Stoke Space Reusable Rocket

Michel Van said:
a brutal honest review of company
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnxBkJ4Ez3g
Click to expand...
Watched that and to be honest I think that's a pretty bad review of the company. The biggest concern I'd take away from the video would be the low funding capital so far - 170 million. Active cooling has been used in a ton of applications before so its not new - adding it to a reusable second stage is the new part of it. But being a smaller capsule than Starship or the Space Shuttle helps in the debate between active cooling and tiles. The take on the CEO is also pretty shady to me, to knock them because they came from Blue Origin (where they created a usable engine) and Blue Origin is slower than SpaceX takes away from the fast pace at which they are moving. If you watch any videos with the CEO he comes across as very knowledgeable and easy to talk to, and that comes across as a person who would have issues with talking and convincing investors. You can also hire in a head marketing guy to do a lot of that.

And there is no shortage of launchers needed for satellite launches, especially as prices come down to enable more launches. Being 5-10% more than SpaceX won't matter if they have a fast turnaround time, because there is a large demand for launchers.
 
Shoes31 said:
And there is no shortage of launchers needed for satellite launches, especially as prices come down to enable more launches. Being 5-10% more than SpaceX won't matter if they have a fast turnaround time, because there is a large demand for launchers.
Click to expand...
Not really. Take away Starlink and there is a surplus of launchers
 

Based on this environmental assessment, which gives the following data for Stoke's Nova LV
1721009375923.jpeg
(alongside another line that says that the S2 is 14ft wide), we can guess that the general shape of Stoke's Nova currently roughly looks like this, old shape for comparison (note, they're not necessarily to scale, the old render may not have had a 12ft wide S1)
1721009438817.png
The S2 would seem to have a tank volume of at most 50m^3 (likely less), compatible with the stated propellant mass.
 
Forest Green said:
www.stokespace.com

Stoke Space Completes First Successful Hotfire Test of Full-Flow, Staged-Combustion Engine | Stoke Space / 100% reusable rockets / USA

Today Stoke Space announced that it has successfully completed the first hotfire test for its new full-flow, staged-combustion (FFSC) rocket engine. The engine will power the first stage of Nova, the company’s fully reusable medium lift launch vehicle. Reaching this technical milestone...
www.stokespace.com www.stokespace.com
Click to expand...
As far as I know there have been at least 6 FFSC engines that have been component tested, and 3 Fully tested

-RD-270 (UDMH/N2O4) was fully tested in 1969, with mixed results, meant for UR-700 and later R-56
-RD-280 (Aerozine 50 equivalent/N2O4) had at least component testing in 1968, meant for later R-56
-Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator (H2/O2) had full component testing (built it wasn’t meant to be a working engine) in 2004-2005
-Raptor (CH4/O2) has been ground tested since 2016 and flight tested since 2019, Starship
-YF-215 (CH4/O2) has had some recent advanced component tests as of April 2024, including some "hot tests" unknown how much hardware there is, CZ-9
-Stoke Nova’s Engine (CH4/O2) has been fully tested as of last months,
-New Frontier Aerospace's Mjölnir (CH4/O2) has had a "test fire" on July 25th (at least turbopump?) , 1.5t thrust

Landspace is also currently working on a methalox one for a future launcher, first hot fire planned in 2025; Ursa Major (Arroway) and The Exploration Company/CNES (Typhoon) are also working on one; so are Pangea Aerospace (Franco-Spanish) under ESA contract, Also Jiuzhou Yunjian and i-Space
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Wut ? never heard of that one...
Click to expand...
RD-280 is Experimental engine by Glushko teste in 1961 with N2O4/Aerozine-50

RD-270 is the full-flow, staged-combustion with N2O4/UDMH burning it at 266 bar
40 test, Glushko had issue with combustion instability like F-1 engine.
RD-270 was cancelled in 1971 before issue was solved.
 
Archibald said:
Wut ? never heard of that one...
Click to expand...

From Siddiqi's "Rocket engines of the Glushko Bureau", JBIS 2001
1721130662908.png
1721130730939.png
From Lardier's Liquid Propellant Engines in the Soviet Union, 1999
1721130759262.jpeg
From what I understand, it was originally meant to replace the RD-119 in the Kosmos 2 launcher, which had a high ISP (352s) because it used Liquid Oxygen with UDMH, apparently they wanted the same performances with fully storable and hypergolic propellant, which required the use of a high pressure FFSC cycle.
It was later proposed for the later R-56 on the 4th stage (V. Molodtsov, “Manned Space Flights” )
 

Attachments

  • 1721130610853.jpeg
    1721130610853.jpeg
    95.2 KB · Views: 3
Interesting story. LOX/Hydrazine indeed is a very energetic mix, albeit it has both props flaws - deep cryogen and high toxicity. Making it twice a giant PITA for ground crews.
 
Last edited:
what intrigue me is the timeframe Glushko was testing the RD-280 in 1961
That same time Aerojet was testing there LR87-AJ3 with Aerozine 50 /N2O4 for Titan II ICBM.

Archibald said:
Interesting story. LOX/Hydrazine indeed is a very energetic mix, albeit it has both props flaws - deep cryogen and high toxicity.
Click to expand...
yeah, just like french Veronique and Diamant A that used turpentine with nitric acid (with Fantol to ignite the mixture)
 
RanulfC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Conical I'd want to build on site.

Because I do not trust a report on right-of-way clearances to be able to build the rocket at one place and somehow haul that monster by train while sitting upright.

