[Galxeagle]

As a SpaceX fan reading through the post-launch analysis, this was definitely more of a success than the headline applies, but 'massive' is a stretch. Most commentary I'm seeing put it at a C or B-. It's true that there was a number of areas where the risk is now retired, but three engines out at launch with three more dropping out along the way hints that their engine design still isn't as reliable as it needs to be, several years and several engine test campaigns later.

SpaceX doesn't have a test stand where they can static-fire the booster at full power or duration, which feels like an interesting gap in their usual 'hardware-rich, test-often' iterative approach. I'm betting we see something like that roll out soon.

[marktangotango]

In fact it was a really amazing "engine out" test. The thing appeared to been shedding engines all the way to RUD. I imagine these engines were all early generation, might as well fly them, units. It's easy to imagine a calculus of "we're pretty sure X% of engines will fail, but we only need Y% for this flight, go ahead and fly them". But yeah, Musk once said there's a gigawatt of power going through these Raptor engines, that's not nothing.

[urbane_myth]

I actually feel safer about someday flying on one because it kept going even after at least one of the engines detonated during ascent.

[pnpnp]

It’s also possible the engines were damaged by flying debris off the pad.

[s1artibartfast]

Possible, but I don't think that's the full explanation. When the booster did a static test at half throttle, not all of the engines were able to light as well. SpaceX clearly chose to go ahead with a launch without waiting for a booster test with 100% ignition