Ok, I've finished the thread. Good stuff but a few comments.<br /><br />mrmorris:<br /> />I really like the parafoil, and I'd like to incorporate it<br /> />into the system.<br /><br />Just as an aside, my comment had nothing to do with using a para-foil, steerable parachutes or standard parachutes. It was a comment on the original designed, and operational Gemini landing system.<br />Gemini was not a base lander for two reasons, one of which was the carry-over from the idea of land based landings using something like the parafoil. The main reason was that the heatshield was so close to the doors of the capsule that had it been in the standard Mercury, (and later Apollo) 'nose-up' orientation it would have been VERY unstable in the water.<br />Also because it had an off-set CG to facilitate it's lifting entry profile, (CG was offset so that it 'flew' in a 'heads-down' attitude for the astronauts during reentry) it tended to rest with the hatches 'up' and above the waterline.<br /><br /> />However -- for G-X3, model 1, S/N 0000001, I see<br /> />Apollo-style 'two-drogue/three main' parachutes<br /> />and a bottom-first landing. <br /><br />All well and good, but if you'll look at your own illustrations, you'll note that by resting just on it's base the design is a bit unstable. Tipping over will be a real problem and NOT something passengers are going to look 'forward' to. If your going to change the design to be a bottom lander then your still going to have to incorperate some sort of 'stabilization' mechanism to keep it upright. This is going to be required to facilitate passenger unloading, and in case of emergency evac needs. (Mercury got away with base landing simply because it was expected that the pilot would remain in the craft until after pick-up. Gemini this was not a given and Apollo got around this by being so wide compared to it's height.)<br />Your also going to have to look at landing options where it does NOT come down where you wanted, such as a water landing.