Metano vs. queroseno: ¿qué combustible para cohetes es una mejor opción para tu próxima misión?

Introduction

Selecting the optimal rocket fuel is one of the most critical engineering decisions in mission planning. Two leading contenders—kerosene (RP-1) and methane (LCH₄)—have both powered historic launches and cutting-edge next-generation rockets. But which is best suited for your mission objectives?

Industry context: SpaceX’s shift from kerosene (Falcon 9) to methane (Starship) and China’s new methane engines have sparked debate about the future of rocket propellants.

This article breaks down the core differences between methane and kerosene, examining their performance, handling, and environmental profiles to help you make an informed decision for your next space mission.

Overview: Methane and Kerosene as Rocket Fuels

• Kerosene (RP-1): A highly refined, dense hydrocarbon liquid fuel, historically used in rockets such as the Saturn V, Soyuz, and Falcon 9.

• Methane (LCH₄): Liquefied natural gas, recently adopted for new-generation rockets like SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine.

Comparative Table: Methane vs. Kerosene Rocket Fuel

Technical Considerations

1. Efficiency (Specific Impulse)

• Methane engines generally achieve higher ISP, offering more thrust per unit of fuel, especially valuable for deep-space and reusable missions.

• Kerosene provides robust performance but with slightly lower ISP due to its heavier molecules and incomplete combustion (soot formation).

2. Engine Reusability

• Methane burns cleanly, producing minimal soot. This reduces engine coking and wear—making it ideal for rapid turnaround and reuse.

• Kerosene combustion creates carbon deposits that require extensive cleaning and inspection after each flight.

3. Handling and Storage

• Kerosene is easier to store and handle at ambient temperatures, simplifying ground operations.

• Methane must be kept at cryogenic temperatures, demanding advanced storage and transfer systems.

4. Environmental Impact

• Kerosene produces more CO₂ and significant soot, impacting both the environment and engine longevity.

• Methane produces less CO₂ per unit thrust and virtually no soot, making it a cleaner alternative.

5. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)

• Methane can potentially be produced on Mars (from CO₂ and water via the Sabatier process), supporting long-duration and interplanetary missions.

• Kerosene cannot be sourced off-Earth as easily.

Application Scenarios: Which Fuel for Which Mission?

Conclusion

Both kerosene and methane offer unique advantages. Kerosene remains the workhorse for legacy and budget-sensitive launches, while methane is paving the way for next-generation, reusable, and interplanetary missions. Your fuel choice should be guided by mission requirements, operational complexity, and long-term strategic goals.

Which propellant aligns with your mission’s vision for the future of spaceflight?

References

• Zubrin, R. (2011). The Case for Mars.

• NASA Technical Reports: "Propellant Choices for Reusable Launch Vehicles"

• SpaceX. Starship Development

• Blue Origin. BE-4 Methane Engine