[HN Gopher] Stoke Space ignites its ambitious main engine
___________________________________________________________________
Stoke Space ignites its ambitious main engine
Author : perihelions
Score : 78 points
Date : 2024-06-11 14:14 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| idontwantthis wrote:
| I really hope this one works out and scales. The only rocket
| company besides SpaceX that's really developing something novel,
| at least that I'm aware of.
| bobetomi wrote:
| Rocket Lab and Relativity Space are also doing pretty cool
| work. Rocket Lab is the only other company to successfully
| reach orbit, they're the first to make an electric-pump fed
| rocket engine, and their upcoming Neutron rocket is supposed to
| be mostly reusable and does several things better than the
| Falcon 9. Relativity is using 3D printing to manufacture most
| of the rocket. RFA (Rocket Factory Augsburg) is also
| interesting, they're not doing anything novel AFAIK but they're
| using cheap parts from the automotive industry to bring down
| prices.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Firefly and Astra have both reached orbit IIRC
| erikrothoff wrote:
| Astra is barely holding on by a thread though. Their main
| hope of survival is their hall-effect propulsion engines.
| vhodges wrote:
| Not developing a launcher but Gravitics
| https://www.gravitics.com/ is another company doing something
| in different way (Gary Hudson, if you know the name, is on the
| team)
| cubefox wrote:
| I would say the Stoke Space rocket is in some sense more novel
| than Starship, apart from its size. We have never seen anything
| like the Stoke upper stage before. Which might be a financial
| problem, as developing such an ambitious design is likely
| expensive, and as a startup their funds are limited. A partly
| reusable design like Neutron (Rocket Lab) or Terran R
| (Relativity Space) is more conventional and probably cheaper to
| develop.
| hliyan wrote:
| This segment [1] where they mention their ability to deliver
| assets from any location to any other location on Earth, with
| vertical, surface landing, makes me wonder whether they're
| eventually planning to focus on military contracts.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/fcLuugmHV90?t=71
| Someone wrote:
| They don't seem to mention how to get off the ground again
| after such a landing.
|
| If that requires building a launch platform and/or shipping in
| a first stage, or moving the vehicle out over ground towards a
| launch facility, such landings will be expensive (even can end
| up being one way trips), making them economical for very few
| jobs.
| numpad0 wrote:
| The punchline is "from _many_ location to _any_ location ".
| They're not saying they can _launch_ from any location. What
| it likely means is they can offer towing for a broken
| satellite back to any secret hangars in Nevada, and deposit
| returned for intact tow vehicles.
|
| I do wonder what it is even possibly useful for. Asset
| transport from orbit sounds sci-fi.
| zippzom wrote:
| With the advent of the space force, pretty much every space
| company is targeting military contracts (at least partially)
| since that is a huge source of government funding
| psunavy03 wrote:
| The advent of the Space Force is not going to be a watershed
| in DOD contracting; the services are nothing but force
| providers who fulfill the requirements of the combatant
| commands. Demand for DOD space assets is merely going to be
| managed by the Space Force now in service to already-existing
| COCOM requirements; the demand signal is what it is.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Those contracts were happening pre-Space Force. Space Force's
| mission existed inside USAF (specifically, but other services
| and TLAs as well) prior to USSF being created.
| world2vec wrote:
| Their fully reusable rocket concept is pretty cool. Like a mini
| Starship.
|
| More competition is always good, glad to see them progress quite
| fast.
| everyone wrote:
| I much prefer their design to starship. It's optimising for the
| hardest part of the trip: re-entry.. Also re-entering like
| Apollo and _not_ like the space shuttle is a good thing imo. It
| doesnt rely on an ablative heat shield or tiles, also it doesnt
| have extremely heavy / complex / vulnerable actuated fins yet
| it can get lift and steer itself simply with it's shape and by
| rotating the whole craft like Apollo.
|
| SpaceX is a mix of mindblowing engineering with sometimes
| baffling decisions. I can never help but wonder how much input
| Elon has, and if he is responsible for all those questionable
| choices, as he honestly appears to be a bit of an idiot.
|
| I've been following Starship's development avidly, but knowing
| he's involved always makes me cringe a little.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > SpaceX is a mix of mindblowing engineering with sometimes
| baffling decisions. I can never help but wonder how much
| input Elon has, and if he is responsible for all those
| questionable choices, as he honestly appears to be a bit of a
| idiot.
|
| Let me get this straight. You believe that Stoke space is
| somehow the near perfect design. The designer or Shuttle and
| Starship were probably idiots for not coming up with the same
| ideas as Stoke. But maybe the reason that they are so dumb,
| is simply because Musk is part of the design team.
|
| Maybe you should consider, just maybe, that if Starship isn't
| exactly like Stoke spaces design, it could have actual
| reasons. Maybe, just maybe the most successful rocket company
| in history had actual technical reason for their design
| choices. But no that couldn't be it, could it?
|
| But instead of asking the saying 'Stoke Space design seems
| really awesome, I wonder why SpaceX made difference choices',
| you just jumped to 'well Musk is cringe and therefore that
| must be the reason'.
