Photo from Wenying Yuan on Unsplash

Rocket Fuel

The debate over rocket fuel consumption has resurfaced alongside the intensification of commercial space activities in the early 21st century. This transformation, partially spearheaded by private actorswith SpaceX as the dominant examplehas shifted the landscape of satellite launches, cargo missions, and crewed exploration from domains previously dominated by major national agencies to a more competitive market characterized by significantly higher operational frequency (SpaceX, n.d.; Wikipedia contributors, 2024a). Within this framework, a seemingly simple question acquires new dimensions: to what extent does rocket propellant demand intersect with the global petroleum industry, and can the surge in commercial space activity be translated into tangible barrels of oil over the coming decades? Addressing this requires a multilayered approach that combines technical definitions, per-launch empirical data, and market projections.

This approach begins with the classification of three primary propellant typesRP-1, liquid methane, and liquid hydrogenalong with a discussion of their physical and energetic properties, thereby enabling rocket fuel consumption to be converted into a more accessible unit: barrels of oil equivalent (SpaceInsider, 2023). The next step involves collecting per-launch consumption data, including propellant mass, fuel-to-oxidizer ratios, and variability across platforms such as Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Starship, Soyuz, and Long March (NASA, 2010; StackExchange, 2019). Historical launch frequencies and projection scenarios serve as key elements in transforming per-launch figures into cumulative estimates over a ten-year horizon (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b; Hansen, 2023). Through this methodology, the technical issue of rocket fuel consumption can be transposed into energy policy indicators that are directly comparable with statistics from other sectors, thereby enhancing its relevance for economic and environmental analysis.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, space launch activities have entered a phase of intensification characterized by the involvement of private actors who not only reduced the cost of access to orbit but also increased the frequency and variety of missions (SpaceX, n.d.). This phenomenon has shifted a landscape once dominated by national space agencies into a more volatile and competitive commercial arena. Such changes have created a new need to assess the relationship between launch technology and global energy dynamics, particularly fuel consumption, which in many cases derives directly from petroleum fractions. At first glance, rocket fuel consumption appears negligible compared to major energy sectors such as commercial aviation or ground transportation; however, the rapid growth in launch frequency projected for the coming years has the potential to give new significance to those absolute figures (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b).

This study proceeds from the premise that RP-1a refined kerosene variant widely used in modern launch vehiclesdirectly links launch practices to the crude oil market. Accordingly, the conversion of propellant consumption into barrels of oil equivalent provides a comparative denomination useful for policymakers and energy analysts (SpaceInsider, 2023). In addition to RP-1, two other classes of propellantsliquid methane and liquid hydrogenplay important roles in the development of contemporary rocket technology. Each of these propellants possesses distinct energy density profiles, production methods, and environmental implications, meaning that every conversion into oil-barrel equivalents must be based on clear thermodynamic and density assumptions (NASA, 2010; StackExchange, 2019). Thus, this study outlines the technical characteristics of these propellants, presents a summary of per-launch consumption across major rockets, and proposes a simple projection method for estimating fuel requirements over the next ten years (Hansen, 2023).

Beyond the quantitative aspects, this analysis situates propellant consumption within both ecological and economic frameworks. High-altitude emissions, for example, raise issues distinct from those at surface level: soot particles and aerosols released into the stratosphere can exert radiative and atmospheric-chemical effects disproportionate to the mere mass of carbon burned (NOAA, 2022; Ryan et al., 2022). For this reason, the study seeks to integrate macro-energy perspectives with atmospheric findings, providing readers with a holistic understanding that absolute fuel consumption figures and high-altitude environmental consequences must be evaluated together. The text is structured in an encyclopedic style: not merely reporting figures, but also explaining methodologies, assumptions, and the bounds of uncertainty behind the estimates, thereby ensuring that findings can be examined and verified by others.

