Summary from my watch:

- Launch roughly on time, after a scrub yesterday. (Sounds like the scrub was due to ground equipment, most notably the water system.)

- Initial ascent was good, but then one engine on the booster went out.

- Relight of the booster's engines after stage separation for the boost back burn failed. Engines did light again for a landing burn, but seems to have hit the water harder than expected and was very off target.

- Starship lost one engine shortly after stage sep. Turned into an unintentional test of engine out capability. It made it to space.

- Some weird motion and lots of off-gassing after engine cut-off, with uncertainty about if it actually got a good orbital(ish) insertion. Seems to have been benign, with the motion being a weird slow flip to the orientation for payload deployment.

- Test deployment of dummy payloads was successful, including a couple with cameras to look back at Starship.

- An in space engine relight test was skipped, presumably due to the issues during launch.

- Re-entry to over the Indian Ocean seemed to go really well. Nothing obviously burning or falling off. The amazing views of the plasma during re-entry, something never seen live before starship, are now routine.

- Starship did a maneuver to simulate how they'll have to go out over the gulf and back to the landing site.

- Nailed the target, evidenced by views from drones and buoys. Soft landing before falling over and giving us a big (expected) boom.

As far as overall progress from previous test flights goes, they're at least treading water while making many large changes. I think they were hoping to try for a tower catch and actually going orbital for next flight, but I highly doubt that now. The boostback burn failing was the largest failure, with the engine failure on Starship being a close second. Good performance despite engine out seems to be an unintentional success.

Nice work by SpaceX engineering.

Good summary. The booster appeared to hit the water at 1400 km/h (a bit under 900 mph) so not really survivable :-). Engine out on ship seems to left them with just enough fuel to land but not enough to do the hover thing (simulates being caught by chopsticks). They notched it down to two engines (vs planned 3) on the landing it seems?

Basically if they can figure out the engine issues, it looks like they should be able to do a full end to end flight. That's reasonable progress. Given the IPO this was a pretty important flight and I don't think they hurt it (like blowing up on the launch pad would have). So their one step closer it seems.

“seems to have hit the water harder than expected and was very off target.”

SpaceX’s people were saying it was on target, and it seems to have landed in about the same position relative to the camera buoy as previous flights. I don’t think there’s any evidence to call it off target. The landing and toppling looked the same as previous flights too.

The videos were incredible. My favorite part was watching the booster flip in such clarity. Normally we don't get full view of it, let alone 4k.

Good summary. I was pleasantly surprised that they nailed the re-entry target even after the ascent engine problems.

The re-entry itself looks amazingly smooth compared to V2. TBD whether it's good enough for re-usability (much less rapid re-usability).

But Flight 12 was definitely forward progress.

I'm concerned about the cracking clearly visible on the heat shield tiles. It doesn't bode well for rapid reusability.

SpaceX does an excellent job at videography. Sad that Nasa flew its Artemis mission with potato cameras.

I think the ship really punted the booster during stage separation. And caused the boost back failure from sloshing.

Also I think Ship now has methane thrusters on it. They were operating with a clean blue flame in short purposeful bursts.

The final issue that led to the scrub was that a pin that held back the QD arm got bound and would not release.

Did the landing burn light two engines as expected? It happened fast, but the graphic made it look like only one lit. If that’s true, that would be impressive as only lighting two was meant to be a test. At least according to the live stream hosts.

> The amazing views of the plasma during re-entry, something never seen live before starship, are now routine.

The word "live" is doing a lot of work here. Astronauts used to film the plasma going past the windows of Shuttle.

I remember as a kid my science textbook had a still of it to illustrate plasma.

[dead]

Lots of engine failures. Doesn't exactly bode well for a company looking to go public immediately. One of the engine failures was not on the booster but Starship as you noted, and that is a bit unexpected. I don't think they have spoken about it being equal in capability with one engine out, right? Those engines don't move around to compensate IIRC.

The takeoff looked almost normal but I noticed a slight drift from vertical, likely because one of the engines was dead or dying. Overall the V3 is supposed to be an upgrade but actual progress is more or less stalling compared V2.