[el_zorro]

I'm very skeptical of the market they're targeting. SpaceX used to cover that same payload capacity with the Falcon 1 [0] rocket, but discontinued it since no one bought any. Maybe things have changed in the past few years, but I seriously doubt it. The aerospike engine is interesting since none have been used commercially before, but if there isn't a market it might as well run on fairy dust.

Still, I wish them the best. We need more innovation in the space sector, and I would love to see those engines become more commonplace.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1

[ajarmst]

Came here to make a similar comment. This isn't really a competitor to SpaceX, as they're target a market that SpaceX abandoned. Frankly, while I'm a supporter of everything space, I'm a little underwhelmed by a plan throw sub-500 kilo packages to LEO. That's hardly the next step, and I think is a market that can be more efficiently served by secondary payloads on bigger platforms. Even if the "lets clutter LEO with everybody's hobby projects" market matures, a joint launch of several small payloads on a larger platform will likely prove more efficient, reliable and versatile. And, frankly, the name seems to be some pretty obvious pandering to sci-fi fanboys. I'd be more impressed by a focus on solid engineering and business planning instead of baiting kickstarter.

[andrewtbham]

The CEO is a former Space X employee, so I'm sure he's aware. Maybe there was some opportunity, but Space X wasn't interested in pursuing it.

[el_zorro]

Right now, SpaceX can (and does) have access to that limited market by selling off payload on current launches. It's cheaper to just bootstrap on to an existing flight than dedicating an entire rocket to a small mission. If and when the Falcon rockets become reusable, it's very difficult to imagine this series ever being competitive. SpaceX aims for launch costs of $5-7 million when they achieve reusability, putting the per-kilo cost somewhere between $540-700. At that price, these rockets will have to have a total cost of only $350k to match what SpaceX offers.

These people must either believe that SpaceX won't achieve reusability, or their rockets will. Maybe a combination of both?

[gus_massa]

What bout proving that your crazy ideas about methane were right and be aquihired by SpaceX to put 72 methane engines in a Falcon9Prime?

[MPSimmons]

That would be fun to watch, anyway.

[rplnt]

But Falcon 1 was not reusable, making it (I guess) more expensive. Maybe there is market, it just wasn't the right price for that market.

[api]

Is this going for reusability? Don't see any mention of that. Maybe I'm blind.

[InclinedPlane]

It's in the video.

[rplnt]

It was in the title here on HN. Or at least I think I saw it there. Can someone confirm whether it was there or I'm just seeing things?

[InclinedPlane]

Falcon 1 had several customers, but it wasn't really cost competitive and they ended up with enough investments to develop the Falcon 9, which would be far more lucrative for them. How commercially viable the Firefly will be is utterly dependent on the cost. Given the simplicity of the design and the alleged ability to mass produce them, they might be able to get the price point low enough to be commercially viable.

Given that the satellites they are proposing to fly are built on budgets in the single millions of dollars, I think they are aware of what their costs need to be and wouldn't be doing this unless they thought they could hit those cost figures.