Talk:SpaceX Raptor

Photos from SpaceX

There's plenty of photos of the Raptor engines in this SpaceX post on their X account:

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1819772716339339664

Greendogo (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of WIkipedia's rules for using images.

Can we use these? Redacted II (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Since there's no added licensing information, I think these are considered unusable. See also the top of this talk page. If only SpaceX was still posting on flickr... 2A02:810A:B80:EB4:F993:A25C:8D5F:74AD (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong specific impulse

Isn't the specific impulse wrong for the sea level variant? It says 327s but SpaceX themselves say 347 for V2 and 350 for V1 and V3. https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1819795288116330594 Lomicto (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are the ISPs in a vacuum.

(An ISP of 350 at sea level would probably require over 1000 bar of pressure in the chamber) Redacted II (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Temperature(s)

Curious that nowhere at all does the text mention the combustion temperature in the chamber, or various places in the plumbing and pumps. JohndanR (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

SpaceX hasn't revealed the exact combustion chamber of Raptor (sadly). Thus, there is nothing we can add regarding that. Redacted II (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit peace talks

@Redacted II: Er, the procedure is Edit, revert, discuss. A bare re-revert without even an edit summary beyond the autogenerated one is not discussion and not okay. Basically any revert requires a descriptive edit summary, even if it's just "vandalism".

For context, the sequence of edits so far has been:

1. An initial edit with edit summary "( →Raptor 3: Mustn't forget the whole "partially assembled engine" thing. Hopefully I got the right encyclopedic tone with "The reduction in externally visible components is so extreme that initial pictures were accused of being incomplete.)"
2. Expansion with edit summary "(→Raptor 3: If we're going to mention the infamous Tory tweet, it should be mentioned that it was Tory Bruno who made that claim.)"
3. Revert with edit summary "(Undid revision 1272333493 by Redacted II (talk) I don't think we need to single out Tory for ridicule here. *Many* people wondered the same thing; he was just the most prominent to say so. (And is a subject-matter expert on orbital rocket construction, so a good cite.) Likewise, I think adding "falsely" is belaboring a point which is clear from context.)" (This was not quite a full revert; I kept the tense change from "is so extreme" to "was so extreme".)
4. Re-revert with edit summary "(Undid revision 1273204420 by 97.102.205.224 (talk))" (Thank you for fixing the misplaced period.)

I had hoped the detailed edit summary in the initial revert would be enough to prompt a discussion. I really can't improve on what I said there, but I can say it greater length here: I think singling out Tory Bruno in the article text is unfair and smacks of "let's all point and laugh at ULA" SpaceX fanboyism. Many people were similarly incredulous. Tory just gave the clearest and most prominent expression of that incredulity.

The exchange is vastly amusing, but what's notable in an encyclopedic sense is that even other industry experts didn't believe it, and not naming Tory correctly conveys that it wasn't just him. This is also the reason the incident was quickly forgotten with no damage to Tory's reputation: the mistake was quite understandable.

If you really want to name the speaker, how about:

"The reduction in externally visible components was so extreme that the CEO of competitor United Launch Alliance initially accused SpaceX of revealing a "partially assembled engine" to exaggerate the difference.^[ref][ref]"

A few changes:

• I don't bother naming Tory; his position is all that's important for the article. I add "competitor" to make that even clearer to lay readers.
• I use "initially" rather than "falsely." This also says that the accusation was incorrect, but further conveys that it was abandoned it when disproved. [Diatribe about current politics and the tendency to double down on the most outrageous lies elided.]
• I move the quotation mark to encompass "engine" since it appears in the original, and use Tory's original word "exaggerate", but leave off "comparing it to fully assembled engines" as redundant and unnecessary.

The big thing I object to is "falsely". While true in a technical sense, I think that word connotes a degree of malice and/or stupidity that is absent here. This is disbelief of extraordinary claims until extraordinary evidence (Gwynne's photo) was presented. Something that Wikipedia encourages and should not mock.

