Talk:Raptor (rocket engine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Rocketry  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Raptor is an engine, not a rocket stage.[edit]

SpaceX's web site and presentations mention the raptor as a rocket engine, not a rocket stage.I suppose it could be both, though. Recommend this article be renamed Raptor (rocket engine). I see that there are web pages that mention it as being an upper stage, but these seem to be mistaken, and SpaceX's own web site would be a much more reliable source for what it actually is. -- (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be correct, it is an engine and not a rocket stage. Let's wait another week or two to see in anyone else wants to weigh in. If not, let's just rename the article per proposal by above. N2e (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I cant find mention of Raptor as an engine on SpaceX's web site can you give a link. If Raptor is the name of the engine then it would make sence to change the name but as Raptor would use diffent fuel to the merlin it would need a new stage which would proberly carry the same name so the stage should still be mentioned. (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know of a source still available from the SpaceX website; SpaceX may have gone proprietary on some of their current advanced plans. The source in the article, from the AIAA Innovations in Orbit: An Exploration of Commercial Crew and Cargo Transportation conference held in June 2009, is the source I am familiar with, and where I first heard of the Raptor concept design. I'm glad the AIAA caught the talk on video. I have captured the quotation: "[SpaceX has] begun initial design of the Raptor LOX/Hydrogen upper stage, which dramatically increases payload performance."
But the important note to make is we still have no (zip, zilch, nada) source that indicates that "Raptor" is a rocket stage. We could speculate on the name for the stage, but this is Wikipedia so we can't, and should just go with what we have verifiable information for. So I think it is time to rename the article. Looking at other rocket engine articles, I would propose: Raptor (rocket engine). N2e (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


I've made a few edits to begin to cleanup the article, including requests for more up-to-date information on the formal status of this development(?) or conceptual(?) program. Much more is needed. N2e (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


According to Musk they are working on a Methane engine.-- (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could be. But it is not clear that any Methane engine they might be working on is the Raptor, and therefore may not belong in this article. If you have a source, please edit the article and update it with the facts. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. November talk by Elon Musk has confirmed that Raptor is now a Methane/LOX propellant engine. And another editor has started by adding that claim to the article. N2e (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"MCT is not a engine. Raptor is the next engine."[edit]

Elon Musk, November 2012: "MCT is not a engine. Raptor is the next engine. More details to be revealed next year!".

Looks like this supports the discussion above, from 2010, and the article should be renamed. As well, this info will need to be reflected in the article body. Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a timelink to where in the video he says that quote.--Craigboy (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

more press on the same topic[edit]

Article move[edit]

Based on previous discussions on this Talk page since 2010, and now recent reliable sources confirming both that the SpaceX "Raptor" development project is an engine, not an upper stage—and that it will utiilize Methane/LOX as a propellant, not LH2/LOX—I am going to move the article to Raptor (rocket engine) from its existing article name Raptor (rocket stage). N2e (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done N2e (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Substantially more information released to the public, October 2013[edit]

In recent news releases, a good bit of new information has been publically released by SpaceX about the Raptor engine, and the whole methane-based Raptor concept objective (inner solar system travel and exploration and colonization of Mars). I have updated the article with several aspects of the new information: mostly technical specs, testing plans, and the launch vehicle objectives of the new methane powered rockets.

Having said that, there is more info in the Space News article, on the financials for the Mississippi test facility, and more, should other editors want to read it, and consider its use in the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got a possible citation for the Raptor specific impulse, if some guesswork is allowed[edit]

"I realized that a methane-oxygen rocket engine could achieve a specific impulse greater than 380." - Elon Musk

NortySpock (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and add it to the article, as the current citation does not support the 380 claim at all. N2e (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Liquid methane[edit]

Why not refer to liquid methane as LCH4 for short? The following paper does so: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing it is because we are writing for a general readership, not a readership that has necessarily taken Chemistry and is familiar with Chemical abbreviations and symbols. N2e (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

vacuum specific impulse is different from the specific impulse of a vacuum optimized version[edit]

The first stage version would have a sea level ISP of 321s and a vacuum ISP of 363s. The 380s number is for a physically different engine, which the citations are correct about, but this article was not. A vacuum optimized Raptor engine would be required for 380s ISP. Vacuum optimization means a larger expansion nozzle so the gasses expand more completely. The Merlin article makes this distinction correctly - sea level ISP is 282s, vac ISP is 311s, and the vacuum version of the engine is 340s. I don't think it's correct list stats side by side for physically different versions of the engine without making the distinction. ArbitraryConstant (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I understand your technical point, and it is a good one. If you can think of a good way to present that reality in the article, go for it. As long as there are verifiable reliable sources for each number, and those sources clarify which engine config the isp number is for, I see no problem with being explicit about this detail. N2e (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

New thrust numbers[edit]

From 2015-01-05 Reddit AMA with Elon Musk,

  • Q: Has the Raptor engine changed in its target thrust since the last number we have officially heard of 1.55Mlbf SL thrust?
  • A (Musk): Thrust to weight is optimizing for a surprisingly low thrust level, even when accounting for the added mass of plumbing and structure for many engines. Looks like a little over 230 metric tons (~500 klbf) of thrust per engine, but we will have a lot of them :)

