which engine is better?

[неудрочимый]

I use a solid fuel engine and do not accept an engine with other fuel. I am scared that it takes a long time and is difficult to do. But I want to ask you, from those who play more, which is better?

[Bomoo]

The hydrazine engine is better.

[неудрочимый]

Originally posted by Bomoo:

The hydrazine engine is better.

I wanted exactly the benefits

[неудрочимый]

A solid engine is enough for one planet and back home. But instead of 1 hydrazine, we can make 2 engines.

[Wolfgang]

Originally posted by YAMEII:

Originally posted by Bomoo:

The hydrazine engine is better.

I wanted exactly the benefits

The benefits are that hydrazine is easy to produce and one hydrazine bottle (canister?) lasts for 8 burnings (i.e. start or travel to a different planet). Additionally you can attach three hydrazine bottles (canisters?) to the thruster.
You only need to make the truster once and the only other thing to make is hydrazine.

[неудрочимый]

Originally posted by Wolfgang:

Originally posted by YAMEII:

I wanted exactly the benefits

The benefits are that hydrazine is easy to produce and one hydrazine bottle (canister?) lasts for 8 burnings (i.e. start or travel to a different planet). Additionally you can attach three hydrazine bottles (canisters?) to the thruster.
You only need to make the truster once and the only other thing to make is hydrazine.

wow, I always just saw that most people use hydrozine as fuel and didn't know what the catch was. Thanks!

[Sky Render]

Here's a handy logistical breakdown. We'll start with the basics. A "flight", incidentally, is any time you lift off from the surface of a planet or travel between planets; landings are free.

* You need 1 Ammonium and 1 Aluminum per Solid-Fuel Thruster; it gets you 4 flights
* You need 1 Tungsten and 1 Steel for a Hydrazine Thruster, which also requires 1 Hydrazine minimum to operate; 1 Hydrazine is good for 8 flights
* Both Thrusters take 5s to craft with a Small Printer, while Hydrazine takes 10s to craft with a Chemistry Lab

Now let's look at the resource costs.

* Organics is freely available and common
* Laterite is freely available and common
* Wolframite is only found on Desolo and Calidor, but is common there
* Hematite is only available on Novus and Glacio, but is common there
* Ammonium is freely available yet somewhat rare; to craft 1 takes 30s with the Soil Centrifuge, or you can used the Trade Platform at the cost of 1 Scrap per Ammonium and 30s for the rocket to return
* Aluminum costs 1 Laterite (15s to Aluminum)
* Tungsten costs 1 Wolframite (15s to Tungsten)
* Steel costs 1 Hematite (15s to Iron), 1 Organics (15s to Carbon), and 1 Argon (5s to gather on Glacio where Argon is most plentiful), then run through a Chemistry Lab (10s to finish)
* Hydrazine costs 2 Ammonium and 1 Hydrogen (5s to gather on Vesania where Hydrogen is most plentiful) to craft, then run through a Chemistry Lab (10s to finish)
* A spent Solid-Fuel Thruster can be reclaimed for 1.5 Scrap

From this we can break down the time and resource investment for each option:

A Solid-Fuel Thruster requires 1 Laterite, 1 Ammonium, and takes a minimum of 20s to craft.

A Hydrazine Thruster is a one-time expense of 1 Wolframite, 1 Hematite, 1 Organic, 1 Argon, and 60s.

Hydrazine costs 2 Ammonium, 1 Hydrogen, and a minimum of 15s (though this assumes plentiful ammonium, which can be done with some automation setup).

A Solid-Fuel Thruster can be recycled when it's used up, and takes 15s to convert. The scrap can be used to invest in further resources to build additional thrusters, potentially keeping the crafting time at a minimum nearly at all times.

At best, it would require 12 full canisters of Hydrazine to be used by the Hydrazine Thruster to justify the cost and time of switching to Hydrazine over Solid-Fuel Thrusters. That said, this is a purely supply- and time-based look at the cost. When you factor the primary benefits of Hydrazine over Solid-Fuel (more trips between refuels, no spent Thrusters to recycle, lower chance of getting stranded due to poor planning, 2x better storage-space-to-fuel ratio) versus the other way around (Solid-Fuel Thrusters can't explode unlike Hydrazine), it's not hard to see why Hydrazine tends to win out.

EDIT: Practically speaking, the best course would be to use Solid-Fuel Thrusters when going to worlds without landing pads set up yet, and use Hydrazine Thrusters for the ones you have. Odds are good that no explosives are going to go off near a landing pad, whereas you may have a treacherous hike the first time you land somewhere before you decide on your base location.

[Xilo The Odd]

hydrazine gives you a bit more freedom in terms of reuse and refill. setting up a factory that takes in soil and ouputs hydrazine is just a little effort for a simple way to create an automated fuel facility. as long as you can land the vessel on a planet that can make use of the warp gate system, you can bring it more fuel.

Solid fuel thrusters aren't a wrong answer though, one benefit with them is you can burn your excess aluminum for travel, and generate items to scrap. and scrap can be used to get any material you might want, so as long as your not ditching the spent thruster your getting your investment into only using them back.

oh also, another fun use for hydrazine thruster you cant really do with solid very well, Rover Rocket booster!