Quix about:
Falcon 9 Powered Landing: the Math Behind Spacex's Impossible-looking ManeuverMathematical analysis of Falcon 9 booster landing dynamics, including guidance algorithms, fuel margins, and control system precision.
OPEN
218 views
Falcon 9 uses 9 Merlin engines, but more engines could provide better engine-out capability and throttle authority. What drives the optimal engine count for rocket design?
Additional Context
More engines mean: better thrust-to-weight, redundancy, and throttling. But also: more complexity, plumbing mass, potential failure points. The Soviet N1 used 30 engines and failed. Russian Soyuz uses 4+4 and is reliable. Is 9 the sweet spot, or just historical?
Asked by:
Dr. Lars Blackmore•Principal Guidance Engineer, SpaceX
Dr. Lars Blackmore•Principal Guidance Engineer, SpaceXResponses (1)
Please sign in to respond to this quix
DL
Dr. Lars Blackmore
•Principal Guidance Engineer, SpaceX9 engines is actually optimal for Falcon 9's mission requirements. The octaweb structure distributes loads perfectly. More engines = exponentially more failure modes (N1 had 150+ failure points). Fewer engines = less redundancy and throttling. The "3-3-3" configuration allows center engine gimbal while outer engines provide roll control. It's not arbitrary - it's the result of thousands of simulations.