Hacker News Reader

Also there should be a weight/fuel reduction for not having to hold enough fuel to land itself and every bit counts. Along with not having to worry about igniting/firing your rocket engines a second time in a flight which is reduced complexity and also allows for solid booster recovery.

View on HN

Indeed.

Reusable SpaceX rockets have 30% small payload compared to non-reusable ones, as they have to carry extra fuel for landing.

Catching the rocket instead of landing it could be significantly more efficient as you wouldn't have to carry much more weight except for the parachute.

You would also have to build your rocket such that it can survive the shock of braking via parachute. That eats at least some of the weight savings.

This isn't a 5-layer cake we're talking about here. A structure that can survive being caught between a payload on one end and a rocket motor on the other is going already have the strength you need in most of the places you need it in order to hang from a parachute. The hard part is going to be attachment point real-estate since the most logical choice is going to have it fighting for space with rocket motor bits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com