/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15409139
The first Merlin engines that were used on Falcon 9 were already the third iteration of the engines (Merlin 1C)
During the 4th launch of Falcon 9, it had a partial failure (the secondary payload didn't reach the desired orbit) due to one of the 9 merlin1C engines experiencing an anomaly (pic related and the greentext below)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Merlin#Merlin_1C
> On October 7, 2012, a Merlin 1C (Engine No. 1) of the CRS-1 mission experienced an anomaly at T+00:01:20, which appears on CRS-1 launch video as a flash. The failure occurred just as the vehicle achieved max-Q (maximum aerodynamic pressure). SpaceX's internal review found that the engine was shut down after a sudden pressure loss and that only the aerodynamic shell was destroyed, generating the debris seen in the video; the engine did not explode, as SpaceX ground control continued to receive data from it throughout the flight. The primary mission was unaffected by the anomaly due to the nominal operation of the remaining eight engines and an onboard readjustment of the flight trajectory,[21] but the secondary-mission payload failed to reach its target orbit due to safety protocols in place to prevent collisions with the ISS. These protocols prevented a second firing of the upper stage for the secondary payload.[22]

And we look at Falcon 1, the first launch failed due to engine (Merlin 1A) failure at t+33 seconds, the second launch failed due to premature second stage engine failure (Kestrel engine), the third launch failed due to "Residual stage-1 thrust led to collision between stage 1 and stage 2.", so even that might be a problem with the engine (too lazy to find out).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1

So in fact, they did have problems with the engine early in its development, perhaps less than Raptor has had but its a much more ambitious project