Credit: u/Planck_Savagery

        • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Relatively speaking, I suppose it would be. Though rocket engines tend to be pretty delicate, and I’m not aware of any which could stomach stright-up raw oil. Even the “kerosene” used in kerolox engines is a riffled form of kerosene known as RP-1.

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      That’s the neat part about clean energy, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s a term made up by the energy industry to compete with the idea of green energy so that people conflate the two. What is meant by clean energy in this context is that it doesn’t produce unwanted products from side reactions. It just makes CO2 and H2O unlike say coal which can produce SOx and NOx or Bunker fuel used in container ships which creates all sorts of nasty shit when it burns. Green energy on the other hand means that it produces very little if any CO2.

    • WastedJobe@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      RP1, wich is used by Falcon 9 and others, has more combustion products that aren’t just CO₂ or H₂O than propane. Still not ‘clean’ as in ‘no global warming potential’ but probably a liiiitle bit better.

  • ferret@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    As opposed to SpaceX, which uses “Natural Gas” like the kind your water heater probably uses