Raptor and Merlin Explained: The Engines Behind SpaceX’s Dominance

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

The Heart of the Machine

At the core of every rocket, dictating its power, its efficiency, and its very purpose, lies the engine. It is the heart of the machine, a controlled explosion channeled into a directed force of immense power. The story of any launch provider is, fundamentally, the story of its engines. For SpaceX, this story is a tale of two distinct powerplants, each representing a different era of the company’s existence and a different level of its ambition. These engines are Merlin and Raptor.

The Merlin engine is the pragmatic, reliable workhorse. It is the engine that shattered the comfortable monopoly of legacy aerospace, transforming commercial space launch from a niche government service into a vibrant, competitive industry. Merlin powered the revolution of reusable rockets, a feat once relegated to the realm of science fiction. Its history is one of relentless, iterative perfection, squeezing ever more performance from a design rooted in proven principles. It is the engine that built SpaceX’s empire.

The Raptor engine is its revolutionary and audacious successor. It is an engine born not from the needs of the present market, but from the demands of a future that does not yet exist. It was designed not merely to reach orbit, but to enable routine interplanetary travel and establish human settlements on other worlds. Its story is one of mastering immense, almost daunting, complexity to unlock a multi-planetary future for humanity. It is the engine that will carry SpaceX beyond the confines of Earth.

The progression from the Merlin to the Raptor is far more than a simple technological upgrade. It is a direct and unambiguous reflection of SpaceX’s evolving strategy and its founder’s ultimate vision. To understand these two engines – their designs, their fuels, their underlying philosophies – is to understand the trajectory of the company that has come to dominate the modern space age. It is a journey from conquering the business of Earth orbit to laying the groundwork for the colonization of the solar system.

The Merlin Era: Forging a Foothold in Space

The story of the Merlin engine is the story of SpaceX’s genesis. It is the technological cornerstone upon which the company’s entire business was built, a manifestation of a strategy focused on one primary objective: providing reliable, low-cost access to space. Every design choice, every iteration, and every refinement of the Merlin was aimed at breaking into and ultimately dominating the global launch market.

Origins and Philosophy: Pragmatism Over Perfection

When SpaceX was founded in March 2002, it was a small startup with limited capital entering an industry dominated by government-funded giants. Survival depended on moving quickly, avoiding unnecessary technical risks, and getting a functional product to market as fast as possible. This environment of intense pressure and constrained resources shaped the core philosophy of the Merlin engine: pragmatism over perfection.

The engineering choices for the first Merlin were conservative and deliberate. The engine was built around the gas-generator cycle, often called an “open cycle.” In this design, a small portion of the rocket’s propellants are diverted into a small combustion chamber called a gas generator. The hot gas produced there spins a turbine, which in turn drives the main pumps that force massive quantities of propellant into the engine’s primary combustion chamber. The exhaust from this turbine is then simply vented overboard, its energy not contributing to the main thrust. While this is less efficient than more complex designs, the gas-generator cycle is well-understood, robust, and comparatively simple to engineer. It was the same fundamental cycle used by the colossal F-1 engines that powered the Saturn V moon rocket, a testament to its reliability.

The choice of propellant was equally pragmatic. Merlin was designed to burn a combination of liquid oxygen (LOX) and RP-1, a highly refined form of kerosene. This “kerolox” mixture offered a superb balance of competing requirements. It was less efficient than exotic propellants like liquid hydrogen, but it was significantly denser. This high density meant that the rocket’s fuel tanks could be smaller and lighter, a major advantage in vehicle design. Furthermore, while LOX is cryogenic and must be kept at extremely cold temperatures, RP-1 is a liquid at room temperature, making it far easier and safer to handle and store than liquid hydrogen. It was a cost-effective, high-performance, and practical fuel choice for a company that needed to build and launch rockets without the vast infrastructure of a state-sponsored program.