| everyone wrote:
| "You believe that Stoke space is somehow the near perfect
| design"
|
| - I said I much prefer it to starship, not that it's near
| perfect.
|
| "The designer or Shuttle and Starship were probably idiots"
|
| - I dont know much about the design of Starship, that stuff
| is not in the public domain atm. But the space shuttle
| designers were not idiots, they just had to deal with some
| impossible requirements from higher up. The space shuttle
| as-built has some clearly bad design elements (eg. the
| shuttle itself not being _on top_ of the stack at launch,
| as it was in the original design). It had a famously long
| and torturous design process with many different
| stakeholders all wanting it to be capable of wildly
| different missions. Just one example:
| https://youtu.be/_q2i0eu35aY?feature=shared
|
| So one could say management meddling with the design is
| what killed the space shuttle. I am wondering is the same
| meddling happening in SpaceX?
| vvillena wrote:
| Starship famously has one mandated mission: colonizing
| Mars. Most design decisions revolve around it.
| forgot-im-old wrote:
| On Musk making Starship decisions: "Elon's direct
| engineering management style may help him maintain
| alignment between Mars-oriented designs and the greater
| defense-oriented requirements of an SDI system"
|
| https://grook.ai/saved_session?id=e269e88a7b1a71eff4f176c
| 864...
| anonporridge wrote:
| This comment is an excellent example of ideology superseding
| real world results.
|
| Just an incredible public display of cognitive dissonance.
| Alupis wrote:
| Hey, we all received the memo - Musk is evil now. So
| please, play your part.
|
| All jokes aside - having different implementations/ideas
| competing for similar goals is nothing but good. We cannot
| pretend to have "min-maxed" space travel or rocketry at
| this point in time - so there's still lots of ideas to
| experiment with.
|
| Any organization that can successfully design, assemble,
| test, and launch a new rocket into space is a huge victory
| for the US, space exploration, and ultimately the world.
| Making space more accessible is likely to lead to all kinds
| of new discoveries and technology that benefits earth and
| beyond.
| numpad0 wrote:
| To add & also imo, it's probably good thing that it's not
| designed to mimic old stuffs. Biplanes with train car
| fuselages and automobiles with horse carriage aesthetics went
| out of fashion quick. Space transport systems with a cargo
| plane design didn't work all that well too.
|
| Meanwhile, if we look at Apollo style reentry, it just works.
| From first time and every time and even for interplanetary
| entries. Clearly that's something that isn't broken and not
| in need of a fix.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "It's optimising for the hardest part of the trip: re-entry."
|
| Is it really the hardest part?
|
| I would say that for fully reusable rockets, the hardest part
| is _quick turnaround_. For future space activities, it will
| be a huge economic difference if you can send the ship back
| in, say, 12 hours vs. 120 hours.
| everyone wrote:
| I agree with this, I may have said the same thing.. But I
| was thinking that the tech used for re-entry is what tends
| to increase the turnaround time (Eg. ablative heat shields,
| tiles). Making something that's rapidly re-usable which can
| _also_ withstand re-entry from orbital speeds is probably
| the greatest challenge in this domain.
|
| The shuttle was originally envisaged to be cheap and
| rapidly re-usable for the time. As built it didnt turn out
| that way, it would have been overall cheaper and probably
| faster to launch a fully un-reusable rocket than a shuttle.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Yeah, my guess is that quick turnaround is a function of
| mainly two variables: a good protection of the ship
| during re-entry and very reliable engines that require
| little to none manual checking and can withstand lower
| thousands of cycles before needing refurbishment.
|
| Of those two, I am fairly sure that SpaceX can produce
| great engines. The Raptors are not quite there yet, but
| their 4th or 5th iteration will likely be extremely good.
|
| Not so sure about the heat shields. Much less aggregated
| corporate experience there.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Blue Origin was founded before SpaceX by a rich guy that had
| far more money than Elon Musk did. To cringe at SpaceX
| leadership is idiotic; the leadership is what made the
| difference between a company that has dominated the space
| industry (putting even every single national program around
| the world _combined_ to shame) and one that has never put a
| _single_ object into orbit.
|
| Not money. Not timing. Not even the engineers, because Blue
| Origin had every opportunity to hire the best. It was the
| leadership.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _SpaceX is a mix of mindblowing engineering with sometimes
| baffling decisions. I can never help but wonder how much
| input Elon has, and if he is responsible for all those
| questionable choices, as he honestly appears to be a bit of
| an idiot._
|
| Let me answer that for you: it's well-documented and
| confirmed by many insiders, including Tom Mueller and Gwynne
| Shotwell, that a) Musk has always had a lot of technical
| input, and b) he is responsible for the _good_ choices that
| made SpaceX into what it is today.
|
| Of course the truth falls afoul of the "Musk is evil now"
| memo mentioned downthread, so you keep believing what you
| believe.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| It fascinates me how people can turn "Musk has a toxic
| personality" into "Musk can only be the money man, must be
| stupid, and cannot have any technical skills." As if the
| tech industry hasn't already had a proud tradition of
| brilliant asshole CEOs named Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, and
| Ellison just to name a few.
|
| Being an asshole isn't required for success, but it
| unfortunately also doesn't necessarily inhibit it either.
