Poll

Is the Stoke rocket the most advanced rocket currently under development?

Yes
16 (22.5%)
No
29 (40.8%)
Maybe
26 (36.6%)

Total Members Voted: 71


Author Topic: Is the Stoke rocket the most advanced rocket currently under development?  (Read 5556 times)

Offline Tywin

https://twitter.com/JoelSercel/status/1621552217051529217

Waiting for the video tomorrow of Tim, maybe Stoke is the real game-changer...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1074
  • Likes Given: 163
Don't know exactly how the competition will play out with regards to SpaceX, but Stoke's design is awesome. My personal favourite architecture in reusable upper stages.

I really hope they get somewhere with this, fingers crossed.

Offline Tywin

Don't know exactly how the competition will play out with regards to SpaceX, but Stoke's design is awesome. My personal favourite architecture in reusable upper stages.

I really hope they get somewhere with this, fingers crossed.

Totally agree...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6788
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3918
  • Likes Given: 1629
Not sure if it's the most advanced, but I'm a huge fan of what they're doing. Though I hope down the road I can convince them to try out LOX/Rich TAN with their upper stage engines. But definitely keeping my fingers crossed for their success. I'm glad they're starting small enough that they don't need billions of dollars to get a shot at a full RLV.

~Jon

Offline Eer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Liked: 446
  • Likes Given: 870
Not sure if it's the most advanced, but I'm a huge fan of what they're doing. Though I hope down the road I can convince them to try out LOX/Rich TAN with their upper stage engines. But definitely keeping my fingers crossed for their success. I'm glad they're starting small enough that they don't need billions of dollars to get a shot at a full RLV.

~Jon

I was ready to write this off as another click-bait link until I saw Jon's comment.  Now seems worth careful watching - and EverydayAstronaut's video click (hinting at more) is further validation.

Thanks for the tip.  Interesting if they can make it work.
From "The Rhetoric of Interstellar Flight", by Paul Gilster, March 10, 2011: We’ll build a future in space one dogged step at a time, and when asked how long humanity will struggle before reaching the stars, we’ll respond, “As long as it takes.”

Offline Tywin



Semi Aerospike, Heat shield cooling, FFSC engine first stage...etc...

Amazing rocket...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Online TrevorMonty

Engineers have lot experience with FFSC (exRaptor engineers?), so they aren't starting from scratch. Sounds like they won't be going for Raptor's super high chamber pressures for V1.0 engine.

For those that consider economics of fully reuseable LV, don't think in $kg on the way up but on downmass. Send 1kg of raw material into space for $1000kg turn it into item high tech item worth $100,000kg fibre cable and return it to earth.

LH US is also good way to return stuff from the moon if there is lunar LH avaliable, even LH to LEO as this US can use very aggressive aerobraking.

In theory should be able to deliver and return crew capsule to orbit. Capsule would still need heatshield and LAS but if neither is used in flight then should be cheap to turnaround.

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1074
  • Likes Given: 163
It looks like Andy Lapsa is also quite focused on rapid turnaround, which is great. And I'm no rocket scientist (very far from it) but it struck me as to how knowledgable this guy seems about what they're doing and the decisions and trades that they have made.

And this is not a paper rocket, they are bending metal and firing engines.

Also, rapid iteration FTW!

He mentioned that the heat shield might even be on the too cold side if anything to approach it after landing, as opposed to the thermal creep experienced by Shuttle.

I really like this architecture for re-entry and landing, structurally it's the most mass efficient since you don't have sideways loads like Starship. And I expect that they will probably put down the naysayers of leaky hydrogen, they are already doing lots of tests with it.

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 46
Maybe.
Skylon vs Starship vs Stoke are all pioneering extremely advanced techniques that are cutting edge and/or unproven.

I'd rather compare results in 5-10 years before awarding a 'most advanced' title.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 367
They're definitely promising what would be super advanced if it works as described but we need to see more working hardware to guess with any confidence. (Same could be said for Skylon/SABRE).

I have no doubt we'll see Stoke demonstrate a 'hopper' soon proving out the differential throttling but ISTM the big question marks all surround the heat shield as nozzle and active cooling, i.e.:

- When will they test the heat shield cooling under representative conditions and durations. (Subscale testing?)
- How much (mass) propellant do you need to carry into orbit to then use as your coolant? And which fluid(s) do they use?
- How much larger and heavier do their tanks become to accommodate that additional propellant?

Which leads to: what is the payload mass fraction? There's nothing wrong with a large vehicle having a modest payload, it just needs to be positive :-) An Ars Technica article stated the payload was 1.65 tonnes. There are surely big error bars on that number, so let's hope it goes up not down.
In general it would be interesting to learn how much propellant they anticipate will be needed for ascent vs entry cooling vs landing.

I'm also curious how efficient the engines are in vacuum. Obviously they don't have large nozzles, so it's up to the base to contribute something in the style of an aerospike. Edit: They claim better Isp than some RL-10s.

And then there are secondary questions: Can it loiter for any time before cryogens boil? Could the engines serve as abort motors? And a random thought: I believe mass/sizing is appropriate for Neutron.

Maybe it's time for a forum topic dedicated to this interesting project?
« Last Edit: 02/10/2023 08:20 pm by adrianwyard »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 504
Well, they’re certainly advanced in the marketing department, I’ll give them that.

Rocketlab used to be the hype kings and darlings of the space media, until Electron’s business case started visibly petering out.

Sensing a (publicity) vacuum, Relativity boldly stepped up and took the hype crown, beating back the valiant, but increasingly desperate, efforts from Astra to do the same.

