[xefer]

I can understand the benefits of reusable rockets, etc., but what exactly is the benefit of a controlled landing like this? Couldn't the same reusability benefits be obtained more simply and at less cost (and fuel) with say a big parachute?

[snaily]

This counterpoint is edging towards meme status (just try googling). The usual counter-counterpoints to parachutes:

* Parachute hardware adds non-useful weight

* Salt water landings increases refurbishing costs

* Active guidance ("hitting the X") allows for less logistics

* Parachute landing technology would not work on other solar system bodies, meaning less tech would transfer to Mars

[zardo]

There are a few problems, but mainly, it just doesn't meet the requirements for rapid reuse. The goal is to reach the aviation operations model. Land it, inspect it, load it, gas it, go. A turn around measured in hours, not days or weeks. Fishing rockets out of the ocean 200 miles off the coast could never be rapid.

Then there is the technical problem, we're talking about 14tons falling from space at speeds up to 5000mph. Desiging a parachute for that job is anything but simple.

Lastly, it just doesn't scale. Consider that they are designing a rocket for moving huge payloads to Mars. This landing method should scale up to a Saturn V class booster just fine, parachutes just keep getting harder as the weight goes up.