This focus on speed and simplicity yielded remarkable results. The first full-duration test firing of a complete Merlin engine occurred in July 2004, just over two years after the company’s founding. This rapid, hardware-centric development pace was a stark departure from the traditional aerospace model, which often involved years of paper studies and simulations before any metal was cut. SpaceX’s approach was more akin to the “minimum viable product” strategy common in the software industry. The initial Merlin 1A was not the most advanced or efficient engine that could be conceived, but it was a working engine. It was a product that could be flown, tested in the real world, and generate revenue. The failures that inevitably came were not treated as program-ending disasters but as expensive yet invaluable sources of data, feeding a rapid cycle of improvement that would eventually produce one of the most reliable and capable rocket engines ever built.

From 1A to 1D: An Evolutionary Tale of Fire and Refinement

The evolution of the Merlin engine family is a masterclass in iterative design. Each new version was a direct and logical response to the lessons learned from the last, a step-by-step journey from a functional prototype to a finely tuned powerhouse.

The first iteration was the Merlin 1A. It produced 340 kilonewtons (kN), or about 76,000 pounds, of thrust. Its most defining feature was its nozzle cooling method. To prevent the engine’s bell-shaped nozzle from melting under the intense heat of combustion, the Merlin 1A used an ablative cooling system. The nozzle was constructed from a carbon-fiber reinforced polymer composite, a material designed to char and flake away in a controlled manner during firing. This process carried heat away from the engine structure, effectively sacrificing a small amount of the nozzle’s material to keep it intact. This was a simple and relatively inexpensive solution, but it was inherently a single-use technology. The Merlin 1A flew twice aboard the early Falcon 1 rocket; its first flight failed due to a fuel leak unrelated to the engine’s core design, while the second was a success.

The experience with the 1A quickly led to plans for an upgrade, the Merlin 1B. This version, which was ultimately never flown, featured a significantly more powerful turbopump. The power output was increased from 1,500 kilowatts (kW) to 1,900 kW by redesigning the turbine to be a “full admission” device, meaning hot gas acted on the turbine blades through their entire rotation, not just a portion of it. This would have boosted the engine’s thrust to 380 kN. before the 1B could be put into service, SpaceX made a much more significant technological leap.

This leap was the Merlin 1C, and it marked a revolutionary change in the engine’s design: the switch to regenerative cooling. Instead of allowing the nozzle to burn away, the 1C’s design incorporated a network of small channels built into the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle. The rocket’s own cold RP-1 fuel was pumped through these channels on its way to being burned. This process served a dual purpose: the cold fuel absorbed the tremendous heat from the engine walls, preventing them from melting, while the fuel itself was preheated before combustion, which slightly improved its performance. This elegant solution allowed the engine to run hotter and at higher pressures, dramatically increasing both its power and efficiency. The Merlin 1C was the engine that powered Falcon 1 on its fourth flight, making it the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to successfully reach orbit. It also powered the first five flights of the much larger Falcon 9 rocket.

The culmination of this evolutionary process is the Merlin 1D, the workhorse engine that powers SpaceX’s fleet today. The performance jump from the 1C to the 1D was staggering, with sea-level thrust eventually more than doubling to 845 kN, or 190,000 pounds. This was not the result of a single change but a symphony of coordinated improvements. A key factor was SpaceX’s decision to bring the design and manufacturing of the turbopump – the engine’s heart – entirely in-house. While the initial pumps were contracted to an external company, Barber-Nichols, SpaceX developed its own unit for the 1D. The result was a turbopump that was reportedly four times more powerful than the original while remaining the same size and weight.

This vertical integration of a component was a powerful performance multiplier. Controlling the design and production of the turbopump allowed SpaceX to engage in a rapid and tightly controlled feedback loop. Engineers could optimize the pump’s performance to perfectly match the evolving capabilities of the rest of the engine, a level of system-wide optimization and speed that is virtually impossible in a traditional aerospace supply chain fragmented among multiple subcontractors. This control over the means of production became a defining competitive advantage.

The more powerful turbopump enabled a significant increase in the engine’s chamber pressure, from 6.77 megapascals (MPa) in the 1C to over 10 MPa in later versions of the 1D. This higher pressure packed more power into a compact engine. Performance was further boosted by the introduction of densified propellants. SpaceX began sub-cooling its liquid oxygen and RP-1 to temperatures well below their standard boiling or freezing points. This made the propellants denser, allowing a greater mass of fuel and oxidizer to be loaded into the same tank volume and, more importantly, to be pumped through the engine each second. This increased the engine’s thrust without requiring any increase in its physical size. Finally, manufacturing techniques were modernized, with the complex process of brazing hundreds of individual tubes to form the nozzle walls being replaced by a more streamlined double-walled design created through a process called spin-forming.

