Hacker News Reader

> That buys you a lot more cargo capacity for the same sized rocket.

I think you mean the same mass rocket, because hydrogen is not dense, which factors into the tradeoffs (more structural mass to contain it).

View on HN

An excellent point.

Fortunately bigger tanks get better and better the bigger they are. The mass of the tanks is mostly a function of it's surface area, growing with n^2, while the fuel stored grows by n^3.

And the SLS tank is pretty darned big indeed, with a very large diameter.

Big tanks are a big part of why SLS is financially inefficient.

That is only a first order approximation. Second order effects scale badly. Larger tanks for the same amount of propellant have more weight, which means they need to be built sturdier, which means even more weight, etc. LH2 can’t have a common bulkhead with LOX like Falcon 9 has, so that’s more weight, and sitting on top of the tank so the tank needs to be studier still. And LH2 is way lower temperature so you need foam insulation, which adds weight. And you don’t want that foam peeling off and hitting the SRB on the way up, so you need a layer of sealant, which (all together now!) adds weight.

Etc. etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com