[HN Gopher] Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) - Low cost, on-demand deli...
___________________________________________________________________
Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) - Low cost, on-demand delivery to and
from space
Hi HN, Andy and Tom here from STOKE (http://www.stoke-space.com).
We aim to deliver satellites directly to their final orbit at 20x
lower cost. We'll do this using 100% reusable rockets designed to
fly daily. Even the most advanced rockets today reuse only part of
the vehicle (the first stage) a handful of times (the record number
is 8). The upper stages of all launch vehicles are thrown away with
every flight. That drives cost into each mission, and makes the
flight cadence production rate limited. Rapid reuse of both stages
breaks this production-limited paradigm, enabling order-of-
magnitude improvements to both the cost and availability of launch.
We call this 'Reusability 2.0'. Our team has spent the last 10+
years at Blue Origin and SpaceX working on amazing programs like
Merlin 1C, BE-3, BE-4, and BE-3U. We took BE-4 from a literal blank
page up through full scale testing. We'll never forget the night we
fired the full-scale engine for the first time - an intense display
of raw power, the culmination of years of toil, and an
unforgettable moment! We're massive supporters of the Blue Origin
and SpaceX missions to the Moon and Mars. Humanity needs these to
be successful. Over the last five years, though, we've witnessed a
radical shift in the space economy. Hundreds of satellite companies
are entering diverse markets enabled by space based IoT, earth
observation, telecom, positioning, and other applications. In fact,
we're certain that all four major engines of economic growth -
communication, transportation, manufacturing, and energy production
- will be anchored in space within 20 years. It's a massive shift
from what was historically a government-centric industry. This got
us thinking. If we're going to have a permanent and sustainable
presence in space, and if we're going to use it for all of our
benefit, then we need one ingredient more than anything: a robust,
diverse, and profitable space-based economy. It became our passion
to focus on that goal, and not any other. Since then we've thought
hard about the end-state of the commercial space sector and
realized that despite all of the progress in the last decade, the
truth is that space flight is still in its infancy. Costs are still
high, availability remains poor, and direct flights to final
destinations are exceedingly rare. There are still orders of
magnitude improvements available in all of these areas! To make
this happen, more focus is needed on 100% reusable rockets designed
to operate with aircraft-like regularity and designed specifically
for the commercial sector. That's the key to really unlocking the
space economy, and that's why we founded STOKE. Our mission starts
with building a 100% reusable second stage. The design combines
proven technology elements, high structural and thermal margins,
and passive failure modes in critical subsystems to allow for rapid
turnaround. Its engine performance will have 20% higher than any
other small or medium launcher, enabling a diverse set of missions
to LEO, MEO, GTO, TLI, and beyond. The upper stage will also offer
unique return from orbit "down-mass" capacity. We're starting here
because routine reuse of upper stages is the last big domino to
fall on the way to redefining the cost structure of launch. In the
past 10 months we've hired seven of the smartest people we know,
developed our hardware on plan, won contracts with USAF, NASA, and
NSF, and recently closed over $9M in seed funding. We're super
excited about the team and technology we're building, and we're
incredibly lucky to be alive for this New Space revolution. We hope
we can move the ball one step further, and can't wait to hear your
thoughts!
Author : alapsa
Score : 67 points
Date : 2021-03-01 14:11 UTC (8 hours ago)
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Have you checked out Rocketlab's Neutron rocket? Was just
| announced today, first stage is reusable. Maybe you can launch
| your second stage on that.
| alapsa wrote:
| So exciting!
| choeger wrote:
| Maybe this is a very stupid question, but what's your business
| plan by starting with the second stage?
|
| First stage reuse clearly aims to bring down cost and increase
| cadence/volume of standard launches (people and cargo to ISS,
| satellites).
|
| But a reusable second stage doesn't offer any of that without a
| reusable first stage. It will certainly make a cool demonstrator,
| but who is going to pay for that? If SpaceX wouldn't bet on
| Starship, one might consider running on top of a modified Falcon
| 9, but the savings here aren't that big anymore.
|
| So what's the plan? Acquisition by Blue Origin? Special down-mass
| missions for the military (But they have dreamchaser)?
| uranium wrote:
| Just to make this explicit: you're designing a second stage that
| will initially fly on some other company's first stage? Given the
| tight integration between stages on current launchers, does that
| tie you to a single launch provider?
