[olex]

You would need to build a second tower with catch arms there. The booster does not have landing legs and will not touch down on the ground, the plan is to have it settle on the same "tower arms" that are used as a crane to stack the booster and the ship for launch, with engines still well above ground.

[Aeolun]

They managed landing legs and they decided to up the level of difficulty a few notches or something?

[skykooler]

Pretty much. Catching it with the launch tower means in theory you can have much faster turnaround between flights, since you don't need to transport it from the landing site to the launch site.

[chriswarbo]

It's true that SpaceX's previous landings have used legs, but that's either been Falcon boosters (much smaller/lighter than Starship boosters, AKA "Superheavies"), or for Starship's upper-stage (again, much smaller/lighter than Superheavy boosters).

The catching system looks crazy, but it might actually be easier than landing a Superheavy on legs. The ground is a larger target than the catching arms; but its maneuverability and shock-absorption are famously low.

[brain_staple]

It means less hardware/weight on the actual rocket.

[Tuna-Fish]

And crucially more room to absorb shock.

[inglor_cz]

Landing legs are heavy, because they need to absorb a big shock. They also need actuators. "The best part is no part"; if there is a way not to drag this extra weight from the sea level up to the stratosphere and back, it counts as an improvement.