The Battle For Supremacy: Rocket Lab VS Stoke Nova
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2024
- Taking a look at Stoke's Nova rocket and how it compares to the Rocket Lab Neutron in the Medium lift market.
Channel Membership: / @daveginvesting
Discord Server: / discord
Twitter: / daveginvesting
Simply Wall Street: simplywall.st/?via=Dave-G
MainstreetData: mainstreetdata.com/subscripti...
Interactive Brokers Referral: ibkr.com/referral/david3799
#StokeSpace #RocketLab #Neutron
The Success by Keys of Moon | / keysofmoon
Music promoted by www.chosic.com/free-music/all/
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Peter Beck of Rocket Lab in a recent interview discussed the challenges of making the second stage reusable, stating, "Suppose, yeah. It's just not that conducive. The rocket equations don't favor it. We trade so much to keep the fairing on the first stage. Like putting the fairing on the second stage, you just end up much larger, and your payload suffers horrendously. Heat tiling, reentries, and all those things come into play. Actually, you're in orbit now, so you have to time your orbital re-entry point. There's no point in just landing it back in an African desert; you have to land it back where you care. You've got a whole re-entry bit to deal with from an orbital targeting standpoint, which is all doable. Never say never because I've learned my lesson. At this point, we're focused on making a really efficient, high-performance, and low-cost upper stage. The reality is that 70% of the cost of the vehicle is in the first stage, true with Electron and Neutron. The majority of the cost is in the first stage, so that makes the most sense to try and reuse. If you can make the second stage as affordable as possible, then the economics start to get pretty fuzzy. That's one of the reasons why the second stage is hung inside the first stage because, as I said before, it doesn't have to carry the structural load of the vehicle, and there's no material in it. If there's no material, there's no cost in it."
Yes agreed. It's just fascinating how two smart engineers come to opposite conclusions. Will be fun to watch this play out!
Which interview was this? I remember him saying this somewhere indeed but don't remember where exactly anymore.
About an hour & 12 minutes in ruclips.net/video/C3l87aPWUCk/видео.html @@deeptoot1453
Rocketlabs solution with the second stage hanging inside the first stage looks like a really smart method to make a really light and inexpensive second stage.
Yep, as Sir Peter implies, STOKE's NOVE could perhaps have been a 15,000 kg to LEO if the 2nd state was disposable. Not only BIG mass saving, but pushing a slimmer rocket up through atmosphere LESS drag / MAXQ, less fuel needed, more mass savings.
Congrats on hitting 4k subscribers
Thanks!
Great vid 👌
Alway a good idea to keep up to date on all of the space industry.
Solid data and helpful analysis. Thanks sir!
Thanks!
Great vid
Spacex was initially going to use ablative cooling for starship but abandoned it to go to the more traditional heat tiles.
From memory the first heat shield for starship was going to be a sweat heatshield that consist in pumping liquid oxygen in pipe like the stoke but then it go in small hole on the outside shell to have the oxygen leak (sweat) and change phase as it get out and by changing phase it absorb a lot of heat... But they were worry that some of the hole would clogue (block).
Excellent stuff bro
Great video ❤
The heat is on (pun intended) once stokespace can demonstrate during a real life test that their concept of re-entry cooling can really work. Until then this is nothing more than an interesting concept that is not more plausible than something like the spin cannon for launching satellites without rockets. Investors seem to think the same which is why they have not collected as much capital yet. During a potential space company bubble at the stock market that i see coming from 2025 onwards, they will most likely do an IPO in order to collect more money and secure funding their idea.
Cheers Dave
Yay. Thanx for a Stoke vid - i stand by my prediction in a previous that “they will do something” in 2024. Oh. I also made an Astra and Spinlaunch 2024 prediction in that comment…. I’m standing by those predictions as well 😁
What’s your prediction for Astra?
The Stoke solution is so clever I hope potential funders can see that also.
I'm sure the size of the Stoke rocket is to do with being as big as it needs to be to get useful payloads, but balanced with being a good startup R&D size.
It remains to be seen how much a single engine multiple nozzle outlet second stage can scale up when they get on their feet with quick turn around infrastructure.
They might be happy with being the most cost effective launch vehicle for smaller payloads.
I think in current form Starship will be as quick a turnaround as Elon would like by swooping return stages for inspected and refurbished ones waiting near the pad.