| alapsa wrote:
| Definitely agree the first and second stages should be purpose-
| built!
| ohitsdom wrote:
| SNC's Dream Chaser is the only active vehicle I can think of
| that can fly on any rocket. But Dream Chaser is more like a 3rd
| stage than a 2nd stage, so it's not a direct comp.
| uranium wrote:
| Yeah, that's what I was thinking: swapping out a third stage
| is a much easier prospect; it's just a bulky payload for a
| 2-stage rocket. But they're saying second stage, so...
| tectonic wrote:
| Best of luck to you! If you ever want us to interview you for
| Orbital Index, feel free to reach out to me.
| antaviana wrote:
| Off-topic, but one thing that puzzles me is the rather widespread
| believe that setting up a colony in Mars will somehow save
| humanity.
|
| IMHO, exposing humans and their descendants for life to different
| conditions of gravity, radiation and overall ecosystem, will make
| them evolve in ways that will generate a totally different
| species in very few hundred years.
|
| So it will be just a matter of time, until an orange-colored man
| with the slogan "Let's make the Earth great again" will want to
| build a wall between the Earth and Mars (and put it on Mars tab,
| of course) to avoid that immigrant Martians steal Earthlings
| jobs.
|
| So a colony in Mars maybe preserves intelligent life with roots
| in the human species, but I do not think it will preserve the
| human species as we know it.
| alapsa wrote:
| Mars is awesome and I can't wait to go, but Earth is a great
| place to live :)
| ncallaway wrote:
| > So a colony in Mars maybe preserves intelligent life with
| roots in the human species, but I do not think it will preserve
| the human species as we know it.
|
| That's sufficient for my desires of making humanity
| multiplanitary (and eventually spanning multiple solar
| systems).
|
| I don't desire freezing humanity as it exists today, I desire
| ensuring the human project continue as long as we can keep it
| going.
| alapsa wrote:
| Love this! Exactly!
| ncmncm wrote:
| It must be said, though, that Mars is a place where it is
| easier to freeze humans than not.
| gdsdfe wrote:
| non of that matters if life on earth is gone which is the
| primary reason for having a colony in Mars
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| We're already screwed as far as preserving the human species as
| we know it, and why would we want to?
| newbie578 wrote:
| I am not informed enough to make any useful remarks, but I will
| say keep going!
|
| Making any kind of physical good or service is more than a decent
| challenge, especially if for a higher purpose!
|
| So I wish you the best.
| ohitsdom wrote:
| I applied to a catch-all job opening on their site when they
| first came out of stealth mode. Somehow I got an interview with
| Andy. I read some of his research papers before the interview [0]
| in case there was something I could reference in the interview.
| It was pretty clear that wasn't feasible (I'm still laughing at
| my hubris for even thinking this was a possibility), but it was
| still fun trying to understand such technical concepts!
|
| I didn't know they are YC-backed! I saw them getting some strong
| recommendations from former Blue Origin colleagues. Clearly they
| are building a very talented team; I'm eager to see what they are
| working on. I have tons of questions (first stage choice, fuel,
| secret sauce, etc) but seems like they are keeping things under
| wraps pretty tightly. But if they can somehow deliver on 2nd
| stage reuse at a smaller scale than Starship, then I can't wait
| to see the advanced technology & techniques they use to get
| there.
|
| [0]: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-
| contributions/Andrew...
| NortySpock wrote:
| My understanding was that a rocket is developed around its
| engines. What engines are you designing on top of?
|
| Are you only developing the second stage? If so, what first stage
| are you planning to launch off of?
|
| What is your target payload mass to LEO?
|
| And, well, where does your company fit in a post-SpaceX Starship
| orbital economy?
| alapsa wrote:
| You're exactly right, which is why we're developing our own
| engines. Where Starship will be the freight train, we will be
| the Sprinter van.
| quadcore wrote:
| * In fact, we're certain that all four major engines of economic
| growth - communication, transportation, manufacturing, and energy
| production - will be anchored in space within 20 years.*
|
| Can you elaborate on the possibilities here, maybe they will be
| looking for programmers.