(For what it's worth, he was correct that TVC is omitted, but given that less than half of SS+SH's engines have TVC, it's hardly misleading to call one without TVC "complete".) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Tory Bruno is a quite notable indivdual who did accuse SpaceX of showing off a partially assembled engine. Noting that he called them out isn't "ha ha ULA sucks", its "The head of ULA falsely accused a rival company (SpaceX) of showing off a partially completed engine".

Also, no damage to Tory's reputation? This may just be me, but I haven't forgotten, or forgiven, because his accusation were, TBH, absurd. And IIRC, he never apologized, or even edited his tweet to clarfiy (to be fair, I don't use Twitter, so IDK if this is even possible).

Raptor 3 looking like the previously displayed render of Raptor 3 isn't an "extraordinary claim". It's the base assumption: saying SpaceX showed off a partially assembled engine is the extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. Which he failed to provide.

FInally, yes, the TVC was not intalled on that picture. IIRC, it WAS installed during the static fire test campaign. Its irrelevant, but worth noting. Redacted II (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II: I don't think we disagree substantially about what actually happened historically; this is a more subtle issue of how to present it editorially. Just to address the factual issues raised (to get them out of the way in advance of the main dish):

• Like Wikipedia edits, tweets can be deleted/hidden, but not amended after publication. This is an oft-requested feature, but in addition to implementation issues, there's concern that people will post something provocative, then amend it later to make the responders look foolish. Regardless of the reasons, the feature isn't there.
• The closest thing to an official retraction is Tory's "Congratulations" in response to Elon's post of the same static fire picture. Which is indeed not a direct apology, but seems like an implicit one. (I'd love to enforce a requirement that people had to publicly apologize for false statements on Twitter, but only if I could enforce it against Elon as well, and I guess I'm not getting a pony this year.)
• Yes, it's normal for TVC to be added late in a test campaign, after the engine has been validated in a fixed configuration. I didn't see anything in Gyynne's posted picture which looked like TVC. I don't think it's even important enough to be worth mentioning.

Now on to more substantial points of editorial discretion:

• If you want to precisely quantify the seriousness of Tory's accusation, he very carefully did not accuse anyone of lying. SpaceX only said it was a Raptor 3 engine, and Tory didn't dispute that. He accused them of comparing a 'batteries not included' Raptor 3 chassis with 'fully loaded' Raptors 1 and 2 to "exaggerate" the difference. This is the sort of puffery people see every day on cereal boxes ("* Serving suggestion. Milk, fruit, and anything else of nutritional value not included. Part of this complete breakfast.") so is hardly actionable. He was also very specific about what he thought was omitted, so the accuracy of his claim was readily refutable.
• Yes, "Raptor 3 looking like the previously displayed render of Raptor 3" is an extraordinary claim.

Renders ordinarily omit small details, like instrumentation and control raceways. which haven't been finalized when the model is developed. Unless the 3D artist adds greebling to compensate, real-world objects usually look more complex than initial 3D models.

You may notice that a lot of SpaceX Starship renders omit wiring raceways, access hatches, lift/catch points, external antennas, and details of heatshield tile placement. And that's on a re-entry vehicle where the aerodynamics are critical! On a rocket engine, it's the interior which is exposed to high temperatures and pressures, so even more changes are made to the outside of the engine.

Rocket engines consist of a high-powered "engine block" which is modelled in detail for CFD and mechanical finite element analysis, plus a nimbus of instrumentation and control wiring/plumbing which isn't nearly so critical so isn't finalized until late in the design. The amount also tends to change during engine development, as sensors are added, moved, or deleted.

In all engines prior to Raptor 3, these additional bits are attached to the outside of the engine wherever convenient, with the sloppiness limited primarily by vibration tolerance.

Anyone used to working with rocket engines is familiar with this accretion of detail and would expect it to be true of a new rocket engine as well. (I should also mention that the more delicate bits like wires are usually removed for museum display, so the true hairiness of working rocket engines is even greater than most people know.)

