>>14379648I can't remember exactly who said it (maybe it was Elon but I'm not confident it was), but basically in the industry Lox is considered the best oxidizer by everyone. The only time anyone ever considers non-Lox oxidizers for rockets is for very niche launch vehicle applications and for satellite payloads that need more storable propellants. Nobody is out there laying awake at night trying to design a rocket that uses NTO or fluorine and is forced to "settle" on Lox, everyone is picking Lox for their rockets as the baseline obvious and best option, and then they go off and autistically compare fuels (of which there's a much more massive variety and less of a single clear winner).
To understand how good Lox is as an oxidizer, try to imagine a world where hydrolox had the same efficiency as it does in our universe, except liquid hydrogen was as dense as liquid methane. EVERY rocket on the planet would be hydrogen fueled, embrittlement and boiloff be damned, because 360 Isp at sea level and 460 Isp in vacuum with a bulk density of ~400 kg/cubic meter is impossible to beat.
