9
$\begingroup$

I am working on a near-hard scifi story that mainly involves travel across a single widely populated solar system. I imagine that realistically there will probably be a wide variety of ship designs, but fuel types will probably have to become more standardized, much like different levels of octane grades in gasoline for cars, or diesel as an alternative all together. Assuming there's still a higher prevalence of more traditional rocket engines (rather than super booster engines fueled by handwavium) what are the advantages or disadvantages of using liquid hydrogen or liquid methane as the base rocket fuel?

I am looking to have at least a vague understanding of how they compare to each other as almost everything I find is comparing each of them to kerosene, which as far as we know can't be made anywhere that doesn't have liquid dinosaurs. I am also imagining a variety of craft that travel both exclusively in vacuum and trans-atmospheric. I'm trying to create a world(s) that feels real and lived in, so there should be all sorts of different kinds of craft. Rockets, space planes, bright red hotrod, or whatever the craft, I feel like part of what makes any of it realistic though is having a reason as to why it functions the way that it does and why one might be chosen over another.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You'll need different fuels for different things. LH2 is really too bulky for most air-breathing aircraft, but it's a waste to operate nuclear rockets on anything else, and spaceplanes almost require it for cooling and combustion speed. Methane is a much better launch vehicle fuel due to its density, which makes tanks far smaller and improves thrust density. And any decently developed industrial base will allow production of heavier hydrocarbons, for example by the Fischer-Tropsch process. And then there's various room-temperature chemical fuels and ion thruster propellants... $\endgroup$
    – Christopher James Huff
    Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 2:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dinosaurs or organic material are not required to make kerosene. Methane and Kerosene are hydrocarbons, so made entirely of Carbon and Hydrogen atoms, kerosene is just made of more complex molecules than Methane. If you have hydrogen and carbon you can make hydrocarbons, so it's not 'realistic' to limit yourself to liquid hydrogen and methane. $\endgroup$
    – GdD
    Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 7:42
  • $\begingroup$ If you have a power source you can synthesize the liquid fuels we call fossil fuels. And now the liquid fuel just becomes an energy carrier like a battery, not a primary energy source. The issue is, of course, you need sufficiently abundant energy to do this since some energy is always lost in the transfer which means to do this practically you need an abundant energy source (for example, fusion or lots and lots and lots of solar). If we had fusion power and it was abundant as everyone hopes it is, we would just be cooking up gasoline, diesel, methane, kerosene, etc. $\endgroup$
    – DKNguyen
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ Closely related: Pros and cons of LH2 $\endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Commented Jul 23 at 1:37

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
14
$\begingroup$

There have been articles on why Space-X chose Methane. Here's a few points. Liquid Methane & liquid Oxygen have boiling points that are relatively close together. That way they can more easily have common bulkheads. Hydrogen's boiling point is so low, it would have to be insulated from LOX. Methane is much cleaner burning than Kerosene because it is a short molecule with only 1 carbon atom. Hydrogen is better in that regard, but not a lot. Hydrogen has a "Pain in the ass factor" because it is much harder to handle. It escapes through the tiniest crack, boils off and causes Hydrogen enbrittlement where metals absorb it and lose ductile qualities. It's so cold it's very dangerous. The biggest thing is pound for pound, hydrogen is the most bang for your buck, but that energy density is offset by its bulk. A pound of hydrogen is much larger than a pound of methane so much bigger fuel tanks are needed for the same amount of energy.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Common bulkheads were built more than 50 years ago for the Centaur and Saturn V, see history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch6.htm So hydrogen and oxygen may have a common bulkhead with thermal insulation. $\endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 8:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Another reason for SpaceX using methane is that it can be produced in-situ on Mars with relative ease using the Sabatier reaction. SpaceX's goal is to build a self-sustaining civilization on Mars, making humanity multi-planetary, which will require shuttling about one million tons of payload delivered to Mars. The only way to do that realistically is by reusing the transportation system, which means launching from Mars and returning to Earth. Which, in turn, is much easier if you don't have to bring your return fuel with you. $\endgroup$
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 8:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Uwe Just because it's possible to put enough thermal insulation between the LOX and LH2 tanks does not necessarily mean it's practical. $\endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 9:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Hydrogen is better in that regard, but not a lot." ?? One of us is missing something there - one never gets soot from burning Hydrogen alone, and I believe that real-world Hydrogen is almost perfectly pure, whereas hydro-carbons may not be, and it is the impurities in the fuel that cause most of the trouble. $\endgroup$
    – MikeB
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 10:57
  • $\begingroup$ Hydrogen embrittlement is a thing, but you can eliminate it by lining the tank with a thin polymer, so that's not a point anymore. The other issues stand, and are likely much more relevant than the weight of the liner. $\endgroup$
    – toolforger
    Commented Jun 16, 2022 at 11:14
9
$\begingroup$

It very much depends on the mission, and there are several factors.