This accretion of detail also takes place during the construction of an individual engine. First the "engine block" is built, then all of the sensors and actuators are attached. So there is a moment when the partially assembled engine looks like the initial 3D model. That's why nobody who is familiar with rocket engines was startled by Tory's disbelief: it really does look like a partially assembled engine.

The Raptor 3 is unique in that its exterior is designed to tolerate aerodynamic heating (<rant>stagnation heating, not "friction"</rant>), so all of the small wiring and plumbing bits have been moved under cover. But this has never been seen before, so looks positively bizarre to people used to other rocket engines. (I imagine a modern aluminium jet monoplane would look similarly implausible to someone used to cloth, wood and wire propeller biplanes.)

In summary, a reasonable person would indeed expect a real Raptor 3 to look substantially more complex than a render. This is true of all ordinary rocket engines, so a working rocket engine that actually looks like a minimalist render is indeed "extraordinary".

• Finally, what is the contribution to the article?"

I'm definitely entertained by the exchange, but that doesn't make it notable or relevant to this article. What it adds to the article is an illustration of how extraordinary the change in appearance is. Noting that Tory called SpaceX out is simply not relevant. Noting that a relevant expert couldn't believe that was the finished engine is. It's the incredulity that's relevant, not the particulars of how he chose to express it.

To me, the term "false accusation" is pretty weighty. It carries a substantial connotation of malice. I don't like to use it for mistaken accusations unless they're pursued with unwarranted force. I read the whole exchange as basically "No way; I don't believe it!" "Way!" That's why I suggested changing "falsely" to "initially", emphasizing that the accusation was a quick response (it was posted the same day as the picture), and quickly abandoned (although you're right, not explicitly retracted).

The combination of these two elements makes the phrasing "The CEO of ULA, Tory Bruno, falsely accused..." feel more like "let's make fun of Tory" or "let's write a click-bait headline" than "let's inform the reader about Raptor 3". I'm not saying it's not technically true; I'm saying that the truths appear chosen to make Tory look bad, with all the bad parts emphasized and the mitigating parts omitted. (What's the opposite of "hagiographic"?) I think my latest wording is near-optimal, although I'm okay with omitting the exchange or quoting it in-line in full. I just don't feel good about that particular phrasing. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay... thats a lot to read. Apologies in advance if I miss anything.

See the two black tubes connecting to the middle of the R3 powerpack? I think those are TVC acutators, but IDK. Its irrelevant.

(I too would love a mandatory apology policy on Twitter, if only to make Musk retract basically everything he's ever said)

I have to disagree with your claim that Tory even slightly meant to retract, or even apologize for his statement. This is backed by the timeline.

First Tweet from Tory: 3:34 PM August 3, 2024 (I can't find the actual tweet, but I did find a screenshot of it)

Gwynne Shotwell Responds: 6:27 PM, August 8 2024

And then Tory says this: 10:02 PM, August 8 2024. Clearly, he still believed that his (IMO obvious) trolling was justified.

Many Starship renders do omit wiring, raceways, etc, etc, and while the renders presented of R1 and R2 did not include all of the wiring, it did show the vast majority of it. Check here for those renders. Though I must say, the majority of renders I've seen do feature raceways, catch points, and all of the other features.

I am very aware of how much of a Christmas tree most engines are. That includes (the most "hairy", as you described it, are IMO BE-4, RS-25, and Raptor 1)

The rant tags are appreciated.

I did expect R3 to have a few more components, but wasn't all that shocked.

The contribution to the article is listing that a notable expert in rocketry was in such disbelief that they accused SpaceX of showing off a partially completed engine. And yeah, he got mocked for that. For good reason. And honestly, I do believe that Tory wrote that tweet maliciously. His doubling down on it after the static fire does not help his "case" here.

My goal isn't to make Tory look bad, my goal is to not cover for him. He made a notable claim, so it makes sense to list that the person who made the claim of "R3 not complete" was him.