Characteristics of Rocket Fuels

Liquid propellants used in modern orbital launchers generally consist of a fuel–oxidizer pair. The most common combinations are liquid hydrocarbons such as RP-1 or liquid methane paired with liquid oxygen (LOX), while liquid hydrogen is employed in some upper stages when maximizing specific impulse becomes a priority (NASA, 2010). RP-1, short for Refined Petroleum-1, is a purified kerosene fraction derived from crude oil, refined to meet the thermal stability and clean combustion standards required for rocket engines. The advantages of RP-1 lie in its relatively high volumetric energy density and ease of handling at near-ambient temperaturesfactors that make it an economical choice for rocket designs emphasizing low cost and operational reliability. However, RP-1 also produces more soot and combustion residues than cleaner propellants, an aspect that impacts both engine maintenance and particulate emissions (NOAA, 2022; Ryan et al., 2022).

Liquid methane (CH₄) has gained significant attention in modern rocket technology trajectories because it offers a cleaner combustion profile and favorable thermodynamic characteristics. From a design standpoint, methane enables more efficient combustion cycles and is compatible with the high-performance full-flow staged combustion concept. Operationally, methane is easier to regenerate and, in the long term, can be produced in situ at extraterrestrial destinations such as Mars through the Sabatier process, making it a strategic propellant for interplanetary exploration (StackExchange, 2019). Liquid hydrogen, in turn, provides the highest energy content per unit mass among commonly used liquid fuels. Its drawback is its low volumetric density, which requires very large cryogenic tanks and complex supporting infrastructure; nonetheless, its advantage is evident in superior specific impulse, particularly suitable for upper stages that demand high efficiency (NASA, 2010).

From the perspective of its relationship with crude oil, RP-1 is the most directly connected fraction. The volume of RP-1 used can be translated into oil-barrel units on the basis that one standard barrel contains 159 liters. This conversion assumes a density comparable to aviation kerosene, so propellant consumption per launch can be divided by 159 liters per barrel to obtain the equivalent in crude oil (SpaceInsider, 2023). For methane- and hydrogen-based propellants, the conversion into “barrels of oil equivalent” is more conceptual and is performed via energy equivalence: the total energy released by the mass of methane or hydrogen is converted into the energy equivalent of crude oil, thereby enabling cross-propellant comparisons in the context of global energy policy.

Engine cycle selection also determines fuel efficiency and propellant requirements. The Merlin engines powering the Falcon series employ RP-1/LOX with a gas-generator cycle, while the Raptor engines of the Starship program adopt methane/LOX with a full-flow staged combustion cycle that is significantly more efficient. Cycle efficiency, combined with mission profilessuch as target orbit, payload mass, and staging configurationdirectly influence the required delta-v and ultimately the amount of propellant consumed. In practice, orbital-class rockets require hundreds to thousands of tons of propellant, with variations depending on design and mission objectives.

Furthermore, the factor of booster reusability has altered the dynamics of fuel consumption in the launch industry. Although reusability does not reduce the propellant burned per launch, it decreases the need to manufacture new stages and related components, thereby saving energy and materials. As a result, the overall resource footprint per mission can be reduced even though absolute propellant consumption per launch remains substantial. Another influential factor is the mission profile: launches to low Earth orbit require different delta-v compared to launches to geostationary orbit or trans-lunar trajectories, differences that are directly reflected in the amount of fuel consumed. Finally, the production practices of propellantswhether derived from crude oil, natural gas, or non-fossil alternativeswill shape the long-term relationship between space activities and global energy markets.

Fuel Consumption per Launch

Every modern orbital rocket has a distinct propellant consumption profile depending on its design, mission objectives, and payload capacity. The Falcon 9, for instance, uses about 112 tons of RP-1 along with approximately 267 tons of liquid oxygen (LOX). This translates into more than 700 barrels of crude oil equivalent per launch, based on an RP-1 density of about 0.81 kilograms per liter and the standard 159 liters per barrel (NASA, 2010; SpaceX, n.d.). With Falcon 9 launches exceeding 90 annually by 2023, its yearly consumption amounts to tens of thousands of barrels of oil equivalenta figure still small on a global scale but significant when tied to the operations of a single company (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b; Hansen, 2023).

The Falcon Heavy, a larger variant of Falcon 9, demonstrates much higher consumption, requiring around 400 tons of RP-1 and more than 900 tons of liquid oxygen per launch. This places its fuel consumption at more than 2,500 barrels of oil equivalent per mission (StackExchange, 2019). Meanwhile, the Starship, still in its testing phase, is designed to burn roughly 1,200 tons of liquid methane combined with nearly twice that amount of liquid oxygen, making each launch comparable to several thousand barrels of crude oil in energy terms (SpaceInsider, 2023). This positions Starship among the largest propellant consumers in the history of modern rocketry.