The unique design of stoke space is very intriguing. I’m not convinced it will be viable or reliable. One thing about that design is that you have cold fluids running through the heat shield but where is the cold fluid running for the engine nozzles?
I think if they don’t quit or go bankrupt they could probably get it to work but at the end of the day the total weight to orbit might be so small to negate using this approach. With a much larger rocket this might be more viable too.
They could pivot like all other rocket companies to a larger design once they showcase this approach could be viable.
Also it should be noted that Starship will also be growing. Elon said it would be 140 meter tall rather than 118 meter tall.
I personally think it needs to be wider too for starship because doing 10 refuels is not ideal for a moon or mars mission. Being bigger should allow them to reduce this.
The physique point to a larger rocket being easier but then it is more costly to develope et manufacture... one of the reason why Rocket lab went with a small medium launch after electron is because it need less CAPex (Cash to develope and produce the first prototype).
You are right that a the ideal would work better for a heavier rocket. The CEO of Stoke work at Blue origine and for a time I reamember they were talking of using aerospike for the second stage to be reuse.
I am impress that stoke was able to make the upper stage prototype with the current cash they got... very capital efficient. Amont all the launch provider I feel that Rocket Lab Space X, and firefly , stoke are the most capital efficient in that order.
Sadly their concept have a payload penality soo high the they will not be profitable. I suspect they will fly a prototype and they will run out of cash and blue origine will buy them to use the tech for new glenn.
A thing that I didn't like about rocket lab is that they did so many changes to neutron. From gas generator to full flow. From 8T to LEO, to 13T. From shock absorbers to retractable landing legs. They chasing a moving target. With that approach, more delays will come. If Nova stick to the plan, they will be able to have something to show before rocket lab.
You are only looking at a render. Just recently, Peter Beck confirmed a cone shaped rocket in an interview. In the recent render it looked like a cylinder. Do you trust the renders?
They didn't change the payloads. Not even once. It's 8T RTLS. And 13T down range.
5,000 kg to LEO, makes NOVA a small-lift rocket, an ELECTRON challenger, not a NEUTRON competitor. NOVA could not earn more than 15 to 20 million per launch. NEUTRON could earn $60 million per launch.
The problem I have with Stoke is they are going straight for fully reusable rocket instead of starting with much easier expandable or partially reusable.
SpaceX started with small expandable rocket then medium expandable rocket then they made it partiality reusable and only now they are working on fully reusable rocket.
Same with Rocket Lab they started with small expandable rocket and only later made it partially reusable while also working on medium partially reusable rocket now.
They took it step by step starting with relatively easy expandable rocket meanwhile Stoke is going straight for the hardest thing without first doing anything easier, this is why I think they'll fail.
How will the Neutron first stage handle reentry? Is it just that the "fatter" profile of Neutron will cut the speed of reentry so that the heat will be manageable by the carbon composite construction of stage one?
Yeah pretty much, similar to how a Falcon 9 first stage or Electron first stage don't need much additional shielding to survive re-entry.
For this small a LV I don't think payload penalty justifies reuse of US for upmass only. If they can start returning stuff from space eg manufacrtured goods then there is the additional revenue for downmass which changes economics. When a downmass market appears then watch other launch providers persue it with reuseable US.
Having both a ultralight expendable and reuseable upper stages gives best of both worlds, pick right US for mission.
Interesting comment. With current rocket lab second stage design I only see 1 way to make it reusable .
Ablatique = no since not reaussalbe
ceramic = no because need a heavy heat sponge backplate and carbon fiber is not good for that.
aerospike like stoke = May be but the heat shield is soo heavy that you lose a lot of payload capacity with the current design. Also the engine type doesn't work well on this kind of arrangment. A RL-10 type of engine that use the heat from the shield to turn the fuel pump is way more adapt for the job so I believe it would need to much redesing.
Sweat heat shield will not work because the oxygen would react with the epoxy resin and a combustion would happen.
It leave us with the inflatable heat shield that is actually a very appropriate choise for a second stage soo light...
I also wonder how F9 engines bells (a “fragile” part) can hit the upper atmosphere at mach 3+ and shatter… F9 bleeds from mach 3+ to subsonic with engine bells *forward*…. When i went to kindergarten, cones, and not trombones, were considered more aerodynamic…..
Oops *not* shatter
Similar to sn8,9,10,11,15 their heat shield is going to take several tries, but Stoke is legit so i believe success is a possible eventual outcome….
