Kartoffelkuchen

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

You are absolutely right, it almost certainly is an engine explosion we see here. The question we've been discussing all this time is why it did happen, and the #1 source is likely not that it happened because of faulty engines, but because the engines didn't receive any more fuel. See when that turbopump, spinning at dozens of thousands of RPM, is not filled by fuel any more which protects it from runaway, it will spin up even faster and disintegrate, making the engine fail. SN8 and SN10 as mentioned above had a similar failure cascade: no fuel / bubbles in fuel, leading to the engine failure.

Not again. If your cars fuel pump breaks down and the engine stops working, would you say that the engine is unreliable? - Yeah, an amateur who doesn't know about the subsystems required to run your engine perhaps would say that. We still don't know with certainty what happened, so let's not start this discussion again, until we get a little more insight.

Probably a greater internal volume to use, and perhaps lower reentry thermal loading in the forward section due to the stubbier shape?