Comparisons with other rockets provide a broader context. Russia’s Soyuz, operational for decades, uses kerosene and liquid oxygen with a total propellant mass smaller than that of Falcon 9, yielding only a few hundred barrels of oil equivalent per launch. Atlas V and Ariane 5 show similar patterns, although some variants rely on liquid hydrogen, which is more difficult to convert into oil-barrel equivalents due to its distinct energy properties (NASA, 2010). On the other hand, new launch systems such as Blue Origin’s New Glenn are projected to use large volumes of liquid methane, placing them in a consumption category comparable to Starship.

Per-launch consumption data not only reflect technological differences between rockets but also highlight the trend that new generations of launch vehicles tend to be larger and designed for more ambitious missions. For this reason, conversions into oil-barrel equivalents become an important tool for assessing cumulative impacts over the long term. Although the absolute figures remain very small compared with global energy consumptionsuch as the commercial aviation sector, which burns millions of barrels per daythe rising frequency of launches by private companies and national agencies alike has the potential to reshape the energy profile of the space sector within a decadal horizon.

---

Current Launch Trends

In the past decade, the space launch industry has experienced unprecedented acceleration. SpaceX, the dominant actor in the global market, conducted more than 90 Falcon 9 launches in 2023, a dramatic increase compared to the early 2010s when its annual figures were still in the single digits (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b; Hansen, 2023). This intensification was made possible by the successful development of Falcon 9’s reusable first stage, which reduced the cost of building new rockets and sped up operational tempo. These achievements have made SpaceX not only the leading provider of commercial satellite launch services but also a strategic partner for NASA in delivering cargo and crew to the International Space Station (SpaceX, n.d.).

SpaceX’s dominance in global launch statistics has direct implications for fuel consumption. With more than 100 tons of RP-1 burned in every Falcon 9 mission, the cumulative annual total reaches tens of thousands of tons of fossil fuel. Although still much smaller than the daily consumption of the global aviation sector, this scale represents the beginning of a trend in which space activities become a steady contributor to petroleum-based energy balances. The planned operation of Starship, with its far larger payload capacity, is projected to expand propellant consumption exponentially, since each launch will require thousands of tons of liquid methane and oxygen (SpaceInsider, 2023).

Similar patterns are evident beyond the United States. China has steadily increased the number of Long March launches, now exceeding 60 per year. India, through ISRO, aims to boost its communications and navigation missions, while Russia continues to rely on Soyuz as the backbone of low Earth orbit transport. In Europe, although Ariane 5 has been retired, the Ariane 6 project is being prepared to maintain independent orbital access (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b). Taken together, global launch numbers now routinely surpass 180–200 per year, a milestone that would have been considered unattainable just a few decades ago.

This upward trend is driven by surging demand for communications satellites, navigation systems, Earth observation platforms, and the construction of satellite megaconstellations requiring hundreds or even thousands of small satellites. This creates a reinforcing cycle: the more satellites are needed, the higher the launch frequency, and the greater the fossil fuel consumption required to deliver them. From an energy perspective, this trend signals a cumulative increase in propellant use that, when expressed in oil-barrel equivalents, could amount to several hundred thousand barrels over the coming decade.

Thus, current launch trends display two contrasting dimensions. On one hand, access to space is becoming cheaper, more routine, and more competitive; on the other, the energy consumption patterns inherent in chemical propulsion continue to add burdens to fossil fuel use. The structural shift in the space industryfrom state monopoly to global marketplacehas accelerated this transition and positioned rocket fuel consumption as a topic no longer limited to technical footnotes, but as part of the broader discourse on global energy and environmental issues.

Ten-Year Projection

The projection of rocket fuel consumption over the next decade depends heavily on launch frequency and the scale of the vehicles employed. SpaceX, which currently launches more than 90 Falcon 9 missions per year, is expected to surpass 150 to 200 annual launches by the end of this decade. If this frequency is achieved, annual RP-1 consumption for Falcon 9 alone will exceed 20,000 tons of fuel, equivalent to more than 150,000 barrels of crude oil (NASA, 2010; SpaceInsider, 2023). This figure will rise further if Falcon Heavy is flown more routinely, since each launch consumes nearly four times the propellant of a Falcon 9 (StackExchange, 2019).