Saying he initially accused SpaceX of presenting a fake engine would make sense if it wasn't for the tweet linked above. Because of that, I believe falsely is more accurate. Redacted II (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II: Ooh! I hadn't seen that reply by Tory before! For anyone following along, the sequence is (all timestamps UTC):

1. 2024-08-03 01:49 @elonmusk: Initial photo post.
2. 2024-08-03 19:34 @elonmusk: "The amount of work required to simplify the Raptor engine, internalize secondary flow paths and add regenerative cooling for exposed components was staggering.
   As a result Raptor 3 doesn’t require any heat shield, eliminating heat shield mass & complexity, as well as the fire suppression system.
   It is also lighter, has more thrust and has higher efficiency than Raptor 2.
   Truly, a work of art."
3. 2024-08-03 19:34 @torybruno: "They have done an excellent job making the assembly simpler and more producible. So, there is no need to exaggerate this by showing a partially assembled engine without controllers, fluid management, or TVC systems, then comparing it to fully assembled engines that do."
4. 2024-08-08 22:27 @Gwynne_Shotwell: "Works pretty good for a “partially assembled” engine :)"
5. 2024-08-09 01:13 @mars_quaking: "No disrespect to @torybruno but my read on his take is that he's actually experiencing some degree of cognitive dissonance on how @SpaceX engineered such a masterwork."
6. 2024-08-09 01:37 @torybruno: "No. As I said, they’ve done an excellent job simplifying this engine. They have very good engineers who can be proud of what they have accomplished."
7. 2024-08-09 01:39 @gguthrie93: "The engine is so good you thought it was incomplete. Is that correct or not?"
8. 2024-08-09 02:02 @torybruno Replying to @gguthrie93 @Gwynne_Shotwell @SpaceX: "Still apples to oranges. But, as I’ve said, excellent work. This is cleanest engine I’ve ever seen in a heavy class size. (I’m engaging one last time because I want to be clear in the recognition their engineers deserve, despite distraction of the trolling.)"
9. 2024-08-09 02:17 @Mike_Ronesia Replying to @torybruno @gguthrie93 @Gwynne_Shotwell @SpaceX: "Nice to see. I appreciate you acknowledging the work."
10. 2024-08-09 02:23 @torybruno: "Engineers should be able to respect one another’s accomplishments…"

(The "Congratulations" tweet I mentioned above was at 2024-08-09 01:48 UTC, between #7 and #8 in the list above.) I'm going to have to re-think my position based on that. He's absolutely repeating the claim ("apples to oranges") that the comparison is misleading in response to the picture and a call (@gguthrie93 is explicitly referenced) to admit he was wrong.

"Clearly, he still believed that his (IMO obvious) trolling was justified." Er... Maybe we do have a factual disagreement. What makes the initial statement "obvious trolling"? It's possible to express disagreement without being rage-bait. Yes, it's pretty ballsy to disagree with someone about their own product, but people criticize advertising claims all the time.

Contrast it with "Should I bring a few spare engines … I mean, just in case." That entire exchange was Elon baiting Tory. I've seen mild teasing from Tory, e.g. "Hmm. What’s that? Looks like a BE4 flight engine being uncreated at the Rocket Factory in Decatur…#VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan" (Also a good example of why people wish they could edit tweets.)

"See the two black tubes connecting to the middle of the R3 powerpack? I think those are TVC acutators," Those are where the TVC actuators would attach, but they're fixed engine mounts. A gimballing engine has flexible feedlines, movable TVC actuators, and a "hinge" structure (the gimbal proper) which transfers the thrust. A fixed engine has rigid feedlines (sometimes with a little bit of flex for vibration), lateral braces attached to the TVC mounting points, and a rigid thrust-transfer arrangement. (Everything wants to be on the axis, so who gets it is a major design decision. This is what makes 1-axis gimballing so attractive: the line becomes a plane so everything can be on-axis.)

I'm going to go away and think about that Tory tweet for a while. You've definitely made your point there. I still think it's tangential drama and not really information about Raptor 3, but I have to adjust my thinking.

