Kartoffelkuchen

Tbh, I think we‘re overinterpreting a little here. Announcing „engines at full thrust“ on the webcast doesn‘t mean they are at their max physically-able thrust, but rather at the required and expected thrust for that mission. Which might as well only be 90% of what they could run at. Many possible reasons for that. Has someone run the numbers for the Vulcan launch? I think ULA was quite open regarding masses and such specifics, if masses can be estimated for New Glenn as well and then compared to the Vulcan launch one could estimate whether the engines produced thrust in the same ballpark or if they were throttled for this launch. I don‘t think increasing the number of engines is something BO is even considering.

Video of debris reentering, somewhere over the carribean Sorry for some reason I can‘t embed it on mobile. Looks magnificient Edit: There‘s more

Interestingly enough, that engine succesfully relit for the landing burn. They seem to have lost the ship which is… uh not good.

You've got to be kidding me, it actually worked on the first try

Generally agree. However, finding a critical issue like this with the engine pylon on their whole test fleet, after the aircrafts only flew a very limited number of cycles (think of all the grounding that's happened in between tests) does not speak well for their engineering department.

So the Kerbal engines from Jebs Junkyard really are super high-tech and streamlined after all, with the lack of plumbing and cables.

No. The flaps didn't move much, but that's because they were in the position they needed to be in, and didn't need to correct much movement of the ship. They were still sticking very much out into the airstream and controlled the ship. It was kinda like a well trimmed out aircraft really. But the moment something changes, you need that rudder (flap) deflection for control authority. They need the moving flaps to account for a shifted Center of Mass etc.

Apparently it can also loose half a flap

Still quite a lot of venting on the Ship, interesting

Hmm not really a fan of that stretching tbh. Sure it makes sense from a performance perspective, but it will also make the stack much more susceptible to weather and winds again I'd assume, which a SH/SS stack with a lower height/thickness ratio would probably not be. Especially with the aero devices. Also, it makes Starship landings on another planet even more challenging as to not make it tip over, terrain will absolutely need to be flat and touchdown performed with very little to none horizontal velocity, as long as the leg design doesn't change. It probably wouldn't be able to take the more "sloppy" F9 booster landings we've seen with the bounces. Especially since the COM will be even higher with the header tank being used for landing too. Astronaut boarding / cargo unloading on other bodies will also get interesting.

Funny that you say that. Because in the paragraph above your quoted text, it clearly says they conducted a successful boostback burn, and they did so with all engines igniting and running perfectly fine when looking at the webcast. Looking at the final seconds of the booster, with these high roll rates, it is no wonder the engines didn't light succesfully. It's not hard to imagine that when it's rolling like that and fuel sloshing around inside the tanks, that fuel ports won't be able to draw any fuel reliably. And to emphasize again, that is not a Raptor related issue, but more of a fuel systems and a 'how to prevent fuel sloshing' issue. So I'd like to call your "Raptors can't relight successfully" argument fully debunked now with that successful boostback burn, until we a re proven otherwise by SpaceX.

I loosely follow this thread and their updates, but the speed they're moving at sure is looking impressive. Getting the powerhead of such an engine to work probably has to be the most difficult task. I'm stoked for what's to come!

Apparently some airlines did a voluntary inspection of the plugs and found loose and damaged bolts, leading to that FAA notice.

Hey guys, my blocker for *individual persons* does not have the effect it should when all of you pick up on *the persons* arguments again and again. I am by no means a moderator, but I think that literally all of the counterarguments have at least been made twice now. Perhaps just let the person post their statements into the void, until something with a bit more substance to it comes up?

We might need to go even bigger to make Starship truly reliable... Kerbal OG's might remember