This constant, data-driven refinement transformed the Merlin from a simple, functional engine into a highly optimized, powerful, and reliable machine.

The Power of Nine: A Strategy of Redundancy and Control

One of the most distinctive features of the Falcon 9 rocket is not the Merlin engine itself, but how it is used. Instead of relying on one or two large engines to power its first stage, the Falcon 9 employs a cluster of nine Merlin 1D engines arranged in a configuration SpaceX calls the “Octaweb.” This was a deliberate and strategic architectural choice with significant implications for the rocket’s reliability, manufacturability, and, ultimately, its reusability.

The most immediate benefit of this multi-engine design is redundancy. From its earliest days, SpaceX marketed the Falcon 9 on its “engine-out” capability. With nine engines, the rocket’s flight computer can compensate for the failure of one, and in some cases even two, engines during ascent. By burning the remaining engines for a slightly longer duration, the rocket can still achieve its target orbit and successfully complete its mission. This feature provided a level of robustness that was a major selling point for risk-averse customers, particularly NASA, which entrusted the Falcon 9 with delivering cargo and eventually astronauts to the International Space Station.

The nine-engine architecture also offered significant advantages in manufacturing. Building one type of engine in large quantities is far more efficient and cost-effective than developing and producing several different, larger engines for various roles. This approach allows SpaceX to leverage economies of scale, streamlining its production lines and driving down the cost of each individual Merlin engine. The factory becomes optimized for a single, repeatable process, reducing complexity and cost.

Perhaps the most far-reaching consequence of this design was its role in enabling booster recovery. The ability to gimbal, or pivot, nine individual engines provides the rocket with tremendous control authority, allowing for very precise steering during flight. This level of control proved to be an essential prerequisite for the complex atmospheric reentry and propulsive landing maneuvers required to recover the rocket’s first stage. The Merlin 1D was explicitly designed with the ability to throttle its thrust down and to be restarted in flight. The nine-engine cluster allowed for an even greater range of control; for the high-altitude reentry burn, three engines are typically reignited, while the final landing burn is performed with just a single center engine. This provides the gentle, precise thrust needed to bring the massive stage to a soft touchdown.

The architectural decisions that led to the nine-engine Falcon 9 were initially justified on the grounds of reliability and manufacturing efficiency. Yet, the specific set of capabilities this architecture provided – deep throttling by shutting engines down, precise steering from multiple gimbal points, and in-flight restart capability – were the exact ingredients needed to solve the problem of propulsive landing. This suggests a design philosophy that looks beyond the immediate problem to build in capabilities that create future options. The Falcon 9’s engine configuration is a prime example of an architectural choice that paid off with unexpected, revolutionary dividends, enabling the reusability that now defines SpaceX and the modern launch industry.

Adapting for the Void: The Merlin Vacuum Engine

A rocket engine’s performance is highly dependent on the environment in which it operates. An engine optimized for the thick, high-pressure atmosphere at sea level will perform poorly in the vacuum of space, and vice-versa. This is due to the physics of the engine’s nozzle. The nozzle’s job is to convert the high-pressure, relatively slow-moving gas inside the combustion chamber into a low-pressure, extremely high-velocity exhaust stream. The efficiency of this conversion depends on the nozzle’s expansion ratio – the ratio of its exit area to its throat area.

At sea level, the ambient air pressure pushes against the exhaust plume. If the nozzle is too large, this external pressure can cause the exhaust flow to detach from the nozzle wall, creating instability and losing thrust. A sea-level engine must therefore have a relatively short, compact nozzle with a modest expansion ratio. In the vacuum of space, there is no ambient pressure. This allows the exhaust gases to be expanded to a much greater degree. A vacuum engine can therefore be equipped with a much larger nozzle bell, which allows it to extract more energy from the hot gases and achieve a higher exhaust velocity. This translates to greater efficiency, a metric known as specific impulse (Isp​).