More response when I've thought about it. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

What makes me believe his initial post was "obvious trolling" is one: the previous back and forth between Tory Bruno and Elon Musk. And two: it isn't all that suprising when a SpaceX render like the one for R2 matches the engine (roughly).

If he said "Good job SpaceX, though I'm unsure as to where controllers, fluid management, and TVC systems are".

Could he have not been trolling? Probably. But I do believe he was.

And finally, take your time. Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, after mulling it over, I'm fine with "falsely" if we can find a WP:RS who says it's false. I don't know what Tory was referring to with that "still apples to oranges" statement. If I knew it was TVC, I'd happily dismiss it for the reasons discussed above, but I don't. I can judge that he was perceived to have been soundly disproved, and that he hasn't repeated the accusations since 8 August, but I'm not enough of an expert to disagree with him, and it'd be WP:OR even if I were. Initial searching for reliable sources saying he was wrong has been hampered by dense clouds of social media mockery and Elon/Tesla/SpaceX fanboy "news" sites.

As for your trolling point... I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing it at all. The essence of trolling is that you're dangling some sort of "bait" in front of people in the hope they'll "bite". This is commonly done to disrupt a conversation. Yes, Elon/SpaceX have been loudly mocking ULA for the entire life of the company. But ULA, aware of the likely outcome. have avoided a battle of words. (They were always slow and expensive, and the extended lull between Atlas retiring and Vulcan coming on line has made it much worse. People have been pointing out that recently-expended B1073 launched more payloads to orbit during its lifetime than ULA did.)

I get that there's a lot of bad feeling as SpaceX have risen from underdog to bully, and ULA would love to score some points against SpaceX, but as of last August didn't have much to clap back with. (My first conversation of the day that hasn't mentioned Elon's recent antics... oops, jinxed it.) So in addition to it not reading like a troll, it doesn't make sense for ULA to be trying to troll SpaceX. On the other hand, if Tory genuinely thought he had caught them fibbing, I can see him wanting to score points from that.

(Oops, wrote this whole thing yesterday and forgot to hit "Publish".) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You can use the Gwynne Shotwell tweet for that: the source is sufficient to back the claim (The engine is firing in the same state of completion).

Tory and ULA are separate entities: even if ULA has no interest in trolling, he might. I do believe that he knew that R3 was a fully functional engine, and he cast doubt on SpaceX to distract from the failure of ULA to do... anything. (also B1073 launched more than ULA? DAMN)

Also, ULA has mocked SpaceX before. This was before SpaceX was launching dozens of times per year, when ULA mysteriously shut up about how SpaceX could never compete with them. Redacted II (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II: "You can use the Gwynne Shotwell tweet for that" I'm not comfortable with that. Tory said that picture is "Still apples to oranges.", meaning that some part of the argument in his first tweet survives. I can't see what it might be, and his biases are obvious, but he definitely knows rocket engines and isn't interested in gaining a reputation as a liar. I agree with you personally, but that's WP:OR. If I knew he was referring to TVC, I'd be willing to dismiss it as a definitional retreat. (In the well-known picture of three raptor versions, none of them have TVC, although the Raptor 1 has the static struts attached to the TVC mounts, presumably because it's hard to get a wrench in there to detach them.) We have plenty of sourcing for stating that he was widely mocked for the assertion, and that he hasn't repeated the assertion, but I want to find someone saying that his doubling down tweet was wrong.

"Tory and ULA are separate entities: even if ULA has no interest in trolling, he might." I agree there's a distinction, but it's a very thin one; when opining on a matter relevant to their company, an executive is presumed to be speaking in their capacity as an executive. It's precisely because this is more of a ULA statement that I'm not invoking WP:BLP in my request for sourcing.

"I do believe that he knew that R3 was a fully functional engine, and he cast doubt on SpaceX to distract from the failure of ULA to do... anything." I think this is a fundamental point of disagreement between us. From my point of view, his first tweet was very specific, making it readily falsifiable. It makes all kinds of sense if he honestly thought SpaceX were fudging, and no sense if he were trying to cast doubt.

