3 ms·
One would think that using fuel to touch-down slowly is wasting fuel since they could use some kind of capture scheme with a parachute instead. I've read many
by mchahn 11y ago
One would think that using fuel to touch-down slowly is wasting fuel since they could use some kind of capture scheme with a parachute instead. I've read many times that the weight of the fuel is a big problem in spacecraft.
- moron4hire 11y agoThe problem is that using a parachute means that--assuming your launching from Houston or Cape Canaveral--you're only going to be able to land in the ocean. With just a parachute, can you recover the booster and make it launchable in, say, a day? That's kind of the goal: to make rockets more like cars and less like soda cans, i.e. to reuse vs. recycle.
- mpwoz 11y agohttp://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7718/why-would-spacex-not-use-parachutes-for-the-final-descent-of-the-first-stage http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7718/why-would-spac...
- simonh 11y agoI don't know why you're getting down votes, it's a reasonable question. Most capture schemes require the rocket to survive structural forces it isn't designed to handle. Increasing its structural thrength would increase its weight. Spacex tried parachutes on early designs, but gave up on them. A parachute landing on the ground means impact forces, landing in the ocean means salt water corrosion. Also even parachutes have a cost in weight, including structural strengthening. SoaceX and Blue Origin have both looked at the various options, crunched the numbers and opted for propulsive landing.