Hacker News Reader

FWIW (and because I didn't know it), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-1#Fractions_and_formulation comments:

> For a short period, the Soviets achieved even higher densities by super-chilling the kerosene in a rocket’s fuel tanks, ... The latest version of Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Full Thrust, also has the capability of sub-cooling the RP-1 fuel to −7 °C, giving a 2.5–4% density increase.

View on HN

Man I really wish we would get nuclear propulsion going again one of these days. Fine, fine, not as a launch system, just orbit to orbit... but we could move much larger, more dependable payloads so much further and not have to fiddle with little tweaks like these to surf the tiny margins of chemical propulsion.

It could have been a very mature technology by now. I feel like we created all the nightmares and quit the technology before we got to the actually good uses.

Nuclear propulsion is more efficient but doesn’t produce enough thrust for surface launch(\)
We are stuck with chemical rockets for that. Nuclear could help us get to Mars faster or launch less mass from the surface. It may even be relevant for the upper stage of a launcher. But not for getting off the ground.

(\) with the notable exception of Orion

That's why I specified orbit-to-orbit systems. The advantages there are immense.

When we finally do it, that's probably how it'll happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com