To optimize the Falcon 9 for both atmospheric and space operations, SpaceX developed a specialized version of the Merlin engine for the rocket’s second stage: the Merlin 1D Vacuum, or MVac. At its core, the MVac is fundamentally the same engine as its sea-level counterpart. It uses the same turbopump, combustion chamber, and injector. The critical difference is the addition of a much larger, but very lightweight, nozzle extension. This dramatically increases the engine’s expansion ratio, from about 16:1 for the sea-level version to an enormous 165:1 for the vacuum model.

The performance gain is substantial. While the sea-level Merlin 1D has a specific impulse of 282 seconds at sea level and about 311 seconds in a vacuum, the optimized MVac achieves a specific impulse of approximately 348 seconds. This nearly 12% increase in efficiency is a massive advantage for a second stage, as it means the stage can impart more velocity to its payload for the same amount of fuel, or carry a heavier payload to the same orbit. Every Falcon 9 launch uses a total of ten Merlin engines: the nine sea-level Merlin 1Ds clustered on the first stage to provide the raw power needed to leave the ground, and a single, highly efficient Merlin Vacuum on the second stage to perform the final push into orbit.

The Raptor Revolution: Designing for a Multi-Planetary Future

If the Merlin engine was the product of pragmatic necessity, the Raptor engine is the product of pure, unadulterated ambition. It represents a radical departure from the design philosophy that made Merlin a success. It is not an iteration but a complete reinvention, driven by a long-term vision so grand that it required SpaceX to push the boundaries of rocket propulsion technology far beyond what was considered possible. Raptor is the engine of the Starship, and its purpose is to make humanity a multi-planetary species.

A Fundamental Shift in Thinking: Beyond Earth’s Orbit

For all its remarkable success, the Merlin engine and the Falcon 9 rocket it powers have inherent limitations. Their design was optimized for the existing satellite launch market, a task they perform with unparalleled efficiency. the ultimate goal of colonizing Mars presents a completely different set of engineering challenges that Merlin was never designed to solve.

The Mars imperative demands a launch system that is not just partially reusable, but fully and rapidly reusable. It must be capable of lifting unprecedented amounts of mass to orbit – hundreds of tons at a time – to assemble the transport ships and infrastructure needed for a self-sustaining settlement. Most importantly, the system must be capable of being refueled on the surface of Mars for the return journey to Earth. This last requirement, known as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), is the linchpin of the entire concept, as carrying all the fuel for a round trip from Earth is physically prohibitive.

Merlin’s propellant, RP-1, immediately presents a problem for a system designed for rapid, repeated reuse. While practical, kerosene has a significant drawback: at the high temperatures inside a rocket engine, it has a tendency to break down and leave behind soot-like hydrocarbon deposits. This process, known as “coking,” can clog the delicate passages of an engine’s injector or build up on the blades of its turbopump turbine. For the Falcon 9, which flies relatively infrequently and undergoes inspection between launches, this is a manageable issue that can be addressed with cleaning and refurbishment. But for a vehicle intended to fly multiple times a day, like an airliner, this required maintenance would create an unacceptable bottleneck.

Merlin’s gas-generator cycle also posed a barrier. By venting its turbine exhaust overboard, the cycle wastes a portion of the propellant’s energy. To achieve the extreme performance needed for a massive upper stage like Starship – which is designed to reach orbit, reenter the atmosphere, land, and be ready for another flight – a far more efficient and cleaner-burning engine cycle was an absolute necessity. A new engine, based on a new fuel and a new cycle, was required.

The Methalox Choice: Fueling the Future

The search for a successor to the kerolox-fueled Merlin led SpaceX to a different combination of propellants: liquid methane (CH4​) and liquid oxygen (LOX). This “methalox” pairing offered a unique and powerful set of advantages that were perfectly aligned with the long-term goals of the Starship program.

The most immediate benefit of methane is that it burns far more cleanly than kerosene. Its combustion produces primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor, leaving behind virtually no soot or residue. This completely eliminates the problem of coking that plagues RP-1 engines. An engine running on methane can be fired again and again without the need for the extensive internal cleaning required by its kerosene-fueled counterparts. This property is a key enabler for the kind of rapid, airline-like reusability that SpaceX envisions for Starship.

