Skip to main content

Liquid Rocket Fuel vs Solid Rocket Fuel

You may have seen some rockets have giant "firey" looking exhaust coming from the engine with a lot of smoke, but you also might have seen other rockets with no smoke coming out of the engines, and just a little plume.

Small Plume with no smoke

Big Plume from Solid Rocket Fuel Powered Engines with lots of smoke.

The first image is a Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen fueled engine. The second one is a solid-rocket-fuel powered engine that releases a lot of energy by burning something. The reason some companies use mostly solid fuel over liquid fuel, like Arianespace and United Launch Alliance, is because solid fuel is MUCH cheaper than liquid fuel. Solid Rocket Motors are also much easier to operate, and simpler to create. Solid Rocket Motors can also provide more thrust, and can be ignited in less than a split second, which is why they are also used for abort towers, to quickly pull the capsule away from a failing rocket safely, efficiently, and quickly.

Some differences between liquid-fueled engines and solid-rocket-fuel is, you can shut down a liquid-fuel engine, but not a solid one. You also cannot throttle solid-fueled-motors, but you can throttle liquid ones. Liquid-fueled-engines do require a lot more of machinery than solid-rocket-motors. They are also very complicated and expensive.

Lot's of modern rockets like Vega, the Atlas V, the Ariane 5, and many more use solid fuel. Companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX, and more have opted to use liquid fuel for launching their rockets instead of solid fuel, as they could be potentially more dangerous. The Space Shuttle used Solid-Fuel for its two side-boosters, and the Challenger incident was caused by a solid-rocket side booster. Solid Rocket Motors are very good for launching rockets, but could be dangerous, and liquid-fueled rockets are usually safer, but are way more expensive and complicated.

Popular posts from this blog

Starship SN10 Aborts at T - 0 Seconds for its 10km test flight.

  Moments ago, Starship SN10 attempted a flight to 10km, to then orient itself into a unique horizontal bellyflop position, flip itself upright after it has descended to about 1km, deploy the landing legs, and touch down on the landing pad softly. This vehicle, Starship Number 10, uses Liquid CH4 (methane) and Liquid Oxygen aka LOX/LO2, used by its 3 powerful Raptor engines.  Today, SpaceX started their official stream for the Starship SN10 Flight. SpaceX have privated the stream replay, so we cannot replay it. In case you want the link: The vehicle began fueling up with Methane and LOX, and then shortly after, it started the engine chill process, which is the process of chilling the engines down in preparation for engine ignition, so the engine material does not crack or get damaged from sudden shock. The vehicle attempted to start up its 3 Raptor engines, by opening the fuel & oxidizer valves, starting up the turbopumps, sho

What is “the best” programming language?

Programming languages, there are so many of them. Some programming languages are way easier to learn than other ones. But which programming language, is “the best” programming language? This question, it is not really answerable. There is no “best programming languages”, they are all meant for different things, well, MOST of them. If I were to compare 2 different programming languages, meant for very similar things, like Batch and Bash, I would say Batch is easier, as its Syntax is not as confusing as Bash’s to the average person. Here is another example, C# is primarily used for computer applications, mostly on Windows, and HTML is a markup language, being used to make websites. I cannot compare C# (it is pronounced “See Sharp” if you didn’t know) because they are used for completely different things. It wouldn’t make sense to say, “C# is way better”, because what is it better at? Developing desktop applications? Sure! Then I can say HTML is better at making websites, it is not a logi

How do you know the universe was not created a few minutes ago?

       The universe is the giant area of space that we live in, which is observable. Anything past our universal border is not in our universe. People do say the universe is constantly expanding, but there is no proof of that, as the "imaginary" or, maybe not imaginary border at the "end" of our universe. But, how do you know that the universe even exists? Were you even in it last week? Did last week even exist? Last week, the universe could have been created, and you do not have proof against it. All of your knowledge and memory could have easily popped into existence a few seconds ago, tricking you into thinking you have existed for longer than you think. This is likely, but also unlikely, it is a 50/50 chance. A reason that this is unlikely is, there are a lot of things that do not make sense in our universe. Like, why does matter attract matter, resulting in gravity? This exists in our universe, but can it exist in a different universe? Not really, or most likel