If you are doing anything involving nuclear-thermal rockets you REALLY want to try to use hydrogen, the low exhaust mass means you get far greater Isp at a given chamber temperature and pressure. Conversely, hydrogen is a complete pain in numerous ways, including critical things like long term storage, maintaining a tank at say 20 kelvin is hard when your only way to dump heat is by radiation.

Now if you either want a long term storable or a lower stage propellant (Where Isp is less critical) then something like methane makes sense because you can store it at 100 kelvin (Much easier), and the improved density makes the tanks more reasonable.

Places where hydrogen makes sense : upper stages where you want a high impulse burn shortly after launch, nuclear thermal stages providing the duration of storage is not too long.

Places where a light hydrocarbon makes sense : Basically any time you don't NEED to use hydrogen and need too much thrust to make ion engines sane.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Let me give you a short rundown about rocket propellants:

Rocket designers are always attempting to 'build' an ideal fuel molecule for their rocket.

Generally, this goes as follows:

Adding hydrogen atoms to the molecule increases rocket engine efficiency, but comes at the cost of reduced thrust levels.

Adding carbon atoms to the molecule does the opposite, thrust is increased, but rocket engine efficiency drops. This is why RP-1 is favored to Hydrogen when taking off from earth.

Hydrogen is at the extreme end of this spectrum: Ridiculously efficient, but also producing the least thrust. It is also a pain in the ass to handle- it leaks very easily, corrodes the vessel in which it is stored, requires huge tanks due to its low density and requires extensive insulation and cooling. Hydrogen-fueled rockets operate on a tight schedule- they can remain operational in space for only a few hours and the tanks will need to vent into space continously, else the storage tank will rupture.

It is THE high-risk, high-reward propellant.

Adding nitrogen atoms makes the fuel very dense, and makes it easier to store (but also likely makes the propellant toxic and hazardous to handle). Nitrogen-based fuels are used on spacecraft that coast through deep space for years and decades, or alternatively, when a rocket needs to stand on high alert (launch readiness in less than 5 minutes) for years at a time.

Many other atoms have been experimented with, but given up for various reasons, most too hazardous or toxic, some simply too expensive.

Molecule size also plays a role, as large molecules make for a sticky fuel that will not leave the tank, resulting in a significant efficiency loss. They are usually more difficult to ignite as well.

I hope this summed everything up nicely and solved your question, but if not, let me point you to 'IGNITION!' by John D. Clark, which is an excellent source regarding rocket propellant: https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf

@ me if you have any more questions.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

there is one masive problem with methane

it release carbon in the upper atmosphere

if you go to mars using that, it gets worst there is a thing called gravity earth has more of that than mars so where do you think it will go

currently we got NO SOLUTION for carbon released in the upper atmosphere

Also, if we can find a way to use solar sails, we wouldn't need any fuel now before you say ... "slower"

this is space, no friction, acceleration will catch up

another thing that space entrepreneur didn't think about every time you waste ressources on sch trips you deplete earth, turning it into hell (because you just removed oxygen and hydrogen every single trip)

In 10 years, when nuclear fusion start working that will changes the rules completely

we can go back to that warp concept NASA was looking at

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Recommend re-reading the question, especially the 'for a work of fiction' bit (Elon is pretty irrelevant). If doing burns in deep space the CO2 in the atmosphere is not so much of a problem, if trying to make orbits solar sails are not useful, most warp drives are not very useful for interplanetary. There are a lot of valid points here but they need a rigorous edit to move from 'random musings' into a useful answer for 'Hydrogen vs Methane'. $\endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Commented Dec 24, 2022 at 7:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hypothetical future technologies aren't really relevant to a question that is specifically about the difference between two chemical fuels. $\endgroup$
    – Cadence
    Commented Dec 24, 2022 at 9:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.