In terms of performance, methane occupies a strategic middle ground. It offers a higher specific impulse, or efficiency, than RP-1, meaning it generates more thrust for each kilogram of propellant burned per second. It is not as efficient as liquid hydrogen, the highest-performance chemical rocket fuel, but it has a major advantage: density. Liquid hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store because it is extremely low in density, requiring very large, heavy, and heavily insulated tanks. Methane, while less dense than RP-1, is far denser than hydrogen. This allows for a more compact and lightweight vehicle design, making it an excellent compromise between the high density of kerosene and the high performance of hydrogen.

The most compelling and strategic reason for choosing methane has nothing to do with its performance on Earth. It has everything to do with Mars. Methane can be synthesized on the Martian surface through a well-understood chemical process called the Sabatier reaction. This process would combine carbon dioxide, which makes up about 95% of the Martian atmosphere, with hydrogen. The hydrogen would be produced by splitting water (H2​O), which is known to exist on Mars in the form of subsurface ice. This ability to “live off the land” and manufacture propellant for the return journey is the foundational concept that makes a sustainable, long-term human presence on Mars economically and logistically feasible.

Finally, from an operational standpoint, using methalox simplifies some aspects of vehicle and ground system design. Since both methane and oxygen are cryogenic liquids, they require similar handling procedures, insulation, and tank technologies, streamlining the overall architecture of the rocket. For all these reasons – cleanliness, performance, and its potential for production on Mars – methane was chosen as the fuel of the future.

The Holy Grail of Rocketry: Full-Flow Staged Combustion

To fully harness the potential of methalox propellants and achieve the ambitious goals set for Starship, SpaceX needed to pair the new fuel with a new and radically advanced engine cycle. They chose the most complex and powerful cycle ever conceived: full-flow staged combustion (FFSC).

To understand the significance of FFSC, it helps to recall Merlin’s simple gas-generator cycle, where the hot gas used to power the turbopumps is dumped overboard and wasted. The first step up in complexity and efficiency is the standard staged combustion, or “closed,” cycle. In this design, the turbine exhaust is not discarded. Instead, it is ducted back into the main combustion chamber, where its remaining chemical energy is used to generate thrust. This captures the energy that would otherwise be lost, dramatically increasing the engine’s specific impulse.

Full-flow staged combustion takes this concept a step further into uncharted territory. Instead of having a single preburner to drive the turbines, an FFSC engine has two. One preburner is fed with a small amount of oxidizer and a large amount of fuel, creating a hot, fuel-rich gas. This gas is used to drive the turbine that powers the fuel pump. The second preburner does the opposite, using a small amount of fuel and a large amount of oxidizer to create a hot, oxygen-rich gas to drive the oxidizer pump’s turbine. The important innovation is what happens next: the entire flow of fuel passes through the fuel turbine, and the entire flow of oxidizer passes through the oxidizer turbine. These two streams of high-pressure gas then meet and combust in the main chamber.

The benefits of this incredibly complex arrangement are significant. It is, theoretically, the most efficient chemical rocket cycle possible, as absolutely no propellant is wasted. The cycle also allows the engine to achieve extremely high chamber pressures, which translates to more thrust from a more compact engine. Raptor 2, for instance, has been tested at a record-breaking chamber pressure of 300 bar.

Perhaps the most important advantage of FFSC, especially for a reusable engine, is its effect on the turbopumps. Because the entire mass of the propellants flows through the turbines, the operating temperatures of the gas spinning the turbine blades are significantly lower and less chemically harsh than in other engine cycles. This creates a more benign environment for the engine’s most complex and highly stressed components, which is a massive benefit for engine longevity, reliability, and reusability. The choice of the FFSC cycle was not just about maximizing performance; it was fundamentally about enabling the “airline-like operations” that are central to the Starship concept. For Raptor, reusability is not an add-on feature; it is an inherent property of its core design.

The challenge is that FFSC is extraordinarily difficult to engineer. It requires mastering the complex metallurgy and fluid dynamics of two separate streams of hot, high-pressure gas. The fuel-rich gas is one challenge, but the oxygen-rich gas is another entirely; at high temperatures, pure oxygen is intensely corrosive and will cause most metals to spontaneously ignite. This is why, before Raptor, no FFSC engine had ever successfully flown. SpaceX chose to tackle the most difficult engine cycle in rocketry specifically because it offered the best path to a long-life, low-maintenance engine – the only kind of engine that can make the economics of a fully reusable interplanetary transport system work.

