2 ms·
There is a bigger safety margin for humans if you need to land in a relatively large area in the water somewhere with a larger range of acceptable velocities.
by Game_Ender 2y ago
There is a bigger safety margin for humans if you need to land in a relatively large area in the water somewhere with a larger range of acceptable velocities. I believe they considered a propulsive landing over land but decided against it to simplify the initial design.
10 years later though they have added this ability as a backup [0]. Which again shows how if human lives are on the line you want to favor redundancy and simplicity over flash.
0 - https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/10/dragon-propulsive-landing/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/10/dragon-propulsive-la...
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIIRC, the reason they rejected the land propulsive landing was that NASA insisted on more testing to certify it and SpaceX didn't want to bear the costs of those tests. Given the parachute failures they had during initial qualifications and the subsequent delays and retesting costs there's a good chance they regret that decision.
- lupusreal 2y agoSupposedly they retain the propulsive landing capability and could try to use it in an emergency if the chutes failed catastrophically. The thrusters needed for it have always been there because they are the same thrusters used for the launch escape system.
- grawp 2y agoIt's not 'supposedly'. It's a feature they officially gained just a few crewed flights back. It's a mean of last resort and has to be manually committed to during descend. I assume it may have to cut any remaining or semideployed parachutes.
- lupusreal 2y agoI could be wrong but I don't think its been tested.