|
| I wish you good luck, sounds so exciting.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > It's also the first launch vehicle to offer return from orbit
| "down-mass" capacit
|
| Wasn't the shuttle first? What about Dream Chaser?
|
| Is your second stage designed to fly on top of New Glenn's first
| stage? Do the fins on the New Glenn provide enough authority to
| counteract the control surfaces on your stage? Or are you
| planning on flying encapsulated like Dream Chaser does?
| coder543 wrote:
| I'm also confused by the _present tense_ being used there by
| the OP. "It's also the first." So it already exists? It has
| been tested to orbit and back? Doubtful. Do they really think
| they will beat Starship to orbit? Starship will certainly be
| added to the list of launch vehicles to offer "down-mass".
|
| The OP's whole comment fails to mention Starship a single time,
| which is probably not a competitor you want to bring up with
| investors since it is designed to do just about _everything_ ,
| but acting like SpaceX hasn't been publicly developing Starship
| for years now is weird to me. Starship development is moving
| _fast_.
|
| Regardless of the above, I am really excited to see more
| activity in the New Space scene. The market will be so big that
| it shouldn't be a winner-takes-all market... there seems to be
| plenty of room for more companies to grow the space market
| faster. The more the merrier.
|
| I just want people to be transparent about current realities...
| and using present tense for something that seemingly doesn't
| actually exist, ignoring the existence of Starship, claiming to
| be the first launch vehicle to offer "down-mass"? _hmm._
| alapsa wrote:
| Thanks for correctly noting the tense - I have revised to
| future tense and apologize for any misgivings.
|
| Starship is amazing and we are huge fans! That is an enormous
| vehicle though, designed for a different purpose. It is like
| comparing a freight train to a Sprinter van, if that makes
| sense.
| Diederich wrote:
| As a life-long space fan, and as a SpaceX fan going back
| many years, I'm super happy to see any and all activity in
| this area. For example, I was pumped to hear that Bezos was
| going to turn his full attention to Blue Origin!
|
| > [Starship] is an enormous vehicle though, designed for a
| different purpose. It is like comparing a freight train to
| a Sprinter van, if that makes sense.
|
| It is definitely enormous, but in my mind, its most
| fundamental purpose is to minimize cost to orbit. The other
| missions: landing on Earth, Mars and the Moon: are all
| dependent on and follow from achieving that main goal.
|
| Musk always over promises, but there's at least a good
| chance that SpaceX will get Starship/Superheavy launch
| costs down below the million dollars per flight level.
|
| In that eventually happens, what would Stoke's economic
| model look like?
|
| Once again, I was delighted to read about this, and truly
| wish your company the best possible outcomes!
| alapsa wrote:
| Sorry for the confusion! There are plenty of space vehicles
| that have had "down-mass" capacity - Gemini, Soyuz, Apollo,
| Dragon, Shuttle, X-37B, etc. They are all spacecraft, although
| Shuttle is a close in-between. The distinction here is this is
| a true upper stage, which can also return items from orbit.
|
| We are looking to serve a complementary market to New Glenn and
| are not planning to fly on that vehicle.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| On-demand, on-demand?
|
| So, I need this delivered to X sometime today. Ignore the
| tungsten penetrators.
| [deleted]
| mgiannavola wrote:
| Hey Andy and Tom,
|
| I'm a photographer working on a story about American innovation.
| I just shot you an email through the Stoke website.
|
| Hope to be in touch. Best Marco
| shafyy wrote:
| Sounds ambitious. I wish you the best, hope it works out!
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Designing the second stage first is ballsy, it means that you're
| dependent on someone else's first stage for launch.
|
| But it's also brilliant. With Starship and Neutron coming on the
| market in the next few years, and their reusability enabling
| dramatic cost reductions, any launch provider in the future is
| going to be either fully reusable, massively government
| subsidized, or dead.
|
| There are other rocket companies pursuing first stage
| reusability, most notably Blue Origin. To remain viable they'll
| either have to build a reusable second stage, partner with
| somebody who does, or acquire them.
|
| Edit: I may have misread the Neutron announcement, and they
| haven't announced full reusability, yet. I still believe they
| will eventually do so, but...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Relativity is the other company that has recently announced
| they're working on fully reusable rockets.
| sidcool wrote:
| I did not find any tech specs on the home page.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-01 23:01 UTC)