Raptor’s Iterative Journey: From 1 to 3

Just as with Merlin, the Raptor engine has undergone a rapid and continuous process of evolution. enabled by advanced design tools and new manufacturing techniques, the pace of iteration for Raptor has been even faster, with major design overhauls occurring on a yearly basis.

The first version to be widely seen was Raptor 1. It was a development engine, a complex beast often nicknamed the “Christmas tree” for the tangle of external plumbing, wiring, sensors, and flanges that covered its surface. These components were necessary for testing and learning, allowing engineers to gather vast amounts of data on the engine’s internal workings. Raptor 1 was designed for experimentation, not for operational simplicity. It produced a formidable 185 metric tons of thrust.

The transition to Raptor 2 marked a dramatic redesign guided by a philosophy of aggressive simplification, embodying the engineering principle that “the best part is no part.” The goal was to strip away every non-essential component to create an engine that was not only more powerful but also lighter, more robust, and far easier to manufacture. The external plumbing and wiring were integrated into the engine’s core structure. Dozens of heavy, bolted flanges – useful for swapping parts during development – were eliminated in favor of stronger, lighter welds. Even the dedicated torch igniters were removed, with the engine instead relying on the fact that the hot, gaseous methane and oxygen would ignite spontaneously when mixed under the extreme pressure of the main chamber.

The results of this simplification were stunning. The Raptor 2 engine was significantly lighter than its predecessor, dropping from about 2,080 kg to 1,630 kg. Yet, despite its lower mass and cleaner design, it was vastly more powerful, producing 230 metric tons of thrust. It was a powerful demonstration of how simplifying a design can lead to improvements in nearly every metric.

The next iteration, Raptor 3, continues this journey toward optimization for mass production and extreme performance. The design aims for further simplification, including the elimination of the heavy external heat shields used to protect the engine’s components. This will reduce mass even further while increasing the thrust-to-weight ratio. The target thrust for Raptor 3 is in the range of 280 to 300 metric tons. This version is not just an engine; it is a product designed to be mass-produced on a factory line at an unprecedented rate and at a low cost.

Central to this rapid evolutionary pace is SpaceX’s extensive use of additive manufacturing, or 3D printing. This technology allows engineers to create incredibly complex internal components, such as injector heads with intricate cooling channels and propellant manifolds, as single, unified parts. These are geometries that would be impossible or prohibitively expensive to create using traditional casting, milling, or welding. By 3D printing these complex parts, SpaceX can dramatically reduce the number of individual components in an engine, which in turn reduces assembly time, weight, and the number of potential failure points like welds or joints.

Head-to-Head: A Comparative Analysis

Placing the mature, highly refined Merlin 1D alongside the revolutionary Raptor 2 reveals more than just a difference in size and power. It showcases a fundamental divergence in design philosophy, manufacturing strategy, and strategic purpose. One is the pinnacle of an established technological path; the other is the trailblazer of a new one.

Performance by the Numbers

A direct comparison of key performance metrics illustrates the stark differences between the two engines.

• Thrust: This is the most obvious difference. The Raptor 2 produces 2,260 kN (about 230 metric tons) of thrust at sea level. This is more than 2.5 times the 845 kN (about 86 metric tons) of thrust produced by a Merlin 1D. This immense power is what allows the Super Heavy booster, with its 33 Raptor engines, to lift the colossal Starship stack off the launch pad.
• Specific Impulse (Isp​): This metric is effectively the engine’s fuel efficiency, or “gas mileage.” A higher Isp​ means the engine generates more thrust for the same rate of propellant consumption. Here, Raptor’s advanced full-flow staged combustion cycle and methalox propellants give it a decisive edge. At sea level, Raptor 2 has an Isp​ of about 327 seconds, compared to Merlin 1D’s 282 seconds. The advantage holds in a vacuum; a sea-level Raptor operating in space has an Isp​ of around 350 seconds, significantly higher than the sea-level Merlin’s vacuum Isp​ of 311 seconds. This superior efficiency is what gives the Starship upper stage the performance it needs to reach orbit and travel to other planets.
• Thrust-to-Weight Ratio (TWR): This ratio measures how much thrust an engine produces relative to its own mass. A high TWR is desirable as it means less of the engine’s power is wasted lifting itself. The Merlin 1D, through relentless optimization, achieved a world-record TWR of over 150, an incredible feat for its time. The more complex and powerful Raptor 2 is slightly lower on this metric, with a TWR of about 141. the simplified and lighter Raptor 3 is targeted to surpass Merlin’s record, with a TWR of over 180, demonstrating that extreme power does not have to come at the expense of structural efficiency.

