Hacker News Reader

But for a propulsive landing, why would they want to have forward velocity at all, unless by design for this type of landing ? I'd have thought the preference would be to kill forward speed and land vertically.

View on HN

As an experienced KSP crasher, you never completely cancel horizontal component, so you need a way to dissipate it. And it's easier to dissipate if you know which direction your horizontal component is, which is easier to do when its value isn't so close to 0.

That being said I perfectly see how sub-ms automated command could make what I said wrong.

One of two main engines blew off at ~50m and the craft was essentially in a cross-wind landing, likely without de-crab. Having lateral velocity wasn't a part of the plan.

The engine loss was a detail in the article that I hadn't seen anywhere else in the commentary and speculation on the landing. Even now many commenters don't seem to be taking this into account. Even if there was redundancy built in, an engine loss makes things much more difficult. I can see why they're claiming 100% success despite being upside down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com