Yes, it is a pain in the ass. Hence why so many rockets are moving to methane. Although the performance on paper is substantially less (closer to kerosene than hydrogen), if you consider the other advantages it’s generally a win. Hydrogen:
- Causes hydrogen embrittlement, where the atoms move into the metal of the container, making it brittle
- Has extremely low density (about 7% the density of water), making the tanks very large
- The low density also reduces engine thrust-to-weight ratio, since pumping those volumes becomes difficult
- Is much more expensive than methane
- Requires extra insulation on the tanks since it’s so cold
- Requires insulation between the oxygen and hydrogen tanks since the oxygen will freeze solid if brought to liquid hydrogen temperatures. Heavy and also prone to flaking off.
Methane on the other hand has nice density, a good performance boost over kerosene, is cheap, and has similar temperatures to liquid oxygen (so the tanks can be in thermal contact).
Hydrogen can still make sense for upper stages since the thrust-to-weight requirements are less, and the total propellant requirements are less so the fuel/tank costs aren’t as big a deal, but it’s still pretty lame.