"B1073 launched more than ULA? DAMN" B1073's first flight was 2022-05-14, and its 21st was 2025-01-30. In that time, there were three Delta IV launches, nine Atlas V launches, and two Vulcan Centaur launches, a total of 14. Letting B1073 set the time interval gives it an advantage which is best compensated by adding one launch to ULA's count, so we can fairly say it flew 21/15 = 1.4× as often as ULA.

"ULA has mocked SpaceX before." Well, SpaceX have made some pretty bold claims, and Elon (cf. my comments above about corporate executives' statements) has made a lot of positively grandiose ones. We all remember condescending remarks from Arianespace's Singapore director ("SpaceX primarily seems to be selling a dream"), Charles Bolden ("SLS is real."), and Boeing's VP ("We go for substance. Not pizzazz."). Tory Bruno was insisting as recently as April 2020 that booster re-use didn't make economic sense unless you were reflying them an average of 10 times each. He may even be right; SpaceX just took the implied "and of course that's impossible", said "hold my beer" and started reflying boosters 20+ times each.

"ULA mysteriously shut up" Berger calls it the SpaceX steamroller. It never ceases to amuse me that NASA is paying SpaceX $2.89 billion for Starship to land humans on the moon, and 42% more than that per launch (marginal cost, exclusive of development) for a rocket that won't.

“ Those who have focused on the "space race" this year between SLS and Starship have missed the point. The real question is not which of the two super heavy-lift rockets launches first. Rather, it's "how many Starships will launch between the first and second flights of the SLS rocket?"

Nominally, the second SLS mission is due to fly in 2024, but it will probably slip into 2025. Conceivably, Starship could launch a dozen times between now and then. Maybe 30 times. Perhaps more.

” — Eric Berger, 23 August 2022

97.102.205.224 (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The image fired. There is no part of Tory's argument that survived.

Its not WP:OR, since the tweet debunks the first claim. Addressing tweet 2 would be nice, but its not neaded.

(Oh, and the 2.89 billion? That includes dev costs. So it costs more to launch SLS than it does to develop a moon lander with more propellant than both SRBs combined!) Redacted II (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II: Arrgh! We've looped back to the beginning! I maintain Tory's first tweet was a mistake. Given just that, I'd happily say he "accused" SpaceX, for which he was "widely mocked" when SpaceX showed it operating. It's his "still apples to oranges" doubling down that's a contemptible lie, and fully deserving of the pejorative "false accusation". If I can find a (reliable) source saying the his initial accusation is false, I'm willing to stretch it to cover the second, but I'm not willing to base a factual statement in WP on my (or your) judgment that the picture demolishes his argument in the face of his statement that it does not. We both know he's full of it, but we need a source.

"the 2.89 billion? That includes dev costs" Not really. Dev costs for the variant, yes, but SpaceX have already spent significantly more than that on Starship development to date. (I remember reading that the burn rate at Boca Chica is something like $1B/year.) Dividing costs between HLS and general SS development is something I'm sure even SpaceX's accountants struggle with. E.g. life support, in-orbit refueling and landing legs have been moved up the priority list, while large payload bay doors for other customer payloads has moved down. How should this opportunity cost be counted?

When discussing cost to NASA, that's the right figure, but when arguing about public vs. private sector efficiency, be careful about comparing the two. The HLS contract was designed to get a discount from the bidders for the value of the capability they'd develop, and SpaceX are the the ones interested in developing human spaceflight. Gwynne has said SpaceX underbid Crew Dragon. They could have lowballed Starship HLS for general credibility, to get NASA's (and congress's) help with environmental regulations, or in an Elon-rant-powered attack on SLS. (The current "now that we have Starship HLS, what do we need SLS for?" sentiment was not exactly difficult to predict.)

(Tangential thought: I think the best way to describe Starship is as a three-stage rocket. The purpose of stage n is to get a fully fuelled stage n+1 into a good position to start its flight. So all the booster flights are stage 1, all the SS flights to LEO are stage 2, and the refuelled SS in LEO is stage 3.)

