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

[alapsa]

Hi HN, Andy and Tom here from STOKE (http://www.stoke-space.com). We aim to deliver satellites directly to their final orbit at 20x lower cost. We’ll do this using 100% reusable rockets designed to fly daily.

Even the most advanced rockets today reuse only part of the vehicle (the first stage) a handful of times (the record number is 8). The upper stages of all launch vehicles are thrown away with every flight. That drives cost into each mission, and makes the flight cadence production rate limited. Rapid reuse of both stages breaks this production-limited paradigm, enabling order-of-magnitude improvements to both the cost and availability of launch. We call this ‘Reusability 2.0’.

Our team has spent the last 10+ years at Blue Origin and SpaceX working on amazing programs like Merlin 1C, BE-3, BE-4, and BE-3U. We took BE-4 from a literal blank page up through full scale testing. We’ll never forget the night we fired the full-scale engine for the first time – an intense display of raw power, the culmination of years of toil, and an unforgettable moment!

We’re massive supporters of the Blue Origin and SpaceX missions to the Moon and Mars. Humanity needs these to be successful. Over the last five years, though, we’ve witnessed a radical shift in the space economy. Hundreds of satellite companies are entering diverse markets enabled by space based IoT, earth observation, telecom, positioning, and other applications. In fact, we’re certain that all four major engines of economic growth – communication, transportation, manufacturing, and energy production – will be anchored in space within 20 years. It’s a massive shift from what was historically a government-centric industry.

This got us thinking. If we’re going to have a permanent and sustainable presence in space, and if we’re going to use it for all of our benefit, then we need one ingredient more than anything: a robust, diverse, and profitable space-based economy. It became our passion to focus on that goal, and not any other.

Since then we’ve thought hard about the end-state of the commercial space sector and realized that despite all of the progress in the last decade, the truth is that space flight is still in its infancy. Costs are still high, availability remains poor, and direct flights to final destinations are exceedingly rare. There are still orders of magnitude improvements available in all of these areas!

To make this happen, more focus is needed on 100% reusable rockets designed to operate with aircraft-like regularity and designed specifically for the commercial sector. That’s the key to really unlocking the space economy, and that’s why we founded STOKE.

Our mission starts with building a 100% reusable second stage. The design combines proven technology elements, high structural and thermal margins, and passive failure modes in critical subsystems to allow for rapid turnaround. Its engine performance will have 20% higher than any other small or medium launcher, enabling a diverse set of missions to LEO, MEO, GTO, TLI, and beyond. The upper stage will also offer unique return from orbit “down-mass” capacity. We’re starting here because routine reuse of upper stages is the last big domino to fall on the way to redefining the cost structure of launch.

In the past 10 months we’ve hired seven of the smartest people we know, developed our hardware on plan, won contracts with USAF, NASA, and NSF, and recently closed over $9M in seed funding.

We’re super excited about the team and technology we’re building, and we’re incredibly lucky to be alive for this New Space revolution. We hope we can move the ball one step further, and can’t wait to hear your thoughts!

[bryanlarsen]

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 pursuing first stage reusability, most notably Blue Origin. To remain viable they'll either have to build a reusable second stage, partner with somebody who does, or acquire them.

Edit: I may have misread the Neutron announcement, and they haven't announced full reusability, yet. I still believe they will eventually do so, but...

[bryanlarsen]

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

[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...

[uranium]

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?

[ohitsdom]

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.

[alapsa]

Definitely agree the first and second stages should be purpose-built!

[bryanlarsen]

> It’s also the first launch vehicle to offer return from orbit “down-mass” capacit

Wasn't the shuttle first? What about Dream Chaser?

Is your second stage designed to fly on top of New Glenn's first stage? Do the fins on the New Glenn provide enough authority to counteract the control surfaces on your stage? Or are you planning on flying encapsulated like Dream Chaser does?

[coder543]

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 with investors since it is designed to do just about everything, but acting like SpaceX hasn't been publicly developing Starship for years now is weird to me. Starship development is moving fast.

Regardless of the above, I am really excited to see more activity in the New Space scene. The market will be so big that it shouldn't be a winner-takes-all market... there seems to be plenty of room for more companies to grow the space market faster. The more the merrier.

I just want people to be transparent about current realities... and using present tense for something that seemingly doesn't actually exist, ignoring the existence of Starship, claiming to be the first launch vehicle to offer "down-mass"? hmm.

[alapsa]

Sorry for the confusion! There are plenty of space vehicles that have had "down-mass" capacity - Gemini, Soyuz, Apollo, Dragon, Shuttle, X-37B, etc. They are all spacecraft, although Shuttle is a close in-between. The distinction here is this is a true upper stage, which can also return items from orbit.

We are looking to serve a complementary market to New Glenn and are not planning to fly on that vehicle.

[quadcore]

* In fact, we’re certain that all four major engines of economic growth – communication, transportation, manufacturing, and energy production – will be anchored in space within 20 years.*

Can you elaborate on the possibilities here, maybe they will be looking for programmers.

I wish you good luck, sounds so exciting.

[NortySpock]

My understanding was that a rocket is developed around its engines. What engines are you designing on top of?

Are you only developing the second stage? If so, what first stage are you planning to launch off of?

What is your target payload mass to LEO?

And, well, where does your company fit in a post-SpaceX Starship orbital economy?

[alapsa]

You're exactly right, which is why we're developing our own engines. Where Starship will be the freight train, we will be the Sprinter van.

[choeger]

Maybe this is a very stupid question, but what's your business plan by starting with the second stage?

First stage reuse clearly aims to bring down cost and increase cadence/volume of standard launches (people and cargo to ISS, satellites).

But a reusable second stage doesn't offer any of that without a reusable first stage. It will certainly make a cool demonstrator, but who is going to pay for that? If SpaceX wouldn't bet on Starship, one might consider running on top of a modified Falcon 9, but the savings here aren't that big anymore.

So what's the plan? Acquisition by Blue Origin? Special down-mass missions for the military (But they have dreamchaser)?

[aero-glide2]

Have you checked out Rocketlab's Neutron rocket? Was just announced today, first stage is reusable. Maybe you can launch your second stage on that.

[alapsa]

So exciting!

[tectonic]

Best of luck to you! If you ever want us to interview you for Orbital Index, feel free to reach out to me.

[newbie578]

I am not informed enough to make any useful remarks, but I will say keep going!

Making any kind of physical good or service is more than a decent challenge, especially if for a higher purpose!

So I wish you the best.

[mgiannavola]

Hey Andy and Tom,

I'm a photographer working on a story about American innovation. I just shot you an email through the Stoke website.

Hope to be in touch. Best Marco

[sidcool]

I did not find any tech specs on the home page.

[JabavuAdams]

On-demand, on-demand?

So, I need this delivered to X sometime today. Ignore the tungsten penetrators.

[shafyy]

Sounds ambitious. I wish you the best, hope it works out!

[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.

[ncallaway]

> 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.

That's sufficient for my desires of making humanity multiplanitary (and eventually spanning multiple solar systems).

I don't desire freezing humanity as it exists today, I desire ensuring the human project continue as long as we can keep it going.

[JabavuAdams]

We're already screwed as far as preserving the human species as we know it, and why would we want to?

[alapsa]

Mars is awesome and I can't wait to go, but Earth is a great place to live :)

[gdsdfe]

non of that matters if life on earth is gone which is the primary reason for having a colony in Mars