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| Awesome to hear this was a successful test of a full-flow stage-
| combustion engine! The space industry desperately needs
| competition for SpaceX, and this company looks like a great
| candidate to eventually offer it.
| perihelions wrote:
| Is anyone else even _considering_ attempting full-flow cycles,
| besides those two? There 's nothing on else on Wikipedia
| (besides two, long-abandoned research projects).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle#Full-f...
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| There is no desparate need for competition.. SpaceX was
| desparately needed however, and they have unlocked whole new
| industries and inpspired many
| forgot-im-old wrote:
| New space is stoking an arms race,
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/1dc0m9s/elon_mus...
| proee wrote:
| More competition is always good in a free economy, but what is
| causing a "Desperate" situation? Is the trajectory of SpaceX on
| a course where they will certainly become a monopoly, with all
| other space providers being locked out due to economies of
| scale?
| DennisP wrote:
| SpaceX is already the world's cheapest launch provider by a
| significant margin, and transports 90% of the world's tonnage
| to orbit. That's with a launch platform that costs a bit over
| a thousand dollars per pound. Once Starship is in production,
| that will drop to around thirty dollars per pound, while
| their annual launch capacity increases enormously. Everything
| about the space industry will change, and we'll be able to do
| a lot more than we ever have before.
|
| Without another company able to do the same thing, Elon will
| completely control all that. How desperate that is depends on
| your opinion of him, I guess.
| starik36 wrote:
| What is the percentage if you exclude their own Starlink
| launches? Because it is most of what they launch.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| It doesn't matter. Even if Starlink was, by far, the
| majority of their launches, it still drives high launch
| cadence, which drives their R&D far faster than everyone
| else's. Space industry is vulnerable to the vicious cycle
| of expensive launches leading to expensive, one-off,
| high-risk missions, leading to high reliability
| guarantees, leading to even more expensive launches. High
| launch cadence is an antidote to that, it makes costs
| fall all across the board.
| mmmeff wrote:
| Stoke employee here.
|
| These are the hardest working and most intelligent people I've
| ever worked with. I truly believe we are about to revolutionize
| this industry very, very soon, at a similar-to-greater magnitude
| than SpaceX has managed.
|
| If you're at all interested in joining our mission, please get in
| touch. We're still in our infancy and have plenty of seats that
| need butts on all sorts of teams. Even the Fusion and Data
| Engineering teams are growing, where prior aerospace experience
| is not at all required.
| echelon wrote:
| How do you compete with SpaceX? They're titans. They have the
| customers, contracts, and revenues, and it seems like they
| could build your design while still sending off tons of
| payloads using their existing infrastructure.
|
| What makes your product so different, and how do you grow to
| anything close to their revenue and volume without them eating
| you first?
|
| I ask these sincerely and in earnest! You're working on such a
| fascinating and awe-inspiring problem. I wish you the best of
| luck, because the field needs competition.
| cubefox wrote:
| > "I've been around long enough to know that any rocket
| development program is hard, even if you make it as simple as
| possible," [the Stoke Space CEO] responded. "But this industry is
| going toward full reusability. To me, that is the inevitable end
| state. When you start with that north star, any other direction
| you take is a diversion. If you start designing anything else,
| it's not something where you can back into full reusability at
| any point. It means you'll have to stop and start over to climb
| the mountain."
|
| I wonder whether this is really true in the long term. Their
| current "Nova" rocket is projected to deliver only five tons to
| LEO, so I assume they eventually want to go bigger. The question
| is whether their current design can be scaled up to a
| significantly larger vehicle. Otherwise they will also need to
| "start over", just like the other companies that are currently
| working on partial reusability will need to come up with
| different designs once they go to full reusability.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| The X-prize Lunar Lander Challenge was an interesting
| alternative way to get to reusable rockets.
|
| There were rules to take off from one pad and land on another
| pad while hovering 90 seconds. And the higher level challenge
| had 180 seconds of hovering. And then the rocket must fly back
| (after refueling).
|
| This doesn't need any complicated launch ranges and permits
| like "real" rockets. But the delta vee capability needed to
| hover that long is still significant.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Lander_Challenge
|
| I think it's a shame it didn't directly lead to viable
| businesses. Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space and others
| acted as an inspiration though. You can make rocket flights
| reliable and relatively routine.
|
| If they could have made that work as a business, say, first for
| sounding rockets, then they could have scaled that up to
| orbital.
|
| Back in the 2008 era there wasn't that much VC money floating
| around either...
| apendleton wrote:
| The whole thing that differentiates this company from the dozen
| other seemingly-interchangeable new-space entrants is the novel
| technology they've developed to facilitate reuse. Even if it
| were the case that there isn't a market for five tons to LEO
| (and to be clear, Rocket Lab seems to be doing decent business
| launching a lot less) and all this was was a technology
| demonstrator, why would you build a technology demonstrator
| that doesn't show off the thing that makes your company
| interesting?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-12 23:01 UTC)