From an amateur perspective, parachutes seem to be the only cost-effective
solution. Active rocket landings imply a great number of technologies that are
outside the capabilities of all but the most well-heeled amateurs. The hardest
one would be a gimballed, restartable, deep-throttleable engine. Add to that
the control and lubrication of the gimbal system, and associated hydraulic
actuation and pumping, and I think we may be out of the amateur range
altogether.
At this point, building a flying biprop with some aerodynamic controls seems to
be the upper edge of the amateur capability.
A guided parachute seems wonderful. I’d prefer a choppy landing near me to a
choppy landing in a distant, unknown location. It also has the benefit of
being usable and testable by the large group of people flying high-power
solids, thus speeding development cycles.
For recovery of the motors, I think a few inflatable airbags may be optimal.
They would cushion the landing well enough to protect the tail end from the
initial impact. Depending on the lateral velocity, the airframe may be damaged
from a subsequent tip over. Reliable recovery of airframe and propulsion
system does seem difficult though.
On Jan 10, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Parachutes provide for a rather choppy landing
that may not be over when you have touched down.
( And the payload tends to require carefull packing that comes at significant
cost in weight.)
Dragchutes should work well for energy management.
But for the actual landing something more sophisticated needs to be used.
You require point landing and very low speed final approach.
( Rocket engines are not designed or being dropped asswards on the ground)
We've seen that an active rocket landing works.
