Firefly Aerospace Sets Launch Speed Record For US Space Force (space.com) 28
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Space.com: Firefly Aerospace just set a new responsive-launch record. The company's Alpha rocket lifted off from Vandenberg Space Force Base on Thursday (Sept. 14) at 10:28 p.m. EDT (7:28 p.m. local California time; 0228 GMT on Sept. 15), kicking off a mission for the U.S. Space Force called Victus Nox. The rocket roared off the pad just 27 hours after the U.S. Space Force gave the order -- less time than on any previous national security mission. The wheels for Victus Nox (Latin for "conquer the night") began turning in September 2022, when the Space Force awarded contracts to Texas-based Firefly and Millennium Space Systems, a Boeing subsidiary headquartered in the Los Angeles area that built the mission's payload.
On Aug. 30 of this year, Firefly and Millennium entered the mission's "hot standby" phase, a six-month period during which they could receive a launch-alert notice at any time. After receipt of that notice, Millennium and Firefly would have 60 hours to get the satellite from Millennium's Southern California facilities to Vandenberg, fuel it up and mate it to the Alpha rocket's payload adapter. The alert came through recently, and the mission teams hit their ambitious timeline. "Upon activation, the space vehicle was transported 165 miles [266 kilometers] from Millennium's El Segundo facility to Vandenberg Space Force Base where it was tested, fueled and mated to the launch adapter in just under 58 hours, significantly faster than the typical timeline of weeks or months," Space Force officials said in the emailed statement.
The teams then had to wait for the launch order, which would give them Victus Nox's orbital requirements. They would then have just 24 hours to update Alpha's trajectory and guidance software, encapsulate the satellite in its payload fairing, get the payload to the pad, mate it to Alpha and get the rocket ready to launch, Firefly wrote in a statement. The teams managed that task as well. They were ready to launch as soon as the first window opened, which was 27 hours after the Space Force gave the order. Victus Nox's speed goals didn't end with the successful liftoff. The teams now aim to get the satellite up and running within 48 hours of its deployment. The report notes that the previous response-launch record for a U.S. national security mission was 21 days, which was set in June 2021.
On Aug. 30 of this year, Firefly and Millennium entered the mission's "hot standby" phase, a six-month period during which they could receive a launch-alert notice at any time. After receipt of that notice, Millennium and Firefly would have 60 hours to get the satellite from Millennium's Southern California facilities to Vandenberg, fuel it up and mate it to the Alpha rocket's payload adapter. The alert came through recently, and the mission teams hit their ambitious timeline. "Upon activation, the space vehicle was transported 165 miles [266 kilometers] from Millennium's El Segundo facility to Vandenberg Space Force Base where it was tested, fueled and mated to the launch adapter in just under 58 hours, significantly faster than the typical timeline of weeks or months," Space Force officials said in the emailed statement.
The teams then had to wait for the launch order, which would give them Victus Nox's orbital requirements. They would then have just 24 hours to update Alpha's trajectory and guidance software, encapsulate the satellite in its payload fairing, get the payload to the pad, mate it to Alpha and get the rocket ready to launch, Firefly wrote in a statement. The teams managed that task as well. They were ready to launch as soon as the first window opened, which was 27 hours after the Space Force gave the order. Victus Nox's speed goals didn't end with the successful liftoff. The teams now aim to get the satellite up and running within 48 hours of its deployment. The report notes that the previous response-launch record for a U.S. national security mission was 21 days, which was set in June 2021.
How is it a record? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think it's more difficult to put a payload into a precise orbit than hit a target halfway around the world with a CEP on the order of a hundred feet?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think it's more difficult to put a payload into a precise orbit than hit a target halfway around the world with a CEP on the order of a hundred feet?
ICBMs/SLBMs don't have to contend with payloads of differing weights, sizes, etc. Most of the work happened before they went into the silo/launch tube. The only variables that change are destination and origin. (And origin doesn't charge for ICBMs in silos)
Here you have to run the calculations on payload, mate the payload to the rocket, prepare the rocket, wait for the right launch window in time to minimize energy requirements to reach your desired orbit, it's a lot harder than throwing a known payload
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Then how did the Russians use submarine launched ballistic missiles to launch satellites?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, these guys didn't start building the rocket when they got the order. They already had the rocket built.
Re: How is it a record? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Name me a single orbital launch that was launched within seconds.
Re: (Score:3)
Although SLBMs are not normally orbital rockets, they can launch to orbit. For example, I remember back in 1998 the Soviets launched satellites into orbit from the K-407 Novomoskovsk submarine using a "ballistic" missile (RSM-54).
Re: How is it a record? (Score:2)
Because they already have the payload on and are already fueled, and ICBMs already have the trajectories loaded.
Now wait just a gorram minute! (Score:2)
USSF aspires to be the UFP, not the Alliance. And certainly not an organization supported by browncoats.
Don't Want Privately Owned Missile Capabilities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to build the tech but also stop the people that build it from having the skills? All it takes is a few people with the right skills and some resources. Musk and Bezos seemed to have no problem assembling teams that could do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, those capabilities could steer a missile too.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
oh, dear!
So the martians can attack us with a bloody interplanetary merry go round??
hawk, looking for some grenades to take out the calliope
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. Government should not allow a privately owned company (here) to assemble a launch vehicle, capable of carrying a payload capable of destroying a city.
What privately owned company has access to nuclear warheads?
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought as well, but I’d guess it doesn’t take too much know-how to make the hypothetical “rods from God” weapon that would have roughly as much explosive power as a nuke.
Firefly (Score:2)
I thought that show was cancelled.
Oddly specific.. (Score:2)
with US as the subject. The rest of the world also has ambitions.
Russian hyper sonic missiles, which we lag by about 20 years anyone?
Armageddon (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Russian hyper sonic missiles, which we lag by about 20 years anyone?
We "lag" in them because we've explored this concept before and it's not nearly the game changer the armchair quarterbacks assume it is. Those speeds come at the expense of maneuverability. In the lower atmosphere plasma forms around your vehicle from air friction. Plasma seriously attenuates RF energy, so it's very difficult to use radar or radio controlled guidance, and infrared or visual guidance is completely off the table. If you're gunning for a fixed target, like a building or a bunker, you've go
Re: (Score:2)
also (Score:2)
upcoming defenses would include railguns and pulsed lasers. The extra speed would be an edge, but not decisive
Re: (Score:2)
Hypersonic missiles are actually slower than ICBMs, which travel at mach 24 or so, which is why they are hard to shoot down.
Yeah right. (Score:3)
Victus Nox (Score:2)