97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The pciture clearly does demolish his claim. An image of the "incomplete" engine firing completely removes any doubt regarding the engines completion.

[1] NSF video from August states that the engine was likely fully assembled, given that is was static firing. (We've also seen additional raptor 3 engines, which looked the same). Redacted II (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II: Unfortunately, that video not only doesn't say that "Tory was wrong," it explicitly allows that Tory might have been right. Specifically, the script starting at 10:27 goes:

Also this week, the next version of SpaceX's Raptor engine breathed fire for the first time. The test was first spotted by our McGregor Live cameras, and later confirmed when Gwynne Shotwell shared a photo of the Raptor 3 test on social media. Compared to earlier versions of the engine, Raptor 3 looks very barren. So much so that ULA CEO Tpry Bruno commented earlier than the engine might not have been fully assembled, [Shotwell quote appears on screen] a comment that Shotwell likely referred to by saying that the engine, in fact, "works pretty well." Whether the tested engine was truly fully assembled remains to be seen.

They don't explicitly refer to Tory's doubling-down, and although I don't imagine they'd miss one of his tweets, the video was released 2024-08-09 17:22:11 UTC and it's not clear how much of the exchange late the previous night made the script-writing deadline. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Still, the engine fired. That's something a partially assembled engine cannot do. The fact that it ignited at all is proof that Tory is wrong. Redacted II (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II: No, partially assembled engines run every day. Any internal combustion engine will run without its exhaust manifold if you don't mind exhaust in the face. Or without an air filter as long as the air is clean. Or without an oil filter for a while. You can disconnect the spark plug wire to any one cylinder on an idling multi-cylinder engine without stopping it. (This is commonly done to find a malfunctioning cylinder. If disconnecting its spark plug doesn't make the engine run worse, you've found the problem.) Many people, when working with an engine on a stand and not in a vehicle, omit the fuel pump and just hang a gasoline supply up on a pole like an IV bag in lieu. Heck, it'll run without a fuel system if you spray starting fluid in the air intake. And that's not counting auxiliary systems like clutch, transmission, alternator, hydraulic pump, radiator fan, etc.

Running is mostly complete and certainly all the critical parts are there, including parts that Tory initially listed as missing, but a rocket engine on a test stand doesn't need autogenous pressurization heat exchangers, or electrical generators. (It wasn't missing in the picture in question, but both SpaceX and ULA have demonstrated that engine bells are negotiable.)

For me, the issue is that to make a strong statement like "false accusation", I want a source. I assumed my difficulty in finding one was just due to the stack of social-media hay obscuring the needle of fact I was seeking, but I've been surprised at how elusive it's been. If no reliable source exists, the assertion is not WP:Verifiable and doesn't belong in WP.

There are lots of ways to phrase it to lead the reader to reach the conclusion themself, just as Gwynne's tweet did for so many people. I'm quite happy to do that because I think the conclusion is correct. We'll know for sure when we see Raptors 3 attached to a rocket, but that hasn't happened yet.

The one difficulty with more nuanced descriptions is that they take more space in the article. And as I've said in this discussion already, this article's goal is information about Raptor 3, not gossip about a SpaceX/ULA twitter feud, so I'd prefer to keep it short. But that's an editorial preference, not a hard line like WP:V. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You're comparing an internal combustion engine in a car to Raptor.

They are completely different, thus that analogy is meaningless. Because if you try to run Raptor without the igniters, or the turbopumps, it won't run.

The autogenous pressurization system was likely present. A source would be needed to say it wasn't. Also, rocket engines don't have electrical generators: this isn't Kerbal. Raptor draws electrical power from batteries located in the Aft Bay/Chines.

Engine bells are negotiable, yes. But Raptor 3 had a full nozzle, so again, that's irrelevant.

