[phire]

I feel like there is a [Citation Needed] for that Wikipedia quote.

All existing landers used an aeroshell and parachute sequence, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to land with just Rockets. The aeroshell/parachute method is used because it allows landers to come straight in from a Hoffman transfer orbit, bleed off all that extra speed and land with the least amount of fuel required. But it's way to risky for a manned lander, as the landing date (and location) are locked in months ahead of time with no option for an abort or delay.

A manned lander is likely to aerobreak into a stabke Mars parking orbit first. Allowing the crew can check the lander, check the weather at the landing site and detach from a reusable transfer module. From low Mars orbit, they are going much slower and need to disperse much less energy.

You could just throw Rockets and fuel at the problem. Or wings might be far more attractive than a parachute for slowing down in the upper atmosphere (though, any wings would have to be massive to actually glide all the way down to the lower atmosphere or land)

[Retric]

In either case they use heat shields so the post heat shield second stage will be at the same velocity. Mars has ~0.6% of earths atmosphere, and ~40% the gravity so a heat shields going to hit terminal velocity at ~66 times earths terminal velocity. This only get's worse as you scale up due to mass vs surface area issues. Parachute can bleed off 80+% of that speed for little additional weight unlike wings which would need to survive supersonic retry heating making parachutes a no brainier. http://pics-about-space.com/re-entry-nasa-mars-landers?p=3#i... 1km/sec = 2,236.94 MPH.

Edit: Here, they start at well over 10,000mph heat shield drops that to ~1000mph, parashoot drops that to ~200mph. http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/08/12/2012MSLSkyCran...

PS: As to just burning fuel getting literally tons of wasted rocket fuel on mars is really really expensive.

PPS: At 0.6% ATM storms are only a viability problem. Only a tiny amount of ultra fine dust can get suspended.

[phire]

Starting from a circular Mars orbit rather than Hoffman transfer would put their initial entry speed closer to 7000mph.

> Parachute can bleed off 80+% of that speed for little additional weight unlike wings which would need to survive supersonic retry heating making parachutes a no brainier.

Sure, Parachutes make a lot of sense for a one way trip.

But Parachutes are a consumable, one which would be really hard to manufacture on Mars (compared to rocket fuel, which just requires water, carbon dioxide and electricity). Also the size of the parachute gets ridiculously large for larger spacecraft.

If you are planning to make a rocket which shuttles people or cargo (or fuel) between Mars' surface and low Mars orbit, then it makes a whole lot more sense to just manufacture the extra fuel on Mars rather than trying to manufacture parachutes on Mars or shipping extra parachutes to Mars.

As for wings, you don't really want to use them for the subsonic phase. I'm not really sure how viable the idea is, but you want to use them to prolong your trip through the upper atmosphere, where the atmosphere is thinner. This allows you to stretch out all that supersonic atmospheric heating over a much longer time period, at a much slower rate than what your heat shield can dissipate.

Retractable or reconfigurable wings might be needed so you can maximize lift in the upper atmosphere then minimise drag through the supersonic to subsonic transition.

[Retric]

If you are sending stuff back up then parachutes are reusable, but heat shields are not. There might be an argument if you where landing thousands of rockets a day and had giant city's on mars. But, by that point you can just make more.

[phire]

Depends on the heat shield. The Space Shuttle's heat shield was designed for reuse (though in practice the tiles were so fragile that they needed extensive checks and occasional replacement before each reentry).

I notice that Spacex have designed their ablative heat shield to which can withstand hundreds of reentries to Earth without any replacement or refurbishment. Still technically a consumable, but I really doubt anyone is happy with re-packing and re-using the same reentry parachutes hundreds of times.

And that's reentries to Earth, where the entry velocity is 17,000mph and the atmosphere is 100 times thicker. Such a heatsheild can probably withstand thousands of Mars reentries at just 7000mph before replacement.