Genius Solution! SpaceX Starship fuel performance compared to hydrogen, methane, propane…



Genius Solution! SpaceX Starship fuel performance compared to hydrogen, methane, propane…
===
#greatspacex #elonmusk #spacex #nasa #spacexstarship #starshipspacex
==
Advertisers who want to place ads on our channel, please contact the email manager: [email protected]
===
SpaceX Starship SN
Be the first to sponsor us Thank you.
https://www.patreon.com/GreatspaceX?fan_landing=true
===
Sources of Thumbnail:
Christian Schiffer – schiffer-soft: https://twitter.com/schiffer_soft
Sources of Images and videos:
USLaunchReport: https://www.youtube.com/c/Uslaunchreport
Cosmic Perspective: https://www.youtube.com/@CosmicPerspective
Everyday Astronaut: https://www.youtube.com/c/EverydayAstronaut
John Kraus: https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/
JennyHPhoto:https://www.youtube.com/JennyHPhoto
Orbex Space: https://www.youtube.com/@orbexspace9548
C-bass Productions: https://www.youtube.com/@CbassProductions
Starbase Surfer : https://twitter.com/cnunezimages
Evan Karen: https://www.youtube.com/@EvanKaren
StarshipGazer: https://twitter.com/StarshipGazer
https://www.youtube.com/c/StarshipGazer
Base Camp Zero: https://twitter.com/clwphoto1
WAI: https://twitter.com/FelixSchlang
LabPadre Space: https://www.youtube.com/c/LabPadre
iamVisual: https://www.youtube.com/@iamVisualVFX
TijnM: https://www.youtube.com/@tijn_m
CCTV: https://www.youtube.com/c/cctv
CNSA Watcher – Archives : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvt59mvaxcTCEb7a0MLJutA
Randolph Visuals: https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief
Ryan Hansen Space: https://www.youtube.com/c/RyanHansenSpace
Clarence365: https://www.youtube.com/@clarence3654
John Kraus: https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/
Adam Cuker: https://www.youtube.com/c/AdamCuker
===
Genius Solution! SpaceX Starship fuel performance compared to hydrogen, methane, propane…
The rocket industry is on a fast track of expansion, constantly evolving its technologies to meet the demands of new designs and more intricate mission goals. Amid this evolution, a significant spotlight shines on improving rocket fuel. Aerospace organizations are searching for cost-effective, powerful, and efficient options to fine-tune their vehicles.
Back in the early days of aerospace, kerosene was the top pick for fuel. Even today, it remains a primary choice for some renowned rockets like SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, ULA’s Atlas V, and Rocket Lab’s Electron.
When compared to newer fuels like methane, hydrogen, and propane, kerosene falls short in several aspects. It’s more costly because it lacks recyclability, needing multiple filtration and distillation steps from crude oil to become the final product. Notably, kerosene isn’t environmentally friendly due to its emission of gases, particularly carbon monoxide, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Its efficiency also trails behind other fuels. Additionally, burning kerosene produces coking or deposits that could block engine nozzles and the base of the combustion chamber, leading to reduced performance or even engine failure. These drawbacks, among others, have prompted a gradual shift away from kerosene in favor of newer, more advanced fuels.
—-
We use images and content in accordance with the YouTube Fair Use copyright guidelines: https://www.youtube.com/intl/en/about/copyright/fair-use/
Any questions about copyright please send us via Gmail: [email protected]
To be resolved, thank you.

source

49 thoughts on “Genius Solution! SpaceX Starship fuel performance compared to hydrogen, methane, propane…”

  1. Although always interesting, I do not believe Propane will supplant Methane as the primary fuel source for the reusable launch systems so far developed worldwide. However, that said, I do think we will transition to a fission-based propulsion system for on-orbit operations in fairly short order (5-10 years?).

    Thank you again for broaching yet another area of critical knowledge in the process of educating this next generation. Please keep doing this great work. Patching all the holes in our understanding of these evolving fundamental technologies is no small undertaking. The list of subjects is endless, yet each area is equally important, and a piece of the larger puzzle mankind must traverse to achieve its goal of living among the stars. Bravo!!!! 🧐🤔🚀🤖

    Reply
  2. Hydrogen molecules are so small no substance on the planet is truly hydrogen tight. Hydrogen will seep out between the atoms of the crystal lattice of any known substance.

    You shouldn't worry so much about CO2 emissions. During the time of the dinosaurs CO2 levels were TWENTY TIMES as high as today and the planet didn't go all Venus.

    Reply
  3. All you Asians who run this channel should look at all the white boys running SpaceX. And who are you anyways? You look like you just got off the boat from China. (Check out their "about us"). Where did you all get your engineering degrees from? Kung pao U? It only figures the kids would follow a Chinese channel about SpaceX.

    Reply
  4. ALL Combustion releases CO2!
    ALL COMBUSTION.
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
    Kerosene does not emit large amounts of Carbon Monoxide. This would only occur if the combustion process was incomplete. This is the same for any carbon based fuel like, propane, methane, butane, gasoline… etc.

    Reply
  5. Oh wow, where do I even start? Some interesting stuff in there but methane and propane are portrayed totally wrong. Methane is a cryofuel, propane is not. Propane is much easier to store but harder to get and very hard to synthesize in space. Done the right way, methane is not only net-zero-carbon. It's even carbon-negative. I would go for methane for its many advantages but propane is still a great fuel.

    Reply
  6. NASA's nuclear propulsion might work well for a non-atmospheric transfer vessel, operating only in interplanetary space. Still requires MethaLox for Mars or Earth non-radioactive waste generating landings and liftoffs.

    Reply
  7. Your graphic showed Carbon Monoxide when you meant Carbon Dioxide. Propane also produces Carbon Dioxide, just as Methane does. Some of the Chemistry explanations need fixed here.

    Reply
  8. Really not sure where you get the idea of reduced emissions from propane vs methane. Nothing in their comparable chemical structure favors one over the other, except propane is a denser fuel. They are both light molecular weight alkanes. They both combust to CO2 and water vapor.

    Reply
  9. Propane has more carbon, thus creating more CO and CO2, not that these are the problem that the propagandists would have us believe it to be. [They] can't have easy space access, uncontrolled by them, to become available to us.

    Notice how the Chinese space program came out of nothing in the 1990s to what it is today. Experts at making copies, they have bought the tech in illegal deals with people who have sold us out. Road blocks slow our space programs, while they make their attempt to take over the Solar System; all by design.

    Reply
  10. Propane burns into CO2 and H2O, its chemical formula is C3H8. Get off the globule warming caused by CO2, that is a phony claim. 0.04 percent is not enough to change the temperature of the earth. If there is actually global warming, it is a natural pronominal.

    Reply
  11. Interesting comparison! I had not heard of propane being used as a rocket fuel. Very early rockets used gasoline or alcohol as a fuel. Hydrogen is not new as the Saturn upper stages used it. BTW “Propane” was misspelled as “Propene” 3 times in your video.

    Reply
  12. More errors! Your video says burning methane generates CO2, but not propane? Any decent high school chemistry class should teach a student that burning any hydrocarbon, CxHx + x(O2) = x(CO2) + x(H2O) + heat! (assuming complete combustion)

    Reply

Leave a Comment