/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12484977
Carbon monoxide is more dangerous to humans than methane and requires more cooling to stay liquid than methane. Also methane as a fuel has much more research and development than carbon monoxide. Ethanol is friendlier to humans than carbon monoxide, but it's energy content is lacking.

>>12394183

>>12299594
>A bill passing that prohibits the use of methane (greenhouse gas) as rocket fuel
Then switch to Ethane.

>>12280257
>Any reason why they changed their minds?
Most likely storage motivations. Liquid hydrogen requires a huge volume for a given mass, and that will impact how much propellant a spacecraft can store if it's limited in size. Liquid methane is more dense and thus more can be stored.

>>12231813
A legitimate issue with using hydrolox is that hydrogen is incredibly volume intensive. So if your vehicle design size is limited in some way, then other fuel selections might offer better payload capacity than hydrogen even though the on-paper performance of hydrogen is superior. This is due to other fuels being more dense and thus able to pack more propellant which boosts the mass ratio enough to compensate for lower specific impulse.

>>12043679

>>11938434
If this chart that I've compiled is to be trusted, then hexadecane stands a good chance, but the energy volume of the oxidizer should be considered along with the fuel to be more accurate.