[smattiso]

Is this a viable landing strategy in the long run? Both SN8 and SN9 landings have ended in total fatalities.

What happens if the landing happens to occur during a 50 mph wind gust, etc. If this maneuver isn't designed to be 100% fault tolerant maybe they need to be thinking about an emergency eject?

I like the simplicity of the Starship design. How much extra weight would a nosecone eject + parachute add?

[andrewflnr]

I don't know, but their reusable Falcon rockets went through a similar phase. They killed a lot of rockets before they got the landing right.

[elihu]

It looks like both of these particular failures are engine-related, rather than air turbulence. (SN8: lost fuel pressure, SN9: failed to start one engine for unknown reasons.) These are engineering problems that probably have relatively straightforward solutions.

It is a fair point though, that landing in less-than-ideal weather conditions should perhaps be thoroughly tested. Launches generally can be done when conditions are optimal, but it might not always be possible to defer a re-entry until weather improves.

Ideally the lander would have real-time high-resolution air velocity data in the vicinity of the landing pad and would adjust its maneuvers to compensate.

I wonder what SpaceX's current tolerances are for wind for Falcon 9 landings? I assume anything more than a light breeze and they put it off for another day, but maybe those rockets are heavy enough that the wind doesn't knock them around as much as one would expect. (Droneship landings are especially difficult with wind plus a rocking boat.)

[avmich]

> Is this a viable landing strategy in the long run?

I prefer Dream Chaser's approach, but Elon Musk has his own ideas. Together with SpaceX team. Of course to fly to the Moon there are no such options.