Design Philosophy and Complexity

The two engines are products of entirely different philosophical approaches. The Merlin was born from a philosophy of taking a simple, proven concept – the gas-generator cycle – and optimizing it to the absolute limits of performance and cost-effectiveness. It represents the peak of an established technological paradigm.

Raptor, in contrast, was born from a philosophy of tackling the most complex and difficult engine cycle imaginable – full-flow staged combustion – because it was the only path to achieving the ultimate goals of extreme efficiency and rapid reusability. It represents the beginning of an entirely new technological paradigm.

This reveals a calculated evolution in SpaceX’s tolerance for risk. The development path for Merlin was relatively low-risk. The gas-generator cycle was well-understood, minimizing the number of “unknown unknowns” and allowing for a faster path to a reliable, revenue-generating product. The success and financial stability provided by Merlin and Falcon 9 then enabled the company to take on the extremely high-risk development of Raptor. Mastering FFSC required solving immense engineering challenges that had stymied rocket engineers for decades. The payoff for taking this risk is an engine with operational capabilities, particularly in reusability, that Merlin could never hope to match. SpaceX effectively used the profits from its “safe bet” to fund its “moonshot.”

Manufacturing and Scalability

The manufacturing approaches for the two engines are also distinct. The Merlin engine is produced at a high rate on an efficient assembly line, but its construction involves more traditional manufacturing and assembly processes. It is a design that has been optimized for cost within its existing paradigm.

Raptor was designed from its inception for mass production on a scale never before seen in the rocket industry. The goal is to produce multiple engines per day at SpaceX’s “Starfactory.” This is only possible because of the engine’s simplified design and the heavy reliance on advanced additive manufacturing. The ultimate objective is to produce engines so quickly and inexpensively that they can outfit a vast fleet of Starship vehicles, driving the cost of access to space down by orders of magnitude.

Reusability and Turnaround

Merlin’s reusability was a groundbreaking achievement that redefined the launch industry. The engine is incredibly robust, with some individual Merlin engines having flown more than a dozen times. its reusability has practical limits. The use of RP-1 fuel necessitates post-flight inspections and cleaning to deal with soot buildup, a process that takes time and resources. While the turnaround time for a Falcon 9 booster has been reduced to a matter of days, it is not yet the instantaneous “refuel and fly again” operation of an airliner.

Raptor is designed to achieve precisely that. The combination of clean-burning methane fuel and the lower-stress operating environment of the FFSC cycle is intended to allow for true airline-like operations. The vision for Starship is a vehicle that can return from orbit, land at its launch tower, be refueled, and be ready to launch again within hours, with minimal maintenance or inspection. This level of rapid reusability is the key to making the entire economic model of Starship and interplanetary colonization viable.

The Engine as a Strategic Driver of Dominance

The technical specifications of an engine are fascinating, but their true significance lies in how they translate into strategic and economic power. For SpaceX, both Merlin and Raptor have served as the primary drivers of the company’s strategy, enabling it to first conquer the existing launch market and then to create an entirely new one.

Merlin’s Economic Impact: Conquering the Launch Market

The Merlin 1D engine is the single most important reason for the Falcon 9’s absolute dominance of the global launch market. Its design was relentlessly optimized not just for performance, but for low-cost manufacturability. This, combined with the economies of scale from producing hundreds of engines, allowed SpaceX to build rockets for a fraction of the cost of its competitors.

