Spaceception Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 This may be an interesting video for you guys. I like the channel a lot. This isn't focused on Nova, but instead the business side of Stoke. He has a more restrained opinion about them, and is worried about funding and potential markets amid already established providers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 23 hours ago, tater said: The patents (US links here): https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20220412709 https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20210381469 Have the same wording as the previous links. They mention that the plug/aerospike nozzle was discussed before 1960. The only patent by Bono (submitted by James Webb, NASA) dates to 1967 (there's a second also Webb that I can't find, but it's not the detailed one). A patent filed in 1961 for a plug rocket engine was granted in 1967 as well, not Bono. Nonetheless, it was apparently not a new concept even in 1961. I suppose there could well be scholarly articles regarding plug/aerospikes that are not online, but it seems hard to find references. Krase, 1959 (w citations from well before) Yes. The plug nozzle, variously called the aerospike and aeroplug, was known about since the early days of the space program. Bono’s innovative idea was to use to it deal with the heating during reentry. The plug nozzle then to Bono had two benefits. It would improve engine performance for a SSTO, or a near-SSTO that used drop tanks, whose engines had to fire efficiently from sea level all the way to orbit and would solve the problem of the reentry heating for that stage returning from orbit. It was the reentry thermal control purpose for the plug nozzle for which Bono was granted the patent. If you look at the interviews of Andy Lapsa of Stoke Space such as by Everyday Astronaut and NasaSpaceflight it is this purpose for which Stoke Space is praised for their “innovativeness”. My opinion, Phil Bono should have been given credit for this innovation. Bob Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 On 3/14/2024 at 9:43 AM, Exoscientist said: It was the reentry thermal control purpose for the plug nozzle for which Bono was granted the patent. If you look at the interviews of Andy Lapsa of Stoke Space such as by Everyday Astronaut and NasaSpaceflight it is this purpose for which Stoke Space is praised for their “innovativeness”. My opinion, Phil Bono should have been given credit for this innovation. No, the innovation for which Stoke Space has received praise and attention is the use of a thermally-powered, actively-cooled heat shield. The fact that this heat shield also happens to function (somewhat) as a plug nozzle is secondary, and not that rare of an idea anyway. The Chrysler SERV and the Phoenix SSTO were designed to use the same approach. Saying that Stoke Space is getting undue credit for "copying" Phil Bono's idea is like saying that Reaction Engines Limited gets undue credit for "copying" the Space Shuttle, because both designs were spaceplanes that used hydrolox for the main push to orbit, circularized with hypergolics, and landed horizontally. The thing that makes the Skylon concept unique is the super-cold heat exchanger in the SABRE engine, not the brute notion of a spaceplane. Likewise, the thing that makes the Nova rocket concept unique is the use of re-entry heat to operate the pumps for the actively-cooled heat shield using the same system that powers the engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 8 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: No, the innovation for which Stoke Space has received praise and attention is the use of a thermally-powered, actively-cooled heat shield. The fact that this heat shield also happens to function (somewhat) as a plug nozzle is secondary, and not that rare of an idea anyway. The Chrysler SERV and the Phoenix SSTO were designed to use the same approach. That is what I what I was trying to say. Phil Bono’s proposal predates Chrysler SERV and Phoenix SSTO. Bob Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Looks like a 1st stage tank (probably dev) in the background. Also We could see a first stage engine test from them in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 11 hours ago, tater said: That's gorgeous to see! It's very curious to me that neither turbopump is being placed inline with the engine. An inline approach (Raptor, BE-4, RD-191) would seem like the simpler, more lightweight design. Granted, other single-chamber engines with dual-shaft (separate turbines) turbopumps (RS-25, RS-68, YF-100, Vulcain, YF-20, YF-77) have both turbopumps off-axis, but that feels like it has almost always been due to other design constraints. Maybe it's an engine length issue? Something to do with how they are handling gimbal? I wonder if the gimbal is happening halfway down the nozzle rather than up at the top. The structure of the top of the engine looks pretty gimbal-unfriendly, and these highlighted bits around the nozzle extension look suspiciously like gimbal mounts: (Notable that those are clearly Lapsa's kids which is just awesome.) Putting the gimbal halfway down the engine bell is....definitely different. Probably lower control authority, among other things. But I suppose it could really reduce weight in other places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 2 Author Share Posted April 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 21 hours ago, sevenperforce said: I wonder if the gimbal is happening halfway down the nozzle rather than up at the top. The structure of the top of the engine looks pretty gimbal-unfriendly, and these highlighted bits around the nozzle extension look suspiciously like gimbal mounts Could they be the same mountings I saw for the second-stage engine in Everyday Astronaut's walkaround? Those looked mobile, but weren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 29 minutes ago, AckSed said: Could they be the same mountings I saw for the second-stage engine in Everyday Astronaut's walkaround? Those looked mobile, but weren't. That is what I was thinking, just engine mounts. Maybe the plan is a mix of gimballed and fixed engines like many boosters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 I'm looking forward to seeing their next funding round later this year. Having an engine test fire should do wonders in giving investors confidence that it's worth putting funding into, on top of whatever other progress they achieve. On the outside, I think there's a good chance they'll have all the major components of Nova (engines, tanks, avionics, heatshield, payload integration) ready to begin putting together for an inaugural launch by the end of the year. I wonder what the payload will be, probably a dummy one, but Stoke seems like the type to have fun with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 Okay, that looks amazing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted Thursday at 06:58 PM Share Posted Thursday at 06:58 PM On 4/5/2024 at 8:58 AM, Spaceception said: Okay, that looks amazing Looks like a behemoth! Reminds me of the early Raptor 1s with all the extra tubing and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted yesterday at 12:37 AM Share Posted yesterday at 12:37 AM What a plumbing nightmare. Dev version, I hope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.