Author Topic: Stoke Space Technologies: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions  (Read 206872 times)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48461
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82193
  • Likes Given: 37086
This Sunday:



Quote
In this episode of NSF Live, Das will talk with Andy Lapsa, CEO of Stoke Space. Topics will include Aerospike Engines, the path to flight, the next testing milestones, and much more.

NSF Live is NASASpaceflight.com's weekly(ish) show covering the latest (~1 week old) news in spaceflight. It's broadcast live on Sundays at 3 p.m. Eastern. On each show, we rotate through various hosts and special guests.

Show follow-ups to the thread linked above please.

Quote
Stoke Space has filed a permit as it finalizes plans for its orbital launch site at SLC-14. The current layout in the permit is still being determined and could change. Clearing could start soon. The current overall site plan overlayed onto Google Earth imagery from July 2023.

https://twitter.com/baserunner0723/status/1752067723901943865
« Last Edit: 01/29/2024 08:17 pm by spacenuance »

Online Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
  • UK
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1938
I'm curious what their RTLS landings look like.  They have the square area north of the launch mount.  Maybe there, eventually?

They still have the rapid turn around challenge for the booster. I wonder what they'll cook up for that.

Offline Giggleplex

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 397
Looks like Stoke has recently been testing components for their first stage engine:

Fuel preburner:
https://twitter.com/stoke_space/status/1749817910850384154?s=20
Quote
This is Fine.

No, really, everything worked fine. 🚀🔥

Component testing for our MethaLox Full-Flow Staged Combustion stage 1 engine is in full swing. Here, we are testing the fuel pre-burner, which powers the fuel leg of the engine. The flame is expected since it’s burning a fuel-rich mixture, like a flamethrower, but not a flamethrower.

Oxygen preburner and turbopump assembly:
https://twitter.com/stoke_space/status/1752700764886093835?s=20
Quote
The powerhead includes the ox pre-burner, turbopump, and associated control valves and pumps low-pressure liquid oxygen propellant to 5000+ PSI to feed our S1 Methalox Full-flow staged combustion engine. This little guy both produces and consumes 7,000 hp to get this done.

[zubenelgenubi: Attach files.  Do not embed them.]
« Last Edit: 03/22/2024 06:05 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
It’s an interesting design for something to drop cargo from orbit on a Starship and land it on controlled thrust anywhere. If it was down sized a bit to 3.7m from 4m diameter, 4 of them could fit in a Starship bay, it would also fit on an F9. 3.7m was chosen for F9 as the largest diameter that could still be hauled over roads normally. If these were just to drop cargo not be second stages they’d need much smaller prop tanks. It could land cargo say at airports then be returned by truck or fit in a C-17 to return for reuse. There isn’t anything much in this category, a sort of drop box that can deliver cargo from orbit soft landing it with precision - rather than being a reusable second stage. It would let a single Starship deliver cargo to several separate destinations without having to land or be relaunched from any of them. It then has a practical path to reuse.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2024 10:04 pm by Ludus »

Offline c4fusion

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Sleeper Service
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 173
It’s an interesting design for something to drop cargo from orbit on a Starship and land it on controlled thrust anywhere. If it was down sized a bit to 3.7m from 4m diameter, 4 of them could fit in a Starship bay, it would also fit on an F9. 3.7m was chosen for F9 as the largest diameter that could still be hauled over roads normally. If these were just to drop cargo not be second stages they’d need much smaller prop tanks. It could land cargo say at airports then be returned by truck or fit in a C-17 to return for reuse. There isn’t anything much in this category, a sort of drop box that can deliver cargo from orbit soft landing it with precision - rather than being a reusable second stage. It would let a single Starship deliver cargo to several separate destinations without having to land or be relaunched from any of them. It then has a practical path to reuse.

Do we actually know the exact size? In the video with Tim Dodd, they said 12 feet, which is 3.7 meters.

Offline Giggleplex

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 397
Second stage prototype, now with all 30 thrust chambers:
https://twitter.com/stoke_space/status/1760303639032180867?s=20

Quote
Stage two🚀engine and test stand got an upgrade. 30 chamber test coming soon.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2024 01:29 pm by Giggleplex »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48461
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82193
  • Likes Given: 37086
https://twitter.com/stoke_space/status/1762114566580744613

Quote
Upgraded stage two engine testing is off to a strong start.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48461
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82193
  • Likes Given: 37086
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1765850656768659612

Quote
Stoke Space (@stoke_space) recently carried out the first test of the full-size 30-thruster version of its innovative engine, an integral part of its future Nova rocket, which aims to be a fully reusable medium lifter.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/stoke-stage-2/

Overview by John Sharp (@ukspacebulletin).

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11703
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9342
  • Likes Given: 8066
https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1767884280787804559

Quote
New satellite imagery of @stoke_space's test facilities in Washington shows what appears to be the active construction of a large flame trench for what I assume will become a test stand for the company's Nova rocket.

It's Tony De La Rosa, ...and no, I'm not a Feline Dealer!!

Online ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Liked: 1436
  • Likes Given: 3475
An analysis of the commercial prospects of Stoke from Eager Space.