When this low manufacturing cost was combined with the revolutionary capability of first-stage reusability, the economic equation of space launch was shattered. SpaceX was able to drastically undercut the prices of legacy launch providers. The advertised price of a Falcon 9 launch, around $67 million in 2023, brought the cost of launching a kilogram to low Earth orbit down by a factor of 20 compared to the Space Shuttle. This price point made space access affordable for a new generation of satellite companies and created a demand that SpaceX was uniquely positioned to fill.

This created a powerful virtuous cycle. The low cost attracted more customers, which justified a higher launch rate. The high launch rate, in turn, allowed for even greater economies of scale in production and more opportunities to reuse boosters, which further drove down costs. This cycle effectively priced most of the competition out of the market and cemented SpaceX’s position as the world’s leading launch provider.

Raptor’s Strategic Imperative: Enabling the Vision

Unlike Merlin, the Raptor engine is not a product intended to compete in the existing launch market. It is the foundational technology required to achieve SpaceX’s ultimate, long-term ambitions – a vision for which no market yet exists.

Raptor is the only engine in the world with the specific combination of high thrust, high efficiency, and deep reusability needed to make a vehicle like Starship possible. The immense combined thrust of 33 Raptors on the Super Heavy booster is required to lift the fully-fueled, 5,000-ton vehicle off the ground. The high efficiency of the Raptor engines on the Starship upper stage is what enables it to achieve orbit, perform in-space maneuvers, and ultimately land on other celestial bodies.

This capability is the key that unlocks SpaceX’s other grand projects. The Starlink satellite internet constellation, while currently launched by Falcon 9, can only be fully built out to its planned tens of thousands of satellites with the massive payload capacity of Starship. The entire plan for Mars colonization, from lifting the necessary hardware from Earth to manufacturing return propellant on the Martian surface using local resources, is wholly and completely dependent on the unique capabilities of the Raptor engine. Raptor is not just an engine; it is the enabler of the entire vision.

The Engine Factory as the Ultimate Product

In the final analysis, SpaceX’s most significant innovation may not be a single engine, but rather the creation of a system – a machine that makes the machines – capable of designing, building, and iterating on rocket engines at a pace previously thought impossible. The development cycles of traditional engines, like the Space Shuttle’s RS-25, were measured in decades. SpaceX, in contrast, has produced major new versions of the Raptor engine on a nearly annual basis. This ability to rapidly design, build, test, and fly new engine variants is the company’s core competitive advantage.

The engine is the first and most consequential decision in the design of a launch system. It defines the vehicle’s architecture, which in turn defines its mission. The choice to develop the small, simple, and inexpensive Merlin engine directly led to the Falcon 9 architecture: a two-stage rocket with a recoverable first stage powered by a cluster of nine engines. This architecture was perfectly suited to its mission: to affordably and reliably launch satellites to Earth orbit and dominate the existing commercial market.

Conversely, the decision to develop the massive, complex, and highly efficient Raptor engine defined the Starship architecture: a colossal, fully reusable two-stage vehicle powered by dozens of engines. This architecture, in turn, defines its mission: to make life multi-planetary. The story of Merlin and Raptor is the story of how two significantly different engine designs created two different futures – for SpaceX and, perhaps, for humanity’s future in space.

Summary

The journey from the Merlin to the Raptor engine encapsulates the remarkable evolution of SpaceX from a disruptive startup to an industry-defining powerhouse. Each engine tells a story of the company’s strategy, its capabilities, and its vision for the future at a particular point in its history.

Merlin was the engine that SpaceX needed to build. It was a tool of pragmatism, born from the necessity of breaking into a closed and expensive market. Its success was built upon the relentless perfection of a simple, proven design, leveraging this optimization to create an unbeatable economic model for access to Earth’s orbit. Merlin is the engine that built the foundation of SpaceX’s commercial empire.

Raptor is the engine that SpaceX wanted to build. It is a tool of pure ambition, designed not to compete in an existing market but to create an entirely new one for interplanetary transport. Its success is being forged by mastering a design of immense complexity to achieve capabilities once confined to the pages of science fiction.

Merlin conquered the commercial and governmental launch markets of Earth. Raptor is the engine intended to expand that conquest to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond.

Last update on 2025-12-20 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API