Stoke Space Scores a Success In First Test Firing of Engine For Reusable Nova Booster (geekwire.com) 26
Kent, Wash.-based Stoke Space successfully completed the first hot-fire test of its reusable Nova launch vehicle's first-stage engine, which reached 350,000 hp in under a second during a two-second test on June 5. GeekWire reports: During the two-second test, the engine ramped up to its target starting power level, producing the equivalent of 350,000 hp in less than a second, and held that power level until shutdown. At full power, the full-flow staged combustion engine is designed to produce over 100,000 pounds of thrust. The rocket engine was designed and manufactured in just 18 months. The medium-lift Nova rocket's first-stage booster will be powered by seven of the engines.
Stoke successfully conducted a vertical-takeoff-and-landing test flight of its reusable second stage last September. Since then, the company has been focusing on first-stage development. For the rest of this year, Stoke expects to continue maturing its engine and vehicle design while scaling operations for orbital launch. Stoke Space said last year that it was targeting 2025 for its first orbital test flight -- but that timetable depends on progress in the development program.
Stoke successfully conducted a vertical-takeoff-and-landing test flight of its reusable second stage last September. Since then, the company has been focusing on first-stage development. For the rest of this year, Stoke expects to continue maturing its engine and vehicle design while scaling operations for orbital launch. Stoke Space said last year that it was targeting 2025 for its first orbital test flight -- but that timetable depends on progress in the development program.
More than just another rocket start-up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fingers crossed for Stoke Space, they do seem to be genuinely aiming to be more than just another "me too" rocket start-up. Full re-usability from the start, an apparently successful full-flow, staged combustion cycle engine design, and their innovative regeneratively cooled heat shield concept, all things that set them apart from the pack. I think there will be a washout of rocket companies in a couple of years time, when we see how many launch companies the market actually needs, but it's beginning to look like Stoke could be one of the companies that will survive.
Re: More than just another rocket start-up? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't end in an exploding fireball, which is more than you can say about SpaceX's initial tests.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't end in an exploding fireball, which is more than you can say about SpaceX's initial tests.
Now you went and done it! Elon's Elites have been triggered, and will descend on us like a plague of Killer Hornets.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't end in an exploding fireball, which is more than you can say about SpaceX's initial tests.
Pretty sure both of SpaceX's main engines had successful first test stand firings. Merlin in 2004 and Raptor in 2019. Things get more unexpectedly energetic later when companies start pushing limits and getting data on what incipient failure looks like. This test most likely was well within the previously theoretical performance envelope.
Grats to them though. Is only the fourth full flow engine to ever fire. Raptor still holds as the only one to ever fly.
Re: (Score:2)
You know nothing about rockets, so you aren't qualified to have an opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
Praising Stoke isn't about predicting their success, it's just observing that they appear to have the right principles for it. They have serious arguments for their novel strategies, and they're focused on developing the hardware rather than "tarting up the term sheet" with speculative co
Re: (Score:2)
Praising Stoke isn't about predicting their success, it's just observing that they appear to have the right principles for it. They have serious arguments for their novel strategies, and they're focused on developing the hardware rather than "tarting up the term sheet" with speculative contracts like a more typical aerospace startup.
Much of the criticism of any startup in rocketry isn't based on rocketry or technology - it is based on a personality. Once you understand that, it all falls in place.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ford made the first cars at industrial scale.
Since he was first, there was no point in anyone else following up. They would just be stupid clones.
That's why Ford is still the only car available today, boys n girls!
Tomorrow we will discuss how after Intel was successful commercializing the early CPU's there was no reason for anyone to enter that market to explain why Intel is the only cpu maker today.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford made the first cars at industrial scale.
Since he was first, there was no point in anyone else following up. They would just be stupid clones.
That's why Ford is still the only car available today, boys n girls!
Tomorrow we will discuss how after Intel was successful commercializing the early CPU's there was no reason for anyone to enter that market to explain why Intel is the only cpu maker today.
When Elon Musk invented rocketry, fully formed and perfect, he was designated by Gawd to be the sole possessor of rocketry. But foolish humans are attempting to re-create his perfect machine, with no success. There will be no success, you heathens! This is not for you mere mortals! Do not attempt to make your own rockets. If God intended to be more rocket manufacturers, he would have created more Elons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rocket engine design is hard. Combustion stability and getting the turbopumps to cooperate for extended burns are really hard. Almost all rockets start with very short burns.
This! The construction and testing of the F1 Engine of Saturn 5 fame had some serious birthing problems.
And while modern rocketry - except for specialized applications like monopropellant engines and a few others - is all just variants of the design of the Nastie's V2 Rocket, which are fuel and oxidizer, turbopumps, injectors and exhaust nozzles those tweaks we do have devils in the details.
Balls to the wall turbopumps are prone to cavitation. The amount of fuel and oxidizer pumped through them eve
Re: (Score:2)
Once your test has provided all the information you need, what is the point of continuing the test?
Re: (Score:3)
These are guys are the real deal. What usually kills rocket companies is lack of funding, so I hope this test encourages investment and also recruitment. It would be very bad if SpaceX is the only game in town.
Here's some more videos about them (you can find lots of others):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: More than just another rocket start-up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only would it be really bad if SpaceX had no competition, but also, I believe Stokeâ(TM)s design for the reusable second stage has much more potential than SpaceXâ(TM)s. Finding a material thatâ(TM)s capable of handling the temperatures needed that is then reusable with minimal inspection seems like itâ(TM)s always going to be on the edge of possibility. Having an active cooling system, that also works to slow you down seems like itâ(TM)s much more likely to work consistently.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be very bad if SpaceX is the only game in town.
il go one further and say elon musk is personally responsible for societal problems and we should probably off with his head
At least get him to lower ketamine use.
Re: (Score:2)
These are guys are the real deal. What usually kills rocket companies is lack of funding, so I hope this test encourages investment and also recruitment. It would be very bad if SpaceX is the only game in town. Here's some more videos about them (you can find lots of others): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Pretty interesting stuff. And yes, people need to understand that This is not a Spacex only world. There are multiple actors in the modern day scheme of things because there are supposed to be multiple actors.
This reminds me of the late 19th - early 20th century time, when a lot of independents were experimenting with all manner of technology, much of it military. Today, I guess you would call it mission agnostic experimenting. We are getting to a golden age of rocketry. So much has been researched lon
Re: (Score:1)
Re: by gum (Score:2)
If you could build the contraption to make all of them pull the same object in the same direction, off the ground, consistently for several minutes, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you could build the contraption to make all of them pull the same object in the same direction, off the ground, consistently for several minutes, yes.
Well then, that's simple enough. Toss a rope around the moon, have the horses harnessed in back here on Earth, strung up in a nice long set of pairs like the old stage coaches, and start pulling.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't work, it would cause the moon to get pulled down to Earth. Hmm .. although.. I guess that would make it easier to go there .. so problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't work, it would cause the moon to get pulled down to Earth. Hmm .. although.. I guess that would make it easier to go there .. so problem solved.
Well now, that depends on the mass of the object you're trying to pull to the moon. If you tie the other end to the Earth itself, yes, this would be the end result. But, if you only tied it to a building, say, maybe, the United States Capital, fully occupied, it wouldn't budge the Moon that much. I would think the hot air produced by the occupants would help with acceleration in the early parts of the pull, and once they break out of the lower atmosphere, they should be well on their way!
And now I've solved
Re: (Score:2)
This company is in Washington State rather than Peloponnesus, so maybe you'd need to use the Columbia and Snake rivers instead of the Alpheus and Peneus?
Horsepower? (Score:2)
First time I've read about rocket 'horsepower'.