[wat10000]

I’m not aware of any rocket landing safe enough for human use. NASA nixed the idea of propulsive landing for Dragon 2 for this reason. It’s extremely difficult to make safe, since just about any reasonable engine configuration means guaranteed death if a single engine fails at a critical moment. Compare with modern airliners where an engine can fail at any point in flight and the plane can land safely.

So yes, I agree, it is akin to saying that.

[voidUpdate]

Just to be a little pedantic, humans have done propulsive landings before. The Apollo moon landings were done with a rocket-powered landing :P

[mr_toad]

> I’m not aware of any rocket landing safe enough for human use.

I’m pretty sure the Eagle has landed with humans on board.

[wat10000]

Pretty much nothing about Apollo was safe, even by the relatively low standards of modern space travel.

[cnlevy]

Soyuz uses propulsive landing

[wat10000]

Soyuz lands by parachute. It uses a rocket at the very end (literally two feet off the ground) to cushion the impact.

[numpad0]

And that's why astronauts preferred the Shuttle

[0_____0]

what, the puff of impulse at the end of the parachute descent? I thinks it's a bit disingenuous to call that propulsive landing without context

[cnlevy]

You're right; I meant to refute the following point: NASA nixed the idea of propulsive landing for Dragon 2 for this reason (safety)

It wasn't because of safety, but because it would have needed tests, development and certification (for a new type of landing) while already having an established method (splashing into the sea).

[wat10000]

In other words: extremely difficult to make safe.

[dontlaugh]

So, safety. Every vehicle is unsafe until proven sufficiently safe.

[panick21_]

> NASA nixed the idea of propulsive landing for Dragon 2 for this reason.

That is completely false. First of all, NASA didn't nix it, they just didn't make it a priority as it had little value from their perspective.

The reason it was not done is that para-shouts have to be in the design anyway for abort situations, so that was fixed.

So for SpaceX, the question was to likely delay the program, and take on a whole lot of extra engineering work that they were not actually getting paid for, remember fixed price contract.

They were only going to work on it if they really thought they needed it for something like Red Dragon. And then they could still add it later.

And one of the primary reason SpaceX thought that its to hard, is that they landing feet would have to have gone threw the heat shield. That would have made the whole heat-shield design massively more complex.

[wat10000]

Some dude who runs SpaceX seems to think the reason was safety. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1104509345922838528

[somenameforme]

He said it was the difficulty in proving the safety. There's an informative article here. [1]

NASA likes parachutes because they've always used parachutes. SpaceX likes retropulsive landings because Mars is their goal, and Mars' atmosphere isn't dense enough for parachutes. It's also safer for the crew in nominal operation and enables a much higher degree of rapid reuse, relative to NASA's traditional operation of taking a salt water bath in the ocean.

So they could go through the [very reasonable] extensive costs and testing involved in proving the safety of the retropulsive landings, or just go old school, strap a few parachutes on and work on getting crew to the ISS (which was the goal at the time). They chose the latter and with the plan of getting back to retropulsive landings later, which they also did. Parachutes remain the main landing mechanism for the Crew Dragon, but it now also has retropulsive landing capabilities to be used in case of a chute failure.

[1] - https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/10/dragon-propulsive-la...

[wat10000]

In what sense can it be called safe if you haven’t proven it?

[somenameforme]

They had repeated successful demos of it, but NASA kept adding on new requirements while implicitly signaling that they had no interest in approving the system, which would have made Boeing's lander look obsolete before it was ever finished. NASA's judgements are heavily influenced by external factors that make it quite difficult on outsiders, while enabling reckless behaviors for insiders.

For example NASA deemed the Boeing crew vessel safe after its pad abort test resulted in only 2 of 3 parachutes deploying and it suffering a propellant leak - all in beyond optimal conditions. They deemed it not only safe, but safe enough to completely skip the scheduled in-flight abort test. All of this is of course how you ended up with astronauts trapped on the ISS that had to be rescued by SpaceX.

For another contrast there after SpaceX did swap over to a simple parachute system, their pad-abort test went off flawlessly. NASA still required they do an in-flight abort. Granted, that's nothing to complain about, because that's exactly what NASA should do. But they also should have had Boeing completely redo their pad-abort test and damned sure do an in-flight abort as well. Safety culture at NASA is generally completely dysfunctional because of non-safety factors.

This is nothing new either. Both Space Shuttle disasters were 100% preventable, and not only in hindsight. Engineers brought up the exact causes of both explosions well before they happened, but the bureaucratic layer ignored them.

[wat10000]

I'm not entirely understanding your point. Are you saying they were able to demonstrate a better than 1-in-N probability of fatal mishap for the appropriate N (I believe about 300 for this case) and NASA just wouldn't accept it? Or they weren't, but ???

Shuttle is an excellent example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. It had no abort capability in the event that something went kaboom, and no realistic abort capability at all for large critical portions of launch. Their test pilot outright refused to test an abort because he didn't think it would be survivable. It never should have been human-rated, and it only was because NASA pretended it had an abort capability that wasn't really there.

Starship is even worse: not only does it have no realistic abort capability for most of the launch, it also has a very delicate landing procedure that requires a substantial amount of propellant to remain on board, no ability for the occupants to escape in the event that those propellants decide to mix in a place where they're not supposed to, and very limited ability to handle engine failures.

[panick21_]

This literally doesn't disagree with what I said. I have no idea why you think it does.

[wat10000]

Reasons you gave: it wasn’t necessary, it would have been expensive, it would have added time and complexity.

Reason Musk gave: safety.

[panick21_]

Do you not understand anything about aerospace engineering? These concepts are not some independent variables that are unconnected with each other.

Maybe I have to spell it out for the slow ones.

it would have added time and complexity --> because proving the safety of additional system takes TIME.

it would have been expensive --> TIME is money

it wasn’t necessary --> The parachutes system was mandatory anyway.

[wat10000]

I don't understand much about aerospace engineering, but adding time, complexity, and expense sure sounds a lot like "extremely difficult to make safe" to me.

I guess people just want to argue. I have three different people replying to me effectively saying, "you're wrong, it's not because it's difficult to make it safe, it's because it was difficult to make it safe because of reasons X Y and Z."

[swores]

It's possible to disagree with people without being an asshole about it. It's even encouraged in this site's guidelines :)