Virgin Orbit had a brief shot at claiming their share of fawning space media attention, but soon ran out of steam and have now all but checked out of the race.

And now, thanks to a carefully timed,  targeted focus on key social media influencers, it is Stoke’s turn to be the flavour of the month. Our friendly, though habitually over excited, Everyday Astronaut needed a lie down by the end of his breathless coverage of their very early days operation.

Let’s see who it will be 6 months from now.

« Last Edit: 02/11/2023 04:18 am by M.E.T. »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6788
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3918
  • Likes Given: 1629
Well, they’re certainly advanced in the marketing department, I’ll give them that.

Rocketlab used to be the hype kings and darlings of the space media, until Electron’s business case started visibly petering out.

Sensing a (publicity) vacuum, Relativity boldly stepped up and took the hype crown, beating back the valiant, but increasingly desperate, efforts from Astra to do the same.

Virgin Orbit had a brief shot at claiming their share of fawning space media attention, but soon ran out of steam and have now all but checked out of the race.

And now, thanks to a carefully timed,  targeted focus on key social media influencers, it is Stoke’s turn to be the flavour of the month. Our friendly, though habitually over excited, Everyday Astronaut needed a lie down by the end of his breathless coverage of their very early days operation.

Let’s see who it will be 6 months from now.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to belittle every rocket developer other than SpaceX. It's kind of annoying.

~Jon

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 504
Well, they’re certainly advanced in the marketing department, I’ll give them that.

Rocketlab used to be the hype kings and darlings of the space media, until Electron’s business case started visibly petering out.

Sensing a (publicity) vacuum, Relativity boldly stepped up and took the hype crown, beating back the valiant, but increasingly desperate, efforts from Astra to do the same.

Virgin Orbit had a brief shot at claiming their share of fawning space media attention, but soon ran out of steam and have now all but checked out of the race.

And now, thanks to a carefully timed,  targeted focus on key social media influencers, it is Stoke’s turn to be the flavour of the month. Our friendly, though habitually over excited, Everyday Astronaut needed a lie down by the end of his breathless coverage of their very early days operation.

Let’s see who it will be 6 months from now.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to belittle every rocket developer other than SpaceX. It's kind of annoying.

~Jon

I accept and understand that. On the flipside, I find over enthusiastic coverage of every would-be new  space company annoying.

Balanced discussion midway between the two extremes should probably be the aim for all of us. But as it stands, that is far from the case. Just look at the title of this thread.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2023 01:26 am by M.E.T. »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
I really don't understand why you feel the need to belittle every rocket developer other than SpaceX. It's kind of annoying.

Not sure if the above comment is a breach of Rule 1, but if not, I'd like to say that there're a bunch of people on this forum keep attacking SpaceX and spreading FUD about SpaceX too, in fact OP of this thread is one of them, and that's much more annoying.

Online TrevorMonty


I really don't understand why you feel the need to belittle every rocket developer other than SpaceX. It's kind of annoying.

~Jon
They are called one eyed SpaceX faanboys , if only they struck SpaceX threads.

PS try typing fan and see what you get.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2023 02:34 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37368
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21280
  • Likes Given: 428
Not sure if the above comment is a breach of Rule 1, but if not, I'd like to say that there're a bunch of people on this forum keep attacking SpaceX and spreading FUD about SpaceX too, in fact OP of this thread is one of them, and that's much more annoying.

the "bunch" is relatively small, where as the other group is huge.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39244
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Answering the poll, it’s the heatshield that is the most actually useful advanced part of the Stoke’s rocket design. Metallic heatshield is potentially a gamechanger for turnaround of reentry TPS. Aerospike and all that cleverness is only modestly useful and could be actively harmful.

I wouldn’t say for sure it’s superior to SpaceX in terms of being advanced because the question becomes subjective. Raptor is more advanced than anything stone is doing because of the insane chamber pressure but also the insanely low unit cost. The scale of starship and the recovery system, combined with refueling capability… it’s hard to compare this stuff. Overall the impact of starship likely is greater.
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

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10338
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2422
  • Likes Given: 13577
And now, thanks to a carefully timed,  targeted focus on key social media influencers, it is Stoke’s turn to be the flavour of the month. Our friendly, though habitually over excited, Everyday Astronaut needed a lie down by the end of his breathless coverage of their very early days operation.

Among people who study such matters I think it's pretty much agreed that when it comes to PR Elon Musk's PR team is like the Mona Lisa. Everyone else's is like something daubed on a wall by a 6YO with crayons.  :)

He's done puff pieces with kids TV shows. He's done cameos in movies. He's done carefully choreographed "media events" and he's done public conversations with very sympathetic interviewers.

IOW He has never ever faced any serious questioning on his goals, his business or indeed anything really.  :( Eveny the 60 mins interview in 2018 was astonishingly gentle.

And you kind of have to wonder why does someone do that? Most people who work it that hard are entertainers, but Musk is not worried about promoting his new show ("SpaceX, The Musical"  ;) ) He doesn't have one. Ratings of Season 3 of "The Elon Musk Show"? No, that's a total fantasy as well.

As in many things to do with Musk the execution is remarkable. He seems like such a nice guy.

Let’s see who it will be 6 months from now.
A question that could be asked of any startup, in any industry.  :(
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.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10338
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2422
  • Likes Given: 13577
Oh, it's a poll as well?

OK then no, it's not the most advanced engine.

But I do think it (and it's stage design) are in the top 3.

Downmass from orbit with a full stage? That's pretty radical.
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.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1