Stoke Space Update!

[@YaofuZhou]

This is a very likable CEO. Knows what he’s talking about without overhyping and lots of ego.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think so too. Very down to Earth so to speak :-)

[@scottthomas3792]

The more companies in the aerospace industry, trying different things, the better off we are. Some will fail, some will succeed. That's how it is with any industry, but the more people out there trying, the better.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We agree completely

[@jasongannon7676]

Love what you all are doing.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@dr4d1s]

Great rundown as usual Professor. I watched the stream on NSF yesterday but I always come here to see your opinions on new developments in the industry. Thanks for the continued coverage!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Glad you enjoyed it and thank you!

[@samedwards6683]

Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thanks, will do!

[@MilBard]

I do like that Stokes Space chose a specific launch market segmentation and a specific upper stage design to achieve it. The LEO space debris issue will result in a international deorbit regime at some point. That will result in a transportation market niche for a orbital tug. A pick up truck class tsto to move those tugs answers that regulatory mail.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It would be perfect for that.

[@iand5600]

obvious one for re-useable 2nd stage and trash clean up is to use the same launch to launch a new satellite and in same flight, collect the old one it's replacing and take it back down and that minimizes the cost of cleanup to the satellite manufacturer. Of course old and new satellites would need to be in same orbit and same inclination and 2nd stage to have enough fuel to phase with the old satellite, approach it and collect it before re-entry.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very good points

[@gregzsidisin]

Does the overall flow from the turbomachinery on reentry need to be kept constant during differential throttling? If thrust is reduced on one side, it must increase on the other? Does the turbomachinery itself "throttle"?

[@terranspaceacademy]

It must and that is a very good point.

[@revmsj]

They said they have the ability to not only modulate the thrust per thruster, but to also modulate the turbos as a whole. Theoretically they could also incorporate some manner of bypass so that when they reduce flow to one or more thruster, any excess propellant would bypass back into its respective tank. I do this all the time when I build LP dispensers. Albeit with far less complexity…lol😂

[@Rorschach1024]

Honestly, im curious where the name "Stoke" came from. Neither founder is named Stoke, and I've never seen any explanation as to where the name came from.

[@dr4d1s]

I always took it as an exciting new company that will (re)invigorate the spaceflight industry. Stoke(d) being older slang for excited/invigorated and SpaceX being the only company currently doing orbital class reusability; at least on the first stage. Maybe it's a reference to that and them shaking things up in the industry? IE, to stoke a fire to make it burn brighter, bigger, hotter. You do pose a good question though. My answers are just guesses. Although, I did comment on one of their videos, said I was stoked for their new rocket and I got a heart from their KZbin team. Maybe someone should ask Andy? Sorry about the rambling, crapply formatted response. I'm commenting on my phone.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I hadn't thought to wonder... I'll look into it.

[@HobbsBhipp]

Awesome, we are now in the 21st century - finally.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It only took as about a quarter of the century to get there :-)

[@farmergiles1065]

@@terranspaceacademy The first quarter is always for building the foundations. 🙂

[@citizenblue]

I just want to know how they intend to control roll with only differential thrust. Pitch and yaw, sure, easy enough, but is there some sort of throttle gradient between each thrust chamber that will impart a rolling moment to the stage? Seems super inefficient to rely only on RCS, but I'm just a handyman, not a rocket scientist. 😂

[@terranspaceacademy]

I had that question too...

[@Wisald]

1:15:25 He said "with software" and his explanation makes no sense to me, it's impossible to create roll without moving thrust axis.

[@Rorschach1024]

Pumping fuel from one tank to another could be used to change the CG to create roll.

[@citizenblue]

@@Rorschach1024 🤔

[@marcusnichols5595]

Could the 2nd stage be launched on a SpaceX F9?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[@troynoeldner8510]

Question: During stage separation, will there be any fuel sloshing? How will you make sure you're not starving the engines on 1st or 2nd stages

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good point. I'm sure they'll have baffles.

[@revmsj]

For 2nd stage @ stage sep, there should be little to no room in the tankage to facilitate sloshing. One woulf assume they top these bad boys off, no?

