Is acetylene viable as a rocket fuel, and how does its chemistry compare with mainstream propellants?

Is acetylene viable as a rocket fuel, and how does its chemistry compare with mainstream propellants?
Acetylene's candidacy as rocket fuel fails on multiple practical grounds, despite its high energy content. Mainstream liquid propellants—kerosene, hydrogen, and increasingly methane—each solve specific engineering problems that acetylene cannot. Kerosene offers high density and ambient-temperature storage, enabling compact tanks and high thrust, as demonstrated by the F-1 and RD-170 engines. Hydrogen provides superior specific impulse and clean combustion but suffers from extremely low density, requiring massive insulated tanks and presenting cryogenic handling challenges, as seen in the Space Shuttle's external tank and the Challenger disaster's contributing factors. Methane has emerged as a compromise, inheriting hydrogen's clean burning and high impulse while offering higher density and less demanding cryogenic requirements. Acetylene's instability—its tendency to decompose explosively under pressure or shock—makes it fundamentally unsuitable for rocket propulsion, where fuels must withstand pumping, pressurization, and thermal stress. Its wide explosive range and sensitivity to initiation would create unacceptable explosion risks in tankage and feed systems. While acetylene's triple bond stores significant chemical energy, that energy is too readily released in uncontrolled ways.