Energy in chemical rocket fuels compared to car fuels

In summary, the energy density of gasoline, diesel, and ethanol is higher than that of chemical rocket fuels.
  • #1
JT Blue
7
1
TL;DR Summary
I want to know they compare to each other.
I am no expert, so forgive me if I sound rather ignorant, but I'm curious about this: are typical automobile fuels like gasoline, diesel and ethanol more energetic than, specifically, *chemical* rocket fuels [like perhaps the types used in missiles, space-bound rockets and such] if measured by volume? And how much more so? I'm not talking about theoretical devices or ones still in the testing phase, but rockets that are actually already commonly built and used frequently in their fields of technology [be it space-related, military, model rocketry of whatever] - how does the volume taken up by their chemical fuels, including the oxidizer [be they liquid, solid or hybrid] compare to common automobile fuels? How much more or less energy do they have?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #3
I unfortunately do not know enough about the subject to tell which of those listed at wikipedia are rocket fuels, and I don't know if they are listing the rocket fuels specifically, or the fuel combined with the oxdidizer.
 
  • #4
JT Blue said:
I unfortunately do not know enough about the subject to tell which of those listed at wikipedia are rocket fuels, and I don't know if they are listing the rocket fuels specifically, or the fuel combined with the oxdidizer.
Just compare Hydrogen to Gasoline in that table. What is the approximate ratio in the first column? :smile:
 
  • #5
Ummm, berkman...yer' spozeda' gimme an a, b, c, or d list of answers. My answers going to c, of course: 😅
 
  • Haha
Likes berkeman
  • #6
JT Blue said:
I unfortunately do not know enough about the subject to tell which of those listed at wikipedia are rocket fuels, and I don't know if they are listing the rocket fuels specifically, or the fuel combined with the oxdidizer.
It says "not counting oxidizer mass or volume " at the top of the graph. This

You'll want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Bipropellants
to compare rocket fuels and oxidizers. You need to Look at the Ve column. (exhaust velocity).
The density can be important too. Liquid hydrogen has a low density, so RP-1 (kerosine) is often uses in first stages, because the fuel tanks would get very large when using hydrogen, so that isn't much better in practice.
 
  • Informative
Likes berkeman
  • #7
JT Blue said:
are typical automobile fuels like gasoline, diesel and ethanol more energetic than, specifically, *chemical* rocket fuels [like perhaps the types used in missiles, space-bound rockets and such] if measured by volume?

No. The Saturn V used kerosene and liquid oxygen. Kerosene is quite similar to the fuels usually used for cars. But as cars are using gaseous oxygen the energetic densinty including the oxidiser is much higher in case of rockets.
 
  • #8
@JT Blue just think about your question this way for a second: if car gasoline WERE more fuel efficient than what is used it rockets, why wouldn't they just USE gasoline?
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #9
phinds said:
@JT Blue just think about your question this way for a second: if car gasoline WERE more fuel efficient than what is used it rockets, why wouldn't they just USE gasoline?

Gasoline has a greater energy density than kerosene (46.4 vs 43.28 MJ/kg) according to my sources. The reason it isn't used much is because it has a far greater tendency to clog up the injectors and plumbing, is much more *volatile than RP-1, which is the highly refined form of kerosene that is used as a rocket fuel, and gasoline typically has more contaminants than RP-1.

Basically, gasoline offers practically no advantages over RP-1 except a very slight increase in energy density, which isn't enough to offset the other factors I've mentioned.

*volatile as in a measure of the tendency of a substance to vaporize.
 
  • Informative
Likes phinds
  • #10
Anyone interested in the chemistry of rocket fuels should read "Ignition - An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" bu John Clark. It is finally back in print again but is also still available as a free PDF. It covers the development of liquid rocket propellants and some of the science behind it from the start up until the early 70s. Not that much have happened since except for the recent development of green mono-propellants.
 
  • Like
Likes diogenesNY
  • #11
glappkaeft said:
Anyone interested in the chemistry of rocket fuels should read "Ignition - An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" bu John Clark.

Yes, I have that book msyself. Very interesting read. Especially about all the things that they blew up during testing!
 

What is the difference between energy in chemical rocket fuels and car fuels?

The main difference between energy in chemical rocket fuels and car fuels is the amount of energy released per unit of fuel. Chemical rocket fuels, such as liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, have a much higher energy density compared to car fuels like gasoline or diesel. This is because rocket fuels are designed to have a high energy output for a short period of time, while car fuels are meant to have a more sustained energy release.

How does the efficiency of chemical rocket fuels compare to car fuels?

The efficiency of chemical rocket fuels is much higher than that of car fuels. This is because rocket engines are designed to convert a larger percentage of the fuel's energy into thrust, while car engines have other functions such as powering the vehicle's accessories. Rocket engines also operate at much higher temperatures and pressures, allowing for more efficient combustion of the fuel.

Why are chemical rocket fuels more expensive than car fuels?

The production and storage of chemical rocket fuels is a complex and expensive process. These fuels require precise mixing and handling to ensure their stability and reliability in extreme conditions. Additionally, the materials used to construct rocket engines and fuel systems must be able to withstand high temperatures and pressures, which adds to the cost.

What are the environmental impacts of using chemical rocket fuels compared to car fuels?

The environmental impacts of using chemical rocket fuels are more significant compared to car fuels. Rocket engines emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other pollutants into the atmosphere during launch. In contrast, car engines have more efficient emissions control systems and produce lower levels of pollutants per unit of fuel used.

Can chemical rocket fuels be used as a replacement for car fuels?

No, chemical rocket fuels are not a viable replacement for car fuels. While they have a higher energy density and efficiency, they are not suitable for sustained use in vehicles. Rocket fuels are also highly combustible and require special handling and storage, making them impractical for everyday transportation. Additionally, the environmental impacts and cost of using rocket fuels for transportation would be significant.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
202
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top