Summary: He’s very sceptical.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39276
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25260
  • Likes Given: 12119
I tend to think people give way too much weight to folks’ opinions just because they have a YouTube video.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Liked: 1436
  • Likes Given: 3475
I tend to think people give way too much weight to folks’ opinions just because they have a YouTube video.

Lapsa comes across very well and Stoke’s technology is so cool. Like many here I would love to see Stoke succeed. However Eager Space’s assessment here is hardly contentious. Stoke have got one heck of a long way to go to carve a niche in very competitive market.

I tend to think people give way too much weight to folks’ opinions just because they have a YouTube video.

Guys, I really don't think that's a real problem, and I think if you actually tried to pick out an example you'd find you couldn't.
But also, it certainly isn't a problem in this thread, so I don't know why it came up.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 2240
An analysis of the commercial prospects of Stoke from Eager Space.



Summary: He’s very sceptical.

That video includes two coherent arguments and a lot of incomplete pseudo-arguments. The first coherent argument is that the founders don't have any entrepreneurship experience. The second coherent argument is that they've only raised $170M so far, which is probably an order of magnitude less money than they'll need to get a fully reusable launch vehicle working.

The above argument about Stoke not having enough money to finish development reminds me of something: why is Stoke planning to develop their own first stage including their own staged combustion first stage engine? Doing so seems like it will add hundreds of millions of dollars to their development costs and they don't have money to burn. Why aren't they using a reusable first stage from e.g. Neutron, Terran R, New Glenn, Falcon, or Starship as a short-term solution to save money while they prove that their innovative upper stage reuse concept works? Those existing first stages appear to be several times bigger than ideal for Stoke's needs but you can probably use one of those stages hundreds of times for the cost of developing a custom first stage and engine. If they don't want to buy from a competitor they could use Ursa Major's Ripley or Arroway engines in a new stage. Once they prove their reusable second stage concept works they can use that fact to entice investors to pay for an optimized first stage.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2024 06:44 am by deltaV »

Offline TrevorMonty

Stokes point of difference from competition is reuseable US, tackling that first and retiring lot of technical risk is good move. Investors should now be more willing to front up the extra few 100Ms for reuseable booster and launch infrastructure.

Because they are doing fully reuseable LV, there is no need for high volume production line for expendable US. This allows for smaller team and facilities. The downside it will take longer to replace vehicles that are lost in early flights.  From what I see management are trying to keep company a lean mean fighting machine. The alternative is follow VO who were far from lean and it cost them in the end. Astra looks to be following VO for same reasons.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10357
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2436
  • Likes Given: 13612
Why aren't they using a reusable first stage from e.g. Neutron, Terran R, New Glenn, Falcon, or Starship as a short-term solution to save money while they prove that their innovative upper stage reuse concept works? Those existing first stages appear to be several times bigger than ideal for Stoke's needs but you can probably use one of those stages hundreds of times for the cost of developing a custom first stage and engine. If they don't want to buy from a competitor they could use Ursa Major's Ripley or Arroway engines in a new stage. Once they prove their reusable second stage concept works they can use that fact to entice investors to pay for an optimized first stage.
Because Neutron and Starship aren't actually operational? I'd say Blue and SX are reluctant to have a competitor whip off their US and replace it with theirs ?
I flat out don't know enough about Terran to even speculate that far about them.  :(

This is where "Why can't they do <whatever>" meets how things actually work in the launch industry.

Solving the US problem first gives them a unique product that other LV providers could be attracted too (like their former employer for example)
The "Everybody else uses tiles" argument is pretty much irrelevant. BTW just a reminder every car, lorry and bus engine that's got a radiator on them is "liquid cooled."   One thing a lot of people ignore about TPS development is the sheer inertia of the process.

If you do what you've always done you'll get what you always got.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
  • UK
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1938
The second coherent argument is that they've only raised $170M so far, which is probably an order of magnitude less money than they'll need to get a fully reusable launch vehicle working.

This doesn't seem like much of an argument, other than future investment is never guaranteed.

Stoke have deliberately raised what's appropriate at each stage of development. Looking at their list of investors, they're a canny bunch.  They'll be expecting further funding rounds.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2024 11:30 am by Cheapchips »

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1099
  • Likes Given: 169


Why aren't they using a reusable first stage from e.g. Neutron, Terran R, New Glenn, Falcon, or Starship as a short-term solution to save money while they prove that their innovative upper stage reuse concept works?

Every dollar they pay a competitor for using their booster could be spent into getting their own booster to work, which they will need anyway. Also, it would be a pain trying to integrate their US onto another booster, one reason being is that it uses liquid hydrogen for the fuel.

Offline TrevorMonty



Why aren't they using a reusable first stage from e.g. Neutron, Terran R, New Glenn, Falcon, or Starship as a short-term solution to save money while they prove that their innovative upper stage reuse concept works?

Every dollar they pay a competitor for using their booster could be spent into getting their own booster to work, which they will need anyway. Also, it would be a pain trying to integrate their US onto another booster, one reason being is that it uses liquid hydrogen for the fuel.
In USA only Vulcan, Atlas and NG pads support Hydrolox at present.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0