Airliners & rockets? Both? I thought a good fuel for one was never very good for the other?
Among the many kinds of rocket propellants, most of them abandoned, some are just liquid hydrocarbons. Combined with liquid oxygen, they push nearly all the cheaper launcher presently. Users like them: stable, non-toxic (the alternative is udmh in 300t amount), non-flammable (flash point > +55°C). Only hydrogen brings much better performance.
The needs differ a bit between an aeroplane and a rocket. Most important for a turbofan or turboprop is that the cold atmosphere doesn't let ice, paraffins nor anything precipitate and clog up the injectors; they also desire both a rather easy vaporization but a low autoignition, fit by a mix of short and long hydrocarbons. Usual rockets need less cold operation but demand that the fuel makes no bubbles nor solids in the chamber's cooling jacket, which is hot. And it goes without saying, but better if I say it: the fuel shall not detonate in the jacket - this excludes propyne for instance.
Consequently, the standard rocket hydrocarbon fuel, RP-1 in the US, RG-1 in Russia, is just a more refined oil distillate, called colloquially "kerosene" but nearer to Diesel oil, from which anything that can polymerize (multiple bonds) or make bubbles (volatiles) is removed.
So the differences aren't big. Kerosene processed further would make a rocket fuel. RP-1 would fly an airliner, just more expensive. 100% Farnesane is proposed by Amyris (US patent 7,589,243) as a bioengineered replacement for jet fuel and looks excellent as a rocket propellant.
Farnesane and phytane are hard to boil, which may be a drawback to stabilize the flame - or is it an advantage, since their autoignition is lower than the boiling point?