From same AMA:

  • Q: In your recent MIT talk, you mentioned that you didn't think 2nd stage recovery was possible for the Falcon 9. This is due to low fuel efficiency of kerosene fuel, and the high velocities needed for many payloads (high orbits like Geostationary orbit). However, you also said that full reusability would be possible for the Mars Colonial Transporter launch vehicle.
What have you learned from flights of Falcon 9 that taught you
a) that reuse of its second stage won't be possible and
b) what you'll need to do differently with MCT to reuse its second stage.
  • A (Musk): Actually, we could make the 2nd stage of Falcon reusable and still have significant payload on Falcon Heavy, but I think our engineering resources are better spent moving on to the Mars system.
MCT will have meaningfully higher specific impulse engines: 380 vs 345 vac Isp. For those unfamiliar, in the rocket world, that is a super gigantic difference for stages of roughly equivalent mass ratio (mass full to mass empty).

I don't know how and if this information should be incorporated into the article. Perhaps as a footnote to existing numbers until something more official is released. -- ToE 12:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that Elon Musk is a fairly official source. It's verified that it was actually him in the AMA, which gives credentials. Would we trust a SpaceX twitter message as an official source? I'd try to find some better information, but I think if the twitter message is the only source available, it's worth using. If that's agreed upon, this should be the same case. Support on including the new figures in the article.Appable (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been a few months since the comments above..., but I just looked in the article, and it appears to be covered. This is a new engine development project, and SpaceX' own internal statements show that they are looking at a number of different engine sizes as they optimize their design to meet their objectives. All quite normal, at least for private companies. After all, company design specs are proprietary to the company, unless they have some reason to publish them (to customers, or perhaps government regulatory autorities, etc.). Moreover, this engine is still early in development. SpaceX are working on the powerhead and so no doubt they will use any and all early test data, as well as their evolving engine design and manufacturing techniques, to modify the design before committing it to metal.
But if you have some info that isn't already reflected in the article where a variety of size/thrust specs are already mentioned, then by all means add it along with a citation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing reference links to with "" address format[edit]

Hi. I checked on the following references and found them to be redirected to address:

"Long term SpaceX vehicle plans" - [1] -Retrieved 2009-07-13
"Notes: Space Access'11: Thurs. - Afternoon session - Part 2: SpaceX"- [2] RLV and Space Transport News. 2011-04-07. Retrieved 2011-04-08
"SpaceX Raptor LH2/LOX engine" - [3] RLV and Space Transport News. 2011-08-08. Retrieved 2011-08-09.

I followed up with HobbySpace publisher and editor Mr. Clark Lindsey about the links. He told me that old RLV News blog pages are no longer available for free. So Even if we put the new links, only people with a kind of subscription to will be able to access the pages. So I will remove these links and set the relevant texts as "citation needed". --Guyver (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Guyver for all your work to clean this up. However, I believe the proper Wiki process for doing this is to leave the old/orginal link(s) that was/were supporting the statement, and tag the link with {{tl:dead link}}, or inside the cite template with the parm |deadurl=yes.
The principle is that some editor sourced it; if the source URL goes dead, or behind a paywall, then that reference to a source is just as valid in Wikipedia as a citation to, say, some obscure book that an author referenced from her bookshelf but is not available online. We keep the ref, even when it cannot be quickly reaccessed via the intertubz. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks N2e for your explanation. I will do these kind of work properly in the future :) I want to bring back those links with "deadlink" tag but all of the links redirect to the same page - - , I think those pages have new links which requires you to be a paid member to some service and old links are really invalid, you can not go the pages with these links even if you are a member. So does what you said about tagging "dead", apply to this kind of links too ? If so I update the page accordingly. Thanks again. --Guyver (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Cool, Guyver. I appreciate the kind thoughts, and the constructive discussion.
On the substance, I think the idea (in the Wiki process) is to keep exactly the link that was valid (or reported to be valid by the editor who added that URL some months/years ago) along with the exact date that the editor accessed that link, but then add (also clarify) that the link is now a deadlink. I think that best keeps the history valid, for the good of the long-term historical use of the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
Having said that, it would be cool to find an editor who has a subscription; you might be able to find someone on the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight discussion page. Or who knows, maybe that site would consider giving one or two Wikipedia editors some sort of temporary (or longer) access to the archives to research it and clean up old links. Some of the many large commercial article repositories online (ones that normally charge big $$$ for access) are doing exactly that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Guyver, one very useful tool in this situation is the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, which stores historical snapshots of most URLs. The best practice when finding a dead link is to first search for it on the Wayback Machine, and if it is present you can simply add the archive link to the citation to restore it to working order. All of the HobbySpace links you removed were still available on the Internet Archive, so I have restored them with archive links. Now, a technically-savvy website owner can request that archived copies of their site be removed from the Archive at any time, and given your discussion with the editor of the site that may well take place. In the meantime, though, this helps preserve important sourcing information. (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much, that will come in handy. Up until now, I had only used google's cache for website. --Guyver (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)