And megaloads by truck are even less viable.


RanulfC said:
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.
Click to expand...
How does that compare to the amount of repair work needed on other heat shields to re-use? Lots of pictures of Shuttles with all sorts of areas of new tiles, for example.
 
Even though Bono wasn't serious about the ROOST saucer---that, unlike a draggy Big Onion plug nozzle design, has a reduced profile on ascent---more knife-edged.

I imagine such a wide saucer just might allow a water landing with materials advances perhaps around the corner. There was talk about steel panels themselves as heat shields.
 
I fail to see what is really an innovation here; A transpired coolant heatshield, a turbine driven pump and an outlet, what´s really new?
 
TomcatViP said:
I fail to see what is really an innovation here; A transpired coolant heatshield, a turbine driven pump and an outlet, what´s really new?
Click to expand...

Patents tend to mostly be different by degrees rather than something totally "new". A "buried" plug-nozzle is rare, (I've only seen one other patent) so there's that. (Had a friend that collected auto patents and would point out the incremental "changes" he could find. Sometimes there literally weren't any actual 'changes' but companies rolling over previous patents to keep the IP. He also had fun finding the ways the companies would show in the diagrams 'features' that would ensure that someone going off the patent drawings would end up building something that literally couldn't work. But that's all an aside) Keep in mind that plug-nozzles are really old tech, (since the early 50s) and there has really been no great 'changes' in rocket technology since they were first introduced. It's all been by degree of evolution rather than leaps of technology.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Patents tend to mostly be different by degrees rather than something totally "new". A "buried" plug-nozzle is rare, (I've only seen one other patent) so there's that. (Had a friend that collected auto patents and would point out the incremental "changes" he could find. Sometimes there literally weren't any actual 'changes' but companies rolling over previous patents to keep the IP. He also had fun finding the ways the companies would show in the diagrams 'features' that would ensure that someone going off the patent drawings would end up building something that literally couldn't work. But that's all an aside) Keep in mind that plug-nozzles are really old tech, (since the early 50s) and there has really been no great 'changes' in rocket technology since they were first introduced. It's all been by degree of evolution rather than leaps of technology.

Randy
Click to expand...
Probably doesn't help that NASA did a terrible job of rocketry patents back in the day, often repatenting things that had already been "discovered" a couple of years prior but at a different center (Ames versus Dryden versus...)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Probably doesn't help that NASA did a terrible job of rocketry patents back in the day, often repatenting things that had already been "discovered" a couple of years prior but at a different center (Ames versus Dryden versus...)
Click to expand...

NASA's not alone. Aerojet (IIRC) came out with a patent for an engine that bled fuel into the nozzle to act as a "rocket afterburner" and everyone was "Wow, that's a great idea!" And then someone did some looking and found patents from the mid-50s for the exact same concept. Filed by Aerojet :)

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
NASA's not alone. Aerojet (IIRC) came out with a patent for an engine that bled fuel into the nozzle to act as a "rocket afterburner" and everyone was "Wow, that's a great idea!" And then someone did some looking and found patents from the mid-50s for the exact same concept. Filed by Aerojet :)

Randy
Click to expand...
I'm also reminded of the tri-propellant rockets the Russians were working on. kerosene/LOX/LH2. Rocket starts off as Kerolox, then starts adding more LOX and bleeds in LH2. Reading the story on this forum, it sounded like they were directly inspired by aircraft afterburners.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm also reminded of the tri-propellant rockets the Russians were working on. kerosene/LOX/LH2. Rocket starts off as Kerolox, then starts adding more LOX and bleeds in LH2. Reading the story on this forum, it sounded like they were directly inspired by aircraft afterburners.
Click to expand...
it was more crazy
it burn Kerosine&LH2/LOX, but cool the Engine with LH2
later it burn LH2/LOX, but also bit Kerosine with LOX in Stage combustion
if i recalled right RD-701 had up to 4 preburner for Kerosine/LOX and LH2/LOX
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm also reminded of the tri-propellant rockets the Russians were working on. kerosene/LOX/LH2. Rocket starts off as Kerolox, then starts adding more LOX and bleeds in LH2. Reading the story on this forum, it sounded like they were directly inspired by aircraft afterburners.
Click to expand...
Michel Van said:
it was more crazy
it burn Kerosine&LH2/LOX, but cool the Engine with LH2
later it burn LH2/LOX, but also bit Kerosine with LOX in Stage combustion
if i recalled right RD-701 had up to 4 preburner for Kerosine/LOX and LH2/LOX
Click to expand...

Also about a dozen or so concepts from the US in the 1970s (Salkheld IIRC) using Liquid (cryo) Propane initially with LOX and then switching to LH2.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Also about a dozen or so concepts from the US in the 1970s (Salkheld IIRC) using Liquid (cryo) Propane initially with LOX and then switching to LH2.

Randy
Click to expand...
My kind Sir, you are absolutely correct:

US4771600A - Tripropellant rocket engine - Google Patents

The invention combines liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen and a hydrocarbon as the fuels in a tripropellant rocket booster engine.
patents.google.com

US3910037A - Dual fuel rocket engine - Google Patents

A chemical rocket engine incorporates the necessary valves, feed lines, preburners, turbopumps and injectors to enable a single combustion/thrust chamber to operate with two different propellant combinations. To increase vehicle performance in accordance with a mixed-mode propulsion principle...
patents.google.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom