Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

#11

Post by bryanlarsen »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #6

Designing the second stage first is ballsy, it means that you're dependent on someone else's first stage for launch. But it's also brilliant. With Starship and Neutron coming on the market in the next few years, and their reusability enabling dramatic cost reductions, any launch provider in the future is going to be either fully reusable, massively government subsidized, or dead. There are other rocket companies purs…

Relativity is the other company that has recently announced they're working on fully reusable rockets.

Re: Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

#12

Post by Diederich »

alapsa wrote: post #9
coder543 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also confused by the present tense being used there by the OP. "It's also the first." So it already exists? It has been tested to orbit and back? Doubtful. Do they really think they will beat Starship to orbit? Starship will certainly be added to the list of launch vehicles to offer "down-mass". The OP's whole comment fails to mention Starship a single time, which is probably not a competitor you want to bring up…

Thanks for correctly noting the tense - I have revised to future tense and apologize for any misgivings. Starship is amazing and we are huge fans! That is an enormous vehicle though, designed for a different purpose. It is like comparing a freight train to a Sprinter van, if that makes sense.

As a life-long space fan, and as a SpaceX fan going back many years, I'm super happy to see any and all activity in this area. For example, I was pumped to hear that Bezos was going to turn his full attention to Blue Origin!

> [Starship] is an enormous vehicle though, designed for a different purpose. It is like comparing a freight train to a Sprinter van, if that makes sense.

It is definitely enormous, but in my mind, its most fundamental purpose is to minimize cost to orbit. The other missions: landing on Earth, Mars and the Moon: are all dependent on and follow from achieving that main goal.

Musk always over promises, but there's at least a good chance that SpaceX will get Starship/Superheavy launch costs down below the million dollars per flight level.

In that eventually happens, what would Stoke's economic model look like?

Once again, I was delighted to read about this, and truly wish your company the best possible outcomes!

Re: Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

#15

Post by antaviana »

Off-topic, but one thing that puzzles me is the rather widespread believe that setting up a colony in Mars will somehow save humanity.

IMHO, exposing humans and their descendants for life to different conditions of gravity, radiation and overall ecosystem, will make them evolve in ways that will generate a totally different species in very few hundred years.

So it will be just a matter of time, until an orange-colored man with the slogan "Let's make the Earth great again" will want to build a wall between the Earth and Mars (and put it on Mars tab, of course) to avoid that immigrant Martians steal Earthlings jobs.

So a colony in Mars maybe preserves intelligent life with roots in the human species, but I do not think it will preserve the human species as we know it.

Re: Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

#17

Post by ohitsdom »

I applied to a catch-all job opening on their site when they first came out of stealth mode. Somehow I got an interview with Andy. I read some of his research papers before the interview [0] in case there was something I could reference in the interview. It was pretty clear that wasn't feasible (I'm still laughing at my hubris for even thinking this was a possibility), but it was still fun trying to understand such technical concepts!

I didn't know they are YC-backed! I saw them getting some strong recommendations from former Blue Origin colleagues. Clearly they are building a very talented team; I'm eager to see what they are working on. I have tons of questions (first stage choice, fuel, secret sauce, etc) but seems like they are keeping things under wraps pretty tightly. But if they can somehow deliver on 2nd stage reuse at a smaller scale than Starship, then I can't wait to see the advanced technology & techniques they use to get there.

[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Andrew...

Re: Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

#18

Post by ohitsdom »

uranium wrote: post #16

Just to make this explicit: you're designing a second stage that will initially fly on some other company's first stage? Given the tight integration between stages on current launchers, does that tie you to a single launch provider?

SNC's Dream Chaser is the only active vehicle I can think of that can fly on any rocket. But Dream Chaser is more like a 3rd stage than a 2nd stage, so it's not a direct comp.

Re: Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

#19

Post by uranium »

ohitsdom wrote: post #18
uranium wrote: post #16

Just to make this explicit: you're designing a second stage that will initially fly on some other company's first stage? Given the tight integration between stages on current launchers, does that tie you to a single launch provider?

SNC's Dream Chaser is the only active vehicle I can think of that can fly on any rocket. But Dream Chaser is more like a 3rd stage than a 2nd stage, so it's not a direct comp.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking: swapping out a third stage is a much easier prospect; it's just a bulky payload for a 2-stage rocket. But they're saying second stage, so...

Re: Launch HN: Stoke (YC W21) – Low cost, on-demand delivery to and from space

#20

Post by alapsa »

uranium wrote: post #16

Just to make this explicit: you're designing a second stage that will initially fly on some other company's first stage? Given the tight integration between stages on current launchers, does that tie you to a single launch provider?

Definitely agree the first and second stages should be purpose-built!
Post reply on HN