Stoke Space Reusable Rocket

I would think the plug nozzles would have an easier time of it. These mini-nozzles are smaller than shuttle’s landing gear pass-throughs right?
 
I love that CEO. He isn’t a suit…and he isn’t weird.

He’s a Bro’

He talks rockets like most guys his age talk cars. That’s a plus.
 
Forest Green said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY8nbSwjtEY
Click to expand...
Wonder if they got their inspiration from this concept. (Not this specific video.)


nick-stevens.com

Next project - Phil Bono's Hyperion - Nick Stevens Graphics

Next up, another classic design from the fertile mind of Phil Bono, the Hyperion. This is a large single stage to orbit (SSTO) design, which can launch via a rocket sled, (should there be a convenient nearby 1 mile high mountain, anyway). This makes it a very unusual combination of horizontal...
nick-stevens.com nick-stevens.com
 
So then you should gather all Admins at once to have them remove urgently 90% of all threads and posts involving on demand air mobility and other dreamagination flying hardware. ;)
 
Someone is very busy, secretly....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732399479276355610
View: https://publish.twitter.com/?url=https://twitter.com/stoke_space/status/1732399479276355610


GArexPpaYAAGy30
 
Reminds me of "the rocket company" by Patrick Stiennon. Their concept is close, albeit a bit more than a pop-up SSTO.
Pros and cons, compared to SpaceX Starship
Pros
- smaller ship, much less tanking events needed to send it to the Moon
- hydrogen has more energy than methane
Cons
- hydrogen is a major PITA as far as boiloff and tanking are concerned

Something similar to, but smaller than Starship might be very welcome, including for the Moon. Taxi vs heavy truck, kind of.
 
Forest Green said:
Hydrogen is cleaner than methane as another pro..
Click to expand...
hydrogen has it pro and con

burn with Lox it give high ISP performance.
but burns at far higher temperature as Methalox or kerolox
you can cool engine with Hydrogen,
however this extrem cold propellant bring new issue for Turbo pumps.

Hydrogen is bulky in volume.
if you have small stage like Centaur, Ariane H8 or Stoke stages, it not big problem.
it becomes a problem, if you need fill big stages, see large tank SLS has.
with lager tanks you get new problems like Max-q and aero-dynamic drag that reduce performance !

Manufacture and store hydrogen is expensive, compare to kerosine or methane
if you only fill medium size rocket with it (like Stoke launcher) its economic
in contrast fill SLS core stage it become very expensive, compare to Starship/Superheavy with Methalox!

(yes i know that Elon Musk take Methalox for option to produce that on Mars for Starship refuelling)
 
Then too, lots of hydrogen makes for fluffy wing-loading…maybe if the tankage is lenticular?

Stoke is looking at one Bono design… maybe they can look at another?

Aerospike in the aft/section of a saucer for going up…sliceward…thruster/cooling spray for re-entry like Big Onion.

Folks have this idea that hydrogen’s high volume is a liability…I see it as an asset—beyond wet workshops.

Moreover…wouldn’t a wider craft be better for Mars aerobraking than Starship anyway?

Have an annular LOFTID ring inflate around the rim to get even wider.
 
publiusr said:
Folks have this idea that hydrogen’s high volume is a liability…I see it as an asset—beyond wet workshops.
Click to expand...
Wet workshops are an idea that isn’t going to happen.
There won’t be any large expendable stages to convert to space stations.
Space stations will either be dry like Skylab and fully outfitted; outfitted piece parts like ISS; or built from parts on site like the 2001 wheel.

There isn't going to to be a large empty stage available for a station. Especially, in an orbit desirable for a station.

Let go of the past. Paradigms have changed.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
Wet workshops are an idea that isn’t going to happen.
There won’t be any large expendable stages to convert to space stations.
Space stations will either be dry like Skylab and fully outfitted; outfitted piece parts like ISS; or built from parts on site like the 2001 wheel.

There is gong to to be a large empty stage available for a station. Especially, in an orbit desirable for a station.

Let go of the past. Paradigms have changed.
Click to expand...

Actually the "paradigm" here IS changing that "wet" workshops and labs are gaining traction again, for the simple reason that as we make bigger and better outposts we're going to generate a lot of stuff that with some effort can then be used to "easily" (reason for the quote so wait for it) and cheaply be turned into more pressurized space.

