This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SpaceX Raptor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | On 31 December 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from Raptor (rocket engine family) to SpaceX Raptor. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It looks to me that the risk of cavitation reduction increase is incorrect or at least not sourced properly. Going to the cited source, it does not say anything like that. The actual reason is because the actual cause of cavitation is when local pressure is lower than the vapor pressure. Lower temperature reduces the vapor pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.215.242 ( talk) 19:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe the image used in the article is of an older design iteration. May need to update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzo32ferrari ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Currently the specific impulse is listed as 330s for sea level and 380s for vacuum, which is wrong. 380s is only achievable with a vacuum adapted version of the engine, requiring a larger expansion nozzle and hence not suitable for use at sea level. The best number I can find for the sea level engine in vacuum is 363s. The article should make the distinction between a sea level unit in vacuum and a vacuum optimized unit, as doing otherwise is inaccurate and misleading. ArbitraryConstant ( talk) 18:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The mass flow rate is correct given the information in the footnote - at 2.23 MN of thrust and ISP of 330 - but it's listed with the other items in the box and that gives the impression that they align. And they do not - at an ISP of 330 and a thrust of 1.81 MN, the mass flow rate is 559 kg/s, since MFR = thrust in newtons / exhaust velocity, and exhaust velocity = ISP * 9.81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.53.158 ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Raptor 2 was publically unveiled a few hours ago in Texas at the Elon Musk "update" on Starship. It looks VERY DIFFERENT (much slimmer) than the Raptor 1 that was previously disclosed.
Many people should have been able to take photographs of it; hopefully one of them will upload to Wikimedia. N2e ( talk) 06:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Elon musk just announced Raptor 3, wich has more thrust and chamber pressure, can someone write it in? Fehér Zsigmond ( talk) 07:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SpaceX Raptor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | On 31 December 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from Raptor (rocket engine family) to SpaceX Raptor. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It looks to me that the risk of cavitation reduction increase is incorrect or at least not sourced properly. Going to the cited source, it does not say anything like that. The actual reason is because the actual cause of cavitation is when local pressure is lower than the vapor pressure. Lower temperature reduces the vapor pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.215.242 ( talk) 19:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe the image used in the article is of an older design iteration. May need to update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzo32ferrari ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Currently the specific impulse is listed as 330s for sea level and 380s for vacuum, which is wrong. 380s is only achievable with a vacuum adapted version of the engine, requiring a larger expansion nozzle and hence not suitable for use at sea level. The best number I can find for the sea level engine in vacuum is 363s. The article should make the distinction between a sea level unit in vacuum and a vacuum optimized unit, as doing otherwise is inaccurate and misleading. ArbitraryConstant ( talk) 18:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The mass flow rate is correct given the information in the footnote - at 2.23 MN of thrust and ISP of 330 - but it's listed with the other items in the box and that gives the impression that they align. And they do not - at an ISP of 330 and a thrust of 1.81 MN, the mass flow rate is 559 kg/s, since MFR = thrust in newtons / exhaust velocity, and exhaust velocity = ISP * 9.81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.53.158 ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Raptor 2 was publically unveiled a few hours ago in Texas at the Elon Musk "update" on Starship. It looks VERY DIFFERENT (much slimmer) than the Raptor 1 that was previously disclosed.
Many people should have been able to take photographs of it; hopefully one of them will upload to Wikimedia. N2e ( talk) 06:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Elon musk just announced Raptor 3, wich has more thrust and chamber pressure, can someone write it in? Fehér Zsigmond ( talk) 07:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)