For instance the V2 design seems to use Raptor 2.5 which is a Raptor 2 variant with Raptor 3 style interface with the ship. So they are testing the ship design to support Raptor 3 before they have Raptor 3.

The engines are really heart of these things and drive the development cadence.

In other words, they were optimistic enough to think that another upright landing was within the realm of possibility, while also deliberately doing things which made that outcome less likely, to get the data they need.

If that's true, I wouldn't characterize it as a second attempt at a chopstick land, that would just be a stretch goal. Who knows if it is, but it's consistent with how SpaceX operates.

> During this phase, automated health checks of critical hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered an abort of the catch attempt.

Surely you aren't saying there is middle ground in the way the tower is being tested that caused the abort of the booster landing?

I guess that could be an interesting cost savings measure, just lose/destroy your old inventory instead of paying disposal.

Also, people pay good money for high-quality metals. The scrap value is probably greater than the logistics cost of getting it to a scrapyard.

You wouldn’t even need to scrap it. Cut it up and turn it into some mega silos for agriculture or materials suppliers. Or just set it aside and donated to the Smithsonian in a few decades…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery

Dropping rockets into the ocean was what everyone* did before SpaceX came along.

If you're already paying the cost to bring it back though, it's very hard to imagine that you would have to pay to scrap it. The thing is primarily a large metal tank, and some engines made up of a bunch of metal - people pay money for the privilege of scrapping metal, not the other way around.

* Technically some other countries dropped them on deserted land, or not so deserted land in the case of China.