Rocket Booster Landings

Discussions center on propulsive landing versus parachutes for reusable rocket boosters like SpaceX's Falcon 9, highlighting advantages in precision, reusability, fuel efficiency, and applicability to Mars or other planets.

📉 Falling 0.5x Science
3,886
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#1270
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
1
2008
2
2009
11
2010
23
2011
54
2012
132
2013
115
2014
267
2015
325
2016
349
2017
278
2018
256
2019
231
2020
278
2021
352
2022
179
2023
304
2024
510
2025
213
2026
6

Keywords

LM RTLS clavius.org ISS PC techlmstab.html O2 F9R NASA landing fuel stage atmosphere rocket land orbit burn mars pad

Sample Comments

washedup Jul 22, 2014 View on HN

It's not about the rocket tipping over. The use of parachutes would require the loss of landing accruacy. They want to be able to guide the first stage to a specific location (like a launch pad), and parachutes would not allow them to do this.

pavel_lishin Nov 6, 2016 View on HN

Can't you ship it home with a heat shield and a parachute?

JshWright Apr 14, 2014 View on HN

Not really... you'd still have to do the earlier burns to slow the stage down enough that it doesn't break up in the atmosphere, and the burn to boost it back to the launch site. The parachutes would just save the final 'hover slam' burn, but the terminal velocity of a practically empty first stage is already pretty low, and the complexity of a parachute system wouldn't be offset by the minimal savings in speed reduction.

itishappy Oct 14, 2024 View on HN

You don't have to send most of the landing hardware into space.

InclinedPlane Apr 23, 2013 View on HN

Perhaps on Mars, unlikely on Earth. With our dense atmosphere a vehicle like a mostly empty Falcon 9 first stage is going to have a fairly low terminal velocity, in the low hundreds of km/s range. Slowing down from that speed to a controlled hover/landing is pretty easy. The cost/benefit on Mars might be different though, since the atmosphere is thinner.

jessaustin Dec 5, 2014 View on HN

The goal is an eventual "soft landing" on a rocket, which isn't feasible with parachutes. Such a rocket could be landed in a specific location, refilled with fuel, and be available for relaunch fairly quickly.

andygates Apr 16, 2015 View on HN

Not terminal velocity, just fairly fast: there's a deceleration burn earlier in the descent plan. If that doesn't work, the big red abort button can be used to blow it up at high altitude.

throw4950sh06 Oct 13, 2024 View on HN

At the very least, reducing the number of concerns on the rocket is definitely worthwhile. They are going to have an engine in any case, and using just that and nothing else on the rocket itself simplifies testing and reduces risk. The tower can have a separate testing and there's no way something that happens on the way to orbit and back breaks the tower.Wings, parachute, etc... All very easy to break or burn at hypersonic speeds, and very chaotic to control. It probably (very pr

postalrat Dec 28, 2020 View on HN

The fuel used to attempt the landing the instead be used to launch.

c22 May 7, 2023 View on HN

Wouldn't the reentry ioniztion mess with this?