Thus, the tweet showing the engine firing disproves Tory. Because if Raptor wasn't fully assembled, it wouldn't have ignited. And if it managed to ignite, the fire wouldn't have just been exiting via the nozzle. Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II: Yes, and I was being up-front about the analogy and not trying to sneak something past you with it. I'm just using something I know a bit more about so I can give more examples. Yes, rocket engines are, in a way, simpler because they don't have as much anciliary functionality (e.g. heating and air conditioning) larded on. "Raptor draws electrical power from batteries located in the Aft Bay/Chines." Oops. I assumed electric TVC required more power than batteries could reasonably supply. But it appears you're right. Mea culpa. (Adding a generator to the end of a turbopump shaft is pretty simple, modulo only the insane RPM.)

"Because if Raptor wasn't fully assembled, it wouldn't have ignited." Great! Find me a WP:Reliable source who says so! I've been looking quite a lot, and multiple news sources comment on the exchange, but I have yet to find anyone with any sort of cognizable expertise who goes as far as "was disproved by Gwynne".

Not Ars Technica, not Space.com, not SpaceNews, not NSF, not SpaceFlightNow, not Joey Roulette (NYT), not Tom Mueller, not Loren Grush, ... Do you have access to https://aviationweek.com/space/commercial-space/spacex-fires-raptor-3-first-time ? Irene Klotz would definitely be a RS.

Even unreliable sources like [2][3][4][5][6][7] don't actually say Tory was wrong. The closest I've come is "SpaceX’s new Raptor-3 methane-fueled engine is so advanced the CEO of ULA doesn’t understand it".

And here's someone saying Tory was right.

My personal opinion is that Tory was either reflexively denying his mistake, was referring to TVC (which is bullshit, because he was specifically talking about comparison to earlier Raptors which were also shown without TVC), or had spotted some picayune-but-technically-true detail like the turboencabulator's bitumogenous spandrel was missing its "Inspected by no. 7" sticker. Either way, his claim is substantially false.

But Wikipedia has these pesky rules about putting my personal opinions into articles if I can't back them up. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

For the purposes of disproving Tory, Gwynne Shotwell is a sufficient source.

If you have a source that says that a partially assembled engine (and no, the nozzle being reduced doesn't count) can fire, then please share it. Until then, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies.

(Also, the NSF forum post was from before R3 had fired. So its 100% irrelevant) Redacted II (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Raptor 4

Was mentioned in nasaspaceflight forum in last thread for raptor engine. Maybe as rumour? Not sure that is 1337, but if will better than any Raptor 3.x version maybe will be cheap way to all solar system destinations. ГеоргиУики (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a source?

If not, there's no reason for further discussion, much less inclusion in the article. Redacted II (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

corrected specific impulse

The vacuum specific impulse was incorrectly using the ISP of the vacuum-optimized version of the engine, which is incorrect. Listing the two numbers side-by-side without qualification wrongly suggests the two values apply to the same engine, which they don't. The 380s ISP only applies to the vacuum-optimized version. I am not aware of any other engine (including Merlin) that lists sea level and vacuum nozzle values side by side without qualification in that way, and it seems like anyone arriving at this page without already being aware of this distinction would misinterpret the two numbers listed together without qualification. As with the Merlin article, I suggest it would be preferable to list the ISP of the vacuum optimized engine separately. As there is already a "versions" section that lists the vacuum optimized version of the engine and provides the 380s value, I see no need for edits other than correcting the ISP in the infobox unit. ArbitraryConstant (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The mistake you've described is quite unlikely to happen.

As such, I've reverted your edit. Redacted II (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. How is a random reader without prior knowledge of the specs to know the infobox is populated with a composite of values taken from different versions of the engine? Seems like the least misleading way to present the information is to take the most recent values of the sea level version of the engine, rather than assembling values of different versions.

The other values listed seem to be for the sea level version of the engine: the mass, the thrust, the dimensions. The ISP lists the 380s value and it does that without providing context for it. I'm not going to immediately revert your revert but I'd like to see some explanation for why this is the best way to present the information. ArbitraryConstant (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The reader can assume the engine listed for vacuum is the vacuum version of the engine. Its pretty much the only logical concluision. Redacted II (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)