4 ms·
This is the first I am hearing of this company, but their site leaves me with more questions than answers. Have they figured out a new way to do the landings?
by sam_goody 2y ago
This is the first I am hearing of this company, but their site leaves me with more questions than answers.
Have they figured out a new way to do the landings? Have they found some new tech to get to terminal velocity? What is different about their launch technique than SpaceX, RocketLab or any of the others that have reusable rockets?
And while another $100M is cool and all that, I am not really sure just how much that helps if they are really coming up with something new.
Do any of the knowledgeable HN readers have a link to anything, or alternatively - can you identify this as someone who is just milking programs for money (Ias I have heard Howell is doing)
I am all exceited about
- icegreentea2 2y agoThere's nothing too remarkable about the first stage. Their second stage is what they're selling themselves on. There's no currently operational re-usable second stage. Starship is supposed to become a reusable second stage. Rocketlab's Neutron (their new rocket in development) only has a re-useable first stage. Their second stage uses an aerospike of sorts, letting their engine end also be their heat shield. This is different from what Starship is doing. Their heat shield is also cooled by propellant. Everyday Astronaut has a writeup and video: https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/ https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/ I think a lot of their viability comes down to how well their fuel cooling system works, and how broad of a range they can operate in. Every bit of fuel they need to carry for "cooling only" purposes (as opposed to also providing needed thrust) is $$$ lost.
- nickmcc 2y agoTim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) has an overview and interview with Stoke from about a year ago: https://youtu.be/EY8nbSwjtEY?si=-kNtNUFpgiisgsUh https://youtu.be/EY8nbSwjtEY?si=-kNtNUFpgiisgsUh