They might be aiming at acquisition, if they can prove their IP is worth it….
@@robshaw2639
I am impress that stoke was able to make the upper stage prototype with the current cash they got... very capital efficient. Amont all the launch provider I feel that Rocket Lab Space X, and firefly , stoke are the most capital efficient in that order.
Sadly their concept have a payload penality soo high the they will not be profitable. I suspect they will fly a prototype.
@@robshaw2639
The CEO of Stoke work at Blue origine and for a time I reamember they were talking of using aerospike for the second stage to be reuse.
I am impress that stoke was able to make the upper stage prototype with the current cash they got... very capital efficient. Amont all the launch provider I feel that Rocket Lab Space X, and firefly , stoke are the most capital efficient in that order.
Sadly their concept have a payload penality soo high the they will not be profitable. I suspect they will fly a prototype and they will run out of cash and blue origine will buy them to use the tech for new glenn.
Why do people mention Rocket companies as competitors at all when they've yet to go orbital even one time? 😂 Not even Bezos or, Relativity have been orbital. They're both backed by billions.
They are competing for capital investments. Unfortunately, SLS has proven that rockets don't have to fly in order to capture $$$,$$$,$$$.
Yes, I know Dave isn't doing this, but some people ignore the two giant factors: These companies haven't got to orbit yet, and Rocket Lab is much more than just a launch company.
If one own shares, one looks far ahead at what's coming, and their capabilities.
Dave, you hit the key PRO of STOKE's NOVA rocket, 1st and 2nd stage REUSABLE, and the key CON, 5,000 kg to LEO, which makes NOVA a small-lift rocket, an ELECTRON challenger, not a NEUTRON competitor.
You mention NO GIMBLE of the engines. Maybe you mean the 2nd stage single vacuum engine. If the 1st stage, 7x engines don't GIMBLE, the rocket has to turns round its midline axis.
NOVA might get $15 million a launch, and could do rideshare. But not the $60 million per launch NEUTRON could get, and other medium-lift rockets.
Nasa's definition of small launch is 2000kg or less.
@@daveginvesting Hmm. Well kg being important, and now that more rockets are coming, in my comments around the Web, I've been using, low-medium and high-medium. and low-small and high-small. I would maintain that STOKE at 5,000 kg LEO cannot be fairly compared to NEUTRON that at 13,000 kg, LEO, = 2.6x NOVA launches!
Nor can NOVA = 16x ELECTRON launches, be fairly compared with ELECTRON.
It gets even more squerlie. The EU says their ARIANE 6 is a HEAVY lift rocket, in 2 models. ARIANE 62 (2 strap on boosters) 11,500 kg LEO, and ARIANE 64 (4 strap on boosters) 20,600 kg LEO.
But NASA calls FALCON 9 at 22,800 kg LEO, MEDIUM-LIFT. Go figure.
So HOW can STOKE's NOVA at 5,000 kg be MEDIUM-LIFT?? I'd say NOVA is a high-small lift rocket.
Looks like we have, the war of the kilogram in propaganda circles! LOL
Falcon 9 is not heavy lift. The most it has ever flown is 17T
Wikipedia says it can do 22 in expendable mode and the boundary of medium to heavy is 20 so that's what I went with. I suppose for most launches it's considered medium though.
That's exactly my point. What something "Can do" doesn't mean anything. The Falcon 9 is medium lift. It regularly did around 15.5T for most of its life . Didn't hit 17T until recently. You can simply go look at all Falcon 9 launches on Wikipedia and see for yourself.@@daveginvesting
5,000 kg to LEO, makes NOVA a small-lift rocket, an ELECTRON challenger, not a NEUTRON competitor. NOVA could not earn more than 15 to 20 million per launch. NEUTRON could earn $60 million per launch.
Criticism Neutron is too small for modern space industry yet Electron launches basically every 2 weeks....
The tooth pick rocket.
ok
To me this is too gimmicky.
Peter should buy them out. It'd fit nicely in the Neutron
The current desing of neutron would need major redesign to use the tech. Rocket lab expertise is in making everything light. Stoke heat shield is HEAVY. so the payload penality is really high. Also the second stage is inside the first stage to make it lighter... they advantage is lost with a stoke second stage...
If rocket lab ever want to make the second stage reusable they would probably license the inflatable heat shield from NASA.