I tend to disagree with this. If you actually go threw the N1 and how it was developed, the conclusion to me is that it wasn't really the number of engines that

I tend to disagree with this. If you actually go threw the N1 and how it was developed, the conclusion to me is that it wasn't really the number of engines that was the main problem. The main issue they had is basically that the NK-17 engines were not tested before flight. Even worse, since they didn't have good computer back then, their 'what happens if an engine fails' sequence was very sub-optimal. I would suggest only one of the N-1 failures can reasonable be attributed to the choice in engine configuration. In one case their internal fuel channels were breaking because of vibration. All of these things seem much less likely to happen. The Booster has a computer and each engine has its own control. The Booster is much more capable of handing an engine shutdown or even an exploding engine. That has been demonstrated on the Falcon 9 a number of time. Each engine is individually tested before the flight and often they are then fired together on the ground, so there is much less fear of that. They have experience with 27 engines and the pipes required. Also, the Super Heavy used short Stainless steel tubes that should be fairly resilient. In general our engineering on how do this is just much better, better simulation, more experience, better knowledge oft the materials and the welding.