Whether they fly or not is irrelevant....the design with nine motors is atrocious.
Their sequencing of said motors is a nightmare.
They should have bit the bullet and designed another engine to reduce it to three instead of multiplying the possibility of failure.
I think NASA has to look elsewhere....probably the Atlas.
You are correct.
A small rocket like this one would be better with three larger engines.
A new heavy-lifter for say 100 tons to orbit would be better with five huge engines.
The first Falcon 9 flight was launched from Cape Canaveral on June 4, 2010, with a successful orbital insertion.
The second launch of the Falcon 9, and the first of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft atop it, occurred December 8, 2010, The Dragon spacecraft completed two orbits, then splashed down in the Pacific Ocean.
So Kevin...please post your engineering credentials. What you've written is nonsense, IMO.
SpaceX is proceeding with the most economical, sensical approach it can, meaning reusing proven designs and using redundancy to reduce risk.
The bottom line is cost per ton to LEO, and SpaceX is the leader there. I'm interested to hear your rebuttal.
Scary, ain't it. Put on your big girl panties. Russia launched with a cluster of engines for years.
/johnny
What about using some form of a mag-lev sled to get the space craft moving quickly in a horizontal direction, then slowly ramp it upward and ingite the engines after it's already got a lot of momentum? Wouldn't that be a lot more efficient than using brute force thrust to shove the craft skyward from a dead stop?
I'm obviously no expert, but it seems like the current way is about the least efficient way to launch any space craft. I welcome all responses, even if I'm totally wrong and get schooled for it.