Hydrolox vs Methalox vs Kerosene

lately i've been going down this rabbit hole comparing hydrolox, methalox and good old kerosene, mostly because i was rewatching some old upper‑stage tests and suddenly realized how differently these propellants *feel* when you see them in action. like, hydrolox plumes always look like they’re whispering, methalox has that tight blue flame, and kerosene just growls like it’s ready to break something.

i keep bouncing between them in my head. hydrolox gives you that insane efficiency, but i swear every time i read about turbopumps for it i can almost hear engineers crying somewhere. methalox feels like the “balanced diet” option — cleaner, easier to handle than hydrolox, not as sooty as kerosene — and i get why everyone’s jumping on it for reusable stuff. but part of me still loves kerosene just because of how brutally simple and robust it can be. the whole vibe of “light the match and pray it behaves.”

what’s been bugging me is how differently these choices shape the entire design of a vehicle. like, if you pick hydrolox, you’re basically committing to a whole philosophy of staging and tank size. methalox seems like the sweet spot for full reuse, but i wonder if we’ll start seeing its limits once engines get pushed harder. kerosene rockets feel like classic muscle cars at this point — rough edges but timeless.

curious what everyone here is leaning toward these days and why. are we entering the methalox era for good, or is hydrolox going to claw back with better tech, or is there still room for a kerosene comeback?