- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,434
- Reaction score
- 6,757
![arstechnica.com](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.arstechnica.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F10%2Fstoke1-760x380.jpg&hash=c9b15f179ccf768e9c045783e72af344&return_error=1)
Stoke Space aims to build rapidly reusable rocket with a completely novel design
"We took a leap of faith and jumped off a cliff."
No, just another stab at it.Is an aerospike, yes ?? Trad-Circular, rather than X-33's 'recti-linear'...
So, d'you reckon they've just found a 'sweet spot' (Perhaps ?), or tech advances / 3D printing etc mean they've 'nailed' the notion ??
how?He talks rockets like most guys his age talk cars. That’s a plus.
Wonder if they got their inspiration from this concept. (Not this specific video.)
If you love your job—you don’t work a day of your life…how?He talks rockets like most guys his age talk cars. That’s a plus.
Still doesn't make it a plus.Bono is smiling.
If you love your job—you don’t work a day of your life…how?He talks rockets like most guys his age talk cars. That’s a plus.
Or a minus.Still doesn't make it a plus.Bono is smiling.
If you love your job—you don’t work a day of your life…how?He talks rockets like most guys his age talk cars. That’s a plus.
I call major BS. Work is work, whether you like it or not. Take that from a German born aerospace engineer (you know, work ethic and all that).Bono is smiling.
If you love your job—you don’t work a day of your life…
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1703569700540883195
@admins : probably no more valid in unbuilt section.
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.![]()
hydrogen has it pro and conHydrogen is cleaner than methane as another pro..
Something similar to, but smaller than Starship might be very welcome, including for the Moon. Taxi vs heavy truck, kind of.
Wet workshops are an idea that isn’t going to happen.Folks have this idea that hydrogen’s high volume is a liability…I see it as an asset—beyond wet workshops.
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.
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?
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?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.
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?
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)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)
The discussion is orbital workshops from stages. Not landers.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.
each new Glenn upper stage will be larger than SkylabNah. 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?
They will be looking into reuse too. Plus missions like HEO, GTO and escape don't leave a stage available for wet workshop conversion.es
each new Glenn upper stage will be larger than Skylab