is hydrolox in-game really worth it for the efficiency?
i mean, engines running LH2 do consume less as indicated by the mass flow, but at the same time the tanks contain less. so, is there a net gain in overall fuel economy or is it roughly the same as the other 2 liquid fuels?
Tags
Question3 Comments
- Log in to leave a comment
-
353 Toinkove+1 1.8 years ago
it's also my understanding that in the real world most of the reasons designers choose one fuel over another is logistical. The fact that you need more cryogenic facilities if you're using both LH2 and LOX. And then there's always those pesky hydrogen leaks that can take months to find and fix. And none of that is in the game so it's not applicable.
-
353 Toinkove+1 1.8 years ago
We'll the LH2 tanks are MASSIVE! That's what I have noticed when using it for a booster. But of course they're a lot lighter than RP-1 tanks even though the tanks nearly twice as big so. I think most of the difference between the fuels will be more noticeable when price is thing because without that who cares if your rocket is 40% bigger with LH2 then with RP-1. I use mostly RP-1 in my booster and almost exclusively LH2 in my upper stages.
No Upvotes
Log in in to upvote this post.
yeah, hydrogen rocket fuels are notorious for leaking out in the tiniest imaginable gap ever... either way, thanks for the info
@Toinkove