For a vehicle designed for frequent reusability, what becomes the dominant economic driver for selecting methalox over $ ext{LOX}/ ext{LH2}$?
Answer
The operational savings derived from reduced maintenance due to avoiding soot deposition.
The longevity and reduced refurbishment cost achieved by avoiding coking in methane engines fundamentally shift the lifetime operational cost calculation, overriding the small theoretical $ ext{Isp}$ advantage of hydrogen for high-cycle missions.
Related Questions
Which propellant system typically achieves an $ ext{Isp}$ around 350 seconds?What is the primary challenge associated with storing Liquid Hydrogen ($ ext{LH2}$) compared to liquid methane?What advantage does the superior density of liquid methane provide for launch vehicle design?What combustion byproduct issue, notorious in traditional kerosene engines, does methane combustion largely eliminate?What is the critical long-term argument supporting the widespread adoption of methane for deep space exploration missions like Mars?Which chemical process is explicitly named as the method for generating methane propellant on Mars from local resources?Why does methane burn cleaner than kerosene ($ ext{RP-1}$)?Which two specific methalox engines are cited as examples of the next wave of heavy-lift, reusable launch vehicle technology?For a vehicle designed for frequent reusability, what becomes the dominant economic driver for selecting methalox over $ ext{LOX}/ ext{LH2}$?What was a major historical factor that delayed the widespread adoption of liquid methane as a primary launch propellant?