Posted on 02/15/2026 5:12:06 AM PST by TomEd
James Cobban Space Nerd since 19569h
Why is liquid hydrogen so challenging to handle when fueling rockets, and what special techniques are used to prevent leaks?
The most effective way to avoid the challenges of using liquid hydrogen is to not use liquid hydrogen. There is no galactic police officer holding a phaser forcing NASA to use liquid hydrogen. There is no law of physics which says rockets must use liquid hydrogen. What.there are is a bunch of collosally ignorant politicians being bribed to insist that NASA piss away billions of tax dollars on technology which killed fourteen American heroes.
One small example of this idiocy: each RS-25 hydrogen rocket engine costs NASA $145M. There are four on the SLS, so that alone is $580M of the cost of an SLS. And they are dumped in the ocean on every launch. The Blue Origin liquid methane engine costs less than $40M and has more thrust. The SpaceX Raptor 3 has about 25% higher thrust and weighs less than half as much as the RS-25, and costs Elon less than $1M each. Fuel for a rocket is merely a source of energy. The cost for a given number of Joules, or Kilowatt-Hours, or BTUs in the form of liquid methane (aka Natural Gas) is.1/60th of the cost of the same amount of energy in liquid hydrogen. So you drive up the rocket service station and the pump gives you a choice. You can buy $20 worth of methane or $1200 worth of hydrogen. Which one do you choose? If you choose $20 why do you keep reelecting the thieves who insist on spending $1200?
An old joke: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Then don't do that!
What do you expect them to use for fuel?
Methane contains no where near the available energy of hydrogen. Methane means larger and heavier rockets with a smaller payload.
And, it is really cold too. I partook in handling a few gallons over the years. 😳🤔😂👍
Too bad the greenies don’t ever look at numbers this way. I would have loved to have any senator ask Jennifer Granholm what is a ‘joule.’
“You’re the energy secretary. Shouldn’t you at least know a single measurement of energy?”
These numbers tend to say that when looking at cost Methane has a better cost because the vehicle size is much smaller and Methane is readily available at lower sourcing costs. Seems logical to me.
Quid pro quo? /s
At least Musk realized the limitations of human technology and walked back his Mars ambitions. As with other areas of government, nasa should have seen a culling of its staff & upper management related to both its embrace of climate BS and 'the way they've always done things' (a phrase I personally find absolutely maddening describing long term bureaucrats, administrators, managers, leaders, etc...
No one proposes using gaseous hydrogen for vehicle fuel. Rather, it is stored in metal hydrides which then are conveted as needed. Safe and efficient.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X23018534
So have you told Elon he's doing it all wrong and to copy NASA?
They are independent statements. Which is the reason they are paragraphs.
A. The shuttle deaths were not related to H fuel.
B. Hydrogen is difficult to contain because it is so small.
I think you are confused about something. You might need more coffee!
Handling hydrogen is indeed a royal fuss. Given the use of SRBs, the really big rockets are probably ready for pasture. But, we don’t see SRBs on Space-X rockets. Hydrogen probably is the wrong choice.
No one?
I have so far heard only about hydrogen tanks.
This looks interesting, but then, this may take away the major Hydrogen advantage - the light weight?
If you take an energy of a mol of a matter, hydrogen is not really that energy efficient. The biggest advantage is that a mol of hydrogen is a lot lighter than a mol of propane!
Ditto lithium vs. lead!
Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Thank God your government regulated insurance will pay for you to return every month.
But, but, but it isn't green Toad.
But it’s invisible!
Those “chunks of ice and broken insulation sections” from the LH2-containing tank external walls fell off during every shuttle launch, but the damage that occurred on most Shuttle launches was “not too bad” until NASA accepted the greenies requirements to change the Shuttle insulation foam chemistry. THEN, the resulting damage increased substantially during each launch, and one very large chunk was eventually large enough and flying at a high enough “delta v” in airspeed that the Shuttle wing burned through the hole.
Artemis Update: NASA's SLS Test Failed Because Something Else Broke | 5:58
Ellie in Space | 217K subscribers | 32,647 views | February 15, 2026
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