[@gregzsidisin]

Does Stoke expect to have missions with payload downmass? Is the vehicle being designed with payload downmass in mind?

[@terranspaceacademy]

It sure sounds like it.

[@dr4d1s]

As Andy stated yesterday, it is a possibility.

[@appliedfacts]

This would make a great lander for transporting smaller loads (ie: people) to celestial bodies. Fitting it on/in a Starship could give it that long range required. Leave massive Starship in orbit and transport the Stoke ship for orbit to surface and return to orbit.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Exactly! A larger hydrogen fueled version would be a great "third stage"

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you so much!

[@Wisald]

Very ambitious, maybe even too ambitious to start with return to launchpad stages with unproven systems such as their engine setup and active heatshield. Spacex started with Falcon 1 and only tried landing Falcon 9 after it flew dozens of times. So I think they might be biting off more than they can chew by aiming so high but we will see, I might be wrong.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Barge landing for a while to be safe?

[@revmsj]

I’m assuming they won’t be landing @ launch pad for the foreseeable future. Even spacex wouldn’t do that with new tech until it’s thoroughly proven.

[@zachansen8293]

@@terranspaceacademy barges are even more expensive. Better to just gently set them down in the water (simulated landing) until you're comfortable with them landing on land.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good point.

[@inoculateinoculate9486]

My first impressions of this company were: "Oh, another flash in the pan startup, riding on the hype coattails of Blue Origin and SpaceX." But after watching several videos regarding this unique approach to reusability in space, I've come to realize this company might end up BIGGER than SpaceX by decade's end. There is no reason that Stoke spacecraft couldn't be scaled up to the size of Starship, or beyond. The founder is obviously a humble guy, and not one to brag about capabilities which don't yet exist as if they were about to be released (Elon Musk). Yet if all goes according to plan, Stoke will have achieved the exact same goal as SpaceX, except rather than "go big or go home *with billions of taxpayer dollars in pocket*," they are pitching themselves as the small / midsize alternative to the Starship freight train. This makes them more attractive for VCs and other private capital in the immediate term, as they don't seem to be biting off more than they can chew. Once established as an endlessly reliable, rapid-fire 24hr launch pad to space to launch pad platform.... What is stopping the engineers from "Select All," "Drag Up to Scale" on the entire vehicle and launch proposition? Thus, they are not only reusable, but faster than SpaceX off the jump, with less maintenance cost in the long term. Ladies and gentlemen you are witnessing the sleeper hit of the decade when it comes to the private space race.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I did not think they would become so successful so fast that's for sure.

[@medennis3467]

Hey Doc. I planned a long diatribe of dislikes (I shut it down after twenty min), but arrogant BO reject boy said they will use regenerative cooling for reentry - because you know they have regen cooling down from all the time working on the BE-4🙄. However, this action would only occur during engine operation and not for reentry; correct? Or do they plan on engine use from deorbit all the way to touchdown? Your observation is greatly appreciated, thx.

[@revmsj]

So you can run turbos w/ pre burners running only and bypass prop back into their respective tanks leaving main ignition out. That’s how pre burn engine test campaigns are performed. Also, the heating regime of reentry does not last the entire time. Even if they do run the engines the entire time the heat is a threat, they can deep throttle so it’s a relative trickle across the heat shield . You really don’t need a lot as state change from liquid to vapor is so so efficient that you actually achieve well over 100%…

[@terranspaceacademy]

They plan to vent the methane without burning it through an engine which I think is a waste...

[@kastenolsen9577]

A good book on how to frugally colonize our solar system is Second Exodus Colony. Located at the Internet Archives.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I'll look it up. Thanks.

[@shanent5793]

Soyuz has flown like 2000 times so there's that. What makes ceramic tiles the industry standard, who's using them?

[@caldodge]

Soyuz is not reusable, so it uses ablative heat shields. Ceramic tiles don't get used up during reentry, so they're the current standard for reusable spacecraft.

