the_zelectro t1_ityahj6 wrote
Blue Origin is definitely slow. But, I have always believed their tech fundamentally will be more sustainable, if they pull it off.
One of the core issues at Blue Origin is their hydrogen rocketry. But, hydrogen rockets are much better for the environment, better for higher payloads, and is also better for national security (hydrogen tech has a lot of nuance and secrets).
SpaceX uses kerosene. It's cheaper, easier to handle, and easier to engineer a system with... But it's not as scalable and it's worse for the environment if you're doing a lot of launches. Plus, much of it is based in Russian tech.
If hydrogen storage gets better or cheaper (current goal of this government administration) we will see further favorability toward the Blue Origin approach.
JapariParkRanger t1_itykrwd wrote
This comment is about a decade out of date.
toastedcrumpets t1_ityqcoe wrote
Hydrogen isn't "better for the environment". You're assuming we get hydrogen for free. At the moment, most hydrogen is created through steam reforming of methane, thus methane, right now, is greener than hydrogen just because you save the energy cost of the reforming process.
Hydrogen is harder to store, has a lower energy density by volume, and is massively more dangerous than methane thanks to its enormous flammibility limits and its high flame front speed leading to larger explosion overpressures. Hydrogen has more energy by mass, but mass is not that relevant thanks to its enormous volume requirements forcing structural masses to be larger (just look at the size of hydrogen rockets versus falcon 9).
You could argue that hydrogen can be made via water electrolysis and renewable energy in the future, but this is also true for methane being made from water and carbon dioxide. What is also interesting is that SpaceX is betting its entire Mars architecture on getting the 2xH2O+CO2->CH4+2xO2 chemistry working via the Sabatier process. It is also a step in carbon capture and reutilisation, a key technology if we're to reduce CO2 emissions.
Overall, hydrogen is not the solution to the energy crisis or the solution to rocketry. The solution to the energy crisis is decarbonisation of energy production (no need for hydrogen at all there, just use batteries, solar, and wind). The solution for rocketry around the solar system seems to be methane, with the only possible exception being the moon which has no carbon source.
thara-thamrongnawa t1_ityo2oe wrote
….Have you ever heard of Raptor engine?
No-Surprise9411 t1_ityq968 wrote
Ah yes, Starship apperantly doesn't exist
the_zelectro t1_ityrn4p wrote
Has it landed successfully yet?
Revanspetcat t1_itzb4gf wrote
SpaceX rockets are based on Russian tech ? Elaborate please.
upyoars OP t1_iu2hut1 wrote
Hydrogen is the worst fuel out there if you really wanna do something reliably in space on a large scale. Simply way too leaky with insane storage/management requirements.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments