SpaceX just announced to CANCEL Starship Flight 10 Tower CATCH, Here's why...

Using a super heavy booster with the launch tower, it's one of the boldest and most impressive moves SpaceX has ever pulled off. And after nearly half a year since the last attempt in Flight 8, the space community has been eagerly waiting to witness that wonderful moment again in the upcoming Starship Flight 10. However, in fact, there won't be any catch attempt this time, because SpaceX has officially changed the plan for the mission. So, why did SpaceX make this unexpected decision? Let's find out in today's episode of Alpha Tech. Recently, an internal source revealed that SpaceX won't be attempting a tower catch for Super Heavy Booster 16 during Starship Flight 10 later this month. Instead, the booster will perform a soft splashdown, with a high risk of exploding on impact in the gulf, similar to what was originally planned for Booster 14, which flew for the second time in Flight 9. Now, that might sound expensive, and it kind of goes against the company's core philosophy of optimizing costs. Because unlike Booster 14, which was flown again to test and prove the concept of reusability, Booster 16 is a completely brand new vehicle. Its estimated production cost? Around $63 million. And nearly half of that comes from the 33 Raptor engines alone, by far the most valuable part of the rocket. With a brand new booster in hand, SpaceX could have easily gone for another dramatic tower catch with Mechazilla, especially since they've already pulled it off twice in a row during Flight 7 and 8. So here's the big question. If SpaceX is willing to sacrifice an entirely new vehicle, what kind of data are they hoping to get in return? Well, to answer that, we need to look at the bigger picture. For any company, the early stages of testing are extremely expensive, and sometimes the data they get doesn't quite match the money they've poured in. But that's the price of progress. Spending tens of millions of dollars just to gain a small amount of experience, even if it only improves the rocket by 1%, is often worth it. Because spaceflight has never been cheap. What really matters is efficiency, and pushing it higher with every flight. And that philosophy seems to be exactly what's behind SpaceX's latest decision. First, they've already mastered the tower catch technique, and they've done everything they can to reduce the risks. Doing it again wouldn't provide much new data, especially now that they're shifting focus to Starship Block 3. So sacrificing a Block 2 vehicle to unlock insights they haven't gained before, that's a smart move. Second, and more importantly, is the goal SpaceX originally wanted to achieve in Flight 9, but didn't. Let's rewind a bit. In Flight 9, SpaceX planned for Booster 14 to land using a steeper angle of attack. A higher angle of attack slows down descent, meaning the booster needs less fuel for the landing burn, something that could significantly improve efficiency in future missions. By testing how the booster handles aerodynamic forces at those higher angles, engineers hoped to fine-tune flight control systems and optimize overall vehicle performance. That was the plan. But reality had other ideas. As it approached its designated splashdown area in the Gulf, Super Heavy relit 12 of its 13 center and mid-ring Raptor engines for landing. But contact was lost shortly after the burn began, when the booster experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly just six minutes after liftoff, cutting short the very first reflight of a Super Heavy. So in the end, the data SpaceX needed never came. Which brings us to Booster 16. Because it's a brand new booster, SpaceX is clearly taking this chance to try again, to recreate that critical test under extreme aerodynamic conditions. This time, with a high angle approach that slows the vehicle down, they'll be watching closely to measure how fuel lines hold up under stress, how the Raptor 3 engines behave, and how the Block 3 booster design can be improved. And then there's a third reason. SpaceX may be quietly exploring the possibility of landing Super Heavy using landing legs as a backup to the launch tower. Right now, the only official landing method for the booster is via Mechazilla's arms. A soft splashdown like this could provide valuable data on how the booster's structure holds up under impact, even without legs. As B-16 touches down in the Gulf of Mexico, onboard sensors will record impact forces, vibrations, and mechanical stress as the vehicle hits the water. That data can help engineers better understand how the booster behaves during contact with a surface, useful whether it's water, concrete, or a landing pad. But relying on a single system carries risk. The launch tower itself is an extremely complex and expensive piece of infrastructure, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If something goes wrong during a catch attempt, such as a misalignment or chopstick failure, it could disrupt SpaceX's entire launch schedule. That's why having a backup landing method, like legs-for-ground or drone-ship recovery, would add critical redundancy to the system. In short, these advancements will ultimately make booster catches more reliable, reduce risks, and improve reusability overall. So even though B-16 won't be recovered, it still plays a key role in pushing the Starship program forward. Its data will help pave the way for the next generation of vehicles and recovery systems. And on a bigger scale, the decision not to attempt a catch with B-16 may also signal SpaceX's growing focus on the long-awaited Block 3 era. So stay tuned, big things are coming. And if you're just as hyped for Flight 10 as we are, type 555 in the comments below. Now let me tell you about the good news coming out of Starbase. First off, just yesterday morning, we spotted Booster 16 fitted with the hot staging ring and placed on a transport stand. It rolled out of Megabay 1 and was moved to the rocket garden, where it'll stay until preparations for the next launch begin. Part of this move was also to make room for some maintenance and upgrades inside MB-1. Overall, it's a solid sign that Starship Flight 10 is coming soon. But the next update is the one that really gets us excited. Why? Because according to the latest notice from LNM 25342, the U.S. Maritime Advisory, a series of launch operations has officially been scheduled near Boca Chica, Texas. Specifically, the launch window is open for seven consecutive days, from August 16th to the 22nd, each day starting at 2330 and closing around 134 the next morning. So what does that mean? It means SpaceX is ready. They're locking in the timeline for either final tests or possibly even the Flight 10 launch itself. This is the clearest signal yet that the next Starship test flight is just around the corner, and it could lift off as early as August 16th. Meanwhile, there was a hiccup with one of Ship 37's Raptor vacuum engines, which forced SpaceX to perform an overnight swap on August 5th. Now, they're reinstalling the ring wall and the adapter's QD at the OLM to prep for a repeat of the static fire test, hopefully within this week. If things go smoothly, SpaceX may file for launch approval as early as this weekend or early next week. And since the FAA typically responds about two weeks before launch, we're entering a critical window. So after nearly three months of waiting, the next Starship is finally gearing up for its journey to the skies. And this time, all eyes will be on Boca Chica. Now stay tuned, and don't forget to subscribe to Alpha Tech. We'll be here with the latest updates, right as they happen. Maybe we can feel like everything is moving a bit slower than usual, but there's a reason for that. Starship is a one-of-a-kind, incredibly powerful rocket, something the world has never seen before. Many contracts have already been signed for Starship, but the most important of them all is NASA's Artemis III mission, the one that's meant to return humans to the moon. That mission is currently scheduled for launch in mid-2027, just over two years away. This historic effort depends on the flawless integration of several advanced systems. The space launch system, the Orion spacecraft, SpaceX's human landing system, next-gen lunar spacesuits, and a robust in-space refueling plan. Each part comes with its own challenges and deadlines, but NASA and its partners are staying the course, determined to write the next chapter in human space exploration. At the center of it all is SpaceX's Starship HLS, a moon-optimized version of the fully reusable Starship, now being built and tested at Boca Chica, Texas. It's the vehicle that will carry astronauts from lunar orbit down to the surface and bring them back, a mission-critical role that can't afford to fail. To calm concerns about the schedule, Administrator Duffy recently shared that he spoke directly with SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and received a personal guarantee, Starship HLS will be ready on time for Artemis III. But Starship is only part of the equation. Artemis III also depends on another critical piece of hardware, the lunar spacesuits. Axiom Space, tasked with developing them, is reportedly making very, very good progress. According to Katherine Kerner-Glaze, these suits must withstand the moon's harsh environment and enable astronauts to safely and efficiently explore its rugged terrain. The coordination between HLS and the lunar suits will ultimately determine whether this mission can deliver on its promise of scientific discovery and a sustained human presence on the moon. Back to NASA just yesterday, astronaut Barry Butch Wilmore officially retired after 25 years of service. It's a bittersweet farewell for many of his colleagues, especially Sunita Williams, who spent nine unexpected months stuck with him aboard the ISS after last year's Starliner mishap. Over the course of his career, which began in 2000, Wilmore flew on four different spacecraft and logged a total of 464 days in space. He also completed five spacewalks, spending more than 32 hours working outside the spacecraft. In a statement released on August 6th, Steve Kerner, acting director of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said, Butch's commitment to NASA's mission and his dedication to human space exploration have truly been an inspiration to us all. NASA's statement didn't mention what Wilmore plans to do next, but honestly, it wouldn't be a surprise if he stays connected to space exploration in some way. After all, once a spacefarer, always a spacefarer. Just one day earlier, during a press conference titled, Breaking the U.S. Drone Monopoly, held by the U.S. Department of Transportation on August 5th, yes, the same department led by Sean Duffy, the acting NASA administrator, dropped a bombshell. Duffy publicly called for the United States to deploy a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030, framing it as a critical step in the new lunar space race. When pressed by reporters about this bold proposal, he responded, We're in a race to the moon, a race with China, and if we want to build a base up there, we need power. He's referring to a highly ambitious plan to land a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by the end of this decade. That target date also happens to align with the expected retirement of the International Space Station, another major shift in focus. To put that into perspective, a 100-kilowatt reactor would generate about as much electricity as the average American household uses in 3.5 days. Not much on Earth, but a game-changer on the moon. And this kind of project, it's absolutely essential if SpaceX ever wants to build its rumored Alpha Moon base. Why? Because the moon spins so slowly that parts of its surface can be plunged into two weeks of total darkness. That makes solar power almost useless for any permanent human outpost. Most lunar rovers can't even survive a single lunar night. Duffy didn't stop there. He even turned a critical eye toward the Artemis program, the very mission he's responsible for. Everyone knew what Apollo was. It was bold. It was clear. We said, we're going to the moon. And we did. Now with Artemis, we say we're going back. But what does that really mean to people? We need to make it mean something. We need to make the world care.