Why is $ ext{RP-1}$ considered less ideal than methane for the highly reusable Starship architecture?
Answer
RP-1 combustion leaves behind carbon deposits (soot) that can foul engine components.
Combustion of $ ext{RP-1}$ creates soot and coking residue, which increases wear and tear and maintenance needs on components like turbopumps and injectors over repeated flights.
#Videos
Why SpaceX is Using a New Fuel - YouTube
Related Questions
What propellant combination is used to power the established workhorse rocket, the Falcon 9?What propellant combination was selected for the next-generation Starship vehicle and its Raptor engines?Compared to RP-1 or methane, what performance metric does liquid hydrogen ($ ext{LH}_2$) possess that is highest?What significant engineering penalty arises from the extremely low density of liquid hydrogen?At approximately what temperature must liquid hydrogen ($ ext{LH}_2$) be stored to prevent evaporation?What practical difficulty associated with liquid hydrogen involves hydrogen atoms diffusing into structural metals?What is the primary reason SpaceX favored methane over liquid hydrogen for Starship's Mars ambitions?What process is utilized on Mars to generate methane ($ ext{CH}_4$) and water ($ ext{H}_2 ext{O}$) from atmospheric $ ext{CO}_2$?Why is $ ext{RP-1}$ considered less ideal than methane for the highly reusable Starship architecture?According to the propellant property comparison table, what is the approximate density of Liquid Methane ($ ext{CH}_4$)?