https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1OwxWYzDXjWGQ
If you prefer youtube, these are probably the best 3rd parties:
* Everyday Astronaut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VESowgMbjA
* NASASpaceFlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkhv4fvOgA
Around 8:50-10:00
But I don't think you can characterize a burned-through flap as minor. Once there's a hole in something like that, the fact that it remains aerodynamically usable is just dumb luck. Clearly the heat shielding failed. If this were a production craft you'd probably have to scrap it even if you recovered it successfully, defeating the whole point to having it be reusable in the first place. The shielding folks have work to do.
But at the same time, the telemetry and control folks are popping champagne. Their stuff worked magically. We literally had live video (albeit through a cracked lens from all the flap debris) all the way through reentry to spashdown, and the landing maneuver looks to have worked perfectly.
In prod, a localized flap burn-through would be a Major Incident.
Vs. in dev...what competent manager would be bothered if the some bleeding-edge beta code dropped 10% of packets the first time that it faced a full-load test?
my X is full of leaking flaps.
wasting our time if not
The reason for this is they first need to prove to the FAA they can actually control these vehicles and land them when, where and how they said they would before they will be approved to try the maneuver over land.
The entire mission profile at this stage is just about proving out that it works and it will be safe to try put it down on land without risking hitting a building with a skyscraper sized stainless steel rocket.