Connect with us

News

DeepSpace: Firefly set for smallsat industry’s second place trophy, Rocket Lab leads the pack

Published

6 years ago

on

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! 

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Grok 3 by xAI Rolls Out on Azure AI Foundry with Free Trial

Grok 3 is now on Azure AI Foundry with a free preview until early June. From code to vision, Grok joins a growing roster of powerhouse models.

Published

3 hours ago

on

May 19, 2025

By

xAI-Grok-3-microsoft-azure-ai-foundry-free-trial
(Credit: xAI)

xAI’s Grok 3 model is now available on Microsoft’s Azure AI Foundry Models, launching with a free preview to drive AI innovation. The collaboration marks a significant step in making advanced AI accessible to developers worldwide.

Grok 3 became available on Microsoft’s Azure AI Foundry Models on May 19, 2025. Developers can explore xAI’s Grok 3 at no cost through early June. After the free trial period, Grok 3 prices will be as follows:

“Microsoft and xAI are thrilled to unveil the availability of Grok 3 into the Azure AI Foundry Models, marking a significant milestone in AI accessibility and innovation,” Microsoft stated in its announcement.

The partnership integrates xAI’s cutting-edge model with Azure’s secure, scalable infrastructure, enabling enterprise scenarios in reasoning, coding, and visual processing. Grok 3 is accessible via Azure AI Foundry’s catalog, alongside models from OpenAI, Meta, Cohere, NVIDIA, and Hugging Face, reflecting Microsoft’s commitment to a diverse AI ecosystem.

“The addition of xAI’s Grok 3 underscores Microsoft’s commitment to support an open, diverse AI ecosystem, rather than relying on a single model provider,” the company noted.

Advertisement

Like other AI models in Azure, developers can easily discover and deploy Grok 3’s model card. Grok 3 is also available for testing on GitHub models.

Microsoft provides two flexible deployment options for integrating xAI’s Grok 3 into applications: Standard Pay-Go or Provisioned Throughput Units (PTUs). The Standard Pay-Go option allows pay-per-token API calls for quick scaling. Meanwhile, the PTUs are better for reserved capacity with predictable latency.

“For production scenarios where you expect steady high volume or need strict latency, provisioning Grok 3 with PTUs can be cost-effective and reliable,” Microsoft advised.

The launch of Grok 3 on Azure AI Foundry empowers developers to build intelligent assistants, process large documents, or explore new AI applications. As xAI and Microsoft combine innovation with robust tools, Grok 3’s arrival signals a new era of AI development, inviting creators to leverage its capabilities and shape the future of technology.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Robotaxi deemed a total failure by media — even though it hasn’t been released

Nearly two weeks before it is even set for its planned rollout, Tesla Robotaxi has already been deemed a failure — even though it is not even publicly released.

Published

11 hours ago

on

May 19, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Robotaxi is among the biggest tech developments of the year, and its June launch date has not yet arrived.

This does not matter to skeptics of the company, as they have already deemed the rollout a “failure,” “an enormous mess,” and plenty of other adjectives. No matter what, several outlets are already leaning on biased opinions and a lack of true evidence that points in any direction.

Futurism posted an article this morning claiming that Robotaxi is “already an enormous mess,” citing the opinions of Dan O’Dowd, perhaps Full Self-Driving’s biggest critic. There is no mention of any of the excitement or prosperity that would come from the opposite side of the argument.

Instead, it included that O’Dowd felt it was a failure in an 80-minute drive around Santa Barbara.

This is fair to include: Full Self-Driving is not perfect, which is why Tesla will implement safeguards like teleoperation at first. However, it’s not like it’s so awful it isn’t even remotely close. Personally, my experience with FSD was incredibly successful, responsible, and it was something I still wish I had on my car to this day. I wish the article would have included a quote from someone who is as equally passionate about FSD, just from the other side of the argument.

Credit: Tesla

There is no mention of Tesla’s most recent Vehicle Safety Report, which showed Autopilot-enabled cars are nearly 10x less likely to be involved in an accident compared to the national average. This might not be the same as Full Self-Driving, but it is still a testament to what Tesla has achieved with its driver assistance systems.

To be fair, Tesla has been a company that has missed timelines, especially when it comes to FSD. I used to roll my eyes a bit when CEO Elon Musk would say, “We’ll have Full Self-Driving finished by the end of the year,” or “We’ll have a million robotaxis on the road next year.” I was always skeptical.

However, Tesla has handled things differently this year. They’ve admitted the Robotaxi rollout will be controlled at first, including a fleet of only 10-20 Model Y vehicles. It will be private at launch, and only the lucky invited will have the opportunity to experience it in Austin in June.

It might be less than a public rollout, which of course, for people like you and me, is disappointing. But let’s be real: if Tesla launched a full-blown Robotaxi platform with no regulations or small-batch testing, there would be criticism of that, too.

Some media outlets are pointing to the recent NHTSA request for more information on how Tesla’s tech will “assess the ability of Tesla’s system to react appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions.” This seems more than reasonable as Robotaxi will be among the first driverless ridesharing programs in the United States.

Tesla gets new information request from NHTSA on Robotaxi rollout

It’s no more than a request for information on how things will be handled and how the tech works.

It is sad to see so many outlets already deem something that could be the next big thing as a failure, despite there being no real indication of it being that or a success. Let’s be fair and give Tesla an opportunity to meet its June target and Robotaxi some time to operate and prove to be a reliable ride-share option.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla confirms annoying Full Self-Driving feature has been fixed

Tesla has changed one of its driver monitoring features in a request from several owners.

Published

15 hours ago

on

May 19, 2025

By

Tesla has confirmed that an annoying Full Self-Driving feature has been fixed.

We reported last week that several owners reported changes in the feature, and now we have confirmation that it has been revised by Tesla.

Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) does not require a driver’s hands to be on the steering wheel. However, eye movements and attentiveness are tracked through a cabin-facing camera, aiming to improve safety and limit loopholes in the system.

Tesla seems to have fixed one of Full Self-Driving’s most annoying features

If the system detects that your eyes are not on the road or you are not paying attention, FSD will nudge you to get them back on the road. Too many occurrences of the driver not paying attention will result in losing access to FSD for the remainder of the drive.

However, many drivers using FSD complained that the system was too quick to alert drivers of inattentiveness. Fixing things like the HVAC temperature or even Autopilot settings on the center touchscreen would get you a nudge, which seemed unreasonably fast. Many drivers said it was a seven-second limit, but it seemed faster than this.

In my experience, FSD nudged me to pay attention to the road when I was adjusting the speed offset, which gives the vehicle permission to travel over the speed limit by a percentage. For example, a 10% offset in a 50 MPH zone would let the car travel 55 MPH.

The nudging seemed to be too fast and annoying, and many other Tesla drivers agreed. CEO Elon Musk had even noted that the nudge was too fast and drivers were right to be annoyed with it, especially considering that, in theory, it would be safer to adjust these settings on FSD and not while operating the car manually.

Tesla took the criticism drivers had and turned it into a much-needed and notable change that has now been confirmed by Ashok Elluswamy, Head of AI and Autopilot for the company:

The change seems to be initiated on vehicles with Hardware 4. It is certainly a welcome change as the nudge was just a tad sensitive and could have been much more reasonable.

The adjustment made by Tesla came just a week after owners truly started becoming more vocal about the issue.

Continue Reading

Trending