensively at this point in development, although the stage’s lone engine produces a maximum of ~70 kN (~16,000 lbf) of thrust.
- The booster’s four Reaver engines will each produce ~170 kN (55,000 lbf) of thrust, around three times as much as Lightning. Alpha’s second stage is critical, but its first stage is arguably far more complex.
- Despite the relative power differential, it’s still worth noting that Alpha’s entire first stage (736 kN/166,000 lbf) will be significantly less powerful than a single one of Falcon 9’s nine Merlin 1D engines (941 kN/212,000 lbf).
- Although Alpha is far smaller than rockets like Falcon 9 or Atlas V, it will nominally be capable of launching 1000 kg to an altitude of 200 km (LEO) or ~650 kg to a 500-km sun-synchronous orbit (SSO). This translates to around 4.2X the performance of Rocket Lab’s Electron at 2.5X the cost per launch ($15M vs $6M).
- Assuming no payload capacity is wasted, Alpha could thus be almost 50% cheaper than Electron when judged by cost per kilogram to orbit.
- Of course, this comparison ignores the fact that Firefly will have to far more heavily rely on booking co-passenger satellites to keep Alpha launch prices competitive with Electron.
- If exactly 1000kg or 630kg of cargo can’t be booked each launch, the expendable Alpha’s $15M launch cost will be distributed over less payload, raising costs for each customer. In other words, the competitive advantages of Alpha are almost entirely associated with its ability to launch payloads outside of Electron’s capabilities, as are its potential weaknesses.
Firefly Alpha’s upper stage qualification article (top) and a comparison of a variety of launch vehicles. (Teslarati)
The sweet spot
- In theory, Firefly Alpha’s could find itself in a relatively sweet spot, where the rocket’s launch costs are not so high that dedicated rideshare missions become intractable (i.e. Spaceflight’s SSO-A launch on Falcon 9) but its payload performance is still good enough to provide access to a huge swath of the space launch market.
- Firefly also has plans to develop a heavier launch vehicle based on Alpha, known as Beta. Conceptually equivalent to SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, Beta would use three Alpha boosters and a significantly upgraded second stage and would be able to launch 4000 kg to LEO or 3000 kg to SSO.
- Regardless of Firefly’s grander aspirations, Alpha is poised to capitalize on the simple fact that it will be the second commercially viable smallsat launch vehicle to begin operations. Alpha’s first orbital launch attempt could occur as early as December 2019, although slips into early 2020 are to be expected.
- At that point, Rocket Lab’s Electron will be the only serious competition on the market. Relativity’s Terran and ABL Space’s RS-1 rockets plan to offer a competitive ~1250 kg to LEO or ~900 kg to SSO, but their launch debuts are tentatively scheduled no earlier than late 2020.
- If Alpha’s development continues smoothly, Firefly could easily have a solid 12-month head start over its similarly-sized competitors,
- Up next for Alpha is a similar campaign of tests focused on the first integrated booster, including tests fires and an eventual mission-duration qualification test.
Mission Updates
- SpaceX’s CRS-17 Cargo Dragon resupply mission has slipped an additional four days from April 30th to May 3rd (3:11 am EDT, 07:11 UTC) after the International Space Station (ISS) began suffering serious (but non-threatening) electrical issues. Additional launch delays could follow if the issue is not resolved in the next few days.
- The first operational Starlink launch remains firmly on track for NET mid-May. According to SpaceX, all Flight 1 satellites are already in Florida, while the FCC approved the company’s modified constellation license – permitting Starlink operations after launch – on April 26th.
- Due to CRS-17’s launch delays, the availability of SpaceX’s LC-40 pad will now likely be the main limiting factor for the Starlink-1 launch date.
- SpaceX’s second West Coast launch of 2019 – carrying Canada’s Radarsat Constellation – is now expected to occur no earlier than mid-June and will reuse Falcon 9 B1051.
- SpaceX’s launch of Spacecom’s Amos-17 spacecraft is now scheduled no earlier than July. Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is tentatively scheduled for launch as early as June 22 – all three boosters should be on site in Florida within the next week or two.
Photo of the Week:
(SpaceX)
The third Falcon Heavy center core – believed to be B1057 – was spotted eastbound in Arizona on April 16th. On April 26th, SpaceX confirmed that the booster completed its acceptance static fire test at the company’s McGregor, TX facilities, a sure sign that all of Falcon Heavy Flight 3’s major components should be in Florida within the next few weeks.
We’ll see you next week.
Not a member? Become a member today to receive DeepSpace each week!
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