[@shanent5793]

@@caldodge Soyuz, Dragon, Orion, Starliner, all have ablative shields. Ceramic tiles can't be the standard if nobody uses them

[@terranspaceacademy]

Ablative. You can fly anything ablative or "refurbishable" like the shuttle was...

[@shanent5793]

@@terranspaceacademy is "Ablative" a brand name? Otherwise that doesn't make sense.

[@terranspaceacademy]

The paucity of my verbiage is renowned. :-) That being said. Anyone can make an ablative heat shield. A reusable non-refurbished one would be unique.

[@KamalaChameleon]

The methalox booster stage combined with hydrogen areospike engine upperstage with heat sheild cooling is genius.. i could totally see tgis thing flying more frequently than falcon... With a crew version i bet they could take away a lot of that market from dragon and dreamchaser and starliner. Im "stoke"d for these guys!! Make hydrogen cool lol

[@terranspaceacademy]

It would indeed be more cost effective with a reusable second stage. :-)

[@frankgibson6484]

I see a market. Starship doing LEO operations is over kill for most LEO missions.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very true. Starship is built for high mass interplanetary missions.

[@zachansen8293]

overkill doesn't matter if it's cheaper. Cheaper to fly (amortization matters), cheaper to insure (number of flights matters), cheaper to build satellites for (because you don't have to worry about mass)

[@farmergiles1065]

@@terranspaceacademy Starship can also carry a thousand smaller packages to LEO to carry out a thousand smaller missions at a time (such as LEO junk cleanup).

[@chrism.1131]

Timeline?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good movie... Better book :-) Seriously probably the end of this year for the second stage but the first will need another year.

[@dmurray2978]

Chrysler SERV lives on

[@terranspaceacademy]

Mopar forever!!

[@gregsutton2400]

air line mechanics do check air liners every day.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed. Even private pilots do so if they want to stay alive.

[@revmsj]

This is awesome tech, but how the hell will it roll?! With thrust vector you can achieve a large amount of “wobble”, but to roll the rocket in atmosphere, it’s impossible. Wait, I think I answered my own question. It’s done w/ the 1st stage. Outside of the atmosphere they would simply use RCS if you need to roll or spin or whatever really… Disregard, I was never here, this is only a bad dream…

[@terranspaceacademy]

I was wondering that too. RCS at the top?

[@zachansen8293]

This rideshare argument is tired. T.I.R.E.D. Even if itis' true there's not enough for every company that makes this same boring argument. What satellite companies want is CHEAP. What we've actually found is that they're going with spacex and that there's VERY little market for "paying more to go slightly closer" And with starship essentially removing mass constraints satellites should be getting bigger not smaller. Making satellites small is EXPENSIVE. Making them big is cheap except historically launch has been the reason to pay more for a light satellite.

[@citizenblue]

This! Satellites should be getting bigger, and yes, cheaper due to the fact that you don't have to engineer the absolute lightest solution every time. When cost per ton to orbit is dramatically reduced, you don't have to be nearly as efficient with your mass

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed...

[@MilBard]

Starship can deliver a electric motor catipillar bulldozer to the moon, when refueled in orbit. This changes your design constraints a lot.😅

[@danltiger]

I think you have great points. On the other hand, there's a few economic possibilities which may keep Falcon 9-sized rockets viable for a lot longer.

[@MykePagan]

Starship is only cheap if it doesn’t blow up. So far… not lookin’ good.

[@AsurmenHandOfAsur]

Will they do what Elon (SpaceX) couldn't? Reusable second stage FTW!

[@terranspaceacademy]

They will! With the best idea for second stage reentry possible until we have magnetoshields!

[@zachansen8293]

@@terranspaceacademy We'll see. Whenever someone says "spacex is doing it wrong" (or even spacex just isn't doing it the best) they end up literally or figuratively eating their hat. Basically 100% of the time.

[@citizenblue]

​@terranspaceacademy I strongly agree that this seems to be the only viable method to rapidly turn around an upper stage. An elegant solution to a very complex problem.

[@MrCPPG]

Have they successfully launched to space and landed? Yes or no,binary answer.

[@terranspaceacademy]

But the answer is!!!! Not yet :-)