Meanwhile, the Starship program, designed to replace both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, carries far greater implications. With a requirement of more than 1,200 tons of liquid methane per launch, each Starship mission is equivalent to several thousand barrels of oil in energy terms. If SpaceX’s long-term target of hundreds of Starship launches annuallysupporting satellite constellations, lunar exploration, or interplanetary missionscomes to fruition, cumulative methane consumption over ten years could reach millions of barrels of oil equivalent (SpaceInsider, 2023). This projection indicates a sharp escalation from the current scale of tens of thousands of barrels to millions within a decadal horizon.

Beyond SpaceX, other actors are expected to contribute significantly. Blue Origin, through its New Glenn rocket powered by liquid methane, is scheduled to become active in the middle of the decade, with a projected capacity of dozens of launches per year. ULA, with the Vulcan, will continue to employ a methane–oxygen combination, while Europe, India, Japan, and China steadily expand their launch schedules for communications, navigation, and exploration satellites (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b). Taken together, global launches may surpass 300 annually by 2035, consuming hundreds of thousands of tons of fossil propellants each year.

Extrapolated over a decade, the total global consumption of the launch industry could range from 1 to 3 million barrels of oil equivalent, depending on growth scenarios. A conservative scenario assumes moderate growth with Falcon 9 and Soyuz remaining as mainstays, yielding hundreds of thousands of barrels over ten years. A medium-growth scenario incorporates the deployment of Starship and New Glenn at dozens of launches annually, pushing consumption into the millions. An optimistic scenario, where lunar or Martian colonization demands hundreds of annual Starship flights, could multiply these figures further, positioning the space industry as a significant consumer of fossil energy on a global scale.

Compared to other energy sectors, these numbers remain relatively small. Global commercial aviation, for instance, consumes millions of barrels of oil every day. Nevertheless, even if modest in absolute terms, the sharply increasing launch frequency carries cumulative consequences of significance. First, the consumption is concentrated in specialized fuels derived from petroleum fractions or natural gas. Second, combustion occurs in the upper atmosphere, where ecological impacts can outweigh the mere physical mass of emissions (NOAA, 2022; Ryan et al., 2022). Third, there is a symbolic and political dimension: humanity is prepared to burn millions of barrels of oil for projects that in part still qualify as the “hobbies” or prestige ventures of billionaires.

Accordingly, the ten-year projection positions rocket fuel consumption as an increasingly difficult issue to ignore. From the tens of thousands of barrels per year recorded today, the space industry could quickly exceed thresholds of hundreds of thousands to millions within a decadal horizon. While this consumption will not approach that of global transportation in the near future, the dynamics nonetheless raise policy dilemmas for energy and environmental sustainability in the context of space exploration.

References (APA 7)

NASA. (2010). SpaceX Falcon 9 Data Sheet. NASA Launch Services Program. https://sma.nasa.gov/LaunchVehicle/assets/spacex-falcon-9-data-sheet.pdf

NOAA. (2022). The Climate and Ozone Impacts of Black Carbon from Rocket Engines. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/53971/noaa_53971_DS1.pdf

Ryan, R. G., et al. (2022). Climate forcing by rocket soot in the stratosphere. Environmental Research Letters, 17(6), 065004. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6cc4

SpaceInsider. (2023, June 13). How much does rocket fuel really cost? SpaceInsider. https://spaceinsider.tech/2023/06/13/how-much-does-rocket-fuel-cost/

SpaceX. (n.d.). Falcon 9. SpaceX. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-9/

Wikipedia contributors. (2024). Falcon 9. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

Wikipedia contributors. (2024). List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

Jacob Kjærsgaard Hansen. (2023). SpaceX Launch Cadence Visualization. ObservableHQ. https://observablehq.com/@jacobkjaersgaardhansen/spacex-launch-cadence

StackExchange. (2019). How much fuel does a Falcon Heavy use? What is the price of RP-1? Space StackExchange. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/32729/how-much-fuel-does-a-falcon-heavy-use-what-is-the-price-rp-1