The main issue has always been that we don't have an actual space suit that is capable of actually "working" in space. EVA remain straining and dangerous but that's because we don't have any "good" work space suits. Mostly because there was never a reason to design them. (We actually DO have some really good space suit designs that would work much better than anything we've actually built BUT they would require a large change in operations and design which isn't "easy" or "cheap")

We've had plenty of studies and work that clearly shows that multiple use construction has a lot of advantages if you are willing to take the time and effort to pursue them. (Also modular design)
As we only 'dabble' in space exploration and rarely spend enough effort or money to actually turn it into exploitation or colonization there's really no incentive right now. That changes when the motivation changes.

Randy
 
publiusr said:
Then too, lots of hydrogen makes for fluffy wing-loading…maybe if the tankage is lenticular?
Click to expand...

Lenticular for ascent has a lot of issues, which Bono himself found out and why he went for the conical designs.

publiusr said:
Stoke is looking at one Bono design… maybe they can look at another?
Click to expand...

Cylindrical for a booster is easier to transport than a conical design, especially like on a truck or train. Conical you'd want to transport upright which is awkward over a certain size.

publiusr said:
Aerospike in the aft/section of a saucer for going up…sliceward…thruster/cooling spray for re-entry like Big Onion.
Click to expand...

The entire 'surface' (bottom specifically) is the reentry surface for a "lenticular" design. Part of the reason you use them is the larger but "simpler" shape for reentry. Going up, not so much they just don't hold propellant efficiently enough to justify the difficulty of getting them off the pad and into orbit. (As an orbital vehicle on the other hand and for reentry they have a lot of advantages... Landing in water is NOT one of them and all the testing recommended parachutes for a water landing. However you don't actually need "landing gear" for a lenticular runway landing. "Skid-out" on the heat shield was found to be stable and workable. Need a new heat shield after every landing though.

publiusr said:
Folks have this idea that hydrogen’s high volume is a liability…I see it as an asset—beyond wet workshops.
Click to expand...

Makes the reentry 'fluffier' for the most part and using the boiling hydrogen for cooling the heat shield is workable.

publiusr said:
Moreover…wouldn’t a wider craft be better for Mars aerobraking than Starship anyway?
Click to expand...

Very much so but you'd still have to use rockets to do the actual landing. Still it makes accessing the surface much easier.
Getting a lenticular vehicle to orbit is again a major issue though.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Actually the "paradigm" here IS changing that "wet" workshops and labs are gaining traction again, for the simple reason that as we make bigger and better outposts we're going to generate a lot of stuff that with some effort can then be used to "easily" (reason for the quote so wait for it) and cheaply be turned into more pressurized space.
Click to expand...
Nah. There will be no sources of tanks to convert. Who is going to be building large expendable upper stages that will remain in LEO after they are used?
 
Byeman said:
Nah. There will be no sources of tanks to convert. Who is going to be building large expendable upper stages that will remain in LEO after they are used?
Click to expand...

SpaceX for one, they are talking an 'expendable' Starship and the fans are running with that :)
And as SpaceX found out reusing the upper stage can be economically and operationally "tricky" so a lot of the current designs are not going to be reused. (Some are of course so we'll see)

And it's not just in orbit, Lunar outposts and bases are going to need support that can come from "expendable" landers and drop tanks that can be repurposed for other uses. Something that NASA has done a lot of work on.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
SpaceX for one, they are talking an 'expendable' Starship and the fans are running with that :)
And as SpaceX found out reusing the upper stage can be economically and operationally "tricky" so a lot of the current designs are not going to be reused. (Some are of course so we'll see)
Click to expand...
No, not for LEO missions. The whole concept of Starship depends on reuse. What SpaceX found for Falcon 9 is not applicable to Starship (converting an existing expendable upper stage to reusable is not viable)
RanulfC said:
And it's not just in orbit, Lunar outposts and bases are going to need support that can come from "expendable" landers and drop tanks that can be repurposed for other uses. Something that NASA has done a lot of work on.
Click to expand...
The discussion is orbital workshops from stages. Not landers.
 
The reason why wet workshop was dropped in '69 was that outfitting by astronauts in zero G was way too complicated. I can't help thinking however that the Moon weak gravity may help a little. So how about lunar surface wet workshops ?
...
(Start from LASS - Lunar Application of a Spent S-IVB. Land the stage horizontally on banks of RL-10s. Also, the SLA could be outfitted as a "dry" module, and the astronauts could outfit the wet workshop from there.)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom